Crops LOVE Global Warming
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Heartland Institute Research Fellow Linnea Lueken talks about one of the ways global warming has actually been beneficial, it has improved crop production. As our planet has modestly warmed, data show that crop production and yields throughout the globe, especially for staple crops like corn, wheat, and rice, have increased.
Support this content 👉Donate - The Heartland Institute
heartland.org/...
Download a FREE copy of Climate at a Glance for Teachers and Students and get the app so you are never without resources to combat climate alarmism: climateataglan...
…Or help us out by purchasing a hard copy on Amazon: shorturl.at/deiKS
Watch Linnea every Friday LIVE at 1 p.m. ET on The Climate Realism Show. / theheartlandinstitute
Follow us on Instagram 👉@HeartlandInstitute
We’re on Facebook 👉 The Heartland Institute
Follow Linnea on Twitter 👉 / linnealueken
Sources used for this video can be found here: climateataglan...
We are wasting time trying to modify the climate (which is impossible), instead of research for opportunities that climate offers for our better development. Thanks Linnea!!
I agree. While we can affect climate, to a degree, there's no way that we can mould it into the perfect climate. There are too many variables to consider. Unknown variables is the reason why we still have the polar ice and polar bears, in spite of the dire predictions of doom for the polar regions. The greening of the planet BECAUSE of carbons in the atmosphere is one of those variables not considered. How many other variables have been left out? No one can know the answer to that because those variable aren't generally known.
@@JackHaveman52
Climate scientists study things like volcanoes, changes in solar output, changes in the Earth’s orbit, multidecadal natural variability in the Atlantic and Pacific, and other factors that impact climate change. They find that natural factors alone would have resulted in a modest cooling over the past 50 years or so, compared to the dramatic warming that we’ve experienced.
we already are modifying it. the point is to stop
Human made Climate Change is just our Governments 'seeding' the atmosphere with chemicals which pollute our crops and the air we breathe.
This makes perfect sense. Imagine the headlines - produce more CO2 to end hunger!
Yes, I will keep imagining, because it's not very likely to happen.
@@leialee6820 Because it will be censored?
@@neilnewinger3059 Yes, the MSM, SM & the globalists agenda won't allow the truth to come out & will censor it. They have already caught so many people in their web of lies & indoctrination.
@@leialee6820
CO2 "greening" is well known and can be seen from satellites. However, the land and ocean cannot absorb all the extra CO2 we are emitting. About 40% of the additional CO2 we are emitting is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, consequently, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in millions of years. (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of has taken just 120 years). CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the simple truth is greenhouse gases allow short wavelength solar radiation to pass through the atmosphere unimpeded. As the Sun warms up Earth’s surface, longer wavelength thermal radiation is reflected back into the atmosphere. Some of this thermal radiation passes into space, some of the radiation is absorbed and some is reflected back to Earth. More CO2 means more thermal radiation is reflected back to Earth and this causes the temperature on Earth to rise. It is all explained through science.
@@hosnimubarak8869you seem to have forgotten water vapour again, you are obsessed with a trace gas that has increased by about 0.01% and you have allowed yourself to be taken in and now live in fear. How sad to believe propaganda to the point that you can so obviously no longer enjoy your life.
Put the MSM text books down and go and live your life, you might even be able to be happy.
Thanks again, Linnea, for bringing more truth to light. It's a shame that most schools push the the false narrative on climate, because I think that you would be a great influence on the next generation of children. Keep speaking the truth, and never stop! We need to have everyone possible to be well informed on that which is true about the climate! Many blessings!!!
Thanks Linnea for these words of wisdom. Andrew
I swear, every time someone says the words 'global warming', I swear I can hear a collective cheer coming from Alaska.
We need an improved video time-lapse of how Oxygen-of-Life (CO2) increases the growth of plants, trees, crops, marine forests, and marine seabed cover. The ones we have are like watching a B movie. Pair that with NASA NEO photos of a greening Earth and you'll have a Global impact that will affect opinions. People that don't respond well to charts do respond well to "show me".
Anytime someone speaks about reduced crop production in regional, state or individual counties in places like here in Southwest Idaho, USA you find record amounts of acreage taken out of production for housing. The mass exodus from California, Western Oregon, Western Washington and big cities in Blue States due to crazy policies there has increased the need for new housing at the expense of productive farm ground. Insane.
Imagine that, facts, not hysteria....
