Gratitude for CO2: It Continues to Feed the World

By Vijay Jayaraj

Many of us living in cities of advanced economies are ignorant of environmental factors critical to producing crops that maintain global food security. The mainstream media have not helped either. Instead of informing people about realities of the agricultural sector, the media function as climate catastrophists.

However, contrary to popular notions about environmental degradation, countries are producing record harvests because of favorable conditions and technological development. 

Among those countries is India, a nation with 1.3 billion people — 650 million of whom depend on farming for a livelihood. These farmers have benefited from moderately warmer temperatures and higher levels of carbon dioxide in the recent two decades. One of the world’s biggest agricultural regions, India produces enough crops to feed its people and export high quality cereals, rice, wheat, millets, maize, ginger, turmeric, quinoa, fresh vegetables, fruits and other coarse grains.

In fact, the country’s export revenue from food crops is estimated to be $41.25 billion USD during the pandemic year 2020-21. Not surprisingly, the largest export market was the U.S. 

The country is also seeing an increase in exports to regular markets such as China, Bangladesh, the UAE, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Nepal, Iran, and Malaysia. 2021 witnessed a number of first-time importers like Timor-Leste, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Yemen, Indonesia, Sudan, Poland, and Bolivia.

How is a developing country, with around 200 million still in poverty, able to produce such record amounts of food? Enter monsoon rainfall and carbon dioxide.

An Indian farmer’s fate is literally decided by July monsoon rains, which determine the availability of water for crop cultivation. This year the Monsoon was late but is forecasted to provide sufficient rainfall for crop success. On July 15, the monsoon drenched most of India with copious amounts of water. 

India’s monsoon has shown no signs of fatigue from the supposed impact of climate change. An analysis of the country’s historical rainfall data suggests that monsoons show no specific trend. 

Further, it is evident from data that both extremes in rainfall and droughts have occurred only randomly during the last 100 years. There is no significant correlation between rainfall pattern and the marginal increase in global average temperatures, a reason why India’s agricultural body does not base its rainfall forecast on climate change. 

Besides the large amount of rain from the Monsoon, Indian farmers have also benefited from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.  Carbon dioxide, which is made out to be the villain in the global climate circus, is actually a hero as a plant food. 

A study revealed that global food crops have increased with higher levels of CO2. An increase of 300 parts per million in the air’s CO2 concentration “enhances plant biomass by as much as 25 to 55%.” It is estimated that greater CO2 availability for food crops globally contributed to a monetary benefit of around “$3.2 trillion over the 50-year period 1961-2011.”

India’s food crops are no different and have immensely benefited from increases in carbon dioxide levels during the last five decades. For the farmers in India, who represent the largest percentage of the country’s poor, the excess CO2 in the atmosphere has been nothing but a lifeline. 

CO2 added to the atmosphere since the industrial era has had no observable impact on rainfall patterns whilst directly helping plants to grow better. In the big climate conferences no reference is made to the role of CO2 in plant growth and its relevance to global food security.  Instead, CO2 is wrongly branded as a toxin. 

The climate bandwagon has managed to brainwash the global community about simple biology and chemistry taught to school children. The very CO2 that has been responsible for providing life and enabling rapid greening of the world is vilified.

The global farming community can help dispel these myths by speaking out. Meanwhile, the world should observe an “International Day of Gratitude to Carbon Dioxide” for the gas’s continued role in feeding us.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Contributing Writer to the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and holds a master of science degree in environmental science from the University of East Anglia, England. He resides in Bengaluru, India.

This article appeared on the RealClear Markets website at https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2021/08/04/gratitude_for_c02_it_continues_to_feed_the_world_788506.html

4.8 32 votes
Article Rating
128 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 4, 2021 10:13 pm

It is a pity that it also feeds and sustains those political parasites who claim it is a toxic poison.

Vincent Causey
Reply to  Kalsel3294
August 4, 2021 11:50 pm

True. It is estimated that an increase of CO2 of 300ppm increases the growth of political parasitism by 500%.

The Saint
Reply to  Vincent Causey
August 5, 2021 12:36 pm

Thank you, CO2 for helping to feed the world, lest many of us would have perished.

Vuk
Reply to  Kalsel3294
August 5, 2021 1:13 am

There is a hidden danger in energy transition says Telegraph:
“Hydrogen boilers could cause four times as many explosions as gas
Hydrogen is lighter and more flammable than natural gas, which is mostly methane. It has never been used in a gas grid supply to homes.
Commenting on the study, Dr Richard Lowes, an energy expert at the University of Exeter, said hydrogen was deeply uncertain in many ways”.

Richard Page
Reply to  Vuk
August 5, 2021 2:29 am

Hydrogen plus ev batteries are a huge accident waiting to happen.

Duane
Reply to  Richard Page
August 5, 2021 9:04 am

The fuel tanks on motor vehicles and aircraft have produced millions of accidents that have already happened – no waiting required, and as a result killed the human occupants in post-crash fires.

Like, say, the twin towers on 9.11.01, which were not brought down by the aircraft collisions, but were brought down by the enormous post crash fires created by the JP4 fuel tanks on those aircraft.

Richard Page
Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 9:39 am

9.11 was hardly an accident, though, was it? Why are you including that as an example of accidental fires?

Duane
Reply to  Richard Page
August 5, 2021 1:36 pm

You bather about an irrelevancy – all accidents happen pretty much because people choose to do something or not do something. What is relevant is that hydrocarbon fuels are vastly more dangerous in any vehicle or aircraft than is pressurized hydrogen – the point you either ignored or it went way over your head.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 1:50 pm

What is relevant is that hydrocarbon fuels are vastly more dangerous in any vehicle or aircraft than is pressurized hydrogen

I challenge you to start a fire with diesel

peter jones
Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 3:12 pm

You foolish person, Hydrogen is VASTLY more dangerous than hydrocarbon fuels, it can only be stored at very high pressures in
pressure vessels (receiver’s) acting as a fuel tank.
Hydrogen has a molecular weight that allows it to PENETRATE and escape through welds and solid steel containments.
Hydrogen ATTACKS metals and embrittles them, leading to stress cracking, that produces explosive decompression of the line or tank and often a fireball, when the containment fails. This means that to use Hydrogen as a fuel the whole infrastructure of containment and any piping will be horrendously expensive.
Then you have the problems associated with the same issues in a VEHICLE and its engine.
The probable method of producing Hydrogen will be electrolysis
which requires huge amounts of additional electrical energy, (which will mostly come from coal) then you have to compress it which will also take electrical energy (also mostly from coal), most of the eventually usable energy produced by this process will be dwarfed by the energy needed to produce it, making it an extremely inefficient form of energy.
Then you have the problem of filling your car pressure vessel, this itself will be dangerous, the pressures involved will be HUGE, how are you going to accomplish this safely ?.
Hydrocarbon fuels which are liquids at sea level are far far safer , cheaper and more efficient.
The push to use Hydrogen as a fuel is simply a way to generate more revenue for the carpetbaggers promoting a non existent global warming crisis as a mechanism to ensure themselves record profits.
I suggest to look into who arranged to set up UNEP and the IPCC,
via their group The Club of Rome, hint they owned Standard Oil.

