Slashdot Mirror
Does More Carbon Dioxide Mean Increased Crop Water Productivity? (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader points us to an Ars Technica report: For the most part, we think of rising levels of carbon dioxide as an environmental problem. But atmospheric CO2 can also boost agricultural productivity by helping plants grow. How do these potential issues balance out? In an investigation recently published in Nature Climate Change, scientists have looked into the global implications of carbon dioxide's ability to enhance agricultural productivity. Increased levels of CO2 can enhance photosynthesis and reduce leaf-level transpiration, the process by which some of the water that plants draw from the ground gets released back into the atmosphere. These changes can reduce growing seasons and water loss. The result could be an increase in what's called "crop water productivity," i.e. the amount of food produced for each unit of water expended. If elevated CO2 levels increase crop yield and reduce water consumption at large scales, this could help ensure water and food security despite the climate disruptions. By combining data from a massive network of field experiments and global crop models, the scientists claimed that depending on the crop type, global crop water productivity will increase by 10 to 27 percent by the 2080s. Arid regions exhibited large increases that were based on crop type.
Everyone thinks higher temps means the end of the world.
How wrong you guys all are. Higher temps will increase the plant life on this planet like crazy.
It sounds good that crops will be more productive. So will other things, though. There was an experiment in which poison ivy was grown in higher CO2 conditions. It grew better and produced more urushiol (the stuff that causes you to have an allergic reaction). Crops may grow better, but so will weeds. It wouldn't surprise me if that included some invasive weeds like kudzu. If it stays warmer, pests might not die off in the cold; the mountain pine beetle is an example. Furthermore, there's not only increased temperatures and longer growing seasons; rainfall patterns will shift, too. Areas that currently grow crops might become arid and either have to grow different crops or not be productive at all. Other areas, such as the northern US, are likely to become wetter. Maybe you have longer growing seasons in some areas, but I'm not sure how much of a real gain there will be if the rainfall moves poleward with the warm temperatures.
Correct. Much as higher CO2 levels and temperatures dominated during the Carboniferous period, spurring massive plant growth and laying down many of the geographic strata that turned into the massive coal fields we mine today, we will likely see greatly increased plant growth which is yet another of the negative feedback mechanisms that keeps the global climate catastrophe from happening the way the alarmists want you to believe.
I've got a planted freshwater aquarium. In addition to good lighting and appropriate fertilization, people who like to keep this kind of aquarium tend to inject carbon dioxide to keep the plants growing well. The difference in plant performance in the aquarium with and without CO2 injection is substantial.
-- "Oh. This guy again."
I was wondering if someone could explain the reasoning behind these statements in the article:
As temperatures go up, glaciers melt and ocean levels rise. Climate change also exacerbates water scarcity worldwide.
Why would water become more scarce? Water weather evaporates more water, sure. But it also saturates the atmosphere and comes back down again. Many of our planet's warmer climates near the equator aren't exactly dry. Whether or not an area is a rainforest or a desert seems to have to do more with geography than anything else. Am I missing something, or is the article just making an unfounded assumption?
To be honest, I've never quite figured out why slightly increased global temperatures is necessarily a net bad thing, assuming we don't see some catastrophic runaway greenhouse effect, of course. One significant downside seems to be the rise in sea level, and something like that is going to take place over a very long time, meaning some coastal cities will likely become more "Venice-like", while other communities may simply retreat inland over time. The other obvious one would be a potential increase in frequency and intensity of hurricanes, which thrive in warmer areas. But if I had to choose between global warming and global cooling, I'm pretty sure I know which one I'd choose.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
rationalwiki is politically biased garbage. They are the left wing version of conservapedia.
FWIW, the study included accounting for elevated temperatures.
Well, we can't be having any of this shit. These guys need to be black balled and the editors at Nature Climate Change need to be fired.
The warmer the climate is (WAY beyond any projected increase) the wider the area of land is that you can grow productively on.
