@markr041

A widely circulated myth suggests that adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere will fertilize plants and crops and make the world greener and better. Unfortunately, that turns out not to be true.

This is false claim.

It’s appealing because it suggests that it’s okay to emit the pollution that causes climate change.

And this is just bad trick - attaching negative meaning to something to make it look bad.

. In the case of the CO2-as-fertilizer myth, you can test the idea by thinking about your own garden. Is fertilizer alone sufficient to create a healthy garden? Of course not

Another trick - using wrong term to mislead people. As CO2 actually provide most of the mass of trees and it is not "another fertilizer".

Another facet to this myth is that CO2 is natural, so therefore it can’t be a bad thing. Again, a “gut check” can show how that logic doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. For example, nitrogen and phosphorus are also plant fertilizers, but they’re pollutants when there’s too much of them. An overdose of nitrogen or phosphorus triggers algae blooms, kills fish, and turns lakes into smelly swamps. Even oxygen is explosive in high concentrations. Many serious pollutants – mercury, lead, arsenic – are naturally occurring. But they’re still dangerous. The same holds true for CO2, and it’s both a natural, necessary substance and a pollutant in high concentrations.

Horrible lie and using dirty tricks. Planet had much more CO2 is previous periods and it was periods of maximum amount of vegetation.

For example, the atmosphere has a specific recipe. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are an essential part of the recipe because they trap heat in the atmosphere. With no CO2 Planet Earth would be in a perpetual ice age. But a small amount of CO2 keeps the planet in the famous “Goldilocks and the Three Bears” condition: not too hot, not too cold, but the “just right” zone that’s ideal for life as we know it. Too much CO2 overheats the planet.

One thing this guys never do is to provide charts with CO2 concentration back in the millions of years. I had here detailed topic with scientific research made at Sahalin and fluctuations of temperature and CO2 clearly show blatant lies of modern elites and prostitute scientists.

The added heat triggers side effects like more intense rainstorms, floods, prolonged heat waves, and droughts.

Actual charts and statistic tell no such things. Most of nice numbers they can show you come from simple fact - no one previously accurately measured small events.

Now go to the key part that is only that has some backup:

Scientists have performed many experiments to see what happens when plants and agricultural crops receive extra CO2. When supplemental CO2 was pumped into the air around plants, they grew faster. For this reason, CO2 is sometimes piped into enclosed greenhouses to boost production. But greenhouse plants also have optimal amounts of water, excellent soil, and controlled temperatures. It’s usually a different story out in the real world.

Yes, different, in greenhouse temperature is higher than in 90% of the planet where crops are harvested.

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.

So, first link:

• Yields of most C3 grain crops were increased on average about 19%.
• Yields of C4 species were unchanged with ample water, but increased 30% with limited water.
• Yield increases due to increased CO2 were variable with increased temperature.

C3 is almost all trees, C4 is corn, for example.

Latest research showed that from 1980 to this day mass of Russian forests increased by 39%. Actually lot of sponsored green organization reported low false data here, also claiming that CO2 has no effect.

I also talked to agro guys locally - they also claim that increased CO2 increased the crop yields. Same thing they claim on all conferences.

Second link is just compilation:

Average yields of many commodity crops (for example, corn, soybean, wheat, rice, sorghum, cotton, oats, and silage) decline beyond certain maximum temperature thresholds (in conjunction with rising atmospheric carbon dioxide [CO2] levels), and thus long-term temperature increases may reduce future yields under both irrigated and dryland production.37,91,92,97,103,112,113 In contrast, even with warmer temperatures, future yields for certain crops such as wheat, hay, and barley are projected to increase due to anticipated increases in precipitation and carbon fertilization.97,114

Third links is another compilation:

Wheat, rice, maize, and soybean provide two-thirds of human caloric intake. Assessing the impact of global temperature increase on production of these crops is therefore critical to maintaining global food supply, but different studies have yielded different results. Here, we investigated the impacts of temperature on yields of the four crops by compiling extensive published results from four analytical methods: global grid-based and local point-based models, statistical regressions, and field-warming experiments. Results from the different methods consistently showed negative temperature impacts on crop yield at the global scale, generally underpinned by similar impacts at country and site scales. Without CO2 fertilization, effective adaptation, and genetic improvement, each degree-Celsius increase in global mean temperature would, on average, reduce global yields of wheat by 6.0%, rice by 3.2%, maize by 7.4%, and soybean by 3.1%.

Lot of this data actually came from real world data processing, where increased temperature one year usually always come with water supply reduction. And with increased temperature crops always need more water and more other fertilizers (they need CO2 also if you want to see any yield increase). If they are not provided result can be negative.

@markr041

Title of the topic is very good, makes you click to check.

but it made the correct point that co2 is not the only input to plant growth and it is not only co2 that is trending.

Of course it is not the only input, but mass media tell you how horrible it is.

Modern elites fucked up fossil fuels and don't have them enough to keep any growth, so they decided to hire scientists to tell people that fossil fuels are not required and only harm everyone. Of course it is blatant lies, and it is elites and capitalists who must be accounted for their shit behavior, instead of scaring people.

Perhaps global warming and extra co2 is what's lowering testosterone...

LOL, no. Clearly not.

If you will go to gym regularly, will walk normally and will have good long sex each day it will be even better than old norm. Some physical fights or competition also helps.

Note that with testosterone they report serum levels, and it does not tell whole picture that happens.

@IronFilm

In my place it seems like grapes times are not too far off.

We have huge hot waves for weeks now, and serial +34-+35 days are now norm.