There are thousands of studies that show this! It's indisputable authentic science. You can see this on the next few pages.
While the humans tell you all these exaggerated and false things about CO2, absurdly calling it pollution, the rest of life on this planet would prefer to have MUCH more.
Yeah baby, here we go with today's thread on authentic science.
The Biden administration is on a mission to accelerate the politics of the fake climate crisis.........attempting to steal your intelligence with their propaganda and junk science. Mainstream climate science has been hijacked for this purpose. Incredibly, climate history has even been rewritten to take out the Medieval Warm Period/Medieval Climate Optimum, 1,000 years ago so that they can claim that this current warming must all be caused by humans and its all bad(except for bad life, like weeds, roaches, ticks, virus's....etc).
Hold on there for a minute, metmike, you might be thinking(if your brain is not captured. How can Climate change create enormous adversity for all good life...... like humans, honey bees, bunny rabbits, polar bears, crops...etc but somehow, the same exact weather/climate and CO2 levels cause all bad life to flourish?
How in tar-nation does CO2 and global warming know to attack and obliterate most good life and at the same time to help most bad life to do better?
The answer to that lies with the HUMANS who are using science fiction/making up the reasons for why this is so. If you actually ask life of all kinds across most of the planet .........it is telling us loud and clear(for those who will listen) MUCH MORE CO2 PLEASE! and warm us up by a couple more degrees while you're at it.
Fact is, we are having a climate optimum for bad life........that they tell us all about. But it's every bit as much of a climate optimum for good life.............that they want us/you to think is a climate crisis. A Climate optimum for ALL life right now based on authentic science. Take that to the science bank!
I will prove to you conclusively in this thread that the optimal level of CO2 for life on this planet is more than double this.
Remember this equation from science class when you were younger?
Sunshine +H20 + Minerals +CO2 = O2 + Food(sugars)
All of life on this planet still abides by that indisputable law.
However, humans with a political agenda have gone in and redefined CO2's role as an entirely beneficial gas:
Sunshine +H20 + Minerals +POLLUTION = O2 + Food(sugars) + a planetary apocalypse
While you are enjoying this current climate optimum, please also enjoy this lesson on learning the reality of it............allowing you to free your mind from the brainwash which has captured the minds of most people. Imposed by the gatekeepers that have completely stolen the message and narrative. They decreed 2 decades ago, the anti science message that "the science is settled" and "the debate is over" and have spent much of that time trying to scare us with anti science, exaggerated and distorted facts...............that can't be backed up with real science based on empirical data.
But people with that sort of data and authentic science have been censored. Labelled as science deniers for, ironically showing empirical data from the REAL life and REAL atmosphere on this REAL planet. The crisis all comes from simulations of the made up atmosphere using mathematical equations from really, really smart scientists who know alot. Problem is, they think they know more than they actually do and won't listen to LIFE or pay attention to the actual atmosphere/empirical data or anybody that shows anything they might have wrong. For them, the science was settled 2 decades ago and now, the processing of all data is in a way that allows them to interpret/confirm that they were right and always will be right.............then try to sell that to us.
There absolutely has been modest, mostly beneficial global warming and a big beneficial increase in CO2 during the last 100 years and humans have been responsible for much of it. Turns out, that its the one huge positive thing that humans have ever done for nature and the planet that it was not able to do for itself.
We rescued life from dangerously low CO2 levels.
BTW, I am a practicing environmentalist that cares greatly about the planet and I fight against REAL pollution.
Also am an atmospheric scientist that applies the affect of weather on crops to ascertain their condition/yields, with an understanding of the role that increasing CO2 plays.
The politicians and MSM may have declared CO2 to be pollution and the main cause of their fake climate crisis(they are now pushing for the new verbiage to substitute the more scary "emergency" for crisis).
But plants/trees/biosphere/crops and all of life in biology, agronomy, zoology and plant science on this greening planet have completely ignored their junk science and tell those with an open mind a different story.