Thanks for getting the truth out there, Linnea! We are still near the CO2 low point and need to get more CO2 in our atmosphere to improve agriculture.
Between 11,000 years ago and the year 1900 CO2 levels in our atmosphere were roughly 260 ppm to 280 ppm and plants did just fine. Today it’s 421 ppm.
@@hosnimubarak8869omg 0.04% of the atmosphere, how can we survive, except of course Co2 is only a minor greenhouse gas. Water vapour being by far the most significant, but you never bring that into your highly intelligent responses, why is that. It’s almost like you don’t know what you are talking about…
@@senseofthecommonman
Bad Argument/Myth #9: CO2 only makes a small portion of the atmosphere.
1) He wasn't driving drunk, he just had a trace of blood alcohol; 0.08%.
2) Don't worry about your iron deficiency, iron is only 4.4 ppm of your body’s atoms.
3) Ireland isn't important; it's only.066%) of the world population.
4)That ibuprofen pill can't do you any good; it's only 3 ppm of your body weight
5)The Earth is insignificant, it's only 3 ppm of the mass of the solar system.
6) Your children can drink that water, it only contains a trace of arsenic (0.01 ppm is the WHO and US EPA limit).
@@senseofthecommonman
Yes, water vapor has the largest greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere. However, water vapor increases in response to an increase in temperature. So, water vapor is a feedback mechanism, wherein CO2 from us causes some warming, that warming increases the amount of water
vapor in the atmosphere, and that water vapor causes even more warming, So ultimately, the warming is still from us producing CO2.
It's all explained through science.
Watching your videos to see what’s coming our way in Australia.
Of course our prime farmland around here is being built on to accommodate mass immigration but what is left is producing the best harvest I have seen in 70 years. With all those millions of extra mouths to feed we need this every year and rising.
Last month its been so cold, many seeds i have planted outside and normally do so in May, have failed to grow. And in the UK the meteorlogical office tell us was the warmest May since records began. So far June is also a disaster as its so cold I have had to put the heating back on.
Love Heartlands, moderate warming Love it.
A good thing.
I ❤CO2.
Co2 is the gas of life. IOW life would not exist without co2, so far as we know.
@@wheel-man5319
Yawn.
@@hosnimubarak8869 lack of imagination....
@@wheel-man5319
Do you deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
@@hosnimubarak8869 Nope. But it isn't the problem your religion teaches you it is.
Hey, I like Heartland and i am a regular watcher, but as someone not from the USA, I feel the tone is somehow pitched at a particular sector of the US and it doesn't translate more broadly. I dont know exactly what section of US it is pitched to....but why not keep the tone more neutral and appeal to a wider audience than whatever heartland means in the US? I am not trying to be overly critical, I would just like these clips to reach as many people as possible.
I can relate to what is being said & I am not from the US but from 🏴🇬🇧.
...and to us Americans, Brits come off sounding condensing.
@@jimmoses6617 Don't count me in this will you! I am not agreeing with what is being said. From a Brit who has no issues with the videos. From England, UK. 🏴🇬🇧🇺🇲
I'm not getting your point. It's not as if the added carbon greening the earth only happens in the US. It's a global thing. Besides, no matter what you call this site, it won't be long before the climate autocrats realise that they don't like what they're saying and will refuse to tune in, berating anyone who does watch their videos. They denigrate FOX news, not because of their name but because they don't like the message they bring. Even being more neutral won't work because the truth of this video will be enough for them to ignore this platform completely. It's news that they don't want to hear or want us to hear, as well.
@@JackHaveman52
Climate naysayers have long upheld CO2 fertilization as evidence that humans are doing the planet a solid by pumping 40 billion tons of fossil carbon into the air every year. It’s an argument that makes sense superficially, but falls apart as soon as you start to unpack it.
First and foremost,experts agree that CO2 fertilization is a temporary effect. The reason is simple: anything that limits growth, whether it’s sunlight, water, carbon, or even physical space, can only stimulate plants up to a point. Eventually, they run into some other resource limitation. This principle, called “Liebig’s law of the minimum,” was developed in agricultural science to explain why fertilizing a crop with plentiful nutrients doesn’t stimulate growth. It’s proven to be a very robust concept.
Another great post
You got the info warning so you know you're right....
Nice to hear common sense for a change
When it hot and humid corn can grow 3 inches a day
So why is everything so bloody expensive then??
Klaus and his cohorts want it that way.