Robert Alfred Taylor
Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 3:57 pm

NO!
Wikipedia:
The flammability limits based on the volume percent of hydrogen in air at 14.7 psia (1 atm, 101 kPa) are 4.0 and 75.0. The flammability limits based on the volume percent of hydrogen in oxygen at 14.7 psia (1 atm, 101 kPa) are 4.0 and 94.0.”
“The limits of detonability of hydrogen in air are 18.3 to 59 percent by volume”
“Flames in and around a collection of pipes or structures can create turbulence that causes a deflagration to evolve into a detonation, even in the absence of gross confinement.”
(For comparison: Deflagration limit of gasoline in air: 1.4–7.6%)

MarkW
Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 12:37 pm

Would the 9/11 fires been any less intense had the planes been powered by lithium ion batteries?

As you point out, ICE cars will sometimes catch fire after a crash. The same goes for EV cars, they too will sometimes catch fire after a crash.
The big difference is that it is possible to put out the ICE car fire, while the EV you just have to let it burn.
It is very, very rare for an ICE car to just catch fire while it is sitting there. Having EV’s catch fire while not in use that one manufacturer has sent out an advisory to it’s buyers, to not store the cars in their garages overnight.

Most aviation accidents, nobody survives the impact, whether there is a fire or not really doesn’t matter.

I don’t know why you feel the need to paint an equivalency between ICE and EV vehicles, but it doesn’t say much about your willingness to actually review the data at hand.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Vuk
August 5, 2021 4:52 am

Apparently, Dr Richard Lowes never heard of town gas.

LdB
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
August 5, 2021 5:51 am

Apparently you never heard that is usually around 10% hydrogen gas by blend the rest being methane. That doesn’t really rate as Hydrogen gas unless you apply a Nick Stokes definition to it.

Last edited 1 month ago by LdB
Duane
Reply to  LdB
August 5, 2021 8:58 am

Hydrogen gas rates as hydrogen gas. Doesn’t matter how Nick Stokes defines anything.

Apparently Dr. Lowes the idiot does not know that hydrogen gas has been an integral element of the production of all refined hydrocarbons for the last century and a half … and that virtually all rocket boosters used in space travel use hydrogen gas as part of the fuel in liquid fuel boosters.

MarkW
Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 12:38 pm

What has any of that to do with piping 100% hydrogen gas into homes?

Duane
Reply to  MarkW
August 5, 2021 1:38 pm

Who is pumping hydrogen gas into homes?

In any event, if anyone was actually pumping hydrogen gas into homes it would not be for the ridiculous purpose of running a boiler, burning hydrogen .. but it would be for the purpose of powering vehicles and electrical generators via fuel cells.

Felix
Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 1:35 pm

No, liquid fuel boosters use liquid hydrogen. If you want to be pedantic about 10% of town gas being hydrogen, you need to be pedantic about liquid hydrogen boosters.

beng135
Reply to  Duane
August 9, 2021 10:29 am

Good for goose & gander, etc — doesn’t matter how “Duane” defines anything.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  LdB
August 5, 2021 2:17 pm

Apparently you don’t bother to fact check before replying. Typical composition of town gas, or coal gas:

H2 = 50%
CH4 = 35%
CO = 10%
Ethylene = 5%

Coal Gas – GKToday

Last edited 1 month ago by D. J. Hawkins
Duane
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
August 5, 2021 8:50 am

Dr. Lowes is an idiot. ‘Nuff said.

beng135
Reply to  Duane
August 9, 2021 10:30 am

Back at ya — “Duane” is an idiot. ‘Nuff said.

Duane
Reply to  Vuk
August 5, 2021 8:47 am

What the hell is a “hydrogen boiler”? There is no such thing.

Look, global warmism is bullshit, but stupid ill informed attacks on hydrogen technology only serve to discredit climate skeptics.

Hydrogen gas is vastly safer than gasoline or diesel, precisely because it is far lighter than air. Any rupture of a hydrogen tank results in hydrogen gas immediately dispersing outwards and in particular upwards.

Most of the fatalities in aircraft accidents and a great many vehicle accident fatalities are directly caused by ruptured fuel tanks that spew and spill liquid hydrocarbon all over the human occupants. Get gasoline splashed on you or in the passenger cabin, and you’re dead. “Post crash fire” is the principal cause of death in aviation accidents other than direct impact. Hydrogen simply cannot do that.

Pure hydrogen cannot burn or explode – only if the concentration of hydrogen in air is between the UEL and LEL can it explode. And being vastly lighter than air, anything besides an airtight confined space will cause the hydrogen concentration to almost immediately drop below the LEL of 4.1%.

Duane
Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 8:52 am

By the way, “post crash fire” is what brought down the twin towers on 9/11/01.

MarkW
Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 12:43 pm

Are you claiming that had the planes been powered by lithium ion batteries, the resulting fire wouldn’t have brought down the towers?
If the planes had been powered by hydrogen, the tanks would have been so heavy the planes wouldn’t have been able to get off the ground in the first place.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Duane
Reply to  MarkW
August 5, 2021 1:40 pm

WTF are you blatherning on about on lithium batteries? My comments were strictly addressed to hydrogen as a practical and extremely safe means of storing energy … far safer than any hydrocarbon fuels, for the reasons I stated clearly.

michael Butterworth
Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 9:28 am

Interesting comment about hydrogen gas. Yet, you deny global warming. NASA, Copernicus confirm global warming. Where do you derive your data?