Even if you have been convinced of the climate crisis, please try to open your mind up just a little bit to see the points coming up.
Here is a typical graph showing the change in atmospheric CO2 over the last 250+ years.
Note early on that it was already increasing a bit before humans had an affect, probably from outgassing of CO2 from the oceans as the earth warmed up from the Little Ice Age.
They don't want you to know how life suffered greatly during the 1600/1700's during the Little Ice Age because cold kills 200 times more life(if you include plants) than heat on this planet.
Cold still kills 15 times more humans than heat, down from 20 times more before global warming.
In 2020, the amount of atmospheric CO2 is close to 413 parts per million. One can estimate that over the last 100 years, humans have contributed 100 ppm to the level of CO2. The rate of increase followed a new, steeper uptrending curve higher around 60 years ago.
Even if there were no cuts in emissions and if we would not start running out of crude oil, which we would, CO2 levels would likely NOT exceed 600 ppm in the next 100 years. That would be an increase of almost 200 ppm in 100 years.............ain't gonna happen under any realistic scenario.
Now that you have that number 600 ppm of atmospheric CO2 in your mind as the top level that defines the highest it might ever get to, let's actually find out how 600 ppm CO2 affects the REAL life on this planet.
Fortunately, we have thousands of experiments that have tested every plant known to man under various CO2 conditions. So we know with absolute certainty how those plants respond to elevated leveks of CO2..............well beyond 600 ppm
We can use these studies/growing experiments, in many cases to estimate what the OPTIMAL level of CO2 is for various plants and have a good idea what it is for most plants.
All animals eat plants or something that ate plants and having enough food to eat is the most important item in their environment for survival and procreating.
So in most cases the optimal level of CO2 for plant growth, would also increase the amount of food for animals in that environment.
Studies show(with rare exceptions) that increasing the level of CO2 from the current 413 ppm to 600 ppm would increase plant growth and productivity.
Based on the measured response to date in the real world and average, I like to use a 1% increase in plant growth for every 5ppm increase in CO2. Some woody stemmed plants have more than double that. C3 plants like soybeans, also have a greater response than C4 plants like corn.
However, the initial response so far, when plants were actually in CO2 starvation mode 100 years ago(seriously) is going to be greater than the response going forward.
Regardless, we have all the thousands of experiments at the higher CO2 levels to know the EXACT science of this based on the indisputable law of photosynthesis.
When CO2 gets to 500 ppm, we know how each plant will beneficially respond.
If CO2 ever got to 600 ppm, we know how it would positively respond.
Experiments tell us that the optimal level for many plants is around 900 ppm and for others it's even higher.
That includes crops that human use for food..........world food production, all things being equal would increase until CO2 hit 900+ ppm.
But we are told that the nasty affects of climate change weather will be even greater and hurt plants even more than the benefits from atmospheric CO2 enrichment.
A couple of things to keep in mind.
1. The affects of increasing CO2 on plants are well known and documented by thousands of experiments. They are defined by the irrefutable law of photosynthesis. They are 100% certain to benefit plants/crops.
2. The affects of climate change are based on a theory that with, advancements in science, we have measured the actual amount of warming that CO2 is causing...................and it's only 50% of what we thought and only 50% of what the model projections that we use show. Which completely explains why the models have been too warm for the past 20+ years.
3. Sadly, they not only refused to recognize this, the response has been the opposite..........to make up that its worse than they thought(when its not been as bad) In fact the last 40 years have featured the best weather/climate in the last 1,000 years-it's not about science, its about scaring people to think there is a climate crisis so that they can tax fossil fuels, redistribute wealth and re-calibrate the economic systems so that we have sustainable development under global socialism and the Green New Deal.
Here's how to find all these studies to see for yourselves the massive benefits of CO2 elevated to 3 different levels(mostly to +300 ppm = 700 ppm) for every plant.
