Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[GaWx]

On 10/4/2025 at 6:30 AM, chubbs said:

Do you have a reference for this? Per the articles below, we have had larger crops due to technology improvement not climate change. The impact of climate change depends on the crop and region. No large net impacts so far. On a global average, doesn't look like a disaster in the future either; but, some regions and crops may have significant negative impacts. Also need to consider extreme events which will pack a bigger punch in a warmer world. A bad year can be destabilizing regionally.

https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields-climate-impact

https://ourworldindata.org/will-climate-change-affect-crop-yields-future 

Hey Charlie,

 As promised with the help of a Midwest pro met., here is the first response supporting the net benefit of CC to crops. This one covers soybeans (posts to cover other crops to come later):

Let's separate out other factors(technology for instance), so that we can look only at the photosynthetic benefits from increasing CO2 to soybeans.

Turns out that the impact of CO2 on soybeans has more studies than almost any other plant. 

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

 Look at the following screenshot for the table showing the large benefits of CO2 to soybeans:

[chubbs]

15 hours ago, GaWx said:

Hey Charlie,

 As promised with the help of a Midwest pro met., here is the first response supporting the net benefit of CC to crops. This one covers soybeans (posts to cover other crops to come later):

Let's separate out other factors(technology for instance), so that we can look only at the photosynthetic benefits from increasing CO2 to soybeans.

Turns out that the impact of CO2 on soybeans has more studies than almost any other plant. 

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

 Look at the following screenshot for the table showing the large benefits of CO2 to soybeans:

A quick check indicates that CO2science is not a balanced website. Its advocating against US regulation of CO2 emissions and focusing on the benefits of CO2 on plant growth without acknowledging offsetting adverse impacts. I'd put it in the climate denial camp. I ourworldindata piece I linked above is more trustworthy. Recent gains in yields are mainly from improved seed genetics and increased fertilizer and other inputs. You have to strip that out to get climate change impacts.

I googled up this recent Nature paper which finds significant future negative impacts on agriculture, even after farmer adaptation, albeit from a high emissions scenario. I haven't gone through the literature review section but that would be a good place to start on recent scientific work in this area.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09085-w.pdf

[GaWx]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

A quick check indicates that CO2science is not a balanced website. Its advocating against US regulation of CO2 emissions and focusing on the benefits of CO2 on plant growth without acknowledging offsetting adverse impacts. I'd put it in the climate denial camp. I ourworldindata piece I linked above is more trustworthy. Recent gains in yields are mainly from improved seed genetics and increased fertilizer and other inputs. You have to strip that out to get climate change impacts.

I googled up this recent Nature paper which finds significant future negative impacts on agriculture, even after farmer adaptation, albeit from a high emissions scenario. I haven't gone through the literature review section but that would be a good place to start on recent scientific work in this area.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09085-w.pdf

Hey Charlie,

  Thanks. I had no idea because I hadn’t checked his source’s (CO2Science) bias rating. I just did my own check and see at the reputable “mediabiasfactcheck” that it’s rated as “low” on factual reporting and “pseudoscience”. It says that it “promotes climate change denial and misinformation”.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/co2-science-bias-and-credibility/

This, I just posted this to him:

 I then googled CO2Science, myself, and saw at the reputable “mediabiasfactcheck” that it’s rated as “low” on factual reporting and “pseudoscience”. It says that it “promotes climate change denial and misinformation”.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/co2-science-bias-and-credibility/

Sorry, but unfortunately this source, just like “Watts Up with That?”, isn’t going to cut it for my use due to bias as mediabiasfactcheck rates it with the same “pseudoscience” rating that it rated Watts with. I appreciate your help though.