Cold climate is BAD for humanity, warm is good. That's been settled science for most of a century. Here's a 1974 CIA Report about it: sealevel.info/CIAclimateRese…
@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.
@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…