Why Climate Change is NOT good for plants
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2025
- One of the more frequent comments I get on this channel is asking why do I want to reduce CO2 emissions because CO2 is plant food, in this video, I talk through why this is not entirely true, and why I am passionate about reducing emissions as soon as possible.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
The last high co2 earth resulted in an explosion of life.
Shhh, you'll spoil his little video.
When was that ? have the hartland institute and Koch brother told you
@waynecartwright-js8tw Have the Rockerfellers and big oil convinced you it is not the case?
Great. No doubt life will flourish, but our population will struggle when sea levels rise.
You’re just repeating what you’ve been told. Assertion after assertion, with no evidence for them.
Been like that since day 1 - ever since Al Gore got involved politicizing and monetizing the movement, and making bullying, censorship and violent activism an acceptable argument and practice within the AGW marketing community.
Glad to see the commentators have given your assertions the treatment.
Hahah, interesting to see what some truth has provoked I must admit
@TomBray-LowCarbonLifestyle The climate in Europe was a lot more hostile in pre industrial times. Learn some history.
This is utter bollocs! Pretty much every single point you make is wrong and the sum of them is the opposite of truth. Too much CO2 being “too much of a good thing can be a bad thing “ is a false equivalence. Higher temperatures are generally beneficial to plant growth and higher temperatures in northern latitudes open up vast areas in Canada and Siberia to plant growth. There is no rule or even benefit to have exactly the same types of plants growing in any given place as 150 years ago. In fact, most crops have already changed with better overall productivity and human prosperity. Now, I don’t have the patience to rebut all the other mistakes while typing on my phone. But by all means, be sure to post this video completely devoid of valid arguments as a counterpoint to the statement that more CO2 is better for plant growth, which is objectively true.
Net zero is not about stopping CO2 emissions. Its about using made up carbon offsets to get it back to an amount from a couple decades ago.
I think there are 3 other points to make ,1- Take condensing boiler condensate , its about a ton of water a year per boiler, it adds up and try watering your plants with acidic water. 2- the atmosphere was changed by plants for over 60 million years laying down carbon in the Carboniferous period over 200 million years ago. we have managed without it all this time. Its carbon that's been out of the atmosphere a long time. 3- to make C02 from burning stuff the process consumes oxygen , Isn't oxygen human/animal food?
Oxygen is produced by photosynthesis.
Did not explain why CO2 is bad for plants.
Fact is , it is good for plants.
Also what is the optimum level of CO2 ?
If you're going to propose an optimum level of CO2, you'll have to decide exactly what you're optimizing for. For that matter, even "good" requires you setting some criteria for what it is exactly that plants want to achieve or perhaps what we want them to achieve. As I understand it, higher CO2 levels can promote faster growth rates and larger plants in many species, but they also generally result in lower levels of vitamins and minerals per unit mass in many food crops.
@@brettski74 - Do you have a link to peer-reviewed study ?
Thanks
@@johnweir1217 I don't have a peer reviewed study I can share, but I have this - ruclips.net/video/Yl_K2Ata6XY/видео.html There are links to a couple of studies in the description, but they aren't the studies on goldenrod and rice mentioned in the video. I couldn't find those just now. Perhaps write to Derek and see if he can share the citations if you're that interested.
The "greening" of deserts boundary edges is helped by higher CO2 levels - which means plants are less dependent on Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM photosynthesis). More CO2 is good for these plants. Perhaps the last decades' increase in CO2 is impacting critical thinking capacity in humans, most of all. The plants just suck it up and thrive.
You talk loads about "risks" - which is alarming but is pretty nebulous. Yet it's almost all *_your narrative...._* For almost all of what you refer to - extreme weather, desertification etc - actual observations show the contrary.
Hmmm, so we wait for disaster before we take action to prevent it?
Actual observations including flooding in Australia this week, in Valencia last year, in Pakistan the year before...? What about wild-fires in the USA? Or retreat of glaciers? Or record temperatures...?
Is this my narrative? Or lived reality?
Deserts have shrunk considerably since the 1980's. The Sahara shrank by 12,000km² per year 1984-2015(Liu & Xue, 2020). A study by Venter et al (2018) found the Sahara desert had shrunk by 8% over the previous three decades. The Earth has greened by 15% or more in a human lifetime. "The greening of the planet over the last two decades represents an increase in leaf area on plants and trees equivalent to the area covered by all the Amazon rainforests. There are now more than two million square miles of extra green leaf area per year"(NASA, 2019). Observations of Earth’s vegetative cover since the year 2000 by NASA’s Terra satellite show a 10% increase in vegetation in the first 20 years of the century. Global tree canopy cover increased by 2.24 million square kilometers (865,000 square miles) between 1982 and 2016 (Nature, 2018). As well as human intervention, the reasons for this include forests expanding polewards aided by additional CO2 and a slight rise in temperature. Increased CO2 causes this in two ways: it has a direct fertilising effect (the CFE), and it increases drought tolerance by reducing stomata. This greening of the Earth due to CO2 is now "an indisputable fact" (Chen et al, 2024). In fact, 55.15% of those areas greening have been doing so at an accelerated rate since 2001. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution the Earth's primary productivity has increased by more than 30% (Campbell et al, 2017 and Haverd et al, 2020).
