CO2 helping to feed the planet

[Delldude]

Higher CO2 levels helping many plants thrive. Crop yields are up, yet no acknowledgement from the rabid climate fanatics.

The purveyors of climate doom will not tolerate the good news of our planet thriving because of modest warming and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, a recent scientific paper concludes that an optimistic vision for Earth and its inhabitants is nonetheless justified.

Widely accepted data show an overall greening of Earth resulting from a cycle of natural warming that began more than 300 years ago and from industrialization’s additions of CO2 that started in the 19th century and accelerated with vigorous economic activity following World War II.

​

Also attributed to these and other factors is record crop production, which now sustains 8 billion people—ten times the population prior to the Industrial Revolution. The boost in atmospheric CO2 since 1940 alone is linked to yield increases for corn, soybeans and wheat of 10%, 30% and 40%, respectively.

The positive contribution of carbon dioxide to the human condition should be cause for celebration, but this is more than demonizers of the gas can abide. Right on cue, narrators of a planet supposedly overheating from carbon dioxide began sensationalizing research findings that increased plant volume results in lower concentrations of nutrients in food.

“The potential health consequences are large, given that there are already billions of people around the world who don’t get enough protein, vitamins or other nutrients in their daily diet,” concluded the The New York Times, a reliable promoter of apocalypse forever. Among others chiming in have been The Lancet, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the National Institutes of Health.

Any deficiency of nutrients from the enhancement of plant growth by elevated carbon dioxide “are small, compared to the nutrient shortages that agriculture and livestock routinely face because of natural phenomena, such as severe soil fertility differences, nutrient dilution in plants due to rainfall or irrigation and even aging of crops,” says the paper.

And while there is evidence of marginal decreases in some nutrients, data also show that higher levels of CO2 “may enhance certain groups of health-promoting phytochemicals in food crops” that serve as antioxidants and anti-inflammatory compounds, says the paper, which lists seven authors and more than 100 references. The lead author is Albrecht Glatzle, a member of the Rural Association of Paraguay and a former international researcher of plant and animal nutrition.
____________________________
Having virtually no scientific basis, the “green” movement’s hostility to carbon dioxide seemingly ignores the gas’s critical role as a plant food. As the paper notes, “CO2 is the only source of the chemical element carbon for all life on Earth, be it for plants, animals or fungi and bacteria — through photosynthesis and food chains.”

The so-called greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide— perversely exaggerated to support climate fearmongering— is a life-saving temperature moderator that keeps Earth from freezing over.

​

The obvious benefits of CO2 is “an embarrassment to the large and profitable movement to ‘save the planet’ from ‘carbon pollution,’” write the authors. “If CO2 greatly benefits agriculture and forestry and has a small, benign effect on climate, it is not a pollutant at all.

More CO2 is good news. It’s not that complicated.

GREGORY WRIGHTSTONE: Scientific Report Pours Cold Water On Major Talking Point Of Climate Activists

The positive contribution of carbon dioxide to the human condition should be cause for celebration, but this is more than demonizers of the gas can abide.

dailycaller.com

 

[Donald H]

It's about catastrophic climate change Dell.

Your secondary issue is on account of higher crop yields due to genetic engineering, and conversely people starving in many regions due to lack of rain to grow the crops they depend on to survive.

You're only going to get the sympathies of my 'ice cream cone' kids on this one.

 

[Woodznutz]

Higher CO2 levels helping many plants thrive. Crop yields are up, yet no acknowledgement from the rabid climate fanatics.

The purveyors of climate doom will not tolerate the good news of our planet thriving because of modest warming and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, a recent scientific paper concludes that an optimistic vision for Earth and its inhabitants is nonetheless justified.

Widely accepted data show an overall greening of Earth resulting from a cycle of natural warming that began more than 300 years ago and from industrialization’s additions of CO2 that started in the 19th century and accelerated with vigorous economic activity following World War II.

​

Also attributed to these and other factors is record crop production, which now sustains 8 billion people—ten times the population prior to the Industrial Revolution. The boost in atmospheric CO2 since 1940 alone is linked to yield increases for corn, soybeans and wheat of 10%, 30% and 40%, respectively.

The positive contribution of carbon dioxide to the human condition should be cause for celebration, but this is more than demonizers of the gas can abide. Right on cue, narrators of a planet supposedly overheating from carbon dioxide began sensationalizing research findings that increased plant volume results in lower concentrations of nutrients in food.

“The potential health consequences are large, given that there are already billions of people around the world who don’t get enough protein, vitamins or other nutrients in their daily diet,” concluded the The New York Times, a reliable promoter of apocalypse forever. Among others chiming in have been The Lancet, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the National Institutes of Health.