Out of all the different groups, farmers should be able to appreciate the benefits of climate change the most.
However, how often do you read about 25% of the increase in soybean yields being attributed to the increase in CO2?
Never.............except here. We are to believe its all from technology. None of you guys know that climate change and the increase in CO2 causing it, are massive contributors to your bin busting crops.
How do we really know CO2 is making this sort of a contribution(obviously, we have the mostly favorable/drought free weather observations) where is the proof about the CO2?
Here is irrefutable evidence using empirical data to show that the increase in CO2 is causing a huge increase in crop yields/world food production.
We can separate the CO2 effect out from other factors effecting crops and plants with many thousands of studies that held everything else constant, except CO2.
Observing and documenting the results of experiments with elevated CO2 levels, tells us what increasing CO2 does to many hundreds of plants. The only thing that was changed in these studies was the CO2 level.
Here's how to access the empirical evidence/data from the site that has more of it than any other. Please go to this link:
Go to plant growth data base:
Go to plant dry weight(biomass):
Pick the name of a plant, any plant and go to it based on its starting letter. Let's pick soybeans. Go to the letter S,http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_s.php
Then scroll down and hit soybeans. This is what you get:
Percent Dry Weight (Biomass) Increases for
300, 600 and 900 ppm Increases in the Air's CO2 Concentration:
For a more detailed description of this table, click here.
Glycine max (L.) Merr. [Soybean]
| 300 ppm|| 600 ppm|| 900 ppm|
|Number of Results|| 290|| 27|| 3|
|Arithmetic Mean|| 47.9%|| 68.9%|| 61%|
|Standard Error|| 2.2%|| 7.5|| 11.3%|
This tells us that there were 290 studies with the CO2 elevated by 300 ppm. The mean increase in plant biomass was 47.9% from all those studies.
The individual studies are listed below that.
A very rough estimate for the increase in CO2 is something like +1% in plant growth for every 5ppm increase in CO2 but it varies a great deal from plant to plant. The increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 413 ppm is +133 ppm which would equate to an increase of around 27%.
The increase in growth would be greatest at the lowest levels of CO2(at 280 ppm, plants were in CO2 starvation mode) but they would continue in most plants to close to 1,000 ppm. The studies done above that increased CO2 by 600 ppm would have elevated them to close to 1,000 ppm. You will note that going higher than +900 ppm. which would be over 1,300, caused yields to start dropping.
It's extremely unlikely that CO2 levels will ever get close to going up another 300 ppm, at 700 ppm let alone to the even more beneficial level (for some plants) of 600 ppm higher, at 1,000 ppm. Going to 900 ppm higher, in the studies, establishes the level at which the benefits stop.
One downside to this big increase in plant growth from the increase in CO2 is that homeowners have needed to cut their lawns more frequently compared to a few decades ago (-:
Seriously, it means lawns, gardens, landscaping and all plants do better.
We found that the optimal CO2 concentrations occurred at 945, 915, and 1151 ppm for the above ground biomass of tall fescue, perennial ryegrass, and Kentucky bluegrass, respectively.(current levels are 413 ppm-metmike) Higher CO2 concentrations had diminishing returns of CO2 fertilization effect on plant growth, causing limiting effects on stomatal conductance, nitrogen availability and changes in the biochemical and photochemical processes of photosynthesis. Our results suggest that the continuously increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration in the future may dramatically lower the CO2 fertilization effect, and thus many current climate change models based on earlier results of “doubling–CO2” experiments may overestimate the CO2 fertilization effect on grasslands beyond the optimum CO2 concentration. According to recent IPCC reports, if global CO2 emissions are not effectively mitigated, the atmospheric CO2 concentration might be over 900 ppm in the second half of this Century. Nevertheless, the optimal CO2 concentrations found in this study can be used as an indicator in predicting the fates of the cool-season C3 grasses under future rising atmospheric CO2 concentration and climate change, because grasses with high optimal CO2 concentrations may take full advantage of the CO2 fertilization effect.
metmike: They state: "According to recent IPCC reports, if global CO2 emissions are not effectively mitigated, the atmospheric CO2 concentration might be over 900 ppm in the second half of this Century"
Complete bs on just the specific quote above from the InterGOVERNMENTAL panel on climate change. The IPCC was established as the world's authority(for all governments) on human caused climate change over 3 decades ago. Most climate scientists work for their governments so the IPCC has been the source for much of the bad science!
