@Badumtish97 ⟦2/7⟧ It's because the benefits are real, and the harms are not.
Thousands of rigorous peer-reviewed studies have confirmed the benefits. (You'll find them mostly in the agronomy literature, not the heavily politicized "climate science" literature.) sealevel.info/negative_socia…
@Badumtish97 ⟦3/7⟧ All major crops have been studied. They ALL benefit from more CO2.
The benefits of CO2 for crops are long-settled science. That's why commercial greenhouses use CO2 generators to drastically raise daytime CO2 levels in greenhouses. co2science.org/data/plant_gro…
@Badumtish97 ⟦4/7⟧ 200 years of industrialization have only raised outdoor CO2 levels by about 140 ppmv, so far. That's helpful, but far short of optimum. Commercial greenhouses typically use CO2 generators to raise daytime CO2 levels by an additional 800-1100 ppmv.
@Badumtish97 ⟦7/7⟧ The climate industry's marketing campaign insists that CO2 will causes real, noticeable harm… someday. Don't you believe it. CO2 causes major real benefits, right now. co2coalition.org
@HenrikHindby@JimFish56837379@EcoSenseNow@DGWilkinson 1/4」This might be the study: nber.org/papers/w29320
EXCERPT:
"We consistently find a large CO2 fertilization effect: a 1 ppm increase in CO2 equates to a 0.4%, 0.6%, 1% yield increase for corn, soybeans, and wheat, respectively.
…CO2 was the dominant driver of yield growth…"
@HenrikHindby@JimFish56837379@EcoSenseNow@DGWilkinson 2/4」Fossil CO2 (from fossil fuels & cement) is certainly a major contributor to the huge improvement in crop yields. I'm not convinced that it accounts for a majority of the improvement, but might well have been the largest single contributor.
@SchneidGabriel@cptndemocracy64@davidcharlesuk1@EcoSenseNow 1/7」That's simply untrue, Gabriel. Ice core records indicate that reversals in CO2 concentration trend followed reversals in temperature trend by at least several hundred years over ONE particular period of time. But that's no longer the case, and it hasn't been for >100 years.
@SchneidGabriel@cptndemocracy64@davidcharlesuk1@EcoSenseNow 2/7」Earth only got ≈90 ppmv of CO2 level change over a complete glaciation/deglaciation cycle, accompanied by at least 5-6°C global temperature change.
In contrast, we've gotten a 140 ppmv CO2 increase since 1780, accompanied by a small fraction of that much temperature change.
Given the constraints of limited fossil fuels, negative carbon feedbacks (which remove CO2 from the air), and logarithmically diminishing warming effect, we might eventually get as much as 1°C of additional warming from CO2. Probably less.
@MisinformNoMore@WeiZhangAtmos 2/ 1°C is the temperature change ("climate change") you get from an elevation change of about 500 feet.
@MisinformNoMore@WeiZhangAtmos 3/ At mid-latitudes, 1°C is about the temperature change you get from a latitude change of just 60 miles.
How different are the flora and fauna 60 miles from where you live?
1/12》Many climate activists just PRETEND to be worried about #ClimateChange. They LIKE being alarmed.
The proof is in their reactions. When a "worse than we thought" story hits the press, they're gleeful. But when you show them good news, they're angry. sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
2/12》If the good news comes from a conservative source, they disparage it, regardless of the strength of the evidence. If it's from "their side," like this NASA article & video, they pretend it away. nasa.gov/feature/goddar…
Either way they're angry.
3/12》They LIKE believing their dark delusions, and they actively avoid learning anything that might offer hope. If you try to show them balanced information, or balanced debates between experts on both sides of the issue, they won't even look at it. sealevel.info/learnmore.html…