In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

[AndyH]

More drought means more irrigation where water's available. This leads to soil salting. Salt was spread on fields to make them infertile and to kill economies in days gone by...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7499000487
Not good.

Potato Production
http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 363#page-1

The effect of climate change on global potato production was assessed. Potential yields were calculated with a simulation model and a grid with monthly climate data for current (1961-1990) and projected (2010-2039) and 2040-2069) conditions...For this period, global potential potato yield decreases by 18% to 32% (without adaptation) and by 9% to 18% (with adaptation).

Potato supply chain
http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 7-0#page-1

Climate change and plant disease management
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10 ... o.37.1.399
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4704002186

Agroecosystems responses to combinations of elevated CO2, ozone, and global climate change
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0903001257

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2395022864

Potato and citrus in the US
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1X9500059E

Results of citrus simulations without CO2-induced yield improvement indicate that production may shift slightly northward in the southern states, but yields may decline in southern Florida and Texas due to excessive heat during the winter. CO2 effects tended to counteract the decline in simulated citrus yields. Fall potato production under current management practices appears vulnerable to an increase in temperature in the northern states; increased CO2 and changes in planting date were estimated to have minimal compensating impacts on simulated potato yields.

Irrigated potato in humid climate
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2311002115

Assuming crop husbandry factors are unchanged, farm yields would show only marginal increases (3–6%) due to climate change owing to limitations in nitrogen availability. In contrast, future potential yields, without restrictions in water or fertiliser, are expected to increase by 13–16%. Future average irrigation needs, assuming unconstrained water availability, are predicted to increase by 14–30%, depending on emissions scenario. The present ‘design’ capacity for irrigation infrastructure would fail to meet future peak irrigation needs in nearly 50% of years. Adaptation options for growers to cope with these impacts are discussed.

Life would be good for UK potato farmers provided we've got water and petroleum-based fertilizer...oops.

Wheat
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0908000194

Vulnerability of agriculture crops in SE USA
http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 015#page-1
Corn and wheat down; possible increase in soybean and peanut

Canada
http://link.springer.com/article/10.102 ... 715#page-1
Possibly more corn and sorghum but less wheat and soybeans

[AndyH]

You're still cherrypicking Reg - one CANNOT say CO2 is good in a complex system without evaluating ALL effects of the CO2. All you're doing is fixating on the one effect you like and ignoring the rest.

Cherry-picking? Hardly. That was a survey of 53 papers used to perform a meta-analyisis.

The link you just provided was certainly cherry-picking, however. We do a LOT of gardening around here. I'll tell you it is not hard to kill a plant by restricting its water supply. But note that from the meta-analysis paper I just provided, the higher CO2 concentration provides more yield with less water.

No it does not. Because you continue to fixate on CO2 only, you're not seeing the rest of the picture.

Yes - piping CO2 into a greenhouse TODAY or YESTERDAY with those climates (temperature, available fertilizer, soil fertility, fungi, microorganisms, etc) will reduce water use some - because leaves don't have to open their stoma as often to get the CO2 they need - they don't lose as much. But when the temperature goes up, they need more water. When temperature and fertilizer use increases, soil dies and becomes dirt which forces use of more fertilizer and more water. When irrigation increases, soil becomes more salted.

This is NOT a subject that can be understood with a couple of sound bites, though the denier site you keep referencing - a site known to cherrypick only papers that support their pro-fossil fuel sponsors - will gladly feed as many simple sound bites as their followers desire. When I was in the AF, that was called "information warfare" - it's entire purpose is to bend listeners to their way of thinking, knowing full well that if they get their message out first their follower's minds will be closed to the truth. Not unlike a cult.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... ZFxqLV958E
http://www.academia.edu/2316627/Informa ... ate_Change

So long, Reg.

[klapauzius]

But it is disingenuous to lay this all at the doorstep of big business. People won't go out today and buy a tank of gas, flip on their air conditioner, get on an airplane, or buy a cart full of cheap stuff from China at Walmart with the intent of protecting XOM profits. Nobody is forcing anyone to do those things, they do so of free will, because the dollars they spend on those things bring more value to them than other things they could do, and frankly because it's a way of life we have all come to enjoy. Most of the denial comes from the consumers who don't want to give up the things that carbon enables.

