The world is ‘greening’ at an astonishing and rapidly growing rate and deserts are shrinking almost everywhere you look. All due, it seems, to a natural rise in carbon ‘plant food’ dioxide, not forgetting the small annual 4% portion contributed by humans burning hydrocarbons. Inconvenient to the political Net Zero narrative of course – along with high numbers of polar bears, cyclical recovery in Arctic sea ice and recent record growth of coral on the Great Barrier Reef – so there is naturally little mention in mainstream media and politics. “Desertification is turning the Earth barren,” reports the Guardian, and the expansion of drylands is leaving entire countries “facing famine”. Great story, shame about the facts. A recent article in Yale Environment 360 states that rather than shrivelling and dying, vegetation is growing faster and deserts are retreating.
In fact many scientists now think that this process will continue to accelerate into the future. According to the Yale article, CO2 is “fast-tracking” photosynthesis in plants. By allowing them to use scarce water more efficiently, the CO2-rich air fertilises vegetation growth in even some of the driest places, observes Yale. For some time there has been “growing evidence” of global greening in all biomes, not just drylands, evidence that we can note has been ignored by the promoters of Net Zero. A Carbon Brief ‘explainer’ claimed that desertification has been described as the greatest environmental challenge of our time “and climate change is making it worse”.
Carbon Brief is funded by green activist billionaires including Sir Christopher Hohn, a past provider for recently jailed Roger Hallam and Extinction Rebellion. Its desert climate hysteria, like that of the Guardian, is therefore to be expected. Interestingly, Yale Environment 360, which is part of the Yale University School of the Environment, also receives heavy direct and indirect financial support from activist groups including ClimateWorks along with the Hewlett and Ford Foundations. The article is significant since it represents a ‘mainstream’ breakthrough in discussing global greening which has been obvious for some time in specialist scientific circles.
Perhaps it is not surprising that the Yale article tries to rain a little on the greening parade with a dose of climate gloom. Greening created by agricultural irrigation of fields can “obliterate arid-land ecosystems”. But this surely is human-caused and nothing to do with a changing climate. “Save the deserts” may not be a popular environmental message, “but arid eco-systems matter”, continues Yale. Of course there will be many who point out that if a few scorpions have to up sticks to make way for the better nutrition of millions of African children, this is a small price to pay.
The article highlights much of the recent scientific work on global greening that has received coverage in publications like the Daily Sceptic but has been downplayed and more often than not ignored by messengers of the Net Zero narrative.
Ground-breaking work in 2016 saw a team of 33 scientists from eight countries study NASA satellite images, and they found that since 1980 between a quarter and a half of the planet’s vegetated areas had shown an increase in their leaf area index (LAI), a standard measure of the abundance of plant life. Work at this time suggested a 14% increase in vegetation. A 2021 study at the University of California concluded that there had been a 12% increase in photosynthesis, with CO2 fertilisation again the primary cause. A 2020 assessment from scientists at the Woodwell Climate Research Centre found that greening was “much more extensive than previously acknowledged”, and more than three times greater than desertification. Yale noted findings that the greening encompassed 41% of the world’s drylands, from India to the African Sahel and northern China to south-eastern Australia.
Chinese scientists have also been on the case. Last year, researchers at Lanzhou University found a “global divergence” between aridity and leaf area in drylands during the past three decades. This “decoupling” was said to be due to the effect of CO2.
In February, the Daily Sceptic reported on another group of Chinese scientists who found that over the last two decades about 55% of global land mass revealed an “accelerated rate” of vegetation growth. “Global greening is an indisputable fact,” they state.
They produced the above map based on four datasets that showed greening accelerating since 2000 in 55.8% of the globe. Faster growth in India and the European plains (dark blue colouring) was said to be the most obvious. Healthy growth can also be observed in the Amazon region, equatorial East Africa, southern coastal Australia and Ireland.
None of these findings should be a great surprise. CO2 levels have been much higher in the past going back 600 million years. Plants thrive at levels three times higher than current atmospheric CO2 and the near denudation amounts of the last few million years. During the last glacial period up to around 12,000 years ago, levels of atmospheric CO2 dropped to such dangerously low levels that plant – and human – life was severely threated. Even with the small recovery we have seen in the recent past, plants grow larger and utilise existing water resources much more efficiently. This recovery of CO2 levels in the atmosphere holds out hope for higher food resources in many parts of the world that suffer from periodic famines.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“CO2-rich air fertilises vegetation growth in even some of the driest places,”
I disagree with the use of the word “fertilises”.
