Thanks, Charlie. Here’s Mike’s response to your reply:
These people remind me of MAGA, seriously. It's complete fake climate crisis RELIGION.
CO2 below 1,000 parts per million is a massively beneficial gas. To compare it to when CO2 was numerous times higher that this [sic] is a strawman attack (assigning a position that doesn't exist and attacking that position instead of the REAL one).
And to keep projected CO2's increase for another 100 years and to keep insisting that the residence time for today's CO2 in the atmosphere is hundreds of years lacks critical thinking based just on how we watch it DROP during the Northern Hemisphere's growing season every year.
Ignoring the fact that fossils fuels are finite and will be running out well before then and the chances of us ever getting over 900 ppm, the optimal level for life/plants/crops is minuscule.
So what if CO2 was X thousands of parts per million in the past????
That is NOT what will be happening from CO2 increasing this time. The highest reasonable projection is still BELOW the optimal level of 900 ppm.
Regarding all the articles from so called authorities that climate change is already cutting back on food production:
100% nonsense. It's the exact opposite. With crops, we can't tell how much impact is from CO2, climate/weather, genetics, fertilizers, use of pesticides/herbicides(technology).
When you change numerous variables at the same time, like we do with crops, it's impossible to separate the impact from each one on the outcome.
However, we have 2 ways to address that with OBJECTIVE data which clearly speaks for the impact of photosynthesis by itself and for photosynthesis +climate change.
1. The impact of JUST adding CO2 and not changing anything else:
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 [sic] 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
2. But other human factors impact soybeans, including climate change that we can't separate out.
That's ok because we have something that looks almost exclusively at the increase in CO2 and climate change as the main factors.
Planet earth has been a huge open air experiment the past XX years. The objective results are striking. The impacts have been mostly from changes in photosynthesis and changes in the climate.
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
In addition:
Earth greening mitigates hot temperature extremes despite the effect being dampened by rising CO2
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332223005584
++++++++++++++
Importantly, the indisputable science tells us that increasing CO2 allows plants/crops to be more drought tolerant(not the other way around). The reason is that plants open their stomata to get CO2 and while doing so, they transpire(lose water from their roots that get it from the soil) As CO2 increases, the stomata don't need to open as wide and this REDUCES water loss from their roots. It's rock solid agronomy/plant science.
CO2 Enrichment Improves Plant Water-Use Efficiency
https://www.masterresource.org/carbon-dioxide/co2-increased-water-use-efficiency/
+++++++++++++++=
Despite me just PROVING the points with indisputable science above, this is what the very predictable response will be from people that posted to you previously with the same response they gave the first time:
"Those are denier sources"
NASA's satellite study showing the greening of the planet obviously can't be put in that category but CO2 Science and Dr. Craig Idso, an elite authority on plants and the impact of CO2/climate change, has been labelled a denier.
Never mind everything he shows is backed up with empirical data and rock solid scientific principles, which is why I use that source(as an atmospheric scientist for 44 years). If he or anybody else, including me, contradicts the mainstream view on the climate crisis.........they are discredited as deniers no matter us [sic] using 2+2=4 science to prove that 2+2 is not 5.
.thumb.png.4150b06c63a21f61052e47a612bf1818.png)