No of course not, and I would not say it is the sole responsibility of big business. But they stand to profit most from the current status quo, so taking up their cause as e.g. a consumer, is what surprises me. Apparently some people feel the need to support big business and express this among other things in musings about the beneficial effects of CO2 or by voting for political candidates, that support the status quo. All this, without getting anything in return, but a kick in the behind from mother nature (admittedly not right away, and maybe not for the current generation, but their children and grandchildren).

So yes, by all means, it is the consumer that has to change his/her behavior.

[RegGuheert]

No it does not. Because you continue to fixate on CO2 only, you're not seeing the rest of the picture.

You clearly did not read what I wrote nor the paper I linked. The test included BOTH the increase in CO2 AND the rise in temperature which is inline with model predictions. The result was 115% more biomass growth.

Yes - piping CO2 into a greenhouse...

There was no greenhouse in this paper or the survey paper. The survey paper only included FACE data.

...TODAY or YESTERDAY with those climates (temperature, available fertilizer, soil fertility, fungi, microorganisms, etc) will reduce water use some - because leaves don't have to open their stoma as often to get the CO2 they need - they don't lose as much. But when the temperature goes up, they need more water.

The recent paper had both higher temperature and CO2.

When temperature and fertilizer use increases, soil dies and becomes dirt which forces use of more fertilizer and more water. When irrigation increases, soil becomes more salted.

Global temperatures and CO2 have risen. Global grain production is at all-time highs. No soil death, no drop in grain production, just increases in production.

This is NOT a subject that can be understood with a couple of sound bites, though the denier site you keep referencing - a site known to cherrypick only papers that support their pro-fossil fuel sponsors - will gladly feed as many simple sound bites as their followers desire. When I was in the AF, that was called "information warfare" - it's entire purpose is to bend listeners to their way of thinking, knowing full well that if they get their message out first their follower's minds will be closed to the truth. Not unlike a cult.

OK...

So far, there has been the following approaches to convincing people that climate change will reduce global food production:
- The WSJ article in the OP should not be discussed
- Ad hominem attacks of the WSJ article authors
- Websites which link to scientific data which support some of the claims in the WSJ article are off limits
- The recent scientific survey of ALL FACE research which shows that virtually ALL food crops increase yield with higher CO2 concentrations is "cherry-picked" data
- A list of links to abstracts of old papers which use as assumptions known-bad models of future climates which are likely wildly pessimistic.

The bottom line is that at a worldwide level crops are currently thriving in the presence of the increased temperatures and CO2 concentrations. Grain production is at an all-time high. Denying simple facts does not sway anyone to your position.

[RegGuheert]

...I would not say it is the sole responsibility of big business. But they stand to profit most from the current status quo,...

Big government profits most from climate change scaremongering by taking away liberties that rightly belong to the people. Our federal government is way outside the limits of their authority on this issue, just as they are with many other issue. And any treaty which gets signed trumps our constitution, which I consider a worse thing.

They're both bad (big business and big government).

While I agree we need to move away from the status quo, the assumption that the only direction to go is toward more government control is not valid.

IMO, we need to move in a direction which gives individuals more freedom, not less.

[AndyH]

No it does not. Because you continue to fixate on CO2 only, you're not seeing the rest of the picture.

You clearly did not read what I wrote nor the paper I linked. The test included BOTH the increase in CO2 AND the rise in temperature which is inline with model predictions. The result was 115% more biomass growth.

Yes - piping CO2 into a greenhouse...

There was no greenhouse in this paper or the survey paper. The survey paper only included FACE data.

...TODAY or YESTERDAY with those climates (temperature, available fertilizer, soil fertility, fungi, microorganisms, etc) will reduce water use some - because leaves don't have to open their stoma as often to get the CO2 they need - they don't lose as much. But when the temperature goes up, they need more water.

The recent paper had both higher temperature and CO2.

When temperature and fertilizer use increases, soil dies and becomes dirt which forces use of more fertilizer and more water. When irrigation increases, soil becomes more salted.

Global temperatures and CO2 have risen. Global grain production is at all-time highs. No soil death, no drop in grain production, just increases in production.

This is NOT a subject that can be understood with a couple of sound bites, though the denier site you keep referencing - a site known to cherrypick only papers that support their pro-fossil fuel sponsors - will gladly feed as many simple sound bites as their followers desire. When I was in the AF, that was called "information warfare" - it's entire purpose is to bend listeners to their way of thinking, knowing full well that if they get their message out first their follower's minds will be closed to the truth. Not unlike a cult.

OK...