CO2 is an essential building block, same as H2O.. We don’t call H2O a fertiliser. 🙂
I would prefer something like….
CO2-rich air EMPOWERS vegetation growth in even some of the driest places. 🙂
How about “enhances” instead of “empowers”?
Augments, perhaps?
I still like “empowers” 🙂
Please note my comment above, recommending simple language vs. fashionable jargon.
Meanwhile the doomsters are busy disseminating their massive lye-
Martha’s Vineyard fumes at plot to put sodium hydroxide in the ocean (msn.com)
Agreed. Fertilization is the process of supplying nutrients, to the soil in which plants grow, or the oceans in which phytoplankton grow, typically in trace amounts, that serve to catalyze the biochemical reactions that make up photosynthesis. CO2 is the feedstock, rather than the catalyst, being converted by green plants and sunlight into two main byproducts – plant mass (cellulose) and oxygen. Without CO2, sunlight and green plants, there would be no oxygen in our atmosphere. The greater the CO2 concentration in ambient air, the greater the O2 concentration. Without green plants, there would be no food for animals.
That is why it is utterly preposterous to declare carbon dioxide to be a “pollutant” – the stuff of which life itself is made.
“CO2 is the feedstock . . . plant mass (cellulose) and oxygen.”
Actually, the oxygen comes from water and not carbon dioxide.
8 molecules of CO2 plus 8 molecules of water, plus sunlight enables a plant to produce one molecule of glucose that the plant converts to cell walls, etc., and 8 molecules of oxygen
The rate of photosynthesis varies with intensity of sunlight
Plants produce CO2 24/7/365, mostly at night, almost nothing during sunny days
From
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
.
CO2 Vital for Flora and Fauna Growth
Plants require at least 1000 to 1200 ppm of CO2, as proven in greenhouses
Many plants have become extinct, along with the fauna they supported, due to a lack of CO2. As a result, many areas of the world became arid and deserts. Current CO2 needs to at least double or triple. Earth temperature increased about 1.2 C since 1900, due to many causes, such as fossil CO2, and permafrost methane which converts to CO2.
.
CO2 ppm increased from 1979 to 2023 was 421 – 336 = 85, greening increase about 15%, per NASA.
CO2 ppm increased from 1900 to 2023 was 421 – 296 = 125, greening increase about 22%
Increased greening: 1) Produces oxygen by photosynthesis; 2) Increases world fauna; 3) Increases crop yields per acre; 4) Reduces world desert areas
The ozone layer absorbs 200 to 315 nm UV wavelengths, which would genetically damage exposed lifeforms.
.
Energy-related CO2 was 37.55 Gt, or 4.8 ppm in 2023, about 68% of total human CO2. One CO2 ppm = 7.821 Gt. Total human was 4.8/0.68 = 7.06 ppm. See summary URL.
To atmosphere was CO2 was 421.08 ppm, end 2023 – 418.53, end 2022 = 2.55 ppm; natural increase is assumed zero; to oceans 3.5 ppm (assumed); to other sinks 1.01 ppm
Mauna Loa curve shows a variation of about 9 ppm during a year
Inside buildings, CO2 is about 1000 ppm, greenhouses about 1200 ppm, submarines about 5000 ppm
.
Respiration: glucose + oxygen → carbon dioxide + water (+ energy)
Photosynthesis: 6 carbon dioxide + 6 water (+ energy) → 1 glucose + 6 oxygen
Plants respire 24/7. Plants photosynthesize with brighter light
In low light, respiration and photosynthesis are in balance
In bright light, photosynthesis is much greater than respiration
.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-study-2001-2020-global-greening-is-an-indisputable-fact-andhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-not-pollution-it-s-the-currency-of-life
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/summary-of-world-co2eq-emissions-all-sources-and-energy-related
https://issuu.com/johna.shanahan/docs/co2_pitch_4-3-24_baeuerle_english
“Energy-related CO2 was 37.55 Gt, or 4.8 ppm in 2023, about 68% of total human CO2. One CO2 ppm = 7.821 Gt. Total human was 4.8/0.68 = 7.06 ppm.” [quote from Wilpost]
If “energy-related CO2” (presumably from combustion of fossil fuels) is 68% of “total human CO2”, where does the other 32% of “total human CO2” come from?