During the last 80 years, CO2 went from around 313 to 413 ppm and they are telling us that during the next 80 years, CO2 levels may go from 415 ppm to 900+ ppm? The chance of that is near 0%...............even if we did nothing to cut CO2 emissions.
Regardless, every added molecule of CO2 on the way higher from the current 413 ppm will be seen a beneficial to life on this planet, based on biology, agronomy, zoology, climate and all authentic science.
Only in the field of politics do they refer to this elixir of life, building block for life, CO2 as pollution...........so they can tax it and use it to impose global socialism while redistributing global wealth and cutting back on natural resource consumption by the rich countries.
The Climate Accord is a complete fraud.
Wheat is one of the world most important food crops:
This study examined the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration of the CO2fertilization effect on the growth of winter wheat with growth chambers where the CO2 concentration was controlled at 400, 600, 800, 1000, and 1200 ppm respectively. I found that initial increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration dramatically enhanced winter wheat growth through the CO2 fertilization effect. However, this CO2 fertilization effect was substantially compromised with further increase in CO2 concentration, demonstrating an optimal CO2 concentration of 889.6, 909.4, and 894.2 ppm for aboveground, belowground, and total biomass, respectively, and 967.8 ppm for leaf photosynthesis.
metmike: Currently, we have around 413 ppm of CO2 and will never get close to the optimal level of this beneficial gas for wheat, absurdly referred to as pollution for political agenda. If we are concerned about life on the planet, including food for human life, we should be trying to INCREASE CO2, not cut it.
metmike: Now let's show you how mainstream climate science lies to you, twisting facts to try to make you think that people who believe in the real law of photosynthesis and can prove the benefits for plants, just don't understand climate change.
Not only do I understand climate change but I understand it enough to prove the bull about the fake climate crisis using AUTHENTIC science.
Here is supposedly a climate science authority, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. I had a subscription to the magazine for 20 years. They still have some wonderful science but they have taken on the role of cheerleader for the fake climate crisis, instead of applying the scientific method. Instead, they bash and try to discredit those of us who practice the scientific method. Let's expose the fraudulence of this position from the perspective of plants. Keep in mind that as an atmospheric scientist, I apply this to the affects of weather/climate and CO2 on crop conditions and yields for a living IN THE REAL WORLD.
Climate change’s negative effects on plants will likely outweigh any gains from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
1. Scientific American: " Still, research shows plants “get some benefits early on from higher CO2, but that [benefit] starts to saturate” after the gas reaches a certain level, Moore says—adding, “The more CO2 you have, the less and less benefit you get."
metmike: We have thousands of plant studies to go with the 2 above on grasses and wheat(that continue with benefits to 900 ppm). I showed you how to get all of them earlier here: https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62784/#62787
Most plants keep the benefits coming up to 1,000 ppm. which is 400ppm higher than we will ever get. At the current 413 ppm we are not even close to being saturated. If we ever somehow got to 600 ppm, the benefits would still be far from saturated.
1. Scientific American is wrong/misleading here.
2. Scientific American: “Even with the benefit of CO2 fertilization, when you start getting up to 1 to 2 degrees of warming, you see negative effects(on yields),” she says.
metmike: So far, we've had 1 deg. C of warming in the REAL WORLD. Let's just ask the crops how they feel about that warming (-:
Hey corn, show us your yields below, during the global warming/climate change of the last 100 years( +1 deg. C, and +115 ppm CO2).