Zhu, Piao, & Myneni, 2016 calculate that 70% of Earth’s global greening in the modern period is due to CO2 and only about 13% is due to fertilizer and land use changes by humans.
The Earth’s natural vegetation productivity actually increased 6% in 18 years (Nemani et al, 2003) with 42% of this increase coming from the Amazon rainforests.
Between 1961 and 2021 global cereal production increased 250% and cereal yield increased over 200%. Land used for cereal hardly increased (Data from World Bank, FAO/UN). This is the only time in human history that you are more likely to be overfed rather than underfed. We should be thankful we were borne into an age of such abundance. A US DoE study (Taylor & Schlenker, 2021) estimated that a 1 ppm increase in CO2 led to an increase of 0.4%, 0.6% and 1% in yield for corn, soybeans and wheat, respectively, and that CO2 increase was the main driver of the 500% yield growth in corn since 1940. Global tomato production has set a record each year for the past 10 years. Banana production has doubled in 20 years. All 10 of the largest sugar crops in global history occurred during the past 10 years. All 10 of the 10 largest rice crop years occurred during the past 10 years (UNFAO). 2023 was another record cereal crop. Increases in cereal production since 1961: Africa +384%, Asia +348%, Australia +458%, Europe +110%, North America +184%, South America +547%. Percentage increase in production in all regions also exceeded the percentage increase in population. Global and regional food security is improving. 2024-2025 will see another record high production of wheat, soybeans and rice. Compared with a decade ago, the world will harvest in 2024-25 about 10% more wheat, about 15% more corn, nearly 30% more soybeans, and about 10% more rice. Global food supply (kcal per capita per day) has increased from 2181kcal in 1961 to a record 2959kcal in 2021.
Excellent answer! Still, I don't think we need to let facts and logic get in the way of the standard CO2 narrative eh? 🙂
A.
Its a very annoying throw away line from people who haven't engaged brain.
My usual response is that you famously plants couldn't grow before the industrial revolution. With the hope it penetrates their mindset with the ridiculousness of it.
I like your fever analogy..
In fact famines were quite common. It is undeniable that plants grow better with higher CO2. This is evidenced by it's use in agriculture.
Maybe, instead of being ignorantly condescending, you should engage your brain?
Tom, everyone knows what needs to be culled to reduce co2 emissions!!!
Plants were thriving as they created oxygen by drawing in CO2, some of it got stored in soil. Now we are reversing it by creating CO2, reducing the oxygen in the air.
Why do plants grow a lot bigger in greenhouses where CO2 is instilled to a concentration of 1500 or 2000 ppm??
Fair point... but greenhouses are also kept at steady temperatures to facilitate this growth. Change the amount of water they get, and the temperature they are stored at.... see how well they grow
@@TomBray-LowCarbonLifestyle
Yep! 👍😎
Too much swallowing the wef hype.
Wrong conspiracy theory sorry mate... www.itv.com/news/2024-06-20/what-are-the-online-wef-conspiracies-all-about
@@TomBray-LowCarbonLifestyle Nope - wef sit atop the food chain [ as it were]
How much Carbon was there in the atmosphere in the distant past?
What comes first? The temperature rising or the carbon rising?
There has been a lot more carbon in the atmosphere before even human beings existed.
And a higher temperature creates more carbon, not the other way around.
You're doing a great job explaining the official narrative. It doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't even come near...
work it out from the deposits of gas , oil and coal. Satans gift to mankind from the fires of hell.
Well put!
You are thick.
I hear as the ppm have gone up so has the amount of forest. By 6milluin square miles
Do you have a source to back that claim? It doesn't appear to be true - ourworldindata.org/deforestation
@@TomBray-LowCarbonLifestyle i’m afraid that as I listened to his assistant and other scientist, give a speech to a good thousand people or so, I don’t have the luxury of writing down their source.
If I look at this, does your Source say that thousands as of years ago CO2 levels were less than they are today?
Do you have a source that says that today’s CO2 levels are higher than they ever have been before?
@@TomBray-LowCarbonLifestyle I typed in “is the Sahara desert getting greener“. A dozen articles popped up showing that it is getting greener.