Duane
Reply to  michael Butterworth
August 5, 2021 1:46 pm

What dishearteningly way too many commenters here at WUWT do is confuse skepticism of human-caused global warming – which I completely reject – with Luddism, being against any technology which may or may not reduced CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, but which have many other benefits over hydrocarbon energy sources. Nuclear power, for instance. I got my professional start in life operating nuclear reactors for the US Navy. I am a huge believer in nuclear power, but nuclear power occupies a niche in our energy supply that clearly reduces the dependency upon hydrocarbon fuels.

Gasoline and diesel powered vehicles and aircraft have many disadvantages compared to hydrogen power, starting with air pollution (not CO2, but actual air pollutants), the vast waste of energy in heat energy they shit out to no value, the much higher cost for maintenance of such complicated machines that wear out, noise generation, and so forth.

One does not need to be a Luddite, as so many commenters are here, to be a skeptic on human caused global warming.

Ad don’t get me started on the Trump love and general idiocy of the extreme right wingers who tend to dominate here, who are the last people who could claim allegiance to science over ideology.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, two stupids don’t make a smart .. and two myths don’t make a fact.

DaveS
Reply to  Duane
August 6, 2021 12:58 am

Ad don’t get me started on the Trump love and general idiocy of the extreme right wingers who tend to dominate here,”

If you stopped spouting BS like this you might be taken more seriously.

MarkW
Reply to  Duane
August 6, 2021 9:07 am

Just because we reject the solutions you have fallen in love with is not proof that we reject all technologies.
For example, there is no rational reason to believe that hydrogen is in any way shape of form superior to gas and diesel.

Secondly, I love those whose hatred of Trump goes to the very core of their being, declare that anyone who doesn’t suffer from their delusion is in love with Trump.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 11:39 am

I’m sure that knowing your claims ahead of time would have been great comfort to the passengers of the Hindenburg!

Duane
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 5, 2021 1:50 pm

The Hindenburg has as much relevancy to hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles and aircraft as the steam engine does to internal combustion engines.

The Hindenburg consisted of a large envelope filled with 100% hydrogen, to which a rupture introduced sufficient air to allow a spark to set off fire in a confined space. Totally irrelevant to high pressure hydrogen storage tanks and fuel cells. None of which have ever done a Hindenburg, in case you didn’t notice.

MarkW
Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 12:43 pm

A hydrogen boiler is quite obviously a boiler that burns hydrogen.
Are you really this desperate to make a fool of yourself?

Hydrogen may dispurse in open air, however we are talking about homes.
Also, the alternative to hydrogen in the cases being discussed is home heating. For that methane, not gasoline is the fuel of choice.

As to your claims about aviation and vehicle deaths, are you delusional?
Very few people survive the initial impact in aviation accidents. Have you ever seen pictures of crash sites? Typically the only parts that are still recognizable are the engines, and then only barely.
The same goes about your claims regarding deaths in auto accidents. Only a tiny fraction of cars catch fire after a crash, and of those, the vast majority of times, the people get out before the fire can start.

Duane
Reply to  MarkW
August 5, 2021 1:51 pm

Again, where are these mythical “hydrogen boilers”? C’mon smarty pants, give me the web links to all those commercial hydrogen boilers.

Idiot!

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Duane
August 6, 2021 4:57 am

Duane, I don’t know where you’re located but I’d hazard a guess at the USA. In which case you probably won’t be aware that in the UK we have a bonkers PM with an even more bonkers wife. His latest idea involves closes all North Sea oil and gas production and all energy becomes clean and renewable. (Ignoring the fact that in the UK about one seventh of the total energy consumption) in a short timescales. He, at the same time, upset a lot of people in former mining communities in the former “Red Wall” areas by making a joke about Mrs Thatcher closing coal mines.

But one of the solutions to energy storage and use BoJo seems to like is Hydrogen, especially when people point out how impractical heat pumps and EVs are in many UK homes. For hydrogen this means domestic heating and vehicles.

This may not be relevant in the USA but it is definitively being discussed as viable in the UK. The proposal regular appears in UK MSM.

MarkW
Reply to  Duane
August 6, 2021 9:10 am

First off, that was your phrase. Secondly, there are no hydrogen boilers for the obvious reason that hydrogen is a stupid solution for a problem that doesn’t exist.
If you can’t keep track of the arguments that you have been making, no wonder nobody takes you seriously.

Felix
Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 1:37 pm

Pure gasoline cannot burn or explode either.

Hydrogen gas does not disperse “immediately”. It spreads at a finite rate, and it does so by mixing with the atmosphere. The more it spreads, the more explosive it becomes.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Felix
August 8, 2021 9:20 pm

And, as I recollect, the fuel-to-air ratio that is explosive covers a wider range than most if not all other gases. Hydrogen is like an accident waiting to happen if it becomes widely used.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 1:53 pm

I challenge you, once again, to start a fire with diesel, or indeed with kerosene, which is used in jet engines.

G Mawer
Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 5:41 pm

“Any rupture of a hydrogen tank results in hydrogen gas immediately dispersing outwards and in particular upwards.

So then the pure hydrogen mixes with the 21% oxygen in the air and that cloud will be a big fire ball given any spark……not safe in my book!

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Vuk
August 5, 2021 1:48 pm

Dr Richard Lowes, an energy expert at the University of Exeter, said hydrogen was deeply uncertain in many ways”.

Then hydrogen needs to get its act together and become more certain. Of what, I’m not sure….

Duane
Reply to  Kalsel3294
August 5, 2021 8:34 am

It simply is gobsmacking how ignorant the warmists are. Every time they go off on their “we must save the planet” tirades, I bring up with the simple statement that is irrefutable:

Life is carbon, and carbon is life. Carbon is not a pollutant any more than any living thing is a pollutant.

Their eyes glaze over, and they simply shut up … there is no proper retort to my simple statement above. It doesn’t stop them from remaining True Believers, they react more or less like a computer that receives an input it does not recognize. As “Robby the Robot” used to say in those old “Lost in Space” episodes, “That does not compute!”

michael Butterworth
Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 9:30 am

Hmm. Water i necessary for life, but what happens when there is too much water. By the way, there is no rational person who’s eyes are glazed over by that idiocy.

Duane
Reply to  michael Butterworth
August 5, 2021 1:57 pm

Yes, it is possible that there could be “too much CO2” but that would only be at concentrations many times higher than it is today or ever has been since early life forms converted earth’s initial C02-dominated atmosphere to oxygen about 850 million to a billion years ago. The maximum safe continuous concentrations for humans breathing air is considered to be around 5000 ppm (5%), more than 12 times current concentrations, but humans can actually tolerate about 10 times that level depending upon length of exposure.

beng135
Reply to  Duane
August 9, 2021 10:32 am

Idjit. The robot on “Lost in Space” was NOT “Robby the Robot”. Look it up, Drano.

