The Climate Change scam

[Mad as Fish]

The same reason it has to take in twice as many N!ggers as the rest of the Planet.

There is a fellow by the name of Eric Keyser on Linkedin who has shown time and time again that by careful selection of recording stations you can 'prove' just about whatever you want.

 

[Haven]

Looks like plants ability to absorb CO2 is peaking.

Plants can’t absorb as much CO2 as climate models predicted

CO2 can stimulate plant growth, but only when enough nitrogen is available—and that key ingredient has been seriously miscalculated. A new study finds that natural nitrogen fixation has been overestimated by about 50 percent in major climate models. This means the climate-cooling benefits of...

www.sciencedaily.com

Meanwhile this older prediction is coming true.

Climate Change Is Getting So Bad That It's Making Food Less Nutritious

Climate change is causing the crops that humans eat to gradually be less nutritious as CO2 levels in the atmosphere soar.

futurism.com

 

[clarke-connolly]

Looks like plants ability to absorb CO2 is peaking.

Plants can’t absorb as much CO2 as climate models predicted

CO2 can stimulate plant growth, but only when enough nitrogen is available—and that key ingredient has been seriously miscalculated. A new study finds that natural nitrogen fixation has been overestimated by about 50 percent in major climate models. This means the climate-cooling benefits of...

www.sciencedaily.com

Meanwhile this older prediction is coming true.

Climate Change Is Getting So Bad That It's Making Food Less Nutritious

Climate change is causing the crops that humans eat to gradually be less nutritious as CO2 levels in the atmosphere soar.

futurism.com

Is your real name, Swallow ? !

 

[Mad as Fish]

Is your real name, Swallow ? !

There are several things to be learnt from that idiot's latest post, the first being that he hasn't a clue about anything really, but instead has adopted this now rather dated idea that the answer to anything is to run away and find a contradictory report on the net and present it as the final and unarguable evidence that whichever narrative he is being paid to support, is right! It is beyond laughable at this stage.

The other points will have to wait as I'm off out for the day!

 

[Haven]

Is your real name, Swallow ? !

You are probably not aware there is a difference between different types of crops.

The difference between C3 and C4 plants | RIPE

ripe.illinois.edu

 

[Haven]

Indeed, and belief that alleged anthropological global warming will instantly result in hot dry summers betrays a total lack of understanding of climate dynamics, but then, TBF, nobody really understands them anyway despite all the clever sounding noises made by 'climate scientists'.

Just on that point alone the grand global warming bandwagon has just been derailed by the IPCC itself which has scaled back its alarmist sceanrios, describing them as 'implausible', ie, wretchedly impossible, so where does that leave all those knobheads who were boldly predicting the end of the world next week, or maybe the week after, but anyway it was definietly going to end soon!

Returning to basics and the role of CO2 in the atmosphere the first thing to be noted is that it has been modelled to death and yet nature still won't comply with the scientists instructions on how it should behave. One reason is the basic flaw that all models suffer from and that is the assumption that radition received from the sun as UV light should be in balance with energy radiated from the earth as infra red light, if this is not in equilibrium then the earth is either cooling or heating. In other words the models rely on the system being 100% efficient. Nothing in nature is 100% efficient.

There is a tremendous focus on CO2, yet when it comes to the greenhouse affect it is water vapour which has a much greater influence, yet this is never openly discussed, funny that. By doing so CO2 is cast as the villian and yet an increase in concentration has a hugely beneficial effect on plant growth.

It seems to me that climate scientists have not the faintest notion of the chemical process that supports all life (or nearly all) on earth, and that is photosynthesis and the corresponding reversal of the reaction - respiration.

Photosynthesis takes water and carbon dioxide and through a series of reactions it forms carbohydrates which is, with many variations on the theme, what we are basically made of. As a by product oxygen is released, the very oxygen that we rely on to breath and respire.

