Hacker News Reader

Comment by vixen99 | Hacker News Reader

Pros and cons? CO2 is of course the primary carbon source for plants. Not the merest hint here of the enormous degree of planet-greening with record crop yields equivalent to millions of dollars that's taken place as a result of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

When discussing the results of this increase, typically, articles like this and hundreds more http://www.planetseed.com/relatedarticle/co2-production-inte... take pains not to mention it.

According to CSIRO" “CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa.” This means that arid regions across the world would have not greened if CO2 levels had not increased.".

Hardly worth mentioning I guess.

View on HN

Drought, excess heat, loss of irrigation from snowpacks and glaciers, and topsoil loss from drought combined with occasional torrential rainfalls have the opposite effect on plant growth.

For plants that aren't protected in greenhouses, increased CO2 can make them more vulnerable to insects. This is true of soybeans, for example: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.ht...

I hope you noticed your quote specifically says correlated.

Also, you're presenting an argument that has actually been looked at for decades in the literature, which would be evident from a leisurely google scholar search of terms such as: climate change, CO2, respiration, net ecosystem production, terrestrial vegetation, food supply, etc.

I've attempted to grab some links to papers that seem to be publicly available. [5] is a review from the Royal Society, and [3] is straight out of Science if you care about credentials.

2001. [1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2001....

1994. [2] http://ecoethics.net/cyprus-institute.us/PDF/Rosensweig-Food...

2006. [3] http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/26790/PDF

2004. [4] http://www.preventionweb.net/files/1090_foodproduction.pdf

2005. [5] http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/360/14...

Definitely worth mentioning, as well as the evidence that high CO2 levels tend to promote weed growth and decrease effectiveness of agricultural herbicides [1] and promotes growth of lower-quality versions of food crops [2]. Even in my gardens I have a lot more greenery, and it's mostly low-quality foliage. We don't have increased food production.

[1] http://allenpress.com/publications/pr/WEES59_1 [2] https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/rising-co2-p...

Interesting, it almost acts like a natural defense mechanism for the planet. The problem is, it's not enough.

It's great if the CO2 increase has led to greater food production, but that increased foliage hasn't stopped or slowed the CO2 increase. So yes, it's probably "hardly worth mentioning".

Eh, if you are talking about impact of climate change on agriculture, of course this is worth mentioning, and most sane sources do.

For example, quoting IPCC report "Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability" chapter 7, "Evidence confirms the stimulatory effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) in most cases on crop yields (high confidence)".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com