Edwin Cottey
August 4, 2021 10:26 pm

A good article. Thanks for the good news! It is difficult to see how anyone could pick holes in it but no doubt the doom mongers will try!

Reply to  Edwin Cottey
August 5, 2021 7:55 am

There’s this small hole that resulted from the Goebbelification of climate science:

“benefited from moderately warmer temperatures”

Moderate would be something that at the very least, is detectable by a human. The few tenths of a degree warming over the last few decades is more properly characterized as ‘insignificantly warmer temperatures’ of which no benefit or harm can possibly result. This temperature change is too small for any human to detect without hundreds of millions of dollars of technical assistance combined with numerous assumptions and adjustments fabricating results whose claimed catastrophic consequences are supported with nothing but endlessly repeated lies.

Even many on the side of legitimate science have fallen into the Goebbelification trap, not necessarily believing the big lie, but believing in a lot of the junk science beneath it.

Duane
Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 5, 2021 9:13 am

Denying that any warming has occurred is self-defeating, and simply isn’t true. The planet has been slowly warming the last 16 thousand years since the peak of the last glaciation. And the response to that is not to deny warming, but a big fat “So what? That’s what the earth is always doing when it’s not cooling down.” It’s natural.

Richard Page
Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 9:47 am

What? Have you never heard of the Holocene Climatic Optimum? We’ve had a general cooling trend since that point, give or take the odd anomaly like the Minoan, Roman, or Medieval warm periods, or the various minima over the millennia. We’ve been warming, more or less, since the LIA, but that’s just another example of fluctuations in the general trend.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Page
August 5, 2021 12:47 pm

There appears to be many things that Duane has never heard of.

Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 11:20 am

How is what I said ‘denying’ the climate changes? I simply stated that the current rate of warming is so small that it’s more accurately quantified as insignificant, rather than moderate and that the reason even many skeptics consider this tiny amount of change to be moderate is the result of the Gobellification of climate science. If anything the current rate of change is slightly less than what’s measured in the ice cores as the rates of change in much longer term averages; moreover, they also tell us the planet has been cooling since the Holocene Optimum that occurred about 8K years ago.

MarkW
Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 5, 2021 12:48 pm

When Duane gets a good drunk on, it doesn’t take much to set him off.

MarkW
Reply to  Duane
August 5, 2021 12:47 pm

Actually the planet has been cooling for the last 5000 to 7000 years. Before that it was more or less constant temperature for about 5,000 years. Before that it was warming up out of the ice age.

michael Butterworth
Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 5, 2021 9:37 am

Is NASA and Copernicus junk science?

MarkW
Reply to  michael Butterworth
August 5, 2021 12:49 pm

No, however claiming that most of that entirely beneficial warming has been caused by CO2, is.

spock
August 4, 2021 10:47 pm

Read this amazing book

The moral case for fossil fuels

http://library.lol/main/95AC3FC1E1D3768A2FF58A9556284B4E

Conventional wisdom says fossil fuels are an unsustainable form of energy that is destroying our planet. But Alex Epstein shows that if we look at the big picture, the much-hated fossil fuel industry is dramatically improving our planet by making it a far safer and richer place.

Derg
Reply to  spock
August 5, 2021 2:53 am

Alex has a great podcast too.

gringojay
August 4, 2021 11:00 pm

There has not been a 300 ppm increase in ambient CO2 in the lifetime of one living. The touted figure by Original Post (O.P.) for plant biomass augmentation should be better qualified. In that a relatively large fraction of increased biomass related to elevated CO2 is carbon mass (dry matter weight) partitioned to the roots and stem – which are not always what humans consume among edible crops.

O.P. omits scientific agronomic improvements as a key factor in better yields. Farmers have much better seed variety selections of the same kind of plant available that is(are) best suited for their immediate growing environment, simple seed priming is more utilized for synchronized emergence, precision seeding depth has become more commonly practiced for uniform crop stand and of course calibrated fertilization ratios for the regional farm lands’ soil characteristics.

O.P. mentions India & readers should understand that India has excellent agronomic scientists with government agricultural outreach advice; the O.P. author lives in India so must know that. The commercial farmers there are not walking along making divots in the ground, dropping seeds as they walk and kicking the earth over the seed with their back food, row after row.

The cited 1961 -2011 study link suggests, according to O.P.’s attribution, elevated CO2 “contributed” to over $3 trillion in benefits; I’ll have to read the linked authors actual attribution for that amount. The O.P. certainly ignores the monetary benefit of the famous agricultural “green revolution” that kicked into gear in the 1960s; grain yields surged because
of seed stock developed so the seed bearing heads did not fall over toward the ground on the stem (lodge).

pigs_in_space
Reply to  gringojay
August 4, 2021 11:40 pm

“CO2 added to the atmosphere since the industrial era”, which seems to want to claim that humans added to it make it increase.

This is not even theoretically proven, and misleading, because CO2 content FOLLOWS temperature change not causes it.

That means, the “industrial era” in all likelihood was very likely sparked in the UK by more favourable warmer temperatures, with the expansion of the British empire thriving after the great deep freeze of the little ice age when famine was commonplace.

You don’t go to work making iron and steel when you have nothing to eat.

gringojay
Reply to  gringojay
August 4, 2021 11:44 pm

Link O.P. gave for the $3+ trillion calculation methodology is too rudimentary – read it for yourself to understand it is extrapolations. Just to show how spurious the data presented is I refer readers to it’s Table 4 1st crop in the columns; namely paddy rice which the author postulates was good for an extra $1.8 trillion in the referenced decades.

The Institute of Rice Cultivars have different cultivars of both wet season and dry season paddy rice; farmers tend to choose among these. Back in 1994/5 & 1995/6 paddy rice varieties from the Institute were tested under elevated CO2 (eCO2) and ambient CO2; then also cross tested for elevated temperature and ambient (non-elevated) temperature.

Bear in mind this would have been before paddy rice farmers would have had national agricultural departments advising growers to select rice cultivars for CO2 response. In other words cited O.P. link’s paddy rice data (for at least several decades) is representing intangible levels of rice cultivars with specific eCO2 characteristics.