Any deficiency of nutrients from the enhancement of plant growth by elevated carbon dioxide “are small, compared to the nutrient shortages that agriculture and livestock routinely face because of natural phenomena, such as severe soil fertility differences, nutrient dilution in plants due to rainfall or irrigation and even aging of crops,” says the paper.

And while there is evidence of marginal decreases in some nutrients, data also show that higher levels of CO2 “may enhance certain groups of health-promoting phytochemicals in food crops” that serve as antioxidants and anti-inflammatory compounds, says the paper, which lists seven authors and more than 100 references. The lead author is Albrecht Glatzle, a member of the Rural Association of Paraguay and a former international researcher of plant and animal nutrition.
____________________________
Having virtually no scientific basis, the “green” movement’s hostility to carbon dioxide seemingly ignores the gas’s critical role as a plant food. As the paper notes, “CO2 is the only source of the chemical element carbon for all life on Earth, be it for plants, animals or fungi and bacteria — through photosynthesis and food chains.”

The so-called greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide— perversely exaggerated to support climate fearmongering— is a life-saving temperature moderator that keeps Earth from freezing over.

​

The obvious benefits of CO2 is “an embarrassment to the large and profitable movement to ‘save the planet’ from ‘carbon pollution,’” write the authors. “If CO2 greatly benefits agriculture and forestry and has a small, benign effect on climate, it is not a pollutant at all.

More CO2 is good news. It’s not that complicated.

GREGORY WRIGHTSTONE: Scientific Report Pours Cold Water On Major Talking Point Of Climate Activists

The positive contribution of carbon dioxide to the human condition should be cause for celebration, but this is more than demonizers of the gas can abide.

dailycaller.com

Oh goody, more topsoil loss.

global loss of topsoil - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

 

[Delldude]

It's about catastrophic climate change Dell.

That's what the study is based on.

Your secondary issue is on account of higher crop yields due to genetic engineering, and conversely people starving in many regions due to lack of rain to grow the crops they depend on to survive.

Genetic engineering wasn't around 300 years ago, neither was advanced fertilization, other than manure.

Oh goody, more topsoil loss.

Look at the bright side......more oxygen.

 

[Foxfyre]

Higher CO2 levels helping many plants thrive. Crop yields are up, yet no acknowledgement from the rabid climate fanatics.

The purveyors of climate doom will not tolerate the good news of our planet thriving because of modest warming and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, a recent scientific paper concludes that an optimistic vision for Earth and its inhabitants is nonetheless justified.

Widely accepted data show an overall greening of Earth resulting from a cycle of natural warming that began more than 300 years ago and from industrialization’s additions of CO2 that started in the 19th century and accelerated with vigorous economic activity following World War II.

​

Also attributed to these and other factors is record crop production, which now sustains 8 billion people—ten times the population prior to the Industrial Revolution. The boost in atmospheric CO2 since 1940 alone is linked to yield increases for corn, soybeans and wheat of 10%, 30% and 40%, respectively.

The positive contribution of carbon dioxide to the human condition should be cause for celebration, but this is more than demonizers of the gas can abide. Right on cue, narrators of a planet supposedly overheating from carbon dioxide began sensationalizing research findings that increased plant volume results in lower concentrations of nutrients in food.

“The potential health consequences are large, given that there are already billions of people around the world who don’t get enough protein, vitamins or other nutrients in their daily diet,” concluded the The New York Times, a reliable promoter of apocalypse forever. Among others chiming in have been The Lancet, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the National Institutes of Health.

Any deficiency of nutrients from the enhancement of plant growth by elevated carbon dioxide “are small, compared to the nutrient shortages that agriculture and livestock routinely face because of natural phenomena, such as severe soil fertility differences, nutrient dilution in plants due to rainfall or irrigation and even aging of crops,” says the paper.

And while there is evidence of marginal decreases in some nutrients, data also show that higher levels of CO2 “may enhance certain groups of health-promoting phytochemicals in food crops” that serve as antioxidants and anti-inflammatory compounds, says the paper, which lists seven authors and more than 100 references. The lead author is Albrecht Glatzle, a member of the Rural Association of Paraguay and a former international researcher of plant and animal nutrition.
____________________________
Having virtually no scientific basis, the “green” movement’s hostility to carbon dioxide seemingly ignores the gas’s critical role as a plant food. As the paper notes, “CO2 is the only source of the chemical element carbon for all life on Earth, be it for plants, animals or fungi and bacteria — through photosynthesis and food chains.”

The so-called greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide— perversely exaggerated to support climate fearmongering— is a life-saving temperature moderator that keeps Earth from freezing over.

​

The obvious benefits of CO2 is “an embarrassment to the large and profitable movement to ‘save the planet’ from ‘carbon pollution,’” write the authors. “If CO2 greatly benefits agriculture and forestry and has a small, benign effect on climate, it is not a pollutant at all.

