All life on planet Earth is carbon-based. The carbon is from CO2 in the air. Carbon-hungry living things used up nearly all of it, harvesting carbon and releasing oxygen as waste.
2/14》Every schoolchild learns that animals use O2 (oxygen) and produce CO2 (carbon dioxide), and plants do the opposite. But have you ever wondered why there are about five hundred O2 molecules in the Earth’s atmosphere for each CO2 molecule?
3/14》On Venus and Mars it's the other way around. On those planets, nearly all of the oxygen in the atmosphere is in the form of CO2, and almost none is O2.
But on Earth O2 is 21% of the atmosphere, and CO2 is only 0.04%.
Q: Do you know why?
4/14》
A: It is because Venus and Mars are dead planets, and the Earth is not. The difference is LIFE!
5/14》Carbon-hungry living things used up nearly all the CO2 to get carbon, discharging O2 as waste. All life is carbon-based, and CO2 is the source of that carbon. Photosynthetic plants get their carbon directly from the air, and animals get their carbon by eating those plants.
6/14》But, you might wonder, why aren't the CO2 and O2 levels similar? Why is there so little CO2, and so much O2?
Step outside and look around, and you'll have your answer: The plants outnumber us animals! quora.com/Why-is-carbon-…
7/14》In the CO2 / O2 tug-o-war between plants and animals, the plants pulled the rope all the way to the end.
8/14》The plants used up the CO2 until they ran out, practically speaking. They used up CO2 until the level got so low that the photosynthesis rate was reduced to rough equilibrium with the CO2 production rate.
9/14》It is a very fundamental, negative (stabilizing) climate feedback mechanism: the more CO2 there is, the faster plants and calcifying marine life use it up. sealevel.info/feedbacks.html…
10/14》The large amount of O2 (free oxygen) in Earth’s atmosphere, and the very low CO2 concentration, are both the result of LIFE.
11/14》What’s more, as CO2 levels have fallen, plants have become more and more adept at removing CO2 from the atmosphere. C4 grasses can continue to harvest CO2 from the atmosphere even at levels so low that most plants (C3 plants) die of CO2 starvation. sealevel.info/Rice_C3_vs_Set…
12/14》BTW, that’s also how you can hope to detect life on exoplanets: look for an oxygen-rich atmosphere. If you find an atmosphere with a lot of free oxygen in it, you’ve found the fingerprint of carbon-based life.
13/14》To understand a highly politicized topic like #ClimateChange, you need balanced information. If you get information only from people working in the industry you'll surely be misled.
14/14》The scientific evidence is compelling that manmade #ClimateChange is modest and benign, CO2 emissions are beneficial rather than harmful, and the "social cost of carbon" is negative. sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
1/4. Rising CO2 levels improve plants' water use efficiency and drought resilience, through reduced stomatal conductance. Simply put, plants need to process less air to get the carbon they need for growth, and thus they lose less water to transpiration. x.com/ncdave4life/st…
That's one of the reasons that catastrophic famines no longer happen. For all of of human history, until recently, famine was one of the great scourges of mankind: the "Third Horseman of the Apocalypse." But widespread famines are fading from living memory, and rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is one of the reasons for that.
That's a very, very Big Deal. For comparison:
● COVID-19 killed about 0.1% of the world's population
● The catastrophic 1918 flu pandemic killed about 2%
● WWII killed 2.7% of the world's population
● But the nearly-worldwide drought and famine of 1876-78 killed about 3.7% of the world's population.
@Panta_Rhei06 @simonmaechling --
2/4. Improved water use efficiency and drought resilience are especially beneficial in arid regions, like the Sahel, which is one of the reasons that region of Africa is "greening" even faster than most other places.
3/4. I asked ChatGPT about that benefit of CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels:
"With reference to the agronomy literature, quantify how elevated CO2 helps plants use water more efficiently, and increases crops' drought resilience, by reducing stomatal conductance and water loss through transpiration."
ChatGPT replied with a very good answer:
In agronomy, the effects of elevated CO2 on plant water use efficiency and drought resilience are extensively studied. One of the key mechanisms through which elevated CO2 levels improve water use efficiency is by reducing stomatal conductance and, consequently, water loss through transpiration.