Of the 4 paddy rice cultivars trialed only N22 had greater panicle weight (grain) at elevated CO2; provided that the temperature was not elevated (ambient). Cultivar IR72 had a mixed response pattern of tiller number going up with eCO2; provided that the temperature was also elevated. And cultivar NPT2 actually had more grain (554 gr/sq.mt.)) at ambient CO2 than at + 300 ppm eCO2 (504 gr/sq.mt.); but total biomass was less at ambient CO2 (1423 gr/sq.mt.) than at +300 ppm eCO2 biomass (1547 gr/sq.mt.). [For brevity am skipping NPT1, but eCO2 was not an improvement for it either.] Source of this abbreviated data = (1998) ” Growth dynamics and genotype variation in tropical field grown paddy rice ….”; free full text available online.

Last edited 1 month ago by gringojay
gringojay
Reply to  gringojay
August 5, 2021 12:40 am

O.P. neglects several India summer monsoon nuances. In our modern era rainfall has increased in west and peninsular India, yet declined over the core India region.

Monsoon rains fall in active phases & then have a no-rain spell (dry); conditions are cyclic since monsoons don’t deluge continuously for months. The summer monsoon wet phase duration (rainy days in a row) has increased, as has the wet spell amount of rain falling. [Generally speaking instead of about 1 week of rain falling now 2 weeks of rain fall and then a dry break occurs, which also has changed in general duration.] In particular western and north western India have trended toward more intense wet spells; yet it is central India that has trended to the really heavy rainfall events of over 100-150 mm rain/day.

Reply to  gringojay
August 5, 2021 1:45 am

Perhaps the best example of the contribution of CO2 fertilisation is in the hothouses growing tomatoes, where it is claimed increasing the CO2 level to 1100ppm results in an increase in production of 30%, all else being equal, making the on vine tomatoes found in supermarkets affordable and the growing of them profitable.

gringojay
Reply to  Kalsel3294
August 5, 2021 8:01 am

Greenhouses in commercial operations shut off their CO2 supplementation at night. It is not something field crop growers can, or would be able to do.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  gringojay
August 5, 2021 11:45 am

That seems to be a reasonable thing to do since photosynthesis shuts down at night and the plants go into a respiration mode and release CO2.

MarkW
Reply to  gringojay
August 5, 2021 12:51 pm

You seem to feel that shutting the CO2 at night somehow benefits the plants.

gringojay
Reply to  MarkW
August 5, 2021 4:47 pm

Yes, the greenhouse operators do that deliberately for agronomic reasons and not to economize on the cost of introducing CO2. This has nothing to do about my having some gut feelings about greenhouse growers cutting back on eCO2, it is standard commercial practice and taught as being desirable.

MarkW
Reply to  gringojay
August 6, 2021 9:14 am

Got some data to support that position.
To my mind, not supplying plants with CO2 that they are not capable of using is an economic issue and neither benefits nor hurts the plants.

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  gringojay
August 5, 2021 7:21 am

There has not been a 300 ppm increase in ambient CO2 in the lifetime of one living.

I think you missed the point. The reference to “300 ppm increase” is not suggesting that the atmosphere has such an increase, it is referring to controlled studies in greenhouses where additional CO2 is pumped in. It will be clearer if you follow the link to the underlying study.

gringojay
Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
August 5, 2021 8:23 am

I read that link & have seen other things written by the same author. His literary style is very enjoyable & yet his methodology, in that link at least, is facile (selective correlations, assumption of averages, simplistic mathematical formulation).

But hey, his model produces an estimate & I do think it’s an interesting attempt. My point is not we’re seeing +300 ppm CO2 – it’s that the O.P. highlights how selective +300 ppm CO2 test ciphers (ex. statistical averages) implicitly apply to benefits we have been seeing. [For example: I earlier posted for paddy rice how eCO2 impact should not be extrapolated; yet it apparently was & the impact of the generalized assumptions swept into the O.P. presentation as evidence.]

griff
August 5, 2021 12:47 am

CO2 added to the atmosphere since the industrial era has had no observable impact on rainfall patterns whilst directly helping plants to grow better’

Not true!

Definitely not true in the UK!

UK extreme events – Heavy rainfall and floods – Met Office

and of course the Monsoon is being impacted by climate change!

this article outlines how:
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | How climate change is changing the Indian monsoon -Bibek Bhattacharya (im4change.org)

In particular this year saw an extreme rain event ‘Something unprecedented happened over the Western Ghats between 19-25 July. For about a week, a large section of the range, especially in Maharashtra, was deluged under a nearly never-ending barrage of extremely heavy rainfall that grew progressively more intense with each passing day.’

I look forward to a retraction of this inaccurate and not fact based article…

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
August 5, 2021 1:08 am

It seems your delusions are shared by others. Now, aside from the politically motivated (and almost universally incorrect) Met Office, most or all of reputable scientists and the IPCC acknowledge that, although UK rainfall fluctuates from one year to another, there is no increasing trend. I don’t recall you screaming “drought!” in 2010 when there was unusually low rainfall that year – why is that? You are just a poor deluded fool and if your only source of information is the abject failure that is the Met Office, then I truly pity you and beg you to get the mental health treatment that you so obviously need.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Richard Page
August 5, 2021 8:00 am

The Griff persona is a Trolling Device (TD). One should not advise mental health treatment for a TD.

lee
Reply to  griff
August 5, 2021 1:32 am

I note NASA claims no record for the Western Ghats.

And your link is to an activist site.
Daily rainfall 98mm, 110mm and 164mm. A good rain in Australia will do that in an hour. Daily record is 907mm.

Archer
Reply to  griff
August 5, 2021 3:02 am

So wait, you’re telling me that the western ghats, the watersheds of several of India’s major rivers, where the weather is incredibly wet for most of the year, had heavy rain in the middle of monsoon season? Oh my god the world is ending!

Last edited 1 month ago by Archer
2hotel9
Reply to  griff
August 5, 2021 3:50 am

You really can’t help yourself, lies pour out of you like vomit. You need to be institutionalized and heavily medicated.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  2hotel9
August 5, 2021 5:37 am

😇

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  griff
August 5, 2021 5:36 am

Just stop lying griff.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  griff
August 5, 2021 7:47 am

Griff, mathematically, if the Met office shows heavy rainfall and floods for half of the next 30 years, then one can legitimately say there is Climate change occurring….otherwise one event does not much change the 30 year average defined as “climate”.