So far, there has been the following approaches to convincing people that climate change will reduce global food production:
- The WSJ article in the OP should not be discussed
- Ad hominem attacks of the WSJ article authors
- Websites which link to scientific data which support some of the claims in the WSJ article are off limits
- The recent scientific survey of ALL FACE research which shows that virtually ALL food crops increase yield with higher CO2 concentrations is "cherry-picked" data
- A list of links to abstracts of old papers which use as assumptions known-bad models of future climates which are likely wildly pessimistic.

The bottom line is that at a worldwide level crops are currently thriving in the presence of the increased temperatures and CO2 concentrations. Grain production is at an all-time high. Denying simple facts does not sway anyone to your position.

I can certainly understand how someone that's been misinformed by propaganda can see it that way. Good luck with your wheat berries.

[AndyH]

More high-level stuff for anyone that cares.

http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap ... rt-all.pdf

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/

http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/

Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States - 2009 Report - Agriculture
http://nca2009.globalchange.gov/agriculture

Key Messages:

- Many crops show positive responses to elevated carbon dioxide and low levels of warming, but higher levels of warming often negatively affect growth and yields.

- Extreme events such as heavy downpours and droughts are likely to reduce crop yields because excesses of deficits of water have negative impacts on plant growth.

- Weeds, diseases, and insect pests benefit from warming, and weeds also benefit from a higher carbon dioxide concentration, increasing stress on crop plants and requiring more attention to pest and weed control.

- Forage quality in pastures and rangelands generally declines with increasing carbon dioxide concentration because of the effects on plant nitrogen and protein content, reducing the land's ability to supply adequate livestock feed.

- Increased heat, disease, and weather extremes are likely to reduce livestock productivity.

[RegGuheert]

...someone that's been misinformed by propaganda...

The problem is, there aren't any benefits of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations - unless one is looking forward to drilling for oil in the arctic, or has contracts to move the world's naval ports to higher ground...

Most plants will grow more total mass in a higher CO2 environment, for example, but the mass is in the stalk and not the seeds. In the real world, more CO2 means less productive harvests (10% lower seed yields for each 1°C increase), higher water demand (though in a world of more frequent flood/drought cycles), higher rates of weed growth, and reduced effectiveness of herbacides.

Of your statements coming into this discussion, all have been shown through the research literature to be false except the last two: It seems that you understand that plants that are weeds thrive in a high CO2 environment, but the fact that desirable plants also thrive doesn't fit into the climate change agenda.

[mrdcmills]

Doesn't anybody believe our great-grandchildren will adapt to a couple of degrees warmer? I grew up in central Fla in a house with no A/C. I worked 13 years in a metal building with no A/C. If CO2 is poison I'm going down. That's what the bubbles are on Pepsi. Don't call me "RACIST". I was pulling for the BLACK man. (Herman Cain)

[AndyH]

Doesn't anybody believe our great-grandchildren will adapt to a couple of degrees warmer? I grew up in central Fla in a house with no A/C. I worked 13 years in a metal building with no A/C. If CO2 is poison I'm going down. That's what the bubbles are on Pepsi. Don't call me "RACIST". I was pulling for the BLACK man. (Herman Cain)

Since it too late to fix the problem, we're all left with adapting. It won't be our great-grand children however - I'm 50 and will be around for the problems, and my 10 year old son will certainly be 'in play'.

The global average temperature rise seems tiny - after all, we're only up what, about 1°C so far? The problem is that the entire planet doesn't warm or cool evenly - the polar regions are warming much, much faster than Florida or S Texas. Those spring snow storms we've been having, and seriously unseasonably cool periods down here (the days when you're SURE someone left the door open and all that Yankee air is getting in? <grin>) are caused by a seriously out of whack jet stream. The jet stream is out of sorts because the normal temperature gradient that keeps is anchored isn't there any longer. The temperature difference has decayed because the ice is melting -and hopefully you know why the ice is melting.

Look through this for your region - it's the best we have so far on what's coming - with info for 'best case' and 'worst case' climate change scenarios. Keep in mind that things are changing faster than the 'worst case' numbers reflect...

http://nca2009.globalchange.gov/

Florida's in the SE...let's see - your temps have increased about 2°F since the 1970s. Sea level rise is an issue, rain patterns (geographically and seasonally) have changed. You're having more hot days today, and are headed for between 4.5 and 10.5°F warmer summers. Etc.

Get used to malaria and dengue fever, and expect the orange crops to move north...


By the way, here's a big picture info from an evangelical Republican Texan climate scientist
http://www.cornell.edu/video/katharine- ... ming-facts