SteveZ56, I believe that concrete gives off lots of CO2 as it cures.
Yep and a lot of CO2 when the cement and steel that go into concrete is being made.
Clearcut logging produces lots of CO2, due to decay of belowground biomass for 60 to 80 years in temperate climates, in addition to the first year burning of wood.
Cropping land emits lots of CO2
See URLs for enlightenment
8 billion people breathing.
Expanding area for termites. Thawing vegetation in higher latitudes.. etc etc
Seems like fishing off the west coast of Canada is better this year than most remember. The ocean food chain seems to have also improved.
For 8 read 6
6 molecules CO2 + 6 molecules of H2O plus solar energy gives one moelcu
How about CO2 “feeds” vegetation? Simpler, less pretentious language is easier to follow; plus, that’s what CO2 actually does for plants. They take CO2 in from the air, convert some of it to plant tissue, and use the rest of it to run the organism. That’s what we do with food when we eat beans or pork chops. We take it in, convert some of it to animal tissue, and use the rest of it to run the body.
How ’bout:
Carbon Dioxide and Water are
the feedstock of life on Earth.
Places you won’t see bio-enhancement by CO2.
1… Where they cover large areas of prime farmland with solar panels.
2… Where they rip apart huge areas of pristine wilderness and heritage forest to install wind industrial estates.
The devastation surrounding the Ivanpah solar installation, including its regular toll on passing birds, bats and insects.
Despite the efforts of the Chinese to burn humungous amounts of coal to restore the atmospheric concentration of CO2, many developed countries are lining their shorelines with wind stillers. These will gradually reduce the availability of atmospheric moisture over land and restore the deserts to their unxenhanced, CO2 depleted state. New deserts will be created. But not through lack of CO2 rathert lack of H2O.
CO2 concentrations were about 1600 to 2000 ppm when the dinosaurs roamed the earth.
Could it be that sunlight was turned to life more efficiently in this high CO2 environment and this allowed larger animals to evolve.
I’ve no idea whether this could be relevant, but it seems like it could be.
The North and South poles had no landmasses so no snow and ice accumulated. No sunlight was reflected. The oceans warned. The seas no longer had 5% CO2 in them. The air was more humid so more heating from clouds. REMEMBER, at noon on Dec. 21st at the South Pole the temperature is -50 degrees Farenheit. At 2mm a year it will be another 2 million years before Antarctica moves out of the Southern polar circle. I can’t figure what the Northern polar circle will look like. Anyway, we are safe for a while unless the ocean fills up with plastic.,
Attenborough has been whining about desertification for decades. What will he say now?
This delusional nation that everything should stay exactly as it is for all time shows a complete lack of understanding of natural systems. In reality, nothing stays the same. Nature adapts – very rapidly too.
David Attenborough has become so alarmist in his beliefs that I now refuse to watch any program that he is involved with. I expect that he will continue lying and denying reality for as long as he lives.
I blame the methane emissions from all the wetlands he’s been moaning about for decades.
It’s the cows, man! The cows!
If only we could take the Earth back the time when millions more bison, elk and deer roamed the Great Plains, and countless primitive tribes had to resort to infanticide, or even cannibalism, in an attempt to survive brutal winters or extended droughts! How rosy!
“Nature adapts – very rapidly too.”
By the 1830s, 80% of Wokeachusetts was open farmland. By the end of the 19th century, most of that farmland was abandoned and the land reverted mostly to white pine forest. Around the turn of that century, the pine was being cut. By the middle of the 20th century, most of the pine was cut, and the land reverted with no help from anyone to mostly hardwood forest- and since then, much of that hardwood forest has been well managed. All of that forestry work provided many jobs and fed many industries (for furniture, paper, construction, etc.). Now the climatistas want to end all forestry to save the planet. After all, they already own homes, furniture and tons of paper products. The younger folks can do without- or pay extra to import wood from thousands of miles away. We have a housing shortage here (partly due to vast numbers of illegals). The state wants more housing to be build- but not with local wood. Ironically, the greens say we should buy food from local farmers.
Mud and straw, that’s the new right stuff.
mud and straw take water to make. How’s that different from using water for more food?
