"The substantial increase in total agricultural production can be attributed to the advent of new technologies, innovations, and process improvements in the farm sector. These range from improved seed varieties, genetic enhancement in livestock, advanced machinery that comes equipped with global positioning systems, and robotics, among other innovations."
So, does this mean that none of the US increase is related to AGW or CO2 increases?
So, does this mean that none of the US increase is related to AGW or CO2 increases?
Thanks Larry!
It means they were totally oblivious to it. Last time I checked, the law of photosynthesis was still valid (-:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/#71266
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 hold everything else constant, except CO2.
Observing and documenting the results of experiments with elevated CO2 levels, tell us what increasing CO2 does to many hundreds of plants.
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:
http://www.co2science.org/data/data.php
Go to plant growth data base:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
Go to plant dry weight(biomass):
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php
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:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/g/glycinem.php
Glycine max (L.) Merr. [Soybean]
Statistics
| 300 ppm | 600 ppm | 900 ppm | |
| Number of Results | 238 | 25 | 3 |
| Arithmetic Mean | 48.3% | 71.2% | 61% |
| Standard Error | 2.4% | 7.9 | 11.3% |
This tells us that there were 238 studies with the CO2 elevated by 300 ppm. The mean increase in plant biomass was 48.3% from all those studies.
The individual studies are listed below that.
USA Soybean yields in the real world since 1988 have almost doubled while CO2 increased by 85 ppm, so we have strong corroborating evidence.
++++++++++++++
With regards to the weather.
Since 1988, the US Cornbelt/Midwest has had the LEAST drought since records have been kept and best growing conditions in recorded history by a wide margin.
And this study was 10 years ago. Shame on society, science, agriculture, the government and the media for being so blatantly dishonest )-:
Craig Idso, an expert on the fertilization effects of elevated CO2 levels on various plant species, has done a new study of the positive externality (unintended economic consequence) of increasing CO2.
In the 50 year period, 1961-2011, he estimates that there has been a $3.5 trillion benefit resulting from increased agricultural productivity. The projected benefits in the coming decades are even larger.
Egad! How could any by-product of human activity possibly be good? That sure wasn’t what I was taught in school!
In our modern age of self-flagellating hand-wringing do-gooders with too much time on their hands and anxious to find some cause to convince others to pay for assuaging their self-imposed guilt (phew), it is seldom we hear any good news about anything related to climate change.
And if just the agricultural benefits of increasing CO2 is in the multi-trillion dollar range, what about the prosperity enabled over the last 100 years by access to abundant, affordable energy? How many gazillions of dollars would that be?
The Positive Externalities
of Carbon Dioxide:
Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric
CO2 Concentrations on Global Food Production
Technology is NOT causing this to non cultivated, natural plants/trees.
What else is there?
If it's doing this to all the plants in the world, it's doing it to crops.
IT is CO2 and climate change greening the planet up and massively increasing growth as well as making all plants more water efficient/drought tolerant because their stomata(under the leaves) that open to get CO2, don't need to open as wide. Plants lose moisture from transpiration thru the stomata.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146296/global-green-up-slows-warming
The benefits of CO2 enrichment to each plant varies.
Woody stemmed plants, for instance have the greatest benefits.
Many forests harvested for timber have regrown 60% faster than they did 100 years ago, entirely because of the increase in CO2.
C3 plants like soybeans, benefit more than C4 plants, like corn.
Corn biggest boost to yields is coming from nitrogen in the soil.
As an average, I like to use +5 parts/million in CO2 = +1% in plant growth.
We went from 290 ppm to 420 ppm since the Industrial Revolution.
+130 ppm = +26% additional growth to almost all plants on earth because CO2 is well mixed in the global atmosphere.
Most people wouldn't believe it but I just showed the absolute scientific proof on the previous pages.
The saddest thing is that all that information is out there(none of what I showed is classified/top secret data) and none of the gatekeepers of information use it.
Instead, we only hear bad things about a climate crisis and nothing about this.
When does the scientific method ever call for cherry picking one sided, exaggerated, flawed information, while covering up all the good information?
Answer: NEVER!
That shows that this is not science. It's been hijacked for political agenda, crony capitalism, ratings seeking media, misguided environmentalists and corrupted science.
Those seem like some extremely strong accusations but the benefits that exploiting CO2 for those that use it for their self serving interests run into the hundreds of trillions in the next decade, especially when applied to the energy markets.
I say that with 100%, absolute confidence.
Hey Mike,
Someone posted this new topic at a major wx titled:
"Significant Expansion Of Corn Production Pushing Back Against Global Warming In Central U.S."
He posted an article about how the increased corn in the Midwest was muting a lot of GW there. So, after thinking about your feeling about increased CO2 being favorable for larger crops, I wondered how much of that increased corn production was due to AGW and increased CO2. So, I replied with the following (I put it in next post so this one doesn't get too long):
This is what I posted:
"Please comment on the possibility that AGW as well as increased CO2, itself, lead to increased crop sizes due to the possibility of :
-longer growing seasons in existing crop areas due to warming
-areas further north becoming more conducive to growing crops due to warming
-increased CO2 being conducive to larger crops since CO2 leads to increased photosynthesis
IF these things are true and we're already getting larger crops such as corn due to AGW and increased CO2, how much of that increased corn crop mentioned in the article is actually due to AGW and more CO2, themselves? If true, would that mean a negative feedback from AGW to actually slow the rate of GW? If so, is that negative feedback properly built into the climate model assumptions?"
