By Kenneth Richard
It turns out the benefits of rising CO2 concentrations offset any projected agricultural damage from climate warming. [emphasis, links added]
In 2023, US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) activists dubiously raised the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) five-fold due to unsupportable forecasts of agricultural deterioration and declining crop yields resulting from doubled CO2 and consequent climate warming.
The 500% SCC hike was based on a biased negative model that neglected the significantly positive crop yield benefits of rising CO2 concentrations.
The analysis the EPA relied upon for its dubious accounting was found in modeling papers (Moore et al., 2017 and Challinor et al., 2014) that tendentiously neglected multivariate factors in agricultural processes (e.g., precipitation changes, atmospheric CO2 changes, water-use efficiency, adaptation, technology…) and primarily focused on an assumed negative effect from a warming climate.
But now a new analysis that does not neglect all these other factors – especially the highly beneficial CO2 fertilization effect – finds any future warming, even up to 5°C, will still result in a net positive effect on crop yields.
“The negative temperature effects are fully offset by gains from CO2 fertilization and adaptation.”
“These coefficients imply that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 doubles from 280 to 560 ppm and causes 3°C warming, the combined effect on yields would be, on average, -14.7% (due to warming) plus 16.8% (due to CO2 fertilization) for a net effect of +2.1%.”
“But after incorporating the newly-available data the conclusions change such that global average yield gains of all crop types under CO2-induced warming are positive even out to 5°C warming.”
The fact that the global alarmists dont know this shit really rams home why they shouldn’t be listened to.
Just like the Mafia know that threatening businesses is a crime, the puppeteers know this is all bullshit, but by doing it they get rich.
Including NN.
especially NN and all the other alarmist twats in our parliament.
From memory we were taught about the co-dependence between plants & animals no later than in 3rd form Biology. How black hole thick does a climate change nutter have to be not to see the benefits of increased CO2?
So true Nasska.
There are several factors with CO2 to O2 conversion efficiency.
[1] The conversion rate affects plant growth, and the food chain. Think of conversion efficiency as the food chain production index.
[2] The lower limit is 180ppm, at which rate plants cannot grow, will die out and all human life will die out.
[3] The upper limit for plants is 2000ppm. Humans can withstand higher limits. All tucked up at night in your sealed house in winter, ppm can reach over well 5000ppm, especially if you keep the bedroom door closed, and especially if you’ve have been engaged in horizontal exercises with your significant other. No-one drops dead from a shag, in a closed room, unless they have had the clot shot.
[4] Family car trips, and trucker cabs can easily reach 10,000ppm. At which point you instinctively stop and get some fresh air. At 60,000ppm, the human body cannot exhale CO2 in order to take in O2.
[5] If the CO2 ppm are at 220ppm, the conversion rate is 50% of that at 300ppm.
[6] Between 800 and 1200 is a relative plateau zone where conversion is between 2.2 to 2.5 that of 300ppm, and 4.5 to 5 times that of 220ppm.
[7] Peak conversion from CO2 to O2 happens between 1200 to 1500 ppm.
[8] Between 800 and 1200ppm is the sweet spot.
[9] International “climate agreements” want us back below 300ppm.
So it could be compared to cars being most fuel efficient at 80 to 120kph, but climate nutters are saying that to save the planet we need to use fuel more efficiently, so they throw their toys out of the cot, and Greta is wound up like a clockwork Chucky, when you exceed 40kph, and want you to reduce speed to between 20-30kph.
Climate change and fake CO2 ppm figures have noting to do with preserving the planet; it is about preserving the power, control, and cash-flow of the elite by restricting the food supply.
CO2 to O2 conversion efficiency graphs here:
https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/greenhouse-carbon-dioxide-supplementation.html
and here:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS8faRKyDic0o6–GA-2bqEOM4LlCnVQtbcrYGK-pULN-rFSn2V9hxhDobcxTkPyD0p6Ks&usqp=CAU
Hi this has an interesting article on the history of CO2 from about 600 mil years ago. The conclusion support alarmism, so i’d ignore those.
Interested to know why 2000 ppm is an upper limit for plant growth.
Interested to know why 2000 ppm is an upper limit for plant growth.
CO2 to O2 efficiency starts to plummet resulting in feedback loops, that combined with excess CO2 production from O2 to CO2 producers, could result in disastrous consequences.
As per your own link, plants can grow in high CO2 atmospheres but not when CO2 is being produced at a rate that cannot be contained. That being said, moss converts CO2 to O2 at very high rates, much higher then grass, which in itself is much higher than trees.
I found this which is good on this topic
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3248707/#:~:text=The%20earliest%20land%20plants%20became,maintained%20at%20approximately%201000%20ppm.
“Variation in [CO2] is proposed to have played a key role in driving the evolution of plants since they colonized the land 400 Ma [8–12]. Estimates of the palaeo-[CO2] record have been generated by modelling the weathering and burial of Ca–Mg silicates and organic carbon [13], as well as a range of proxies including stomatal characteristics of fossil leaves [14] and the stable isotope composition of pedogenic carbonates, marine organic matter and fossil bryophytes [15–18]. There is significant uncertainty associated with each individual methodology and variation across methods [13,16,19,20]. Nevertheless, the following general trend emerges. The earliest land plants became established at high [CO2] (1500–3000 ppm) before a period of low [CO2] (less than or equal to 1000 ppm), which started ∼350 Ma and lasted ∼50–100 Myr (figure 1a). Between ∼250–100 Ma [CO2] appears to have been maintained at approximately 1000 ppm. With the exception of a period in the Eocene ∼40–50 Ma, all proxies and models indicate [CO2] of less than 1000 ppm for the last 100 Myr (figure 1a).”
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/15/all-hail-the-humble-moss-bringer-of-oxygen-and-life-to-earth
Thanks for the FACTS/
Where they are completely wrong is the temperature rise of 3degrees if the CO2 rises to 560PPM. Doubling from 400 to 800 may result in 1 deg rise if no feedbacks are taken into account which will mostly be negative ( probably because of increased cloud cover). Happer covers the maths very well even if no one understands it. https://www.semanticscholar.org/reader/6969b810db87de1ab000845ff260775cb13b9ac0
Just more climate propaganda, Co2 Good for the environment, extra heat is good as well, Greta is a useful idiot, its all designed to make you pay them for net zero lies and Chinese wind mills, id worry more about the Magnetic field collapse and pole reversal currently underway, Valentina says we are in the first cycle of Grand Solar Minimum, stupid is what stupid does
[1] The centre of the earth is a super heated magnetised core, kept in stasis and constant circulation by the sun.
[2] For the magnetic field to collapse, the earth would have to be taken out of the orbit of the sun, which is the primary energy source of earth’s magnetic field.
[3] Magnetic north and the magnetic poles are constantly changing, all due to the long term angle of inclination and positioning of the earth with respect to the sun. Which is why Antarctica was once like Hawaii in climate.
[4] The biggest threat to the earth’s stability, is the presence of very large asteroids, or black holes that destabilise the earths magnetic field and/or orbit. Or Skientists fucking with the earth with weather modification.
[5] The best way to avoid what you are talking about, i.e. a natural global reset, is for the world’s population to wake up to the bullshit of fake, indigenous rights, fake climate change, fake pandemics, fake vaccines, etc. Because when push comes to shove, anything or anyone capable of saving planet earth, will gauge their willingness to help based on how planet earth is progressing.
Still waiting for global warming. The late summer has put my vegetables about three weeks behind where they should be for this time of year. Can everyone please burn more trees and drive around a little more please.