• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More CO2 in the atmosphere hurts key plants and crops more than it helps

watsup

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
47,360
Reaction score
26,060
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Several of the deniers have cling to the SIMPLISTIC claim that the only long-term effect of AGW worth discussing is the so-called “greening of the Earth”, but as it turns out, even that is actually a NEGATIVE for the long run. Agricultural plants have adapted to local cultural conditions (rainfall, temperature, etc) over decades and even centuries (the vineyards of France), and changing conditions has the potential to throw agriculture into chaos. Here are some specifics:

“The myth that CO2 is plant food and that “extra” CO2 therefore can’t be bad is an example of a logical fallacy. It sort of sounds right, but it’s a major oversimplification. It’s appealing because it suggests that it’s okay to emit the pollution that causes climate change. But the myth is not true. It’s so oversimplified that it leaves out other important factors that help plants grow – and all of the damage that extra CO2 is causing. Just think of it in terms of “too much of a good thing is a bad thing” as, for example, with too much water causing a bathtub to overflow.
By studying Earth’s history, scientists have learned that when there was a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, the planet was hot. In fact, the last time the Earth had as much CO2 in the atmosphere as it now does was the Pliocene Epoch, more than 3 million years ago. At that time, Earth’s atmosphere was 3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer (2 to 4 degrees Celsius) than it is today. And global sea level was 50 to 80 feet (15 to 25 meters) higher.
To conduct a more “real world” experiment, other studies have given plants extra CO2 plus an increase in temperature. In these conditions, many plants and crops grew poorly. In most cases, the boost from CO2 was overwhelmed by the hotter conditions. These experiments demonstrate that the myth of CO2 fertilization is false, and peer-reviewed reports find that major crops like wheat, rice, corn, and soybeans will become less productive as the world heats up.
Likewise, a landmark study in 2018 found that growing rice in high-CO2 conditions makes it less nutritious. As a basic grain, rice plays a critical role in feeding the world’s population. The extra CO2 caused an imbalance within the crop’s chemical makeup, which resulted in rice that had lower amounts of protein, iron, zinc, and B-vitamins. “The entire elemental balance is out of whack,” explained plant physiologist Lewis Ziska, an author of the study. This result is yet another example of how the recipe of nature is being disrupted by excess CO2.


So the next time a denier makes the standard SIMPLISTIC talking point about “greening of the Earth”, refer them to this thread for the TRUTH of the matter.
 
Ask any indoor pot grower and he'll tell you the benefits of CO2 for their plants. Matter of fact they buy cylinders of C02 and stick them in their grow rooms to help the plants. Apprently cost is no object when growing pot. Also check out the globe....plants grow best along near equator where it's the warmest and they also do better on lower elevations where it's warmer than up in the mountains. As the world warms up... more plants & foliage appears and more CO2 gets sucked out of the air. The whole system is self-regulating.
 
Several of the deniers have cling to the SIMPLISTIC claim that the only long-term effect of AGW worth discussing is the so-called “greening of the Earth”, but as it turns out, even that is actually a NEGATIVE for the long run. Agricultural plants have adapted to local cultural conditions (rainfall, temperature, etc) over decades and even centuries (the vineyards of France), and changing conditions has the potential to throw agriculture into chaos. Here are some specifics:

“The myth that CO2 is plant food and that “extra” CO2 therefore can’t be bad is an example of a logical fallacy. It sort of sounds right, but it’s a major oversimplification. It’s appealing because it suggests that it’s okay to emit the pollution that causes climate change. But the myth is not true. It’s so oversimplified that it leaves out other important factors that help plants grow – and all of the damage that extra CO2 is causing. Just think of it in terms of “too much of a good thing is a bad thing” as, for example, with too much water causing a bathtub to overflow.
By studying Earth’s history, scientists have learned that when there was a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, the planet was hot. In fact, the last time the Earth had as much CO2 in the atmosphere as it now does was the Pliocene Epoch, more than 3 million years ago. At that time, Earth’s atmosphere was 3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer (2 to 4 degrees Celsius) than it is today. And global sea level was 50 to 80 feet (15 to 25 meters) higher.
To conduct a more “real world” experiment, other studies have given plants extra CO2 plus an increase in temperature. In these conditions, many plants and crops grew poorly. In most cases, the boost from CO2 was overwhelmed by the hotter conditions. These experiments demonstrate that the myth of CO2 fertilization is false, and peer-reviewed reports find that major crops like wheat, rice, corn, and soybeans will become less productive as the world heats up.
Likewise, a landmark study in 2018 found that growing rice in high-CO2 conditions makes it less nutritious. As a basic grain, rice plays a critical role in feeding the world’s population. The extra CO2 caused an imbalance within the crop’s chemical makeup, which resulted in rice that had lower amounts of protein, iron, zinc, and B-vitamins. “The entire elemental balance is out of whack,” explained plant physiologist Lewis Ziska, an author of the study. This result is yet another example of how the recipe of nature is being disrupted by excess CO2.