From just the north to the south of the U.S. is an average temperature differential of nearly 10 degrees celsius. The South is of course more productive crop wise; as you grow closer to the equator it gets hotter and plats grow even more vigorously.
So even the worst case (and totally contrived) 4c increase in average temperatures means the united states (and Canda) become even more the gardens than they are today. It means massive increase in agricultural output across the entire globe, not just here... most of Europe (on average colder than the U.S.) benefits similarly.
The only danger there ever was from global warming was a runaway warming effect, which was supposed to be do to CO2. But CO2 levels skyrocketed without any kind of correlation to actual temperature increases, so we KNOW that there will be no runaway effect. The REAL danger lies in when the next ice age starts - we can only pray we have warmed the earth enough to avoid the next ice age but if you look at historical data you'll realize that is sadly just a fantasy.
It's really sad how the warring Alarmists such as yourself can't even use the common sense of remembering that jungles are hot before you write up long screeds about how energy is actually a detriment to the expansion of a system...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Most of the pine beetles were killed off in a heavy freeze a few years ago.
The reason why your example is bad is that even a rise of a few degrees C in temperature ON AVERAGE, does not mean you will not continue to have heavy cold snaps in areas like the mountains - and it only takes one such to kill back a large number of beetles.
Also trees getting more CO2 and warmer temperatures grow better and thus resist insects better also.
It's absurd to claim the offset in the ability to grow ANYTHING is offset entirely by a possibly increase in weeds and insects... come on.
I notice you post AC when spreading your warming alarmism, it speaks heavily to how much stock we should put in your claims.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What? Plants love heat.
will this reduce the need for fresh water by the same amount lost to salt water inundation from global warming?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Some weeds grow faster as well, which might lead to more herbicides. Also, poison ivy grows better with increased CO2, which in my book is a bad thing.
What about the biomass decay from all that extra food we'll be throwing away? What's the point of growing more if we're just going to let it rot? We don't suffer from food shortages, we suffer from de facto food rationing. The CO2 thing? Replace the hydrocarbon fuels with something else. The only impediment there is the political corruption.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Nice try at over simplification and broad generalizations. Incomplete information is not the same as presenting a logical argument.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
P.S. Climate changes. It does change. It changes all the times. All it does it changes.
Tell me about it, I live in Oregon:
Fri: Rain
Sat: Cold Rain
Sun: Drizzle
Mon: Dry... no, haha punk'd you. Rain.
Tue: Thundery rain
Wed: Drizzle. Hey it stopped.... (opens sunroof)
Thu: I left my *(&^# sun roof open all night!!! (bails out an inch of water)
Fri: Condensation inside my car, but I can't air it out because its raining again.
Sat: The car is starting to smell sour. Drive around in the drizzle and try to dry it out.
Sun: Now the car smells like sour milk. Ugh. Intermittent rain.
Mon: Dry but threatening. Can't leave the windows open. Complain about it on Slashdot.
"The Greenhouse Effect Theory"
I'd watch that.
Interesting tidbit: did you know that it's illegal to set a Canadian Tire on fire?
Higher CO2 levels mean more plant growth across the board. Farmland, rainforest, kelp, tundra, savanna grasses, you name it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Raising the CO2 level in a greenhouse has major effects on growth rates. Pot growers and other hydroponics operations have been doing this for years.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Their point on CAGW is still valid.
Measurable nutrients from food has declined by up to 40% since the 1930s and by about 15% since 1950.
The water content of fruits has exploded (most fruits are basically packed nutrientless water and sugar).
Faster growing crops boosted by CO2 will have even less time to draw as many nutrients from the soil.
We really should measure a random sampling of end consumer food products for nutrients each year and then require current real values to be on the food labels. Monsanto, Conagra and others spend millions to prevent that kind of labeling however. And do everything they can to muddy what organic and natural means.
But you can't trust organic and natural either outside of constant testing. Farmers want to make money- they'll try something "organic" which is actually unsafe.