Reply to  griff
August 5, 2021 8:23 am

You may not see the difference between an single event and a trend. At least you don’t understand the difference.

Reply to  griff
August 5, 2021 9:10 am

Why the hell giff, are you always resetting your RAM in the evening ?
So, all what you learned over the day is deleted and you restart every day out of your warmistas ROM. Fatalistic way of life…..

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
August 5, 2021 11:58 am

You still have not learned that correlation does not establish causation!

The linked article about the UK does not provide any estimates of uncertainty. It tosses out the number “4%” as though it were exact with no uncertainty, “which ain’t necessarily so.” Also, it says nothing about the statistical significance of such small numbers. If you want to change minds, you’ll have to provide higher quality citations — something that is intended for more than an 8th-grade reading comprehension. That may be satisfying for your personal consumption, but it definitely doesn’t qualify as good science.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 5, 2021 12:52 pm

It really is fascinating how griff hangs on to the same disproven lies.
It’s almost as if they are being paid to make fools of themselves.

DaveS
Reply to  griff
August 6, 2021 1:02 am

Have you retracted your recent claim that the German floods were unprecedented?

MarkW
Reply to  DaveS
August 6, 2021 9:16 am

He’s now just claiming that unprecedented floods are occurring, with naming where they are occurring.

Peta of Newark
August 5, 2021 1:16 am

In Ye Goode Olde Days, British Farmers could get their hands on stuff called ‘basic slag’

The physical properties of the stuff were fairly unique – it was a very fine grey powder that ran like water yet was insanely heavy – not quite powdered Lead but getting there.

I digressed, Farmers loved it because it was cheap (it was = “waste” as far as the steel industry was concerned) but when spread of farmland, especially grassland, it made the place ‘grow like fook’ and take on a very healthy green colour.
Also, the general all-round health of the grass was improved.

The General Consensus was that it was because slag contained not only a lot of Calcium (from the limestone that went into the blast-furnaces) but also a lot of Phosphorus. Also trace elements from the original Iron Ore..

OK, Leap forward to this:
Headline: In July 2018, more waste water was spilled into the river surrounding the Gold King Mine area”
From Wiki

See the colour of that water – why is it that yellow colour? Does anyone recognise it?
Here’s your clue: Find out what ‘Ironite‘ is and especially what it was used for.
In a nice clean and safe way, still is. Original Ironite came with a few unwanted extras,

See now why why basic slag did what it did – also why, certainly in the UK, roadside verges are always so green and verdant – ‘something’ is coming off the cars/trucks.
Something that was generally overlooked as a constituent of slag – truly amazing when you realise and think about it.

I assert that ‘pollution’ is not what it immediately seems to be and thus, never was a truer word spoken:
OP Quote:”Many of us living in cities of advanced economies are ignorant of environmental factors critical to producing crops”

Lack of that particular ‘mineral’ is also at the root of what causes the seeming epidemic of of Austism and other mental disorders.. Also a not so nice thing that affects girls, especially those of child-bearing age.
Mmmmmm – is that where some of the ‘missing babies’ are?

We will then move on to the other 51 members of the Periodic Table that are involved in plant health and growth.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
August 5, 2021 1:55 am

One of the reasons roadsides are so green and verdante has a lot to do with the rain that runs off the sealed road surface which may double the moisture available to the vegetation growing there.

Rick W Kargaard
Reply to  Kalsel3294
August 5, 2021 8:13 am

Also, the extra warmth from the lower albedo of road surfaces.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Rick W Kargaard
August 5, 2021 2:04 pm

And extra plant food emitted from passing traffic

Geoffrey Williams
August 5, 2021 1:19 am

The increase in CO2 must be responible for increased forest growth throughout the world which in turn has lead to the increase in drought driven fires . .

Reply to  Geoffrey Williams
August 5, 2021 1:59 am

It’s all about fuel load. The fire triangle consists of fuel, oxygen and heat. Only one can be controlled with human intervention.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Geoffrey Williams
August 5, 2021 2:03 am

The area burned by wild fires has declined by 25% from 1998 to 2015.

globalburnedareamap.png
Last edited 1 month ago by Bill Toland
2hotel9
August 5, 2021 3:54 am

Hail CO2!!! Savior of Mankind and Animalkind alike!

RoodLichtVoorGroen
Reply to  2hotel9
August 5, 2021 4:01 am

Don’t forget Plantkind!

2hotel9
Reply to  RoodLichtVoorGroen
August 5, 2021 4:05 am

See, that first cuppa has not taken effect and I missed a stitch! 😉

August 5, 2021 4:08 am

I’d love to see the USDA come out defending higher CO2 rates and predicting a growth rate to 800ppm or higher by the turn of the century.

Vanessa
August 5, 2021 4:09 am

AT LAST someone realises how vital this gas it. The book by Prodi “Periodic Tables” has a chapter on each element and he calls CO2 “the gas of life” because it makes all plants grow which are the food for ALL living things. Lions, tigers, humans, cows, etc. we all rely on plants for our food. The ludicrous mantra that it is dangerous by those with no brains should be stamped on.

BallBounces
August 5, 2021 4:26 am

Thank God for H2O, CO2, and fossil fuels. Thank you!!!

Mikep
August 5, 2021 5:25 am

I wouldn’t disagree for one moment that increased CO2 has made the world a greener place. There’s one thing that puzzles me though….plants also respire and therefore emit CO2, so obviously, the greener the world, the more CO2 emitted by plants! I’m guessing that on balance, plants probably absorb more CO2 than they emit…anyone know the answer?

Editor
Reply to  Mikep
August 5, 2021 8:48 am

Actually they emit O2 too.

From ANU is this report,

Plants release more carbon dioxide into atmosphere than expected

Mikep
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 5, 2021 11:16 am

Thanks for the link. The more I learn, the more I think there is still a lot we do not know. I’m not convinced by the notion of CO2 driving climate change (even if the climate is changing rapidly, which I’m not convinced about either!). The CO2 cycle itself seems so complex that the contribution of fossil fuels seems relatively small but hey, what do I know!?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Mikep
August 5, 2021 2:09 pm

I’m guessing that on balance, plants probably absorb more CO2 than they emit…anyone know the answer?

They must use more CO2 than they emit, or the Carbon Cycle wouldn’t be a cycle.

