Higher C02 = more crops..

[Wyatt earp]

Wow since the C02 level is now over 400 ppm were are experiencing more and better crops... Why do the AGW cult not want to solve world hunger?


http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/brighter-days-drove-us-crop-yields




Brighter days drove up U.S. crop yields

By Kelly ServickMar. 6, 2017 , 1:15 PM

New farming technology—from selective breeding to chemical fertilizers—is assumed to be behind increasing U.S. corn yields over the past 3 decades. But another key contributor turns out to be something more basic: sunlight. Satellite measurements and a model of how efficiently maize converts that light to mass, reveal that solar brightening, an increase in the sunlight penetrating the atmosphere and reaching Earth, accounted for 27% of the yield increase U.S. Corn Belt farmers have observed between 1984 and 2013





.

 

[Old Rocks]

Goddamn, do you ever read anything before you post it? First, not a mention of CO2 in that article. Second, it states that the very regulations that you Trumpsters are rejoicing in removing are the reason for the increase in crops. But you cut it off before that, didn't you. Very typical dishonesty from a Trumpster.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/brighter-days-drove-us-crop-yields

Brighter days drove up U.S. crop yields

By Kelly ServickMar. 6, 2017 , 1:15 PM

New farming technology—from selective breeding to chemical fertilizers—is assumed to be behind increasing U.S. corn yields over the past 3 decades. But another key contributor turns out to be something more basic: sunlight. Satellite measurements and a model of how efficiently maize converts that light to mass, reveal that solar brightening, an increase in the sunlight penetrating the atmosphere and reaching Earth, accounted for 27% of the yield increase U.S. Corn Belt farmers have observed between 1984 and 2013, researchers report today in Nature Climate Change. Many suspect crops in industrialized Western countries have been getting more light since the 1980s thanks to clean air regulations that brought down emissions of aerosols, which scatter and absorb solar radiation. But if the decrease in aerosols is driving the brightening trend and the yield increase, there’s a limit to how low those emissions can get. That means existing climate change models predicting the effects of rising temperatures and heat stress on maize may be counting on yield boosts that aren’t coming, and overestimating how much our corn fields will yield in the future.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Goddamn, do you ever read anything before you post it? First, not a mention of CO2 in that article. Second, it states that the very regulations that you Trumpsters are rejoicing in removing are the reason for the increase in crops. But you cut it off before that, didn't you. Very typical dishonesty from a Trumpster.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/brighter-days-drove-us-crop-yields

Brighter days drove up U.S. crop yields

By Kelly ServickMar. 6, 2017 , 1:15 PM

New farming technology—from selective breeding to chemical fertilizers—is assumed to be behind increasing U.S. corn yields over the past 3 decades. But another key contributor turns out to be something more basic: sunlight. Satellite measurements and a model of how efficiently maize converts that light to mass, reveal that solar brightening, an increase in the sunlight penetrating the atmosphere and reaching Earth, accounted for 27% of the yield increase U.S. Corn Belt farmers have observed between 1984 and 2013, researchers report today in Nature Climate Change. Many suspect crops in industrialized Western countries have been getting more light since the 1980s thanks to clean air regulations that brought down emissions of aerosols, which scatter and absorb solar radiation. But if the decrease in aerosols is driving the brightening trend and the yield increase, there’s a limit to how low those emissions can get. That means existing climate change models predicting the effects of rising temperatures and heat stress on maize may be counting on yield boosts that aren’t coming, and overestimating how much our corn fields will yield in the future.

Why would I have to read the rest when it's obvious from the past, more C02 = bigger plants and animals ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How NASA Satellite Will Watch Earth Breathe from Space

Most of the CO2 come not from modern industry, but from the rain forests.