His reply in next post...
His reply to my post:
"It appears that the expansion of U.S. agriculture is related to gains in technological advancement. I guess the challenge for the future would be if the Western Drought growth of the last 20 years eventually expands into the Plains like some climate models suggest. The hope is that technology will advance enough to create better heat and drought resistant crops in the future."
He got that from the following link, which I posted at the top of this thread:
So, you two very smart guys aren't on the same wavelength. My dream would be to see you two heavyweights debate this as I bet y'all would find some common ground, but I realize you're way too busy to do that. And I don't have much time to keep going on this.
Thanks, Larry.
Having a debate on this would be like debating whether 2+2 =4.
Because one or more people disagree doesn't make it a debate.
The data is the data. Proven facts and science with thousands of studies are the rock solid empirical data.
He can't provide another side that disputes that which includes data. There isn't any. I looked and after going 0 for 100 looking, there isn't a case.
I provided a couple of sources above that irrefutably prove this.
Photosynthesis is not a theory either. I'm sure this guy is a heavy weight and smart because I really respect all your opinions.
I'm wrong about lots of things and when the data shows it, I change ASAP and rejoice over having learned something new from diligently applying the scientific method.
This is a good lesson. Some people that are way smarter than me on many things and did better than me in school are completely convinced of what this guy apparently believes.
Bad initial assumptions and cognitive bias from thinking we know the answer from the get go is the curse on all humans and often, scientists are the worst.
You can hit them over the head with 2+2=4 but if their assumption is that 2+2=5, then they reject all the evidence of 2+2=4 and accept things that state 2+2=5.
The winner of the Nobel Prize in physics just gave a speech on using the scientific method which means observations and empirical data ALWAYS trump theories and models.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/95151/#97566
Mainstream climate scientists practice the ANTI scientific method.
What happened is that we had sudden, accelerated warming in the 1980's/90's, in part from the Clean Air Act cleaning up all the pollution (that caused solar dimming and global cooling in the 40s-70s).
Climate scientists/modelers didn't know where it came from and the only thing changing(they thought) was the increasing CO2.
So they hand picked the thousands of mathematical (calculus) equations to represent the physical laws of the atmosphere that would produce 80s/90s warming using the increase in CO2 forcing to get there based on their theory that it was all from CO2.
When the warming rate slowed down, they were convinced their THEORETICAL equations were right and have refused to change them. 2+2=5 for them but with high level calculus equations..... and they never have to reconcile their models to the observations.
In fact, those models serve as the main tool to justify capturing hundreds of trillions of dollars in the next decade based on needs for saving the planet from the fake climate crisis.
They are actually REWARDED for it.
The majority of climate scientists work for governments and their climate bible for the fake climate crisis religion are the IPCC reports.
Science corruption
19 responses |
Started by metmike - March 20, 2023, 5:50 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/93926/
Profound: Smoking Guns!! Proof with accurate 2 decade long measurement of the actual amount of radiative forcing caused by CO2 of 1 irrefutable reason for WHY global climate models continue to be too warm. Climate emergency is really about social justice and brainwashing people. Even MORE confirmation that climate models overstate atmospheric warming. Models clearly too warm yet incredibly programmed to get even HOTTER! August 2020 https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/57636/
If the Climate Science sold to us was actually using the scientific method, model equations would have been adjusted downward with the observations of less warming and less CO2 measured affect from accurate data.
Instead they just adjust the data to make it look like more warming.......doing everything possible to justify the BUSTED theory of catastrophic manmade climate change because they assumed it from the get go and refuse to let anything into their brains that contradicts that.
Exaggerating and Cherry picking has been one of the tactics to support the fake climate crisis.
This month, every time I watched ABC Nightly news, one of their lead stories has been the heat in Phoenix.
As if Phoenix is the entire USA.
While we can see the truth below:
Through July 23, 2023, how are Lower 48 USA temperatures (area averaged) compared to last 70+ years? The red line tracks this year's progress. So far, nothing exceptional across the United States: middle of the pack. While global ocean temperatures have run much warmer than normal, that's not translating to the entire USA. Hot weather has been confined in July to the desert southwest to Texas, so far.
How about this chart?
The percent of the US to reach 95F (35C) through July 23 continues at a record low 43%, down from 90% in 1931. #ClimateScam
Who would have guessed?
What we hear is that the planet is on fire with the hottest temperatures in 250,000 years from toxic CO2 emissions that are destroying the planet...........which, ironically is massively greening up from that same CO2 during the current climate OPTIMUM that still isn't as warm as 9,000 to 5,000 years ago which also featured less Arctic ice........and was called the Holocene Climate OPTIMUM(before climate science was hijacked-now, the same thing is a crisis)
In my high school vo-ag class we were taught that the productivity of a plant is dependent on many limiting factors.
