5) The effect of CO2 fertilization generally outweighs the effect of climate change on mean crop yields in many regions resulting in an increase of 7-22, 4-47, 5-26, 65-96, and 3-35 % for yields of corn, sorghum, soybeans, cotton, and wheat, respectively.
not sure what they mean by “…CO2 fertilization generally outweighs the effect of climate change…” since most crops like both CO2 and warmer temperatures, not that we’ve actually seen the latter.
Based on the fact CO2 is plant food and plants prefer warmer temperatures as opposed to cooler, the results are expected. Also, the more CO2 the more plants, thus the more sinks.
It’s like the earth wants us to burn fossil fuels. It’s not like the earth can take it to heaven when it dies, right?
Not what Lizzie in a Tizzy Mae expected with her repeated rants about “carbon pollution”.
Rant Lizzie, rant. Let your eyes bulge & the spittle fly. The more you rant, the dumber you look.
I may not spell this right but I read years ago about the anti-transpiration effect. that this would help crops grow in more arid areas. combined with the CO2 it would indeed act like a green house for growth and not destruction. another aside, if the temperature drops low enough food production will drop and that will indeed be a disaster. it would seem we are headed toward a decline in temps not an increase.
Only a lefty and the EPA could call a gas that is essential to all life on earth a pollutant.
The CO2 level is in a way self regulating; the more CO2 is available the larger the trees will grow trapping the carbon for centuries.
Present levels are almost the lowest that CO2 has been in the past 250 million years. “Normally” it’s about 1000ppm. The current levels are not much above the 200ppm required to sustain plant growth.