 

[polarbear]

Goddamn, do you ever read anything before you post it? First, not a mention of CO2 in that article. Second, it states that the very regulations that you Trumpsters are rejoicing in removing are the reason for the increase in crops. But you cut it off before that, didn't you. Very typical dishonesty from a Trumpster.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/brighter-days-drove-us-crop-yields

Brighter days drove up U.S. crop yields

By Kelly ServickMar. 6, 2017 , 1:15 PM

New farming technology—from selective breeding to chemical fertilizers—is assumed to be behind increasing U.S. corn yields over the past 3 decades. But another key contributor turns out to be something more basic: sunlight. Satellite measurements and a model of how efficiently maize converts that light to mass, reveal that solar brightening, an increase in the sunlight penetrating the atmosphere and reaching Earth, accounted for 27% of the yield increase U.S. Corn Belt farmers have observed between 1984 and 2013, researchers report today in Nature Climate Change. Many suspect crops in industrialized Western countries have been getting more light since the 1980s thanks to clean air regulations that brought down emissions of aerosols, which scatter and absorb solar radiation. But if the decrease in aerosols is driving the brightening trend and the yield increase, there’s a limit to how low those emissions can get. That means existing climate change models predicting the effects of rising temperatures and heat stress on maize may be counting on yield boosts that aren’t coming, and overestimating how much our corn fields will yield in the future.

So now you say that satellites detected a solar brightening, but that won`t have anything to do with OMG each year is getting hotter?
As for the rest of it, you can assume all you want but fertilizers have been around for decades and the higher crop yields are not confined to GMO crops.
If increased CO2 has nothing to with increased plant growth then tell us why it`s called a greenhouse gas and why it`s used in green house growing facilities.

 

[Old Rocks]

Goddamn, do you ever read anything before you post it? First, not a mention of CO2 in that article. Second, it states that the very regulations that you Trumpsters are rejoicing in removing are the reason for the increase in crops. But you cut it off before that, didn't you. Very typical dishonesty from a Trumpster.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/brighter-days-drove-us-crop-yields

Brighter days drove up U.S. crop yields

By Kelly ServickMar. 6, 2017 , 1:15 PM

New farming technology—from selective breeding to chemical fertilizers—is assumed to be behind increasing U.S. corn yields over the past 3 decades. But another key contributor turns out to be something more basic: sunlight. Satellite measurements and a model of how efficiently maize converts that light to mass, reveal that solar brightening, an increase in the sunlight penetrating the atmosphere and reaching Earth, accounted for 27% of the yield increase U.S. Corn Belt farmers have observed between 1984 and 2013, researchers report today in Nature Climate Change. Many suspect crops in industrialized Western countries have been getting more light since the 1980s thanks to clean air regulations that brought down emissions of aerosols, which scatter and absorb solar radiation. But if the decrease in aerosols is driving the brightening trend and the yield increase, there’s a limit to how low those emissions can get. That means existing climate change models predicting the effects of rising temperatures and heat stress on maize may be counting on yield boosts that aren’t coming, and overestimating how much our corn fields will yield in the future.

So now you say that satellites detected a solar brightening, but that won`t have anything to do with OMG each year is getting hotter?
As for the rest of it, you can assume all you want but fertilizers have been around for decades and the higher crop yields are not confined to GMO crops.
If increased CO2 has nothing to with increased plant growth then tell us why it`s called a greenhouse gas and why it`s used in green house growing facilities.

No, that was not said by me or the author of the article. In fact, what the solar observing satellites have observed is a minor decrease in TSI. The satellites in question were observing the Earth's atmosphere, not the sun. And what was observed was that the regulations that decreased industrial air pollution allowed more sunlight to reach the ground, which improved the crops.

Again, no mention of CO2 in the article.

 

[Manonthestreet]

More crops means more people means more pollution = planetary doom

 

[mamooth]

Most of the CO2 come not from modern industry, but from the rain forests.

Frank, you've been active on threads where people posted the OCO-2 images for the whole year, and show that your claim is false. Like this thread:

Arctic Ice

Hence, you have no excuse here. You know full well you're lying, and you deliberately engaged in cherrypicking in an attempt to push the lie. Given that you're so proudly lying to our faces here, why shouldn't everyone assume everything you say is a lie?

Oh wait. Too late. Everyone already does assume that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Most of the CO2 come not from modern industry, but from the rain forests.

Frank, you've been active on threads where people posted the OCO-2 images for the whole year, and show that your claim is false. Like this thread:

Arctic Ice

Hence, you have no excuse here. You know full well you're lying, and you deliberately engaged in cherrypicking in an attempt to push the lie. Given that you're so proudly lying to our faces here, why shouldn't everyone assume everything you say is a lie?

Oh wait. Too late. Everyone already does assume that.

Did you bother to look at the undoctored 6 week chart showing the CO2 in the rain forest