Stomata are small pores on the surface of plant leaves that regulate gas exchange, including the uptake of CO2 for photosynthesis and the release of water vapor through transpiration. When CO2 levels are elevated, plants can maintain the same or higher rate of photosynthesis while reducing stomatal conductance. This reduction in stomatal conductance leads to a decrease in water loss through transpiration without significantly affecting CO2 uptake, resulting in improved water use efficiency.
Several studies have quantified the effect of elevated CO2 on stomatal conductance and transpiration. For example, a meta-analysis published in 2013 (Kimball et al., 2013) found that under elevated CO2 levels, stomatal conductance decreased by an average of 22%, while transpiration decreased by only 17%. This indicates that plants under elevated CO2 levels were able to reduce water loss more efficiently than they reduced CO2 uptake, leading to an overall improvement in water use efficiency.
Improvements in water use efficiency due to elevated CO2 levels can increase plants' drought resilience by allowing them to maintain adequate hydration during periods of water scarcity. This can be particularly beneficial in arid and semi-arid regions where water availability is limited.
Overall, the literature suggests that elevated CO2 levels can improve water use efficiency in plants by reducing stomatal conductance and water loss through transpiration, which can enhance their resilience to drought conditions.
1/6》 Marcus, please tell me that you're not fooled by a fake "study" of a three-day-old event, from a climate industry propaganda outlet. Do you know how long real studies take?
1/8. Gov. Newsom's press release falsely blames "a hotter, drier world." In fact, the world is warming only very slightly & slowly, and it hasn't gotten at all drier. Here're the facts: sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
As you can see from the graph, the fraction of the globe in drought has decreased slightly, not increased.
Oh, and BTW, NCA4 (circa 2018) estimated that global average temperatures have risen only 1.14 ±0.13°C since the 1800s, and the warming is disproportionately at chilly high latitudes.
2/8. Also, higher CO2 levels greatly reduce drought impacts, by making plants more drought-resistant and water-efficient, through reduced stomatal conductance. That's very beneficial in arid regions, like the Sahel & much of California. Here's an article. web.archive.org/web/2017061915…
That's is one of the reasons that region of Africa is "greening" even faster than most other places.
@NewScientist reported the "remarkable environmental turnaround," including a “quite spectacular regeneration of vegetation,” and "a 70 per cent increase in yields of local cereals such as sorghum and millet in one province in recent years."
1/8》Doc wrote, "You’re not going to change my mind."
Please do not be impervious to evidence, like trillionofcells. That would make me sad.
2/8》Doc wrote, "Wasn’t Gleick cleared of any wrongdoing?"
No, he was not cleared. That was disinformation from The Grauniad: x.com/ncdave4life/st…
In fact, Gleick eventually admitted the identity theft, and disseminating the forgery & the stolen documents (though only after he was caught & publicly identified).
3/8》Gleick never admitted being the forger, but there can be no doubt of that, either.
It was the incongruous appearance of his name in the document, with the strangely flattering description of him as a "high-profile climate scientist," in a document which said NOTHING positive about ANY other climate activists, which first drew Steve Mosher's attention to Gleick. But it was the idiosyncrasies of Gleick's own writing style, found in the forged document, which Mosher mostly discussed, when explaining why he believed Gleick wrote it.
Note that that was all BEFORE Gleick confessed to being the person who had impersonated the Heartland Board Member to steal the other documents. THAT iced it: there's no question that Gleick was the forger.
1/8. The IPCC authors expect a worsening trend. No such trend is actually detectable, so far.
In fact, here's a paper about the downward trend in hurricane destructiveness, tho I suspect the decrease might be a fluctuation rather than a durable trend. nature.com/articles/ncomm…
2/8. The IPCC authors are sly. They know hurricanes & other tropical cyclones aren't worse, but they dodge & weave to avoid admitting it. Here's a tricky quote from AR6:
"It is likely that the global proportion of Category 3–5 tropical cyclone instances has increased over the past four decades."