If I spend time, one of my sources is Tony Heller. He sites a good bit of data of satellite imagery, showing that the Earth is getting greener as a result of increasing CO2 levels.
From simple high school experiments where I have grown seeds in a higher concentration of CO2, I see that they grow quicker
@@co36Tony Heller has been debunked time and time again.
I think you are missing the point of the video.
You didn't really cover the subject mentioned in the title of this video. Realistically, it's unlikely that life will cease to exist because of global warming. Life will adapt, including plants. The problem is for us. Will this new ecosystem be one that we want to live in? That's really the problem.
A few points...
You didn't mention CO2 impacts on food nutritional value. Higher CO2 levels can stimulate bulk plant growth, but that extra growth is mostly carbohydrates - cellulose (ie. fibre), starches and sugars. The other stuff like proteins, vitamins and minerals do not increase by the same proportion, so 100g of broccoli today doesn't have the same nutrient value as 100g of broccoli did 100 years ago. Some of the vitamin and mineral content has been replaced by fibre.
Electric cars are not a solution to climate change. They are good for reducing pollution in large cities and they are fun to drive, but electric cars can only really help reduce emissions if our energy supply in general becomes much closer to net zero. If that happens, it won't much matter what kind of car you drive. Realistically, if you're looking to reduce carbon emissions, you should be driving your car much less, not buying a shiny new one with all the associated embodied carbon.
Meat... I'm not convinced on this one. There is a lot of land used for raising beef, lamb and other meats that is not usable for growing crops that are edible by humans. You could argue that maybe methane from ruminant animals isn't helping. Maybe we should be raising kangaroos instead. Either way, it seems to me that if everyone stopped eating meat, we would lose the potential food producing capacity of those lands.
Most problematic with your strategy is that it needs to be adopted by humans en masse. Unless the vast majority of humans adopt this strategy, it simply won't work. That's assuming that your strategy will work anyway. Many environmentally motivated people do exactly the things you're suggesting. They buy an electric car, which possibly made things worse. They try to eat less meat. They try to use less energy. But then they realize that they need to live. They realize that some of these choices cost more and they can't really afford it. Or maybe they can today, but then inflation happens, interest rates go up and they sink back into old habits. Or they have kids and that makes it all harder. The only way we're realistically reducing carbon emissions is through innovation. I don't know if that strategy will work, either, but at least it has a chance of being implemented by humans. Unless you can make a net zero future similarly convenient and cheap to the fossil fuel powered present, you're unlikely to get meaningful numbers of humans to adopt it. So put your effort there. Support research into low carbon technologies.
Unfortunately, plants aren't that great for climate change either!
The dark colours of forests absorb heat whereas oceans and deserts reflect heat back into space... albedo
Solar panels and reflective surfaces help, dark surfaces and forests don't.
Geoengineering is our only hope, austerity never works, we need to continue to burn fuels, but we need a lower temperature to keep our current crop types healthy and growing in their current zones.
We will end up paying for expensive geoengineering because warmer planets suck, but so does energy austerity. :)
Less emissions are fine, but I don't expect future civilizations to make less emissions, I would expect more.
The 'Co2 is not good for plants' in the thumbnail looks a bit dumb, it is good for plants, it's just that the resulting heat and weather chaos that will ruin our agriculture.
Kindergarten science. What is the optimal PPM of CO2? What is the optimal temp?
True, the climate was lousy in Europe during pre industrial times. For some reason the Net Zero numpties want to send us back to it, equipped with marginal heating systems and inadequate transport.
Heat is bad for plants, that is why most of the biodiversity is found at the south pole
And the Sahara desert
@@TomBray-LowCarbonLifestyle That is why early agriculture was at the south pole, Egypt has never been able to grow any crops.
🙄🙄🙄
:) :) :)
CO2 as warming blanket is questionable? Increase in C02 level and increase avr. temp. is correlation, but in math correlation not mean causation. C02 level is measured in 420 ppm (particles per million) is ultra small value 420/10^6*100%=0.042%. We need say that trapped heat that we burned as fossil fuel and nuclear power. All heat from nuclear power is released into Earth atmosphere which from industrial revolution beginning 1820 till today makes avr. temp. increase on Earth.
Vlostoc ice bubbles show periods of time where co2 was up to 2000ppm. And with it lots of life
How long ago? Were humans alive then?
Sorry mate you do not have a clue, you need to think for yourself, most of the changes would happen without us, we are coming out of the ice age, so until all the ice is gone, the ice age has not ended.
Ok, what if there was a chance, even small chance, that man made emissions were causing catastrophic climate change, would you not work to minimise the risk of catastrophe?