Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK. I didn't consider ALL plants. But as far as my statement being an out and out lie, it wasn't and it isn't. The rest of your statement expresses doubt certain categories of plants. What we do know right now is that the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have not caused damage to corn or soybean production.
Sorry, but from my optic, more CO2 in the air is not the catastrophic development alarmists would have us believe.
I should have also mentioned that additional CO2 is a benefit only if it is combined with additional water. In many places the shifts in precipitation are not lining up well with agricultural areas.
Additionally, corn and soybeans are great for temperate agriculture by the cam and c4 plants make up the majority of the diet of those who live in the tropics. They are not going to benefit and may indeed have negatives in the agricultural arena due to CO2 increases and changes in precipitation (I.e. more rain falling during storms events rather than “rainy” days) which we are already seeing.
I should have also mentioned that additional CO2 is a benefit only if it is combined with additional water. In many places the shifts in precipitation are not lining up well with agricultural areas.
Additionally, corn and soybeans are great for temperate agriculture by the cam and c4 plants make up the majority of the diet of those who live in the tropics. They are not going to benefit and may indeed have negatives in the agricultural arena due to CO2 increases and changes in precipitation (I.e. more rain falling during storms events rather than “rainy” days) which we are already seeing.
What's the proper ratio of Co2 to water?
If you're going to legislate the climate into what is proper () you better know the answer (and be correct).
Yes, I pointed that out. I don't understand how you missed it, it's literally the subject of my first two sentences, but oh well.
When it gets too hot, about 100F or so, the plant stops caring how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. Instead, it starts to care how much water it is losing by transpiration, so it closes its stomata to conserve water. That also means it ceases to absorb CO2, since the stomata are where gas exchange occurs. Also, when it gets that hot, the enzymes needed for photosynthesis denature. For both these reasons, when it gets that hot, photosynthesis ceases.
I guess we're just a little confused since you veered off course with the 100 degree temperatures that aren't really connected to anything we are discussing.
If the local plants are seeing temperature in excess of 100 degrees, they are likely in a part of the world where such temperatures are nothing new.
CO2, by itself, doesn't appear to be increasing surface temperatures significantly, so the issue is increased CO2, full stop.
I guess we're just a little confused since you veered off course with the 100 degree temperatures that aren't really connected to anything we are discussing.
If the local plants are seeing temperature in excess of 100 degrees, they are likely in a part of the world where such temperatures are nothing new.
CO2, by itself, doesn't appear to be increasing surface temperatures significantly, so the issue is increased CO2, full stop.
No, I did not veer off course. I was responding directly to the title of the thread - "Higher CO2 does not mean more and better food".
I agree with the OP that higher CO2 does not mean more and better food, for exactly the reasons I described. If you want to increase production and nutritional quality, you have to take all of the growth limiting factors into account and control them, not just CO2. For instance, buying CO2 machines for a greenhouse that is kept too hot is a waste of money.
Edited to add - "If the local plants are seeing temperature in excess of 100 degrees, they are likely in a part of the world where such temperatures are nothing new."
Well of course. But what we are talking about here is food crops.
When a plant is just sitting there, protecting itself from heat (or cold, or drought), it is not producing food for humans. And very few of the 20 or so food crops that the world relies upon for basic nutrition (mostly grains and roots/tubers) are derived from desert plants, because desert plants are adapted to poor growing conditions, which means, among other things, that they don't produce a lot of biomass in any one year. They are tend to be either ephemeral annuals or perennials. All of the modern basic food crops are adapted to produce plenty of biomass within a single growing season. To do that, they require a sufficient supply of CO2, but also sufficient supplies of water and nutrients, and a temperature conducive to nearly continuous photosynthesis during their growing season.
I should have also mentioned that additional CO2 is a benefit only if it is combined with additional water. In many places the shifts in precipitation are not lining up well with agricultural areas.
Additionally, corn and soybeans are great for temperate agriculture by the cam and c4 plants make up the majority of the diet of those who live in the tropics. They are not going to benefit and may indeed have negatives in the agricultural arena due to CO2 increases and changes in precipitation (I.e. more rain falling during storms events rather than “rainy” days) which we are already seeing.
This is really interesting.
It is like talking about the dietary preferences of werewolves, and is a type I logic error. You are assuming that AGW is real, rather than a hoax, then discussing the specifics of this presumption.
Entertaining, but an exercise in futility, as AGW is no more "real" than werewolves and vampires.
It is like talking about the dietary preferences of werewolves, and is a type I logic error. You are assuming that AGW is real, rather than a hoax, then discussing the specifics of this presumption.
Entertaining, but an exercise in futility, as AGW is no more "real" than werewolves and vampires.
Um, do you think that AGW is the only reason why a given growing season, a given growing region or even the entire earth might get warmer or cooler?
Plants don't give a damn why the temperature is high or low. They just respond to whatever the temperature is (and/or whatever the CO2 level is) in very predictable ways.
Last edited by jacqueg; 08-12-2019 at 11:10 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) you better know the answer (and be correct).
