What do plants need? Water, nutrients from the soil, and carbon dioxide. But, because this is a cult, CO2 is called a pollutant, and it’s required to find a way to say it is super bad for the very thing that needs it
For Decades, Our Carbon Emissions Sped the Growth of Plants — Not Anymore
For the last century, rising levels of carbon dioxide helped plants grow faster, a rare silver lining in human-caused climate change. But now, as drier conditions set in across much of the globe, plant growth may be failing to keep up with emissions, a new study suggests.
Through photosynthesis, plants convert water and carbon dioxide into storable energy. By burning fossil fuels, humans have driven up carbon dioxide levels, from around 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution to 417 parts per million last year. That extra carbon dioxide has sped up photosynthesis, spurring plants to soak up more of our emissions and grow faster. Since 1982, plants globally have added enough leaf cover to span an area roughly twice the size of the continental U.S.
But the effect appears to be wearing off. While carbon dioxide levels continue to climb, more than a century of warming has also made the climate more hostile to plants. Drier conditions in many parts of the world mean that, even as plants get more carbon dioxide, they are also losing more of the other key ingredient needed for photosynthesis — water.
For the new study, scientists gathered data from ground monitors measuring levels of carbon dioxide and water in the air from 1982 to 2016. They compared these data with satellite images of forests, grasslands, shrublands, farmlands, and savannas, using artificial intelligence to spot changes over time. Small differences in the green hue of plants, for instance, indicate a shift in the rate of photosynthesis.
So, they never actually went into the field to observe the plants? Isn’t observation a vital part of Science, particularly when you can observer it
The study suggests that photosynthesis sped up until around the year 2000, at which point it began to level off, owing to more arid conditions. Looking ahead, authors say, the rate of photosynthesis could flatten out entirely, making it harder to keep rising carbon emissions — and warming — in check. The findings were published in the journal Science.
Suggest? The results should either say this is or is not happening, and, if it “suggests”, that means there is no conclusion, so, they should be doing more research to determine what is actually happening. Warmists do not care, because no one will call them on their shoddy studies, they’ll just be published in places like Yale, who should know better.
green plants bad.
Mr Teach: they never actually went into the field to observe the plants
Observation is important, and there is more than one way to make observations. Satellites can monitor reflected wavelengths of light from fields and forests.
Lookie here, it was in Mr Teach’s own citation:
They used ground monitors for CO2 and water and satellite images for photosynthesis.
And again, Mr Teach objects to the word “suggests”, but we’ve covered that bogus objection repeatedly. It’s the language of scientific work since theories are never proved. If the authors had said their work “proves” their conclusion the scientific community would object. Their conclusions are limited to their specific work, and further work can broaden the conclusions.
Dear Elwood:
No we have not covered the use of qualifiers.
You just want to believe whatever is tossed up in the air.
We want positive peer reviewed proof before we take actions that will harm people.
And BTW, Mr Teach headlined: New One: “Carbon Pollution” Is Now Bad For Plants
That’s not what the authors said at all, is it? Are you bothered by Mr Teach’s lie?
Should we regulate what lies bloggers type?
Dear Elwood:
Yes that is what the author said
Kudos to clever pundit who said “Don’t follow the science. Follow the money. That’s where you’ll find the science.”
The thing is that plants require less water if the carbon dioxide levels are higher. (I know in the greenhouses on the farm where my son worked they boosted the CO2 levels to 1000ppm and found they didn’t need to use nearly as much water for the plants – about 10% less – than at ‘normal’ (440ppm)
One of the things I’ve seen that even if the climate is getting warmer, it is also getting wetter. Yes, there will be some areas where an already dry climate might get drier, but for the most part that hasn’t been the case.
The journal “Science” IS peer reviewed.
Here’s the methods summary in the Yale overview:
They reported that photosynthesis increased from 1982 to 2000, but leveled off since, concluding:
Would you feel better if the scientists said “The study proves that photosynthesis…”?
They further speculate that if photosynthesis globally flattens out as CO2 increases that the ability of plants to absorb more CO2 will also flatten out, exacerbating warming.
How do you suggest that society prevent scientists from expressing their opinions?
“Photosynthesis sped up until 2000, when it began to level off, owing to more arid conditions..”. Except the trend, arid and rainfall included, hasn’t statistically changed.
Just think, all we must do is destroy western civilization and all the bad carbon will go away and plants will feel better.
[…] I will honor others on other days But today it is all about Pirates Cove!! […]