" ... It is becoming ever more evident that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content is not only increasing the productivity of earth's common food plants, it is significantly increasing the quantity and potency of the many health-promoting substances found in their tissues, which are the ultimate sources of sustenance for essentially all animals and humans. Thus, as these foods make their way onto our dinner tables, they improve our health and help us better contend with the multitude of diseases and other maladies that regularly afflict us. In fact, it is possible, if not likely, that the lengthening of human life-span that has occurred over the past half-century or more - as described by Horiuchi (2000) and Tuljapurkar et al. (2000)9 - may in some significant part be due to the concomitant CO2-induced increases in the concentrations of the many health-promoting substances found in the various plant-derived foods that we eat. ... "
If they are stupid enough to believe that junk then they deserve to go broke.
Your evidence-absent article for nitwits ends with the sentence, “Here are some links that explain the science and support this discussion:”
That is true in the sense that:
1) There are links that support the article – however, those links do not explain the science for the simple reason that they are not based on science.
2) On the other hand, there are links that explain the science – however, the links based on science do not support the article. In fact, the directly contradict the article’s claims –For example:
“Depending on the crop, the increased growth rate related to CO2 application may require the nutrient solution to be applied at a higher electrical conductivity (EC). As well, the increased CO2 levels can result in partial closure of the stomata reducing transpiration and increasing leaf conductance in some crops. This decrease in transpiration reduces calcium (Ca) and boron (B) uptake, which may affect tomato fruit quality. Increased applications of these nutrients, within reason, will adequately compensate the decreased uptake.”
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crop...
…”that the increase in productivity was caused by lack of clouds and increased Sun exposure, while in the northern latitudes, it was mainly due to increased temperatures and to a lesser extent, water availability.”
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crop...
But, then, everyone (including the author of the article) knows that Deniers have no interest in facts and science, and will not research the author’s claims or his references (in the reality-based world, we call that willful ignorance – AKA pro-stupid).
I don't know why you cite a religious blog for science. This one is badly short-sided. Read it again carefully. Notice that it claims that extra CO2 makes plant grow faster. But notice also that it does not claim that nutrition increases with that plant growth. And notice that it says nothing about plant growth when there is no water. We do know that in isolation, adding CO2 makes plants grow faster but faster growing plants are less nutritious. Crop yields are increasing due to increased nitrogen and better water management. Climate change is critically hampering our ability to manage agriculture water and that it is the most important factor. A little boost in how fast plants grow to an earlier bloom, or how big plants get, does nothing to help provide food.
Please note that from the last question I asked and my discussion with Chemflunky, I certainly do not buy that temp increases reduce crop yields. Neither do I accept that AGW is increasing crop yields. It is impossible to separate out the influence of increased technology from temp increases or CO2 increases.
What they are doing here is modeling. We should not be accepting any analysis as truth from modeling. IF they show that the models are able to accurately predict, then we can tentatively accept the models. As it stands they are simply throwing a ton of variables at the problem and seeing which sticks. This would hit at the first part of the scientific method of creation of a hypothesis via observation.
No, farmers should be invoicing the UN for CO2 sequestration services.
No. Try growing corn when it's 100F
No
http://catholicexchange.com/the-increase-in-co2-is-boosting-world-food-production
" ... This much overlooked atmospheric fertilizer is helping our farmers to increase food and crop production. When added to technological advances, their increased production rate is even greater than the world’s growing population. There are no additional input costs to the producer during the growing season to use the added carbon dioxide in the air. The crop continually uses the higher levels of this natural substance to make more food. However, harvesting the bigger crop does require an extra effort and cost that everyone agrees is well worth it. These bigger crops boost supplies, which makes prices more affordable for end users and consumers.
Not only are farmers getting to use that extra atmospheric fertilizer for free, so are home gardeners. Those tomatoes, green beans and squash in your backyard are producing more bountiful harvests than anything your great grandparents grew, even after accounting for improvements in plant genetics and technology. ... "