We as the little people don't need to worry about any of this. Our betters have already decided on seaweed, lab formulations and bugs for out basic diet.
It's okay, Canada to rescue with our carbon taxes, will save the whole planet.
Hey what about the UK, our taxes are being pissed away as well!
What happened to the ice age predicted in the 1970s? By the climate alarmists
How does anything grow in a sand filled desert. Plants growing from above. CO2 is drawn in to grow. Not from the soil that is not there.
If only my brainwashed son would listen and hear what Linnea is telling the world…
Linnear, you describe but don't emphasise enough how Clouds function as earth's Thermostat. Warming=ocean condensation=75% Cloud cover from scorching Sun.
It even works in reverse: Too much Cloud=more cooling, less Cloud. More Warming Sun.
Love the videos but not the infernal background music. Why is everyone doing it? It distracts from the message you are putting across.
It was hotter 100 years ago what did they call it back then?
"The good ol' days."
No.
@@jeffhall6556
When was it hotter (in the last 100 years)?
Where?
@@hosnimubarak8869 all over the place here in the US, Tony Heller has a small yt channel he goes into it, he's the guy that developed the software for the weather channel in it's early day's, he wouldn't follow (THEY'RE) agreed upon narrative so they parted ways, he has news papers and weather data from the late 1800s to the early 1900s either they were lying back then or they're lying now, it was substantially warmer I think in the 1920s it was a health risk to many. Don't forget about the ice age that was supposed to happen a few decades ago, and the acid-rain that was gonna kill us all, and the ozone layer that was disappearing in the 70s & we were gonna get cooked, no different than the nonsense being pushed right now. But if you've drank the kool-aid doesn't matter.
@@hosnimubarak8869 I left you a specific reply yt deleted it.enough said.
Get rid of the awful mall music. It does not help the argument.
Anthony Morris just posted "The evidence is overwhelming, rising CO2 causes climate hysteria".
I will post a rebuttal "Carbon dioxide levels recorded at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii reached over 420 parts per million in March 2024. Not only is that the highest number the observatory has recorded since it first started analyzing atmospheric greenhouse gases in 1958, but it’s more than 100 ppm higher than any point in some 800,000 years of data scientists have on global CO2 concentrations. Meanwhile the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade. This rate of recent warming is 10x that of the gradual warming that ended the last glacial period".
He will probably delete his post.
So we are having more crops and for some reason the Government is trying to shut down farmers. Unless you are a big corporation.
Same here in Australia. Frightening.
Anthony Morris just posted "The evidence is overwhelming, rising CO2 causes climate hysteria".
I will post a rebuttal "Carbon dioxide levels recorded at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii reached over 420 parts per million in March 2024. Not only is that the highest number the observatory has recorded since it first started analyzing atmospheric greenhouse gases in 1958, but it’s more than 100 ppm higher than any point in some 800,000 years of data scientists have on global CO2 concentrations. Meanwhile the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade. This rate of recent warming is 10x that of the gradual warming that ended the last glacial period".
He will probably delete his post.
Seems he just keeps reposting it! Must be a troll!
Anyone with more than a one functional brain cell would realize how stupid their comments are and change their mind. Brainless, mind-controlled simpletons keep repeating the same incorrect comments when faced with evidence to the contrary.
So sad!!
@hosnimubarak8869 👈🤡 Ahhh, look, there's a parrot.🤣🤣🤣🤣 Please explain to the class how scientists gathered this highly "accurate" data from 800,000 years ago? And mathematically... what's it called when you extrapolate data when the two points are statistically right next to each other? The word you are looking for is UNRELIABLE. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thank you Linnea. I agree totally with everything you have said. We need more CO2 for all types of crop, grains, fruits & tree growth.
But you can't deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right?
@@hosnimubarak8869 Yes it is a green house gas as people pump it into greenhouses to make the crops grow bigger & it is also a green house gas because it makes the world a greener place. Without CO2 there would be no plant life & there would be no plant life to give us oxygen in exchange for CO2. This is plant life food just like we need oxygen to survive.
@@hosnimubarak8869 I replied to you but yt censored my comment as it does not agree with their narrative & I am heavily censored now.
@@hosnimubarak8869 But do we really know to what extent? Do you?
@@leialee6820
Sure, and the dog ate your homework.
Thanks much again Linnea - Very nicely done. I've been suggesting to some bloggers to create a video that is almost bullet point in style. Minimal dialogue, maximum impact. I think I mentioned it to Tony H, John Robson, maybe Tom Nelson, can't remember, but I frequently comment to them.