So send agents to stores to buy food and then measure it. Then post the results on the web and require each seller to use that nutritional data on labels for their food until the next test.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
There are diminishing return at some point, and other elements begins to be a limiting factor : nitrogen fixation and phosphorus for example. So it *may* produce some better plant growth some places, but for our agriculture it sounds doubtful.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The difference this time around is that Carboniferous period fungi were unable to break down lignin. Lignin adds rigidity to plant cell walls and was what plants needed to grow into tall trees with the capacity to bind trillions of tonnes of carbon into wood. For about 50 millions years, all the tree trunks that fell over from storms, disease, old age, insects, earthquakes, dinosours knocking them over, what have you, did not rot completely. Much of their carbon was sequestered underground and compressed into coal. The Caboniferous period ended as Fungi evolved the means to digest lignin and ended the massive carbon sequestration.
http://www.mining.com/coal-sto...
So yeah, plant growth will spike, but don't expect that to mean much for reducing global C02 levels.
Reading the actual article has something for everyone -- particularly scientists. Those who want to claim that scientists all basically think we have a problem will see that these scientists who've actually studied things agree. Those who want to believe it's not going to be as much of a disaster as some think may be partially vindicated, though only very partially. Those who believe scientists are honestly struggling to figure out what the future will bring will feel good.
Increased plant growth does not mean increased yield in food stapple, if we are still limited in Phosporus and nitrogen fixation. But even if it did, the water increase and climate chaotisation would far more offset that. What good is it that Florida could produce more orange, if it loses its coastal city and vast swath of the everglade, or land ? Or if the ocean pH changes destroy the food stapple (fishing) of many countries ? And that is only on top of my head. There are so many factor at play that your typical "AGW is not that bad" is sad.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
If one gives more CO2 to a potato plant does the plant grow more foliage and also grow larger or more potatoes? I suspect that many plants will actually grow less of the desired part of the plant and more useless parts, in many cases. Grass like plants probably would do well with a bit more CO2. But we would need some serious science studies to get a handle on this notion. We have a tree in Florida that is considered a non-native plague. The Malelucca tree sucks water from the earth like non-other. It can actually drain swampy areas and ultimately the rotting leaves and fallen branches will fill in low and swampy land. Yet they put so much water vapor in the air that they threaten S. Florida's water supply. But we do not know how much extra rain we can get by allowing Malelucca trees to sprout up over large areas. So far there is not any use for timber, bark or leaves from these trees that I know of but they are supreme water pumps.
But it lowers nutrition of some food.
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
The Amazon and southeast Asia rainforests are south of the Sahara, and closer the equator.
In case you were thinking deserts are in hot places, Antartica is also a desert.
...so I've been flooding the house with pure oxygen. It also keeps everyone else in the house super healthy because its so nutritious.
My alarmist neighbor said that the house would go up in fire within a week. And that was TWO WEEKS AGO. Oops! Oh, it looks so burned up in here, right? I can smell the smoke as I type this! Ha ha! Still here, libtard!
I also unplugged the refrigerator yesterday to save on electricity. The wife said that all these bad things would happen, like the milk would be sour by now. Well guess what, it still tastes fine! Don't listen to these alarmists, they've proven time and again they don't know anything about science.
The sooner, the better. Patents run out in twenty years.
If you don't mind massive increases in infectious diseases in the Southern half of the US and temperature increases and variability that makes the pre-WWII storms of the Caribbean look like baby storms, then, yes, the extra CO2 helps crop yields.
But the increase in pests and weather events and drought mean less crops.
Adapt. Or die. There are no other options, because you listened to the fossil fuel pushers. Time's up!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
These guys need to be black balled and the editors at Nature Climate Change need to be fired.
Good news and reference to potential positive effects are not permitted. We can only have bad news, doom and gloom.
meanwhile acidification kills the ocean ecosystem. that is one of my biggest complains about carbon pollution, not the exaggerated "climate change" claims
pro-tip: pure oxygen will make your cigarettes taste better.