How about you soybeans for the last 30 years?
metmike: Thank you row crops. It's clear that in addition to technology and the increase in CO2 that climate change is still massively adding to our production and not taking away from it despite us being told for over 30 years that climate would severely hurt crop yields.
2. Scientific American is wrong again and has had it backwards so far on this.
3. Scientific American: "On top of all that, Moore points out increased CO2 also benefits weeds that compete with farm plants."
metmike: Are they not aware of technology? Farmers have effective means for controlling weeds. Of course they know that but they need to perpetuate the false narrative.........."climate change is bad for all good life but the same conditions of climate change........are somehow good for bad life."
The fact is that climate change is good............for all life because we are having a climate optimum..........for all life........not a climate crisis/emergency.
3. Scientific American is (intentionally misleading) about the affects of climate change.
4. Scientific American: Rising CO2’s effect on crops could also harm human health. “We know unequivocally that when you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious,” notes Samuel Myers, principal research scientist in environmental health at Harvard University. “[Food crops] lose significant amounts of iron and zinc—and grains [also] lose protein.” Myers and other researchers have found atmospheric CO2 levels predicted for mid-century—around 550 parts per million—could make food crops lose enough of those key nutrients to cause a protein deficiency in an estimated 150 million people and a zinc deficit in an additional 150 million to 200 million. (Both of those figures are in addition to the number of people who already have such a shortfall.) A total of 1.4 billion women of child-bearing age and young children who live in countries with a high prevalence of anemia would lose more than 3.8 percent of their dietary iron at such CO2 levels, according to Meyers.
metmike: This one is taking something with a very small grain of truth and intentionally spinning it into something completely bogus. Given the choice, would you like to have 100 lbs of food with all the micronutrients or 140 lbs of food that have a small fraction less of a couple of micronutrients? 1.4 billion would lose 3.8% of their iron they claim? How about............if we went back to the old climate at 1 Deg. C cooler and 115 ppm less CO2 in the atmosphere, 1.4 billion people on this planet would DIE because that climate did not support the yields and world food production that the beneficial climate change and increasing CO2 are causing and will continue to cause. Applying their principle/line of thinking, it would be great to cut crop yields in half so that those much smaller crops, will have slightly higher micronutrient levels(which would be true of course). Forget that a couple billion people would starve. What matters is that before they ran out of food and died, the food they ate had 3.8% more iron/micronutrients in it!
4. Scientific American embarrasses themselves being wrong here.
5. Scientific American: "Its negative consequences—such as drought and heat stress—would likely overwhelm any direct benefits that rising CO2 might offer plant life."
metmike: They keep telling us that drought is increasing...........as it keeps NOT increasing. Many droughts today, are from human caused climate change....they say. The same/similar droughts in the past were all natural. Natural droughts just don't happen anymore. As it turns out, global warming increases the temperature in the Pacific Ocean and increases El Nino's that INCREASE precipitation in the US and help to protect us from droughts in many places. This is why the US cornbelt has had the least amount of drought, during the last 30 years(just 1 major drought in 2012) in recorded history.........not in spite of climate change but because of it. Global cooling and La Nina's are what increase droughts!
Last drought of 2012? Started with the La Nina-cool waters in the East/Central Tropical Pacific.
Previous major drought in 1988? Caused by a similar La Nina-cool waters in the same place. Global warming can't cause La Nina's. It's affect is the opposite.......more El Nino's.......LESS not more droughts in the US.
metmike: Instead of destroying the planet, climate change is greening it up. Even greening the deserts up!
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
More evidence to support this FACT:
metmike: You want drought? I'll show you drought(and heat). We all remember stories about the Dust Bowl, when much of an entire decade featured widespread drought across the US............in the old climate. Total crop failures for consecutive years.........because of the climate. BTW, increasing CO2 increases plants drought tolerance(makes them more water efficient)
The map below is the drought index in 1934. This was one of the worst times during a drought that lasted for much of that decade. It was not permanent climate change and more of a freak weather phenomena. Human's poor farming strategies in those days did make things worse but today's climate change makes a drought lasting that long much LESS likely to happen.