I've added you into my regualar viewing as your presentations are so unoffensive, presenting information that is accurate and paletable to viewers of most any age.
The video would be a list of 10 +- predictions, shown in brief clips, 10 seconds (?), with the words, "Never Happened or Failed or False!"
You could then explain that there are many more and none have come to pass and put an easy download link to show people the list, however long.
You could show in the 10 items Gore and others spouting the false predictions as absolutes ... that never happened and won't!
Sell it to us on memory sticks to show friends. My thoughts are to challenge friends with a used car analogy: If 20 of your friends bought a used car from a company and all those cars were lemons, not mechanically sound, would you buy a car from that company?!
Of course not - so why believe these poeple who have never made a true statement about the climate, predicting doom that never comes?!
My goal as I may have mentioned to you or others, is to put the last nail in the coffin of the narrative, not to debate but to just show the errors writ large, with the challenge to abandon the narrative and push the legisators to craft sane energy policies.
I realize it's a mass hysteria so no easy task but the people, if they can get the information from such calm and measured presenters like yourself, not overwhelming them with too much info, just enough to shed light and truth, we might have a chance to excite the people to action.
Stay well and keep'em coming!
"Tony H, John Robson, maybe Tom Nelson" are not climate scientists.
Keep up the good work!
Excellent 😊
How do we get rid of that climate change bullet under the video
Actually it is a good thing to have. It flags that something other than the mainstream BS is being shared.
USDA says you are wrong. Crop production has slowed to its slowest rate in six decades.
Which Crops Love Global Warming ?.
What Locations do the Crops Love Global Warming ?
Are there any EPUB version of "Climate at a Glance" ?
Here in the south east of Australia we have had seven years of well above average yields in wheat canola and barley. The so called global warming due to increased CO2 is just what we need.
This is BS.
One of the most prevalent modern myths is that vegetarian and vegan diets don't require just as much if not more animal death and suffering as omnivorous or carnivorous diets.
I have said for years " look at North America, it gets wider the further north you go. If Georgia could grow citrus and us here in Indiana grow peanuts or double crop and Canada had an Indiana growing season, wouldnt that be a good thing?"
But wat about the people living in the tropics?
Hold on Linnea, on this one you're not making such a strong case: You cannot use total crop production but must use instead yield per hectare per crop to correctly assess whether higher CO2 concentration may be stimulating higher yields. Furthermore, the whole case is mighty shaky anyway because there are just too many variables that could be influencing crop growth rates and yields, much as is the case of course with global warming-climate change in itself...so many variables and models simply not able to deal with all of them and impossible to get enough reliable, precise, and accurate-enough data at spatio-temporal density for all the input variables as well as to measure the outputs and do valid comparisons of model-to-reality.
Yes, it's true that up to a point CO2 can boost plant growth rate and yields, but for that to happen there must also be supportive amounts of bio-available minerals and nitrogen, conductive temps, soil conditions, etc, but I think it's better to just leave this line of thinking alone and focus on more fact-checking on specific claims of the alarmists, as well as on pointing out how far they are from having enough sufficiently-high-quality data in space and time density, for the various variables they use in their models, and making sure we know the variables their models fail to consider.
But some past climate models proved to be quite accurate.
@@hosnimubarak8869 Blindfold yourself and keep throwing darts at a dartboard and you'll eventually get a few bulls-eyes...models, schmodels...
@@Avianthro
A 2019 study led by Zeke Hausfather evaluated 17 global surface temperature projections from climate models in studies published between 1970 and 2007. The authors found "14 out of the 17 model projections indistinguishable from what actually occurred."
@@Avianthro
Look up “Hausfather et al 2019 Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections."
Crop yields have risen and have been doing so c=for centuries. The main reason is more land being farmed, the increased use of fertilizers, improved weather forecasts, and the development of new varieties that are more tolerant of higher temperatures.
Soil moisture is harmed by global warming - if there is more evaporation from the oceans, there is also more evaporation from the land (soil).
The growing season is not mainly determined by temperature but by hours of sunshine. That depends on the latitude and is unchanging.
The higher winter temperatures fail to kill off pests, meaning the increased use of pesticides.
While some lands nearer the pole become warmer and conducive to different crops, further south once fertile land is becoming more arid making some crops difficult to grow.