More CO2 is good news. It’s not that complicated.

GREGORY WRIGHTSTONE: Scientific Report Pours Cold Water On Major Talking Point Of Climate Activists

The positive contribution of carbon dioxide to the human condition should be cause for celebration, but this is more than demonizers of the gas can abide.

dailycaller.com

Most credible analysis I've seen are that fruit and veggies grown today are still good for us but not quite as much as they were 100 or 200 years ago. But CO2 is absolutely not the reason for that but soil depletion due to factory farming. So the climate religionist pushing CO2 as harming the food supply are just full of bull and not much else.

". . .It would be overkill to say that the carrot you eat today has very little nutrition in it—especially compared to some of the other less healthy foods you likely also eat—but it is true that fruits and vegetables grown decades ago were much richer in vitamins and minerals than the varieties most of us get today. The main culprit in this disturbing nutritional trend is soil depletion: Modern intensive agricultural methods have stripped increasing amounts of nutrients from the soil in which the food we eat grows. Sadly, each successive generation of fast-growing, pest-resistant carrot is truly less good for you than the one before. . ."

Dirt Poor: Have Fruits and Vegetables Become Less Nutritious?

Because of soil depletion, crops grown decades ago were much richer in vitamins and minerals than the varieties most of us get today

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's about catastrophic climate change Dell.

Your secondary issue is on account of higher crop yields due to genetic engineering, and conversely people starving in many regions due to lack of rain to grow the crops they depend on to survive.

You're only going to get the sympathies of my 'ice cream cone' kids on this one.

Why is it catastrophic?

 

[Donald H]

Why is it catastrophic?

I think you too have been lectured on asking questions for which you seek no answer.

I've made my contribution here! That's enough to keep the fire burning for a couple of hours!

 

[luiza]

Looks as though the pro Palestine Freedom Fighters are helping with their campaign to guillotine pro Israel leaders --
The Genocidists .


Blood should provide plenty of extra nutrients as a River of Blood campaign takes off .Happy Days .

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think you too have been lectured on asking questions for which you seek no answer.

I've made my contribution here! That's enough to keep the fire burning for a couple of hours!

You have a fire burning?
Why do you hate the planet?

How many new nuclear reactors should we build to stop the catastrophe of
an extra 1 degree by 2100?

 

[Delldude]

It's about catastrophic climate change Dell.

That's the CC mantra that is being addressed.

 

[Donald H]

That's the CC mantra that is being addresses.

What do you think a 'mantra' is Dell?

 

[Delldude]

What do you think a 'mantra' is Dell?

The mantra is what is attacking the article and their findings.

 

[Robert W]

Higher CO2 levels helping many plants thrive. Crop yields are up, yet no acknowledgement from the rabid climate fanatics.

The purveyors of climate doom will not tolerate the good news of our planet thriving because of modest warming and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, a recent scientific paper concludes that an optimistic vision for Earth and its inhabitants is nonetheless justified.

Widely accepted data show an overall greening of Earth resulting from a cycle of natural warming that began more than 300 years ago and from industrialization’s additions of CO2 that started in the 19th century and accelerated with vigorous economic activity following World War II.

​

Also attributed to these and other factors is record crop production, which now sustains 8 billion people—ten times the population prior to the Industrial Revolution. The boost in atmospheric CO2 since 1940 alone is linked to yield increases for corn, soybeans and wheat of 10%, 30% and 40%, respectively.

The positive contribution of carbon dioxide to the human condition should be cause for celebration, but this is more than demonizers of the gas can abide. Right on cue, narrators of a planet supposedly overheating from carbon dioxide began sensationalizing research findings that increased plant volume results in lower concentrations of nutrients in food.

“The potential health consequences are large, given that there are already billions of people around the world who don’t get enough protein, vitamins or other nutrients in their daily diet,” concluded the The New York Times, a reliable promoter of apocalypse forever. Among others chiming in have been The Lancet, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the National Institutes of Health.

Any deficiency of nutrients from the enhancement of plant growth by elevated carbon dioxide “are small, compared to the nutrient shortages that agriculture and livestock routinely face because of natural phenomena, such as severe soil fertility differences, nutrient dilution in plants due to rainfall or irrigation and even aging of crops,” says the paper.

And while there is evidence of marginal decreases in some nutrients, data also show that higher levels of CO2 “may enhance certain groups of health-promoting phytochemicals in food crops” that serve as antioxidants and anti-inflammatory compounds, says the paper, which lists seven authors and more than 100 references. The lead author is Albrecht Glatzle, a member of the Rural Association of Paraguay and a former international researcher of plant and animal nutrition.
____________________________
Having virtually no scientific basis, the “green” movement’s hostility to carbon dioxide seemingly ignores the gas’s critical role as a plant food. As the paper notes, “CO2 is the only source of the chemical element carbon for all life on Earth, be it for plants, animals or fungi and bacteria — through photosynthesis and food chains.”