Something I've noticed about my garden(s) that I've planted around the country from Mexico to Canada, is that plant really really like warm to hot, a lot of sunshine and water. In Tucson, I could almost get a cucumber a day from my plant. In Seattle, I go two cucumbers in a season. And they were very anemic.
> Guess which are the key words in that sentence.
The words that you didn't include?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
But copyright doesn't expire (It's effectively true - go check when Mickey Mouse will slip into public domain). DNA is information, right? Information is speech, legally speaking. Therefore, Monsanto can copyright GMO Crops.
What? Plants love heat.
Plants love the correct amount of heat, for that variety of plant.
Free-Air Concentration Enrichment studies such as soyFACE artificially raise CO2 (among other variables) and monitor plant response. SoyFACE, as the name implies, is focused on soy, an important food crop. Imagine a crop field surrounded by CO2 sprayers and heaters to simulate elevated CO2 and its effects.
Findings from the experiment include that increased temperatures will likely reduce yields of soy, even at elevated CO2. Higher average temperatures also increased susceptibility to herbivory by the Japanese beetle.
A related meta including 228 experimental observations found that barley, rice, wheat, soybean, and potato all have lower protein content at elevated CO2.doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01511.x
14 years of publications can be found here: http://www.igb.illinois.edu/so...
In short: even if water use efficiency were to increase, that does not result in increased yield, or crop quality.
"It's interesting how the parent comment and several others posted so far that don't toe the line of the leftists have been downmodded already."
Note how this is true even for those of us who support greenhouse theory and agree that AGW is occurring. The Church of Warminetics are flagellants who demand that you reject every technological solution to AGW, whether you're talking about sequestration tech or switching to carbon-free power generation. They are the same people who in the past demanded that you see ozone depletion, overpopulation, mass famine, resource exhaustion and pandemics as similarly catastrophic and unavoidable.
Welcome, new guy! We're in a drought, please stop misunderstanding our climate. ;)
It's just the way things work these days. Rent seeking is 30% of the global economy.
You know what? My doctor said years ago I'd get lung cancer from smoking. He kept saying, those things are going to kill you, you'll get lung cancer!
So now that it's years and years later, of course he's flip flopping and saying it's emphysema that's killing me. And before that, cigarettes are what the doctors said they ordered!!! This is all just to force their radical pro-lung agenda and so of course they have to make up this stuff as they go along!
[Pauses to light bong...]
DNA is information, right? Information is speech, legally speaking. Therefore, Monsanto can copyright GMO Crops.
No, this is wrong. Information cannot be copyrighted. Only creative expression. Information with no creativity, such as a phone book, is not protected by copyright. It is unlikely that DNA could be protected by copyright (as opposed to patents).
Is this the first positive post about CO2 every on Slashdot?
Wouldn't using more wood help to take some of the carbon out of circulation? Grow some fast growing trees. Cut them and utilize the wood for building material etc... Plant more trees and so on and so forth....
Plant growth spikes won't do anything for us when we are destroying 200+ football fields worth of forests per day to plant palm oil
Why don't plants grow on Venus? Loads of CO2, right?
Aside from CO2, plants also need a certain amount of humidity, not too much, not too little.
Plants also need the correct temperature, not too hot, not too cold.
Then there is the matter of wind.
Rapid global warming, and rapid climate change, is not good for crops, far from it. Ask the California farmers who fought the recent drought. An overnight freeze can ruin tons of crops.
100% O2 at 1 atmosphere will burn out your body with horrendous amounts free radicals.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Yes, somewhat higher CO2 concentrations can help plants to grow if everything else stays constant. But everything else isn't constant.
Most places that currently grow food stand to face much more frequent drought conditions with a higher global average temperature, and the effect of those droughts far outweighs the mild impact of higher CO2 concentrations.
The specific impacts are regional, of course, but globally the impact of global warming is to drastically reduce crop yields. Some of this will be offset by areas further north becoming usable for farmland (such as in Canada and Siberia), but overall production is still expected to be reduced by global warming.