If you could imagine a bourbon barrel standing on end, with each stay cut off at a different heights. We could only fill the barrel as high as the lowest stay.(The most limiting factor) so we added fertilizers(including Co2) we did better by raising that stay. By improving genetics, we raised another stay, and so on and so on....
So everything that improves on a limiting factor improves yield. That limiting factor is always changing. As we improve one (limiting factor ) or raise the lowest barrel stay, we can raise the water level to the next lowest stay.
hope this is not to confusing.
That makes lots of sense, cutworm!
Plants can only absorb so much water or so much of each mineral. Up until that point, its a limiting factor but sometimes raising the level of one limiting factor, causes the plant to need additional nutrients and they can go from marginal to short if the plant's requirements increase.
Most plants are limited by CO2 below 900 parts per million.
At 290 ppm over a century ago, plants were starved for more CO2. Dropping by 130 ppm to 160 ppm instead of increasing by 130 ppm and we'd have less than half the number of people in the world, regardless of technology or fertilizers.
Continuing higher to let's say 600 ppm, will cause yields to continue to go up but some crops in some soils (that can't be fertilized to add whats missing) will hit their limiting factor barriers for a few micronutrients.
Overall there will me more of EVERYTHING. However, the concentration of a few micronutrients will drop slightly.
If, for instance the yield goes up 50% but the amount of zinc in each plant is only up 40%, we hear that people eating that plant will get 10% less zinc.
That's flawed reasoning in country's that are starving for calories to keep them alive.
If they get 50% more calories from eating 50% more of that food and only 40% more zinc, because of the drop, they still get 40% more zinc NOT 10% less zinc.
Using that mentality, why not suppress yield by 50% with lower CO2 levels so that micro-nutrients would be higher in the smaller crops.
Larry,
With regards to all the global warming in the US being in the West and cooling in the Midwest.
I explained that here, last week.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/95151/#97394
This guy mentioned that models show the drought expanding into the Midwest is telling.
Models have showed that for 30 years and have been wrong the entire time but people have decided the models (2+2=5)_are right and the observations, (2+2=4) are wrong.
The brilliant modelers and climate scientists that can do calculus equations better than me, can't take a step back and actually see the empirical data.
Then, when a model that dials in photosynthesis/vegetation, like this one, that I shared yesterday, comes out with more greening thru the rest of the century(NOT droughts in the West expanding to the Midwest) it gets ignored because it's not 2+2=5.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/97552/#97556
Here's the actual study (2+2=4) below. Then they expand that principle using observations to derive 2+2+2+2+2+2=12 to get a forecast out to 2100.
All the global climate models are telling us this:
2+2+2+2+2+2=15 because they are programmed with 2+2=5
That's why he and others would even entertain the idea that the drought in the West might expand into the Midwest. That could happen if we stop planting crops there and the only way that ever happens is if humans are wiped out......so there won't be anybody around to observe it.
The Midwest has had the LEAST amount of drought in the last 30 years in its short recorded history of widespread agriculture. Long enough, however for the time frame to qualify as meaningful CLIMATE CHANGE. The Midwest is being protected by climate change and the vegetation there which is exploding upwards with the assistance of increasing CO2.
You should note that I spend numerous hours every week in the growing season tracking crop conditions. OBSERVATIONS. Considering the lack of rains and very low soil moisture here in late July 2023, the crops are doing amazingly well in the drier locations. Most folks will chalk it up to better seed genetics. Sure, that helps but the beneficial increase in CO2 is a huge biggest driver right now.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-019-0001-x
Long-term satellite records reveal a significant global greening of vegetated areas since the 1980s, which recent data suggest has continued past 2010.
Pronounced greening is observed in China and India due to afforestation and agricultural intensification.
Global vegetation models suggest that CO2 fertilization is the main driver of global vegetation greening.
Warming is the major cause of greening in boreal and Arctic biomes, but has negative effects on greening in the tropics.
Greening was found to mitigate global warming through enhanced land carbon uptake and evaporative cooling, but might also lead to decreased albedo that could potentially cause local warming.
Greening enhances transpiration, a process that reduces soil moisture and runoff locally, but can either amplify or reduce runoff and soil moisture regionally through altering the pattern of precipitation.
+++++++++++++++++
I had a landscaping business growing up in Detroit in the 1970's while in high school. Mostly cutting lawns but did other jobs.......weeding, pruning and so on.
There is no question that ALL landscaping plants are growing MUCH faster than they did in the 1970's.
The science confirms it but if the studies showed otherwise, I would be skeptical because I know what my eyes and brain are seeing outside.
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/f/festucaa.php
Just the landscaping plants at this house since we moved here 24 years ago.
I pruned the bushes and trees earlier this year and that was always good for the entire season in the early years. They need pruning again.
The branches of the 3 crab apple trees are going nuts with amplified growth. I didn't do anything different. The only change was that CO2 went from 360 ppm to the current 420 ppm and LOW CO2 was(and still is) a huge limiting factor.
The plants were and still get an optimal amount of fertilizer. Some are irrigated some are not.
