| > More pressingly, when it comes to plant life RIGHT NOW, we're still dangerously close to CO₂ starvation levels. This is the most provocative claim you make and coincidentally the one you don't back up with any evidence. The one article you post from phys.org (1) does not use the colorful and misleading language of CO2 'starvation' and (2) actually concludes the opposite of the less dramatic point (plants will be better off with more CO2): > But, as we know, C3 plants waste a lot more resources at higher temperatures, so any increase in photosynthesis from rising CO₂ levels seems likely to be at least cancelled out by the effects of the global warming it will cause. And that's without factoring in changes to rainfall patterns such as more frequent droughts. Solutions that seem to be too good to be true generally are – and, for the moment, that still seems to be the case for the idea that CO₂ enhanced crop yields will feed the world. However the idea of being in a CO2 'famine' was recently brought up by the head of the Presidential Committee on Climate Security, William Harper, and also does not seem to be backed by any evidence or the scientific community: > "It's a silly argument," added Britton Stephens, a senior scientist in the Earth Observing Laboratory at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in an interview. > Both independent academic institutions and government agencies around disparate parts of the globe have concluded more carbon dioxide will "bring many negative impacts" to plant environments, Stephens emphasized. "If someone is going to claim it's good, it's incumbent upon them to show evidence." [0] I mean just using common sense plants can and clearly have thrived with lower levels of CO2, before the far bigger threat of human deforestation decimated forests and plant life. The issue isn't whether plant life will be slightly better off with more CO2 or not, but what negative effects changing climate will have on crops, which could be catastrophic and is the point the phys.org concludes with. This seems like just another flavor of a very similar climate change denialist argument that there was higher CO2 levels during previous glacial periods, also debunked [1]. [0] https://mashable.com/article/trump-climate-panel-william-hap... [1] https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermed... |