For more detailed info, see here.
More CO2 means higher average atmospheric temperatures. That, in turn, means a greater capacity for the air to hold water.
The end result is that it rains less.
Plants need water.
global crop water productivity will increase by 10 to 27 percent by the 2080s
Too bad at the same time population will have increased of much more than 27%. And we do not know how water supply will have evolved at that time.
Don't worry... everything is still not going to be alright.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Why don't plants grow on Venus? Loads of CO2, right?
Well, there's also the matter of all the sulfuric acid... curious how well you think plants would do in a low-CO2 High-Acid environment.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
By the loss of all that coastal land.
Typically, fast-growing trees don't make good wood for building material or furniture.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Muddy waters, or is Monsanto promoting more poison. All of there crops are there soil killers, and more toxins for wild life. I guess the ends justify there means., They sterilized half the population, let just eliminate what is left of the old continent. Them we will worry a bought the rest. So it takes 2 millennium to get a balance on this planet, but they will have all control.
-this is not a negative feedback mechanism
-CO2 isn't the only factor needed. Increasing the fuel in the engine without also increasing air, or volume of the reaction chamber, doesn't make for more speed.
-plants that make use of the increased CO2 will use more H20, more nitrogen, more phosphorous, etc, things the local environment may not be able to provide, or that it may become depleted of due to consuming it faster than it can be replenished. ie, good crop this year, but bad soil and no crop next year.
-plants that make use of the increased CO2 often show other behavior differences too, such as additional compounds within the plant. depending on plant and compound created, the effects can range from making plants more or less toxic (even turning benign plants harmful, harmful plants benign), to making them more or less susceptible to parasites. As the experiment that raised crops in a greenhouse with more CO2 found, when they moved it outdoors, the increased parasite problem is especially true of many staple crops: Soybeans are particularly negatively affected, but also occurs with corn, tomatoes, potatoes, and sorghum.
-that increased CO2 also leads to higher temperatures, and plants are FAR more affected by temperature than by CO2 levels. its not nearly as simple as "higher temps = longer growing season". some crops die if it gets too cold, others wont fruit without enough cool or cold days in a year. too warm and they wilt on the vine or ripen too fast to be harvested and consumed.
in short, no youre not insightful, and you really don't know what youre talking about.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Elevated CO2 levels might, up to a point, have at least some useful, maybe even vaguely beneficial, effects (I'm no expert - I'll defer to those who are). But even if that's true, like everything in the whole climate discussion, it's wise not to forget that changes aren't likely to just stop at some convenient point - they're not only likely to keep going, but in a worst case to snowball utterly beyond our ability to do anything but hang on and watch (in a worst-case scenario, that may already be the case).
To draw a vague (but possibly familiar) parallel...
Anyone who's done any home brewing, or who simply understands roughly how brewing works, knows that it takes yeast. And yeast feeds on sugars. Add a little bit more sugar to your brew, you'll increase yeast productivity. Unfortunately, that's only part of the story - because the effect doesn't scale indefinitely. Add TOO much sugar, and the yeast won't grow at all. (It's also worth pointing out that things don't normally exactly end well for the yeast. which eventually dies from its own waste products - roughly what we're in danger of doing, in fact. But that's a slightly different point.)
(here mod stalker...here boy...come on boy!)
you display a marked lack of agricultural knowledge.
first off, you reveal your stupidity by even using the phrase SJW in this context.
secondly, you want logic? OK, try this: in a higher CO2 environment many staple crops produce less of that crop, a less nutritious crop, or get decimated by parasites.
thirdly, consider we aren't getting that additional CO2 for free. there are other affects associated with it, most importantly higher temperatures, which have a much larger affect on plant growth, and ultimately viability, than CO2 levels. maybe there will be a few years of higher growth...but what happens when its too hot for them to grow? or they don't get the needed number of days of cold or cool weather?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.