I’m constantly amazed that so few people understand the carbon cycle. When I learned about it at school at about 12, I was fascinated by its beauty and simplicity. Nature always finds the best way, purely by adopting that which works.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Mikep
August 5, 2021 8:11 pm

Plants pull in CO2 thru stomata, strip out the carbon and use it to make more “plant”, then emit the o2 for us to breathe.

As there is more CO2 in the air they can get what they need with fewer and smaller stomata and with less respiration they lose less water through breathing so can survive drought better, hence desert areas shrinking

All part of the magic

RickWill
August 5, 2021 5:32 am

With Northern Hemisphere in a 12,000 year upward trend in sunlight, the Indian monsoon will show gradual intensification for the entire period but ocean surface temperature will remain limited by the monsoon..

Monsoon is the temperature regulating feature of tropical oceans. In May, the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal reaches the temperature control limit just above 30C and spawns high level moisture that creates the monsoon season bringing precipitation to the adjacent land mass.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2021/05/02/1200Z/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-284.27,7.93,634/loc=87.176,11.950

As the boreal summer advances the Persian Gulf becomes the warmest body of water connected to the oceans as it reaches up to 35C, being one of the rare locations unable to support the cooling influence of convective instability. The mid level moisture gets transported south by the prevailing wind before it can build convective potential.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2021/08/02/1200Z/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-298.47,19.29,634/loc=53.171,25.181

The monsoon is a key feature in limiting heat into the oceans. All the result of high level atmospheric water being catapulted up to 14,000m, forming ice and reflective cloud.

How does the mythical “Greenhouse Effect” account for the role of atmospheric water being the most powerful “Greenhouse Gas” when it is a solar reflecting solid? “The Science” is quite simply unphysical claptrap. And Climate Models enshrine this nonsense.

Last edited 1 month ago by RickWill
gringojay
Reply to  RickWill
August 5, 2021 11:58 am

There is convection involved that relates to how once the summer tropical Indian Ocean and Western Pacific sea surface temperatures go above 28.5*Celsius this alters the atmosphere leading to convection. These 2 bodies of water water drive what is recognized as an oscillation of summer monsoon rains (known as the “monsoon intra-seasonal oscillation”).

In simplified context Western Pacific driven convection (somewhat itself altered by El Nino & La Nina phases) engenders precipitation impacts of a 10-20 day oscillation. Equatorial Indian Ocean driven convection engenders precipitation impacts of a 30-50 day oscillation. One reason these are not both the same constantly uniform impacts is that the upper troposphere (which gets sun & land convection heating) is vaster than the lower troposphere.

Curiously, once the monsoon season has established soil moisture the soil moisture itself compounds the monsoon. This is both through changes in surface temperature effects and since soil moisture that goes back into the air then can account for 20-30% of the water that subsequently falls.

Last edited 1 month ago by gringojay
Ronald Stein
August 5, 2021 6:18 am

Just a few CO2 realities to ponder:

  • To enhance plant life growth, greenhouse growers increase CO2 to obtain growth rates that are 40 to 50 percent higher than the rates plants grow under in today’s atmospheric conditions.
  • And like other greenhouse growers, to enhance plant growth and a key to ending hunger, they will intentionally increase CO2, levels for the plants they are growing. Plants grow best at a CO2 concentration of around 1,500 ppm, or 4 times today’s CO2 levels, which boost plant yield by 25 to 65 percent.
  • CO2 is plant food
  • All the plants on earth are CO2 deprived.
gringojay
Reply to  Ronald Stein
August 5, 2021 11:16 am

Greenhouse growers shut off supplemental CO2 at night. They establish a routine cycle, which optimizes yields in a dynamic which field grown crops can not – since outside of greenhouses the level of CO2 does not drop precipitously at dark. Greenhouse growers also do a lot of other tactics that contribute to maximizing yields (ex: fertilization ratio schedules, air movement, temperature parameters, substrate moisture regulation, relative humidity control, ameliorate light intensity levels, specific cultivar selection demonstrating improved performance in greenhouse conditions, etc.).

This comment is merely meant to point out that touting greenhouse eCO2 level yields can not be fully extrapolated into how most of humanity’s food grows as CO2 ppm rises; every WUWT plant related O.P. comment section gets the greenhouse allusion. My intention is not to be argumentative about eCO2 utility to plants – I don’t have an issue with rising CO2.

MarkW
Reply to  gringojay
August 5, 2021 12:56 pm

Greenhouse growers don’t insert CO2 at night, but they don’t need to. Plants don’t consume CO2 at night. The CO2 levels also don’t fall at night.

Why are you so desperate to prove that enhanced CO2 doesn’t benefit plants?

gringojay
Reply to  MarkW
August 5, 2021 5:18 pm

Good question and one answer is that “… elevated CO2 at night slowed NO3 assimilation and thus decreased dark respiration in plants reliant on NO3 ….” As per (2015) “Response of Arabidopsis and wheat to rising CO2 depends on nitrogen source and night time CO2 levels”; free full text available online.

Kindly understand that my comments are not attempts to disprove CO2 benefits plants. Rather, to dispel general assumptions about how greenhouse enhanced CO2 is often extrapolated without context to field crops.

If outside CO2 ppm goes progressively up & up to the level of daytime greenhouse high CO2 enhancement we are not going to be capable of dialing back the outside ppm CO2 at night like we can in greenhouses . So far I don’t think any WUWT O.P has mentioned that nuance in my over 10 years of readership – but lots of WUWT O.P. authors have expounded greenhouse enhanced CO2 results as proving a contention & neglect orientating WUWT laymen readers.

MarkW
Reply to  gringojay
August 6, 2021 9:20 am

Not putting more CO2 in, is not the same as reducing the concentration, since plants aren’t consuming that CO2 at night.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  gringojay
August 5, 2021 2:13 pm

Greenhouse growers shut off supplemental CO2 at night.

Why would they continue to pump in CO2 when it’s not going to be used?

MarkW
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
August 6, 2021 9:22 am

I would assume that most large greenhouses would have monitors to track CO2 levels. When it drops too low, more is added. When ideal levels are reached, no more is added.
Since the plants aren’t pulling CO2 out of the air at night, CO2 levels won’t be dropping, so the pumping of CO2 would also naturally stop.

Bernie1815
August 5, 2021 7:08 am

I do not disagree with the general thrust of the original post, but using a 2013 study by a well-informed skeptic can hardly be viewed as persuasive. A more thorough and less potentially partisan analysis of the effects of CO2 on food crop production would be very helpful. FAO data certainly supports the recent upward trend of grain yields though there is clearly a need to separate out improvements in seed and farming practices from CO2 fertilization.