The so-called greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide— perversely exaggerated to support climate fearmongering— is a life-saving temperature moderator that keeps Earth from freezing over.

​

The obvious benefits of CO2 is “an embarrassment to the large and profitable movement to ‘save the planet’ from ‘carbon pollution,’” write the authors. “If CO2 greatly benefits agriculture and forestry and has a small, benign effect on climate, it is not a pollutant at all.

More CO2 is good news. It’s not that complicated.

GREGORY WRIGHTSTONE: Scientific Report Pours Cold Water On Major Talking Point Of Climate Activists

The positive contribution of carbon dioxide to the human condition should be cause for celebration, but this is more than demonizers of the gas can abide.

dailycaller.com

Earth says thank you to Carbon Dioxide for supporting the plants.
Democrats moan it is doing wrong to get more and more green.

 

[ding]

It's about catastrophic climate change Dell.

Your secondary issue is on account of higher crop yields due to genetic engineering, and conversely people starving in many regions due to lack of rain to grow the crops they depend on to survive.

You're only going to get the sympathies of my 'ice cream cone' kids on this one.

Catastrophic climate change is the bogie-man in your closet. It's not real. It's made up.

 

[Robert W]

Most credible analysis I've seen are that fruit and veggies grown today are still good for us but not quite as much as they were 100 or 200 years ago. But CO2 is absolutely not the reason for that but soil depletion due to factory farming. So the climate religionist pushing CO2 as harming the food supply are just full of bull and not much else.

". . .It would be overkill to say that the carrot you eat today has very little nutrition in it—especially compared to some of the other less healthy foods you likely also eat—but it is true that fruits and vegetables grown decades ago were much richer in vitamins and minerals than the varieties most of us get today. The main culprit in this disturbing nutritional trend is soil depletion: Modern intensive agricultural methods have stripped increasing amounts of nutrients from the soil in which the food we eat grows. Sadly, each successive generation of fast-growing, pest-resistant carrot is truly less good for you than the one before. . ."

Dirt Poor: Have Fruits and Vegetables Become Less Nutritious?

Because of soil depletion, crops grown decades ago were much richer in vitamins and minerals than the varieties most of us get today

www.scientificamerican.com

Could I encourage you to watch some You Tube videos on this same topic?

 

[Foxfyre]

Could I encourage you to watch some You Tube videos on this same topic?

Yes I've read a lot on innovative farming methods in Israel. But that doesn't address the issue of less nutrition due to soil depletion.

However, I think American ingenuity will likely come up with solutions for soil depletion too. I wish America was as focused on adapting farming processes to a changing climate and less adequate water supplies in the same way instead of throwing away trillions of dollars and wrecking the economy in a futile attempt to change the climate.

 

[Robert W]

Yes I've read a lot on innovative farming methods in Israel. But that doesn't address the issue of less nutrition due to soil depletion.

However, I think American ingenuity will likely come up with solutions for soil depletion too. I wish America was as focused on adapting farming processes to a changing climate and less adequate water supplies in the same way instead of throwing away trillions of dollars and wrecking the economy in a futile attempt to change the climate.

I am no longer a kid living on a farm. And that farm I lived on had Cotton. I watch some farm videos and have not run across the problem you bring up. But I will definitely follow up on things you say about farming.

This family farm grows Corn and Soybeans. She has not brought up depleted soil that i am aware of.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am no longer a kid living on a farm. And that farm I lived on had Cotton. I watch some farm videos and have not run across the problem you bring up. But I will definitely follow up on things you say about farming.

This family farm grows Corn and Soybeans. She has not brought up depleted soil that i am aware of.

I haven't offered any advice re farming because I am by no means an expert even though I grew up with and and around farmers. All I am saying is what I read that food crops are not as nutritious now as they were 100 years ago due to soil depletion. It doesn't mean they aren't nutritious. Just not as nutritious. I do hope we find a solution to reverse that as they say it will continue if we do not.

 

[Robert W]

I haven't offered any advice re farming because I am by no means an expert even though I grew up with and and around farmers. All I am saying is what I read that food crops are not as nutritious now as they were 100 years ago due to soil depletion. It doesn't mean they aren't nutritious. Just not as nutritious. I do hope we find a solution to reverse that as they say it will continue if we do not.

With the US Universities working on this it shocks me they have not come up with good solutions.

 

[Foxfyre]

With the US Universities working on this it shocks me they have not come up with good solutions.

I doubt a lot of factory farming corporations are interested in university research though.