Everything was Perfect™ before humans started committing evil.
Sounds familiar. What book of fairytales have I read this in?
Most cultures look back at a fantasized golden age.
Wasn’t there a garden or something that was perfect until human behavior screwed it all up?
My wife’s sister was visiting recently and she preached the Bible to me- and about evil coming into the world ’cause Adam and Eve
had sexdisobeyed God. I pretended to listening. 🙂Most of the deserts are relatively recent, and don’t deserve special protection. The Sahara was a forest and savannah just 8000 years ago – if a climate activist insists on demanding its protection just tell them that it was caused by overfarming in prehistoric times.
I’ve read that the Sahara has gone from desert to green something like 200 times in the past 2 million years. All without the help of human caused CO2 emissions.
Most of the CO2 released from all sources is absorbed by the oceans. This CO2 would enhance the growth aquatic plants ranging from phytoplankton to sea grass and weeds.
Most all the carbon in the plants and animals in the oceans comes from the CO2 released into the air. There is also CO2 released from the ocean’s seeps and thermal vents.
Is there much truth to the claims that this increased growth due to higher CO2 levels results crops that are less nutritious?
E.g.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(19)30108-1/fulltext#:~:text=Second%2C%20increased%20concentrations%20of%20carbon,by%20up%20to%20a%2030%25.
No… you just have to make sure the trace elements that make up amino acids and proteins etc keep up with the CO2 enhancement.
All the amino acids found in proteins have the basic structure
NH2 – CHR – C=OOH
where R represents an organic subgroup (H in the simplest amino acid glycine), that generally contains carbon, hydrogen, and sometimes nitrogen or sulfur atoms.
CO2 from the atmosphere is incorporated into the C=OOH (carboxyl) group, but the nitrogen in the amino group must come from the soil.
In a CO2-enhanced atmosphere, the formation of these proteins could be inhibited by a lack of nitrogen (or nitrogen-fixing bacteria) in the soil.
Which is why the NO2 coming out of the tailpipes of ICE vehicles is a benefit.
In the UK there is about 2 kg per acre of nitrogen deposited in the rainfall originating IIRC from lightning flashes. In the absence of leguminous plants this could build up over a period of years to provide enough nitrogen to enable plants to establish.
Once herbivores get involved this starts the nitrogen cycle.
“Several long-term studies have provided strong support demonstrating that growing crops under elevated [CO2] can increase photosynthesis and result in an increase in yield, flavour and nutritional content (including but not limited to Vitamins C, E and pro-vitamin A)”.
As usual with climate science, this is a twisting of the truth. You may find more leaves and stalk on some food crops which means human food nutrition/oz of the plant goes down but that doesn’t mean that the “fruit” of the crop isn’t just as nutritious. And that extra material typically winds up composting back into the soil in one way or another.
No, for food crops most of it goes into sewage that is totally wasted.
Using less water (thanks to increased CO2) means taking up less of the soil nutrients dissolved in water that plants use for building themselves. My limited understanding is that large greenhouse growers have known for decades to properly dose their soil to compensate.
Yep, had a friend on the Central Coast with lots of CO2 enhanced greenhouses.
He was always keeping a close eye on what trace nutrients were needed.
Good article.
The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere has resulted in an increase in the movement of CO2 into and out of the atmosphere.
The IPCC says the total emissions equals the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere divided by the turnover time(aka lifetime)
Using the IPCC numbers I made this graph. Notice how the increase in total emissions is much greater than the increase in anthropogenic emissions.
The simplest explanation for this is that the in
Oops. I cut off half of the last sentence.
The simplest explanation for this is that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to changes in natural processes.
Rate of CO2 increase seems to be closely linked to ocean atmospheric temperatures.
Increase at El Nino events, slight increase in rate after a major El Nino that closely matches the step temperature changes observed.
100% agree
Also
My graphs are based on atmospheric temperatures which are proxies for ocean heat content. Which supports what you have said.
My graph clearly shows that the growth rate of CO2 lags ocean temperatures by a month or two.
That is an important point to make.
Since human emissions are pretty steady, which would mean a steady rate of change of CO2.
Looking at the graph shows there is no discernible signal of human released CO2 in the rate of CO2 growth…
… at 4% of total CO2 flux, you would not expect to see any signal of human emissions… and you don’t. 🙂
“My graph clearly shows that the growth rate of CO2 lags ocean temperatures by a month or two.”