A greater concentration of CO2 results in more rapid plant growth, this has been known for many many years, glasshouse growers will add CO2 to the air to boost yields and the same applies out in the open. However, there are limits and at higher concentrations the effect hits the law of diminishing returns, it depends on the species, but we are a long way off it yet.

But there is a further effect which involves the functioning of plant leaves which rely on tiny openings, called stomata, to allow gaseous exchange with the atmosphere. With a higher concentration of CO2 these do not need to stay open for so long reducing the loss of water from the leaves allowing the plants to better withstand drought. NASA has noticed a greening up of the world thanks to this.

As a general rule warmth favours biological reactions so plants will grow quicker, this is especially so when it comes to soil temperatures, getting to grow quicker in the spring will encourage yields as the plant can make more of the increasing sunlight.

So yes, a warmer environment with more carbon dioxide can be of tremendous benefit to the world.

I'm pretty convinced you have taken these talking points from elsewhere and not verifed any of it.

When you say the IPCC has essentially admitted the whole thing was overblown, that's a misreading of what happened. What they actually did was say the most extreme worst-case emissions scenarios are looking less likely now that some countries have shifted toward renewables. The core findings — that warming is real, human-caused, and already producing measurable effects — got more confident in the latest report, not less. It's a bit like saying a weather forecaster "admitted defeat" because a storm tracked slightly south of where they first predicted.

On your point about models assuming 100% efficiency — this is where things go a bit scientifically sideways. Climate models don't actually work that way. We have satellites measuring how much energy comes in from the sun and how much leaves as infrared radiation, and right now those are measurably out of balance. The planet is accumulating heat, and that imbalance is itself direct evidence of warming — it doesn't depend on the models at all. The models simulate what happens when you disturb that balance. They're not assuming perfect equilibrium; that's the whole point of them.

Your water vapour argument is one of those cases where you've got a real fact but drawn the wrong conclusion from it. Water vapour absolutely is the dominant greenhouse gas, and climate scientists know this and discuss it constantly. The reason CO₂ gets the policy focus is that you can't directly control atmospheric water vapour. It responds to temperature. When CO₂ warms the air, the atmosphere holds more water vapour, which warms it further. CO₂ is the trigger; water vapour is the amplifier. Focusing on CO₂ makes sense for the same reason you'd focus on the spark in a house fire rather than the oxygen.

Your section on photosynthesis is sound — up to a point. The basic biochemistry is correct. CO₂ does accelerate carbon fixation in many plants, the stomatal closure effect under higher CO₂ is real and well documented, and NASA really has observed a global greening trend. None of that is disputed.

But you've left out some awkward complications. When you grow crops under elevated CO₂ in real field conditions rather than a controlled glasshouse, nutritional quality tends to drop. Plants bulk up on carbohydrate but the protein, zinc, and iron per gram go down. You might grow more wheat, but it nourishes people slightly less well. Weeds respond to elevated CO₂ at least as enthusiastically as crops do, often more so, which erodes the agricultural benefit. And rising surface ozone — which increases under warming conditions — directly counteracts the yield gains CO₂ would otherwise produce. So "CO₂ is plant food, therefore no problem" is correct as far as it goes, but it doesn't go as far as you're suggesting.

The temperate zone picture is worth dwelling on, because your argument implicitly assumes warming just means a pleasantly enhanced version of what we already have. What's actually being observed is more complicated. Spring is arriving weeks earlier than historical records — going back centuries in some cases — and that sounds appealing until you realise that pollinators, flowering plants, and migratory birds evolved their timing together over millennia. When those relationships get knocked out of sync, ecosystems and harvests suffer regardless of how much extra CO₂ is available.

The weather pattern isn't simply "warmer" either — it's more variable. Warmer air holds more moisture, so rainfall tends to arrive harder and faster, but the dry gaps between rain events get longer. Parts of Europe are already seeing this: more intense downpours combined with longer summer droughts. For arable farming specifically, a short heat spike at the moment a crop is flowering can devastate a harvest no matter how efficiently the stomata are functioning and how CO₂-rich the air is.