So the next time a denier makes the standard SIMPLISTIC talking point about “greening of the Earth”, refer them to this thread for the TRUTH of the matter.
LOL...

One crop type, vitamins shown to be lower in rice. Rice isn't a big contributor to vitamins as it is, and if you read the sources they supply, you will see they mainly focus on temperature. Not CO2 concentrations. They used CO2 levels of 568 to 590 ppm for the study that does address it.

1668548022808.png

The first link shows how much 1 cup of rice has in these vitamins, and the study says they are reduced by an average of 17.1% to 30.3% for B1, B2, B5, and B9. And vitamin E increases!



How many servings is 1 cup of rice, once it is cooked and expands? It seems to me there are six to eight servings per cup. This assumes a 1/2 cup serving, and rice expands between 3 to 4 times depending on type when cooked. The nutritional value is already low, and though more CO2 produces less nutritious rice, more rice is produced. If people in poor countries can be less hungry growing and eating 20% more rice, for the same vitamin B content and more vitamin E, what is the problem?

Again, one type of crop doesn't apply to all crops. Most studies reflect a very positive aspect to more CO2. Rice appears to be an exception to that.

To add, the author of this student paper article, if you click on her name:

Karin holds a B.A. in geology from Skidmore College and an M.S. in geology from Montana State University. She is a professional ski instructor and guide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Ask any indoor pot grower and he'll tell you the benefits of CO2 for their plants. Matter of fact they buy cylinders of C02 and stick them in their grow rooms to help the plants. Apprently cost is no object when growing pot. Also check out the globe....plants grow best along near equator where it's the warmest and they also do better on lower elevations where it's warmer than up in the mountains. As the world warms up... more plants & foliage appears and more CO2 gets sucked out of the air. The whole system is self-regulating.
CO2 is cheap. Used to pressurize soda and beer everywhere.
 
CO2 haters don't care about established science. If they say too much CO2 is bad for plants then you must believe them. It's all about taxing industrialized nations to support the under developed ones.

 
CO2 haters don't care about established science. If they say too much CO2 is bad for plants then you must believe them. It's all about taxing industrialized nations to support the under developed ones.


Please find the correct forum for your conspiracy theories.
 
Please find the correct forum for your conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy you say? No it's just me here. How did you get that I'm part of a conspiricy?
 
CO2 haters don't care about established science. If they say too much CO2 is bad for plants then you must believe them. It's all about taxing industrialized nations to support the under developed ones.

You should talk to farmers about what happens when it gets too hot.
 
You should talk to farmers about what happens when it gets too hot.
Where is it predicted to get too hot, and under what conditions?
 
Where is it predicted to get too hot, and under what conditions?
Are you asking for a weather forecast? Do you know how crops work?
 
Are you asking for a weather forecast? Do you know how crops work?
Not at all, you stated,
"You should talk to farmers about what happens when it gets too hot."
implying that it is going to get too hot to grow crops somewhere.
I was asking you where you think it is predicted to get too hot to grow crops?
 
If you hate CO2 so much, then dont exhale.
 
Not at all, you stated,
"You should talk to farmers about what happens when it gets too hot."
implying that it is going to get too hot to grow crops somewhere.
I was asking you where you think it is predicted to get too hot to grow crops?
Your interpretation is incorrect.
 
You really don’t know that the first/last frost date is steadily moving north?????
So where do you think it will become too hot to grow crops?
 
Back
Top Bottom