We are in complete agreement.
So are many other people who actually bother looking at the data 🙂 🙂
How brown was my desert.
Alarmists are obsessed with putting everything in stasis. Can’t be done.
Exactly! I’m old enough to remember that back in the early 1970s they were in fear of a coming ice age.
Mankind SHOULD continue to plan for the coming “ice age”. We are presently living in a short ‘interglacial’ period of the present Ice Age, one of many in the several million yearlong Pleistocene Ice Age. On a geologic time scale, the end of this present Holocene interglacial is near. We certainly have time to plan for this, IF we don’t ignore it. If anthropogenic CO2 really does create substantial global warming, it might even give us a bit more time. It likely won’t eliminate it.
I read “limits to growth” back in 69 or 70 and thought it would come true. I was a silly boy. 🙄
If humanity faces an existential threat it is dangerously low levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Global Greening Becomes so Obvious That Climate Alarmists
Start Arguing We Need to “Save the Deserts”!
That headline reminded me of the following:
IPCC AR4 Chapter 10 Page 750 pdf4 says:
Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are projected
to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures, leading to
a decrease in diurnal temperature range.
In other words, Milder Weather. And so as that Becomes more
Obvious, Climate Alarmists with have to Start Arguing about the
dangers of “Extreme Mildness”!
“daily minimum temperatures are projected
to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures”
That’s a given since maximum temps are not going up at all in most places. Max temps are driven by the sun’s input during the day overcoming the radiative cooling of the earth during the day. The starting temperature at sunrise has little to do with the maximum temp during the day, the amount of sun insolation is, by far, the biggest contributor. A higher minimum temp does mean, however, enhanced “green” growth at night and over the growing season – a *good* thing.
This is also why the Global Average Temperature is so misleading when it comes to “climate”. As Fremman Dyson pointed out long ago, so much in climate science is not “holistic”. Mid-range temps are *not* a good indicator of “climate” since multiple climates can have the same mid-range temps.
Yes, the average of 51 and 49 is 50 and
the average of 1 and 99 is also 50. As
Dixie Lee Ray pointed out, “The average
person has one breast and one testicle.“
Yep, and a temp of 90F in Las Vegas is the same as 90F in Miami. A temp difference of 1C in Port Barrow is the same as a difference of 1C in Des Moines when it comes to “climate change”.
I’m adding one meme to my list of unphysical assumptions in climate science.
The additional CO2 is coming from sun warmed oceans as a result of a solar induced reduction in global cloudiness.
In all likelihood, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are far more variable than we ever realised.
The ice core record clearly fails to capture large short term variations in atmospheric CO2.
Good point.
This is a totally irrelevant sample size of one, but I am very familiar with two patches in Hampshire UK and SW France for fifty years. Never have I seen such energetic green growth in the last three years. Wet springs? Sure. But little byways choked for the first time. Blocked viewpoints. Something is going on.
If it gets any wetter, the little byways could become artichoked! How delicious would that be!
Apparently there is a team trying to sail from Alaska to Greenland, but ice has arctic-choked them.
Wokeachusetts is greener now than I’ve seen in my 74 years here. Usually by mid summer, lawns are starting to dry out and turn brownish. Not this year. In the spring, the pines produced far more cones than I’ve ever seen after 50 years as a forester. There does seem to be fewer insects, but I’m not complaining about that. I haven’t seen a single tick this summer. I had Lyme disease a dozen years ago so I don’t miss them. Not many mosquitoes this year either but who cares? There’s always talk of fewer bees, but my apple and pears trees are doing great- thanks to their NOT being a late frost in the spring, as there was last year.
Nature is intense life and death competition. We need to keep a close eye on out plant competators.
“so there is naturally little mention in mainstream media and politics.”
As well as global greening not being mentioned, they also do not mention all of the good uses and products arising from extracting the energy and capabilities of coal/gas/oil.
The greentards only look at what they term the negatives in the climate wars, ignoring all of the benefits that they are enjoying while making their one-sided arguments
Author of the Yale360 article, Fred Pearce used to be regular contributor to The Guardian (UK) on environmental issues. Never as extreme as George Monbiot.