Increased rainfall leads to flooding which is not good for crop production.
Yes, greenhouses often pump in CO2, but it only works if you can control the light, temperature, the soil nutrients, and water to within very specific limits which is different for every plant. That does not work outside.
No. They actually deny this now, claiming more co2 causes stresses in plants, including less heat tolerance.
They are just liars together with fake scientists. They need more biologists & real scientists.
My reply got censored.
they are correct... if you get to 2500 ppm or above...
@@defeqel6537 Since the maximum CO2 concentration in the last 500 million years has been 6000+ parts per million a number of times with no obvious adverse effect on plants, I'd suggest that the percentage needs to be a lot higher than than to stress plants significantly. On the other hand, plants do get stressed when the CO2 concentration drops below 150 parts per million due to CO2 starvation.
Or so I'm told.
@@tetleyk it depends on the plant, but there is a reason greenhouses usually have about 1200 ppm, I wouldn't compare plants that lived hundreds of millions of years ago to those living today
An interesting possible side effect of tha additional annual growth of vegetation is that it may become additional fuel for wildfires. It doesn't help that humans seem to be more and more careless about causing wildfires.
There are less fires than at any time in the last hundred years
Some of these fires are deliberate to get rid of woodland & some are not natural but are from Direct Energy Weapons, laser & microwave. energy.
Some are deliberate & others are caused by DEWs
Increased Oxygen-of-Life (CO2) makes vegetation more resistant to fire by retaining more water and by keeping ground fires cooler by retaining more soil moisture.
Plus there is less management of forests & woodlands etc to prevent spread of fires by allowing dry leaves, branches etc to remain on the ground, fuel for a fire, & not providing a fire break with no vegetation, trees etc to prevent the continual spread of fires. Even people living in California next to the woodlands were prevented from getting rid of growth & prevented from putting in a fire break. Now that is stupid & has caused unnecessary huge fires when they happen.
How much do you get paid to lie? It is true that crop production is higher now "per acre". Per acre of "GMO" food. Per acre that actually gets to mature "without" being wiped out by... "weather modification", "climate engineering". Food commodities are way, way down globally. Over all food global production is being systematically wiped out. There can be no relevant discussion about the climate without first and foremost including the on going full scale climate modification programs being deployed globally.
What exactly is the lie? Doesn't CO2 contribute to greater plant growth?
It’s even greening a bit around some deserts and mid west American grasslands.
@@rosa9079 Many areas are getting too much water, which disrupts the farmers which is what this article was about in the first place. The weather is engineered, but not for the benefit of the common folk, just sayin.
Food commodities are down due to various things that are not affected by weather. War is the main one affecting the grain harvest in Ukraine. Russia is not affected very much but probably does not want to export so much to the West. Getting rid of farms in Europe & US etc & certain elites, a person & certain organisations are buying up the land & most often not using it for farming anymore. The high cost of fertiliser if even allowed plus other high costs is making it hard for farmers to make a living or a profit. Many other countries affected by war or bad decisions caused by dictatorships, communism, getting & getting rid of farmers.
Why would anyone trust an organization like the Heartland Institute which spent so many years telling people tat there was no health risk to smoking.
Citation please.
@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 If I recall correctly, what the heartland institute says about the studies of harm due to smoking is that the studies used flawed methods. Not being someone who knows how to design a study I'm only able to say this: Children are taught several 'experiments' in science class that can and do lead to false beliefs about how the world works.
The most common one of these false experiments is the ice cube in cool water versus one in hot water. Most of us have seen the ice cube melt faster in 12 Oz. of cool water versus one in an ounce of hot water. What we fail to understand is that this experiment is deliberately not complete.
@@wheel-man5319
The approach to downplay the significance of climate change was copied from tobacco lobbyists; in the face of scientific evidence linking tobacco to lung cancer, to prevent or delay the introduction of regulation. Lobbyists attempted to discredit the scientific research by creating doubt and manipulating debate. They worked to discredit the scientists involved, to dispute their findings, and to create and maintain an apparent controversy by promoting claims that contradicted scientific research. The tobacco industry has historically relied on a dismissal of correlational evidence to reject a link between tobacco and lung cancer. For example, the tobacco industry abused this fallacy to argue that simply because smoking correlates with lung cancer that does not mean that smoking causes lung cancer. The simple correlation is not enough to arrive at a conclusion of causation. Today however, nobody in their right mind would deny smoking causes cancer.