Can you imagine if we had this going on today?
5. This point of theirs was just repeating part of the same thing earlier in the article..........and they are wrong again. This time, we show even more data. After 30 years of using busted model equations on computers that simulate too much warmth and droughts that are not showing up ......but they keep repeating the same science..................fiction. The same wrong stuff for 30 years because they won't look at what's really happening.
Another study that projects the global greening to continue thru the end of the century:
The scientists have now established the planet is greener than it has been in the early 1980s. Forecast up until the year 2100 show the planet will likely become even greener.
Global warming: Greening is expected to carry on until the end of the century (Image: SHILONG P et al.)
Warmer tropical Pacific=more El Nino's = more preciptation for the US =less drought
This is part of why the Cornbelt has had the best growing conditions in recorded history the past 3 decades and least amount of drought during that time frame. This is not despite climate change but it's BECAUSE of the benefits of climate change.
In addition: Increasing CO2 causes plants to be more drought tolerant(they don't need to open their stomata as wide to get CO2, since its more concentrated in the air........ which results in less transpiration(water loss).
They also do better with heat at higher CO2 levels:
and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding
The effect of CO2 concentration on photosynthetic rate at constant temperature is shown below for C3 and C4 crops.
All this would obviously make sense to everybody but it gets questioned and in fact NOT believed because of this one unanswered question in people's minds.
Why would people who are only trying to save the planet make this stuff up and what would they have to gain from deceiving us?
AWWW, c'mon metmike, you might be thinking......you can't tell me that you think that Scientific American, Time magazine, National Geographic, the MSM and most of the world's governments and many of the scientists that work for them are in on this fake climate crisis. That sounds like conspiracy theory stuff.
I'm not just thinking it.............I'm knowing it. Here is some of the indisputable evidence:
Go to this link and scroll down for the answer:
If you are really serious about being educated on this, you can read some of these discussions/articles:
Climate Reality discussions
As a rule of thumb, for every 5 parts/million that we increase the CO2 in the air, plant growth increases around 1%.
The increase from 280 ppm to 415 ppm, means an increase of 135 ppm and an average increase in plant growth of 27% from just the added CO2(climate change had added to that in more places then subtracted from it)
There is a wide variation from plant to plant.
Woody stemmed plants like trees have seen growth increases of over +50% over previous rates, when the plants in our world were suffering from CO2 starvation 100+ years ago, before the Industrial Revolution. Forest regrowth after cutting them down for timber has been astounding.
C3 plants, which include most crops are much better at using the CO2 than C4 crops and see rates higher than +27% from the increase in CO2 of 135 ppm.
See the studies above that prove it irrefutably.
It's 100% authentic science..............the truth. Scientific truths can always be proven. The absolute proof is shown in this thread.
We are obviously NOT being told the truth are we.
When was the last time you heard any of the gatekeepers of the information communicating or telling any of us this information?
Even if there was a climate crisis for humans(there isn't) why invent a climate crisis for other forms of life that are begging for much more CO2?
This is jaw dropping ignorance. The optimal level of CO2 for most plants and crops is around 900 PPM, more than double the current level.........as shown by thousands of studies on plants.
If we were to send the atmosphere back into a time machine and have it return to pre industrial age levels, 1 billion people would starve to death within 3 years because of the plunge in crop yields/food production. Prices would more than triple as we rationed excessive demand for the insufficient supplies of most crops/food.
The greatest global warming is happening in the coldest places, especially during the coldest times of year. When the planet stops massively greening............THEN, we will know that conditions have become unfavorable.
Authentic climate science, biology and agronomy tell us that we are a long way from that happening.