It includes such irony: “Why did past predictions of rampant desertification prove so wrong?” What? So he believes predictions of deserts shrinking or getting greener would have made the news, what 30 years ago?
He goes onto demonstrate that the final message must be ‘bad’ news as in:
“But scientists warn this added vegetation may soak up scarce water supplies. ”
“extra vegetation in arid environments is also increasing the risk of bushfires”
“… it could be a folly to imagine that the dramatic greening now visible in satellite images across many of those same regions is a reason to declare their troubles over.”
Etc.
The headline was the best part of this post: “Save the deserts!”
While deserts are beautiful and fascinating environments to observe and study, they do little to support the biosphere, i.e., plants and animals. If it were not for intensive agriculture in places that are conducive to plant and animal growth, humans would not have the luxury of visiting and acquainting ourselves with deserts.
I’m curious, from high school biology I know that the basic photosynthesis equation is:
6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2
from which is seems obvious that CO2 is not a substitute for water, so by which mechanism does an increase in CO2 allow plants to use water more efficiently?
Genuine question, is it that they can grow faster and use up what water is available before it evaporates into the atmosphere, or is there some other mechanic in play?
“Genuine question, is it that they can grow faster and use up what water is available before it evaporates into the atmosphere, or is there some other mechanic in play?”
That’s a good question. My basic understanding is that the plants’ stomata pores shrink in size as CO2 levels increase, which results in reduced transpiration. In other words, the plant needs less water to grow in an enriched CO2 environment, because it gives off less water vapour through its smaller pores.
However, it appears the precise mechanism which causes this shrinkage of stomata size, as a response to increased CO2 levels, is still being investigated.
Doing some research, I came across the following article which addresses this issue. It’s a bit complicated.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707055/
The water is transported from the roots to the leaves and the leaves have stoma which allows the CO2 to enter. If the stoma are open to allow the CO2 in then water can escape from them too, with lower CO2 concentration in the air the stoma have to stay open longer and so lose more water.
From what I have read from experts in botany, plants take in CO2 through small openings in the leaves called stomata, but they also allow water vapor to exit the leaves. In an atmosphere with a higher concentration of CO2, less air is needed to get the same mass rate of CO2 into the leaves, so the stomata can be smaller, which results in less water loss to the atmosphere.
Even if the soil moisture content does not change (constant water input), a decrease in the water loss rate could enable the plant to use more of the water available in a CO2-rich atmosphere.
Plants can actually adjust the density of stomata on their leaves according to the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
IIRC, most plants have “fully-packed” stomata when the CO2 level is around 250ppm or below. Then as CO2 increases they can adjust the density of packing.
This packing density is reliable enough that it can be used as a proxy for historic CO2 levels at levels above 250ppm.
Combined with the comment from SteveZ56 above and you can see why plants start to struggle at 250ppm and below unless they have a really good water supply.. and why as CO2 levels increase, they become more and more efficient with their use of H2O.
Thanks to all for the replies.
CO2 makes the world green again !
This should be a new slogan for the Trump campaign–Drill, baby, drill, and Make America Green Again.
All change is A Bad Thing, the Little Ice Age was a paradise, if it even existed, and Al Gore is our Prophet!
Al gore made a huge profit… he was not a prophet.
The weeds around my house have grown at rates I do not recall ever seeing.
Oh no… Don’t tell the alarmists… “Crops being Strangled By Climate-Change-Fueled Exponential Weed Growth”
You’re not an ‘alarmist’ are you? One of the countering arguments to the good news of increased crop growth due to rising CO2 levels, is that weeds also increase their growth rate, which is bad news.
However, what is often not mentioned is the difference between the two major categories of plant life which are named C3 and C4. C3 plants are less efficient at absorbing CO2, so they respond more to increased CO2 levels, whereas C4 plants have evolved to thrive in lower CO2 levels, so they don’t respond as much to increased CO2 levels. About 95% of the plants, world-wide, are of the C3 type. But this is not true of weeds. A much larger proportion of the world’s weed species are of the C4 type of physiology, so they will not respond as much to increased CO2 levels.
Nevertheless, C3 type weeds do exist, and they could cause an increased problem when growing amongst C4 type crops in elevated CO2 levels.
The alarmists would have most of the population out in the fields with hoes eliminating the weeds.
Such a pity that nuclear plants emit no CO2 – their only drawback!