WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
In those trials, elevated [CO2] enhanced yield by 50% less than in enclosure studies
In other words, they're not disputing that CO2 increases yields, just that it increases them less than some other estimates. Here's some more of what "scientists say":
On average, the yield increase as a result of a doubling of [CO2] was 35% compared with that observed at ambient CO2 concentrations.
Averaged for both seasons, increases in CO2 cocentration alone resulted in a significant increase in total plant biomass(+ 31%, + 40%) and crop yield (+ 15%, + 27%) compared with the ambient control...
The probable effect of the increasing global atmospheric CO2 concentration on agricultural yields was evaluated. More than 430 observations of the yield of 37 species grown with CO2 enrichment were extracted from more than 70 reports published during the past 64 years....the analysis showed that yields probably will increase by 33%...
According to their Science paper, trapped heat, poor airflow, high humidity and other conditions inside greenhouses and growth chambers skew plant responses to elevated CO2.
You mean high heat helps plants grow? Better tell the alarmists!
nice way of twisting the article. the article is very clear on raising its doubts regarding co2 yields.
Quote
After collecting FACE data for the crops, the scientists compared it to earlier growth-chamber-based simulations. The difference was dramatic: CO2 fertilization-effect yield increases measured in the FACE experiments were 50 percent lower than the chamber simulations.
in other words, the chamber simulations which appear to be the studies on which you base your claims prove to have lower yields.
Last edited by 2wins; 01/13/0901:36 AM.
sure, you can talk to god, but if you don't listen then what's the use? so, onward through the fog!
these changes could be catastrophic to food production.
How so? Even if the models are correct, Southern CA is expected to receive a bit less rainfall, Northern CA a bit more. Even assuming there's a net deficit, the simple expedient of expanding irrigation, possibly supplanted with a few large nuclear desalinator plants, would obviate the problem entirely. We're talking about 22nd Century level technology here, remember.
Let's not forget that increasing CO2 also reduces water needs for plants, they process water more efficiently. And I won't even bring up the fact that California currently grows a large number of crops very high in water usage-- they even grow two million tons a year of rice for god's sake. Even assuming no other mitigation measures were taken,the simple expedient of choosing a more appropriate crop, would again solve the problem (if it even exists) handily.
in other words, the chamber simulations which appear to be the studies on which you base your claims prove to have lower yields
Oops again! You missed this part:
The difference was dramatic: CO2 fertilization-effect yield increases measured in the FACE experiments were 50 percent lower...
No one is disputing that yields will increase. The dispute is over how much exactly the increase will be.
Quote
nice way of twisting the article
So far in nearly every post to me, you manage to insert at least one insult, cheap shot, or snide insinuation. I ask that you try to be a little more civil.
By the end of the 21st century, the authors state, the increase in carbon dioxide and decrease of sulphates will cause a substantially higher global warming
You do realize that the article is six years old. That's not a long time in some fields, but in climate modelling, it's forever.
For instance, in this research from Brookhaven National Labs last year, a climate sensitivy of 1.1C was determined...meaning the warming expected by the year 2100 is about half a degree:
first of all romeo, i am being civil. secondly, study after study backs up what i have asserted above. you can look it up. me thinks you're smart enough for that.
sure, you can talk to god, but if you don't listen then what's the use? so, onward through the fog!
In 2005, Florida had 42,500 commercial farms, utilizing 10 million acres to continue to produce a variety of food products.
Good Lord Romeo I know what we grow here. I live in the middle of an orange grove. My family has farmed in Florida for 5 generations. The tomatoes are tasteless. The corn not as sweet as other states but we can get it to market early so flavor doesn't really matter. Our onions are as good as Vidalias (Florida Sweets) and I have 500 of them in the ground right now. Our Citrus is probably the best in the world. We have two growing seasons so for commercial farms it works out OK, they don't mind dumping tons of chemicals on everything. Watermelons do fine in the sand too. But again home gardeners are gonna hafta deal with powdery mildew and blossom end rot. Cut worms will take out your bean sprouts if you dont bait em and worms get in the tomatoes. It's all about chemical warfare here. If you aren't a farmer and think you can just plant a garden and grow stuff, my statement stands YOU CANT GROW STINK ON A MONKEY IN FLORIDA We don,t have soil we have sand.
Open-air field trials involving five major food crops grown under carbon-dioxide levels projected for the future are yielding signifcantly less than those raised in earlier enclosed test conditions. Scientists at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign warn that global food supplies could be at risk without changes in production strategies.
sure, you can talk to god, but if you don't listen then what's the use? so, onward through the fog!
I haven't smelt many monkeys lately, but I reiterate that Florida is one of the nation's -- indeed the world's -- top spots for Agriculture. In terms of productivity per acre, it outdoes most nations.
With 20th-century agricultural tech, you can grow nearly anywhere. By the year 2200, who knows what we'll be able to do. Perhaps we'll grow all our food in floating oceanic farms, and reclaim our agricultural land for more parks and forests.
