Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.
Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!
unfortunately, my standard response from anything from any university genius, is now:yields may have increased 1–2 [percent] per year due to CO2 fertilization in recent years
I think it would be easy to ask a "high value" greenhouse grower what works... And I think I know the answer.Greenhouses have been using this for some time.
That's the last thing they want. lolHigh temps, high O2 levels and high CO2 levels are a recipe for dense life on the planet.
unfortunately, my standard response from anything from any university genius, is now:
"Get Back With Me When You've Got Proof, Either Way, until then, I'd like my hard-earned-taxpayer-money back..."
Taylor and Schlenker [not NASA scientists, but from Columbia University] found that an increase of 1 part per million of carbon dioxide raised corn yields by 0.5 percent, soybean yields by 0.6 percent, and wheat yields by 0.8 percent.
That's the last thing they want. lol
There is a really derided sect of climatologist who believe that we have not fully exited from the last ice age. Earth's temperatures have always been warmer than now, barring the ice ages. To me, it seems that they are correct. Global warming science is just a bad theorem pushed by the elite political class for their monetary and power gains.
unfortunately, my standard response from anything from any university genius, is now:
"Get Back With Me When You've Got Proof, Either Way, until then, I'd like my hard-earned-taxpayer-money back..."
“Taylor and Schlenker [not NASA scientists, but from Columbia University] found that an increase of 1 part per million of carbon dioxide raised corn yields by 0.5 percent, soybean yields by 0.6 percent, and wheat yields by 0.8 percent.
Put another way, yields may have increased
did you miss the part: May Have???
what type of science are we paying for???
the 'fer sher' part or the 'may have' part???
we can't have both (maybe if we all contribute enough, maybe we can...)
Note from the above graph how steep the rate of change is either side of normal air
So a small decrease in CO2 will have a big impact on plant growth.
They have declared war on it !
If I remember from the climate change debates CO2 clearly trails temperatures. So if we are getting Colder then we should expect CO2 to decrease and again, another indication for tough crop growth and food shortages.
Any greenhouse farmers will tell you 1200 ppm is great for plant growth. Not sure of the effect on humans but it certainly isn't the end of the world.What's your point?
It's a known fact that increased atmospheric CO2 levels contribute to additional growth.
View attachment 2422
The article gives quantitative figures and I'm sure there must be a host of others.
The graph above is from here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?