MarkW
Reply to  Bernie1815
August 5, 2021 1:01 pm

NASA has documented an over all greening of the planet over the last 20 years or so. No data from satellites prior to that.
Most of this comes from areas that aren’t being cultivated, so changes in seeds or farming practices can have no impact.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Bernie1815
August 5, 2021 8:04 pm

If it didn’t work commercial greenhouses wouldn’t spend $$ to artificially increase their CO2 content to 1000-2000ppm. These are commercial operations that operate on profit motive
They don’t do anything that costs needlessly

Follow the money
Literally

Dave Fair
August 5, 2021 7:52 am

But … but … but Vijay “… holds a master of science degree in environmental science from the University of East Anglia, England.” Apostate!

Rick W Kargaard
August 5, 2021 7:57 am

From NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Aerosols.html

The sulfate aerosols also enter clouds where they cause the number of cloud droplets to increase but make the droplet sizes smaller. The net effect is to make the clouds reflect more sunlight than they would without the presence of the sulfate aerosols. Pollution from the stacks of ships at sea has been seen to modify the low-lying clouds above them. These changes in the cloud droplets, due to the sulfate aerosols from the ships, have been seen in pictures from weather satellites as a track through a layer of clouds. In addition to making the clouds more reflective, it is also believed that the additional aerosols cause polluted clouds to last longer and reflect more sunlight than non-polluted clouds.”

The burning of fossil fuels apparently causes cooling by producing sulfate aerosols. Is it possible that cooling by aerosols nearly balances warming by CO2.? If so, that could be another positive for CO2. The last thing we want to see is global cooling and a worsening of ice age conditions.

Andy Pattullo
August 5, 2021 8:11 am

100% common sense even a liberal might understand, but I am not counting on it.

Rick W Kargaard
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
August 5, 2021 8:18 am

The average liberal has only ten fingers and ten toes so not much use for counting on.

Rick W Kargaard
Reply to  Rick W Kargaard
August 5, 2021 8:19 am

Of course I can say the same of Conservatives.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rick W Kargaard
August 8, 2021 9:30 pm

Unless you assign your fingers power of two place holding That is, count in binary.

Mike Dubrasich
August 5, 2021 9:20 am

What a bunch of crabby apples! An International Day of Gratitude is a great idea!

India is no longer the poster child of starvation. Hundreds of millions of lives have been saved from the ravages of extreme hunger. Yes, The Green Revolution had something to do with it: not just seeds but fertilizer, tractors, trucks and roads — all thanks to fossil fuels. But increased CO2 hasn’t hurt, nor warmer temperatures. Have a heart, count the blessings.

Do you remember Rip Bodice, the IPPCAC, and his doomsterism? The Himalayas were going to melt! Floods, droughts, sweltering mass starvation, and End of Civilization were nigh. Well, old Rip was wrong as could be. What a chucklehead! And thank goodness.

Maybe we need an International Day of Gratitude for HCQ and Ivermectin, too. Those miracle drugs saved millions of lives in India from the horrors of FauciFlu. Show a little appreciation why don’t you?

Warmer Is Better. CO2 is Foundational to Life Itself. Oil Saves Lives. India is living proof. Cop a glad-itude, grumpies. Give thanks where thanks are due. You should have learned that in kindergarten.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
August 5, 2021 2:15 pm

The Himalayas were going to melt!

Global Warming gets hot enough to melt rock?

Gary Pearse
August 5, 2021 12:04 pm

Good stuff Vijay! This subject has been strictly tabu among climate worriers because it gives a vastly overwhelming weight to the benefit side of cost/benefit. You give a $3.2 trillion a year for food crops alone.

What is the value of a 20% areal expansion of ‘leafing-out”, 20% new forest area much of it in arid areas, ‘fattening’ of existing trees, the huge new habitat area it creates. A recent article notes a 38 percent increase in the number of Bengal tigers in India (+ 10% in Bangladesh’s Ganges delta). The oceans have similar productivity increases (polar bear increased numbers, fat bears with triplets common) that improves conditions for aquatic life.

One aspect you didn’t touch on, Vijay, is elevated CO2 results in reduced plant demand for water, so they are drought resistant.

The huge irony is that, so far, the Great Planetary Greening is the only palpable sign of climate change and climateers are forbidden to touch it. If ideologues are looking for a rationale to identify the Anthropocene, the obvious front runner should be the Great Planetary Greening!! courtesy of increased atmospheric CO2 by human use of fossil fuels. I won’t hold my breath for this.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 5, 2021 12:11 pm

Oh, regarding benefits, 3 times your $3.2million p.a. from bumper harvests should be completely uncontroversial.

MarkW
August 5, 2021 12:31 pm

If it is true that CO2 has more impact in dry air compared to moist air, then it only makes sense that more CO2 would enhance the monsoon rains, rather than suppress them.
In most cases, the air over land is going to be drier than marine air, so CO2 will cause the air over land to warm more than marine air.
This greater temperature difference would enhance the monsoon flows, not suppress them.

Regardless, even over land, the warming isn’t going to be more than a few tenths of a degree.

Steve Z
August 5, 2021 1:19 pm

I grew up in the 1960’s, and my parents were always telling me not to waste food, and think about all the starving children in India. Now the Indians are exporting excess food here, even though their population is larger than it was in the 1960’s!

[QUOTE FROM ARTICLE] “It is estimated that greater CO2 availability for food crops globally contributed to a monetary benefit of around “$3.2 trillion over the 50-year period 1961-2011.” [END QUOTE].

Global CO2 emissions were about 33 gigatonnes in 2019. If the average emission rate was 15 gigatonnes/year over the period from 1961 through 2011, that would be a total of 750 gigatonnes (0.75 trillion tonnes) over 50 years. If the monetary benefit of increased food production was $3.2 trillion, that would be a “social benefit of carbon dioxide” of about 3.2 / 0.75 = $4.27 per tonne CO2. or $15.64 per tonne carbon content.

Have any of the warm-mongers ever considered that the “social cost of carbon” might be NEGATIVE?

bluecat57
August 5, 2021 3:37 pm

I’ve known this since I was 11, 50 plus years ago. Did an experiment that showed CO2 made plants grow bigger.

bigoilbob
August 7, 2021 8:25 am
%d bloggers like this: