German Study Shows 14% More Vegetation Over the Past 100 years from added CO2

[BADecker]

We need this to help with feeding the world's growing populations.

The evidence is compelling that CO2 emissions are beneficial, rather than harmful, and the “social cost of carbon” is negative. Here are a few relevant papers:
https://sealevel.info/negative_social_cost_of_carbon.html


German Study Shows Added CO2 Has Led to 14% More Vegetation Over the Past 100 Years

Almost everyone with even just a fraction of a science education knows Co2 is fertilizer to vegetation and that the added 100 or so ppm in our atmosphere over the past decades have been beneficial to plant growth and thus led to more greening of the continents.

Yet, some alarmists still sniff at this fact, or deny it.

More trees (+7%) and vegetation (+14%)

In the 34th climate video, Die kalte Sonne here reports on a recent German study by Merbach et al that looks at the question of just how beneficial the added CO2 has been to plant growth globally.

The authors' findings: Over the past 100 years, there has been increased global vegetation growth.

"The global vegetation cover increased approximately 11- 14%, of which 70% can be attributed to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere," reports Die kalte Sonne on the findings.

Another result: "Since 1982, the inventory of trees has increased more than 7%".

Crop yields will rise by up to 15% by 2050

...

[Poker Player]

I've heard that before, but I haven't looked into it. I suppose Cnut247 will come up with some data on the subject.

But one thing is clear: a lot has happened since Malthus, who, for those who don't know, predicted a catastrophe in which there would not be enough resources to feed a growing population in the world, and the fact is that the population has continued to grow and grow, while more and more people eat more and more. There is a global obesity problem even in countries where relatively recently many people were going hungry: China, Mexico, etc. It is clear that you cannot grow to infinity, but it is also clear that Malthus was wrong.

There have also been failed predictions about climate change. This does not invalidate the model either, there could be certain wrong predictions and the global model could be correct, but it seems to me that it is a complex subject with so many variables that make it difficult to get the predictions right.

[franky1]

ok.if you want to do an experiment at home to see about carbon vs temperature.
here is a simple one

get 5 small empty drinks bottles

fill them as such
4/4 plain water
1/4 plain water 3/4 sparkling water
2/4 plain water 2/4 sparkling water
3/4 plain water 1/4 sparkling water
4/4 sparkling water

mark the bottles to know which is which

ok now you have an experiment. of 5 differing levels of water vs carbonated water.
now put them all into a freezer at same time and every hour check on them.

note if there is any difference between freeze rate.
this is to find out if the amount of carbon helps or hinders freezing
.
then when all frozen. take them all out and put the somewhere in the same ambient area and watch the periodically to melt and see which one melts the fastest

then YOU will know for your own sake and own observation the real affect of carbon dioxide on temperature
it would only cost you probably the cost of 2 sparkling water bottles. so not even $1.

...
as for vegetation
well thats study is flawed... not in is common sense that plants grow.. but the fact that it says 'compared to xx time in past'
simply because 100 years ago they didnt have satelites to map the greenary.

also new hybrid plants that offer better crop yields have been purposefully made to allow for more then 10% growth. and that has nothing to do with carbon but selective breeding for mass production

..
so although the common sense that carbon helps plant growth is true. his lack of utility of finding actual study to back him up makes the common sense sound less common sense.

again another home experiment.
have 5 plants. in plant pots
trim off the bottom of 5 large soda bottles to make plastic domes over the plant pot. seal them. then put smoke at varying amounts into each. and then watch them grow. .. that would be more of a valid study

..
but with all that said. carbon is a negative for lung health. its also a finite supply thats near run out so financially yes they have to shift even if there was no health impact.
but when it comes to the climate change. the water cycle affects temperatures more then carbon

[Cnut237]

I suppose Cnut247 will come up with some data on the subject.

Whilst we're waiting for that guy, I'll have a go But for this one, we don't even really need data; common sense does the job for us.

German Study Shows Added CO2 Has Led to 14% More Vegetation Over the Past 100 Years

Okay. Maybe. Not really worth studying because this has zero relevance to human-caused climate change.

The evidence is compelling that CO2 emissions are beneficial, rather than harmful, and the “social cost of carbon” is negative.

No, and no. How does this follow from the quote above? Answer: it doesn't.

Almost everyone with even just a fraction of a science education knows Co2 is fertilizer to vegetation and that the added 100 or so ppm in our atmosphere over the past decades have been beneficial to plant growth and thus led to more greening of the continents.

Yet, some alarmists still sniff at this fact, or deny it.

I have many years of science education, thanks. 'CO₂ helps plants to grow' is hardly an earth-shattering revelation. Not sure who these unnamed 'some alarmists' are, but they're more likely to be from the ranks of the climate-skeptics, rather than from the ranks of climate scientists (climate scientists being people who, you know, understand stuff).

Crop yields will rise by up to 15% by 2050

You can often spot the nonsensical, misleading claims through the use of phrases such as 'up to'. A rise of 'up to 15%' could include a drop of 50%, and still meet the condition. Ridiculous.
... But again, irrelevant. Personally I would expect to see crop yields rise by considerably more than 15% through genetic engineering of drought-resistant strains, etc. And this will be needed to feed the world's population, given the ever-worsening effects of human-caused climate change.


You do realise that temperatures are rising, right? Maybe you could take a look at this study in Nature (summarised here), which uses science, data, and statistical analysis to predict that

a global temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius would lead to a worldwide decline in wheat yield by between 4.1 and 6.4 percent.

Maybe you also understand that sea levels are rising? Might that cause a few problems? And we can go on and on, but I'll stop there as this post is already long enough.
If you want to consider what the effects of human-caused climate change will be, start from a summary such as this one, or perhaps this one, which includes the quote below:

While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

But please, have a read, then come back, and we can debate some more. Don't just cherry-pick one fact and remove it from its context.

[BADecker]

ok.if you want to do an experiment at home to see about carbon vs temperature.
here is a simple one

get 5 small empty drinks bottles

fill them as such
4/4 plain water
1/4 plain water 3/4 sparkling water
2/4 plain water 2/4 sparkling water
3/4 plain water 1/4 sparkling water
4/4 sparkling water

mark the bottles to know which is which

ok now you have an experiment. of 5 differing levels of water vs carbonated water.
now put them all into a freezer at same time and every hour check on them.

note if there is any difference between freeze rate.
this is to find out if the amount of carbon helps or hinders freezing
.
then when all frozen. take them all out and put the somewhere in the same ambient area and watch the periodically to melt and see which one melts the fastest

then YOU will know for your own sake and own observation the real affect of carbon dioxide on temperature
it would only cost you probably the cost of 2 sparkling water bottles. so not even $1.

...
as for vegetation
well thats study is flawed... not in is common sense that plants grow.. but the fact that it says 'compared to xx time in past'
simply because 100 years ago they didnt have satelites to map the greenary.

also new hybrid plants that offer better crop yields have been purposefully made to allow for more then 10% growth. and that has nothing to do with carbon but selective breeding for mass production

..
so although the common sense that carbon helps plant growth is true. his lack of utility of finding actual study to back him up makes the common sense sound less common sense.

again another home experiment.
have 5 plants. in plant pots
trim off the bottom of 5 large soda bottles to make plastic domes over the plant pot. seal them. then put smoke at varying amounts into each. and then watch them grow. .. that would be more of a valid study

..
but with all that said. carbon is a negative for lung health. its also a finite supply thats near run out so financially yes they have to shift even if there was no health impact.
but when it comes to the climate change. the water cycle affects temperatures more then carbon

Get 5 glass bottles of Coca-Cola with twist-off caps.

Leave one of them alone.
Drink 1/4 of the next and fill the empty part with water.
Drink 1/2 of the next and fill the empty part with water.
Drink 3/4 of the next and fill the empty part with water.
Drink all of the last one, and fill it all with water.

Then securely screw the tops back on the opened ones.

Stick them all in the freezer until you have to clean up the glass off the bottom of the freezer.

Then, drink what's left. Visit your doctor to take care of bleeding in your mouth, esophagus, stomach, etc.

----------

If you are trying to tell us that the university study is flawed, and that we can prove it to ourselves... lol

[BADecker]

I suppose Cnut247 will come up with some data on the subject.

Whilst we're waiting for that guy, I'll have a go But for this one, we don't even really need data; common sense does the job for us.

German Study Shows Added CO2 Has Led to 14% More Vegetation Over the Past 100 Years

Okay. Maybe. Not really worth studying because this has zero relevance to human-caused climate change.

How in the world negative can you be? If, for sure, people cause CO2 increases, it shows that we have at our disposal, methods to increase food around the world without even trying.

The evidence is compelling that CO2 emissions are beneficial, rather than harmful, and the “social cost of carbon” is negative.

No, and no. How does this follow from the quote above? Answer: it doesn't.

Did you forget to read at least the basic links in the article?
Beneficial = more plants = more food.
Beneficial = Automatic = We don't have to work at getting more food as the population rises.
Detrimental (my idea) = Those who want to reduce populations will have a harder time at it.
Detrimental (my idea) = Fertilizer companies will not be able to sell as much fertilizer.

Almost everyone with even just a fraction of a science education knows Co2 is fertilizer to vegetation and that the added 100 or so ppm in our atmosphere over the past decades have been beneficial to plant growth and thus led to more greening of the continents.

Yet, some alarmists still sniff at this fact, or deny it.

I have many years of science education, thanks. 'CO₂ helps plants to grow' is hardly an earth-shattering revelation. Not sure who these unnamed 'some alarmists' are, but they're more likely to be from the ranks of the climate-skeptics, rather than from the ranks of climate scientists (climate scientists being people who, you know, understand stuff).

You contradict yourself, sort of. The links in the article alone show loads of scientists who have done studies just like the OP says. So, is your education some kind of niche education? Or are you simply focusing on one side of what you learned?

Crop yields will rise by up to 15% by 2050

You can often spot the nonsensical, misleading claims through the use of phrases such as 'up to'. A rise of 'up to 15%' could include a drop of 50%, and still meet the condition. Ridiculous.
... But again, irrelevant. Personally I would expect to see crop yields rise by considerably more than 15% through genetic engineering of drought-resistant strains, etc. And this will be needed to feed the world's population, given the ever-worsening effects of human-caused climate change.

I agree with the part that anybody can make climate predictions, and crop predictions to 2050... even you.

You do realise that temperatures are rising, right? Maybe you could take a look at this study in Nature (summarised here), which uses science, data, and statistical analysis to predict that

a global temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius would lead to a worldwide decline in wheat yield by between 4.1 and 6.4 percent.

Maybe you also understand that sea levels are rising? Might that cause a few problems? And we can go on and on, but I'll stop there as this post is already long enough.
If you want to consider what the effects of human-caused climate change will be, start from a summary such as this one, or perhaps this one, which includes the quote below:

While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

But please, have a read, then come back, and we can debate some more. Don't just cherry-pick one fact and remove it from its context.

Did you get today's forecast... for the weather? Meteorologists are getting quite good at predicting the weather a couple days in advance. Here in Arizona, you can beat the weatherman for rain prediction. You can actually out-predict him/her.

All you have to do is go outside and watch the military spraying the chemtrails around the sky. Then you can watch for the weatherman's rain prediction which you know he is going to do. And, of course, it rains. But the weatherman's rain prediction doesn't happen correctly when there are no chemtrails being sprayed.

Did you get that? They barely can predict rain when the military helps them. How is anybody going to predict benefits or catastrophes when they can barely even predict the weather from day to day?

There is at least as much beneficial sense in the idea of benefits from heightened CO2, as there is disastrous sense. More CO2 makes for:
- warmer weather, which,
- puts more water into the atmosphere, which,
- blocks more cosmic radiation, which,
- causes more natural H2O2 in the atmosphere, which,
- kills off more diseases, naturally, which,
- gets rid of the need for some of the medical, which,
- opens these former medical people up to other jobs,
- which jobs include farming the no-longer deserts of the world,
- because the moisture in the air rained on them,
- so that more people can become more populous,
- because CO2 produced more food,
- thereby becoming happier because they have more land and joyful children,
- so that they have no animosity against people of other races,
- because Siberia was made habitable as was Antarctica,
- so there are more lands for them to go to for free living,
- as the winds move the moisture into the air rather than letting it eat up the coastlands with larger oceans,
- which air-moisture also blocks a little of the sun thereby making an equilibrium regarding how much heat comes to the earth,
- and on and on.

You are simply looking at the the propaganda they have been calling training. They do it because governments might totally lose control if the earth warmed enough so lands were opened up to freedom. It has been the plan of Satan to kill off all people right from the beginning when God made the heavens and the earth. And the people in big government often like to help Satan... Stalin, Hitler, Mau, Genghis Khan, even Biden.

No model is strong enough to predict what is going to happen one way or the other in 30 years. There are too many points that aren't being included, and nobody can get them all. Besides...

Climate Change (meaning global warming) is so much BS that it's remarkable that simple, humble, honest scientists could even begin to think that there is a problem. Why? Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_of_the_19th_century.

Why do I pick the 19th Century? Because Krakatoa happened then, and at least one other that was as big. What happened when these volcanoes blew their tops? They threw so much dust into the air, blocking the sun, so that we had weather that looked like little ice ages, for decades.

Our scientists can easily identify big ocean volcanoes that are easily ready to blow. Nuke a couple of them into activity, and forget all this global warming nonsense. Let the CO2 exist for more plants for more populations.

[Megaquake]

As we are currently coming out of a grand solar minimum they will continually use the solar maximum as human related climate crisis issues. The earth gets energy from the sun and life gets energy from Earth

[franky1]

Get 5 glass bottles of Coca-Cola with twist-off caps.
...

If you are trying to tell us that the university study is flawed, and that we can prove it to ourselves... lol

if badecker puts glass bottles into freezer regularly then he is just admitting he has no common sense
heck he even knows what will happen but still thinks the home experiment should be one with glass which doubles his stupidity


as for trying to use a comparison of 100year old study vs today study. badecker loses the grasp of common sense of selective breeding and efficient farming that can account for the 'upto 15%' thus making using a 100 year old study not great resource to back up the claim
heck even studying the diffrence of fertiliser formulae over time can account for upto 15%
heck even studying the difference of herbicide/pesticide over time can account for upto 15%
heck even the study of crop rotation over time can account for upto 15%
heck even he study of timed water saturation can account for upto 15%

but putting all that aside. the carbon cycle is not about causing global warming. the secret is that its the water cycle that should be studied more.

but hey. fossil fuel miners are running out of resources. and so a shift to renewables is needed anyway. but mentioning carbon issues gets them nice money grants to pivot and still profit

meanwhile. with less clouds means more sun. .. common sense. warmer days
with less rain = more droughts = common sense.
with less rain soaking into widespread land= less evaporation to cause new clouds

if carbon was the main factor. people would be complaining about black snow. but the real complaint is less snow. and what is snow actually made of.. water

when water is not circulating on the land and instead pushed through pipes and sewers whereby the amount of water reaching farmland and landscapes is minimised to whatever sprinklers are allowed to release. you start to learn that the water cycle has been more of a disruption to the balance. due to man..
and carbon is another issues with separate priorities to man

yes climate change is caused by man. but the reasons are not as clear as promoted. there are far deeper man made impacts than just pointing a carbon

[Cnut237]

Almost everyone with even just a fraction of a science education knows Co2 is fertilizer to vegetation and that the added 100 or so ppm in our atmosphere over the past decades have been beneficial to plant growth and thus led to more greening of the continents.
Yet, some alarmists still sniff at this fact, or deny it.

I have many years of science education, thanks. 'CO₂ helps plants to grow' is hardly an earth-shattering revelation. Not sure who these unnamed 'some alarmists' are, but they're more likely to be from the ranks of the climate-skeptics, rather than from the ranks of climate scientists (climate scientists being people who, you know, understand stuff).

You contradict yourself, sort of. The links in the article alone show loads of scientists who have done studies just like the OP says. So, is your education some kind of niche education? Or are you simply focusing on one side of what you learned?

You misunderstand. I'm not questioning that scientists have performed studies that demonstrate that increased CO₂ helps plant life - when considered by itself, i.e. ignoring effects of climate change, such as increased temperature and changing (and more extreme) weather patterns. 'CO₂ is good for plants' is basic scientific truth. It's not controversial at all. I'm simply asking who your 'some alarmists' are - presumably, as they don't understand science, they are from the climate-skeptic side?

As we are currently coming out of a grand solar minimum they will continually use the solar maximum as human related climate crisis issues. The earth gets energy from the sun and life gets energy from Earth

Not sure what your point is, sorry.

https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2266/

[eddie13]

Man made global warming is a complete scam in my opinion..

CO2 is great for vegetation and I would say that we have far too little CO2 in our atmosphere still..

I will continue to do what I can to keep modifying my cars to be capable of burning as much fissile fuel as fast as possible so I can feed the poor trees everyone else are trying to hard to starve..

As the years pass all of these scams will be realized..

[BADecker]

You contradict yourself, sort of. The links in the article alone show loads of scientists who have done studies just like the OP says. So, is your education some kind of niche education? Or are you simply focusing on one side of what you learned?

You misunderstand. I'm not questioning that scientists have performed studies that demonstrate that increased CO₂ helps plant life - when considered by itself, i.e. ignoring effects of climate change, such as increased temperature and changing (and more extreme) weather patterns. 'CO₂ is good for plants' is basic scientific truth. It's not controversial at all. I'm simply asking who your 'some alarmists' are - presumably, as they don't understand science, they are from the climate-skeptic side?

If all you are asking is who my 'some alarmists' are, with regard to this topic in this thread, I don't know that I have any. And I am not sure how to apply the term 'some alarmists' to this thread in the way you might mean it... whatever way that is.

If you would like to see what 'some alarmists' means to the author(s) of the website(s) linked in the OP, my first idea for you to do is to peruse the website(s). If you don't get clarification there, perhaps you could try to contact the author(s), somehow.

Other than that, how about web searches on 'some alarmists' with other reference words so that the search engines can find the kind of alarmists you are looking for.

Life is difficult. Sometimes we simply don't get what we want.

[jrrsparkles]

Increase of population leads to decrease of the green lands so there is no use of increase in the population can help more plants to grow. Anyway we are going to see 15% increase by 2059 right? But the humans are going to alive until that?

[Poker Player]

Increase of population leads to decrease of the green lands so there is no use of increase in the population can help more plants to grow. Anyway we are going to see 15% increase by 2059 right? But the humans are going to alive until that?

Not really. A bit malthusian your reasoning, as I was commenting above. It is clear that growth cannot be infinite in a finite world, but productivity goes far beyond what Malthus imagined.

Malthusianism.

[jrrsparkles]

Increase of population leads to decrease of the green lands so there is no use of increase in the population can help more plants to grow. Anyway we are going to see 15% increase by 2059 right? But the humans are going to alive until that?

Not really. A bit malthusian your reasoning, as I was commenting above. It is clear that growth cannot be infinite in a finite world, but productivity goes far beyond what Malthus imagined.

Malthusianism.

Production increased a lot but all these vegetation were grown with the help of hybrid seeds and chemical fertilizers which will make the agricultural land to become dump over time so the lands will not be useful after few decades that time we will face the real drought and decrease in the supply of food products.

[Poker Player]

Production increased a lot but all these vegetation were grown with the help of hybrid seeds and chemical fertilizers which will make the agricultural land to become dump over time so the lands will not be useful after few decades that time we will face the real drought and decrease in the supply of food products.

Really? After few decades? Chemical fertilizers and hybrid plants have been widely used for more than a few decades already_

History of Chemical Fertilizer Development

HISTORY OF PLANT HYBRIDS

[mu_enrico]

+ CO2 = + plants (ceteris paribus)
More food = more population, what's difficult about that

CO2 is not the problem, but nasty things that come out from the dirty exhaust.

[jrrsparkles]

Production increased a lot but all these vegetation were grown with the help of hybrid seeds and chemical fertilizers which will make the agricultural land to become dump over time so the lands will not be useful after few decades that time we will face the real drought and decrease in the supply of food products.

Really? After few decades? Chemical fertilizers and hybrid plants have been widely used for more than a few decades already_

History of Chemical Fertilizer Development

HISTORY OF PLANT HYBRIDS

Yeah just for the few decades but humanity existing for more than 50,000 years atleast so how these hybrid seeds are giving high yields than organically grown seeds. And you know one thing? Its not possible to get seeds from the hybrid crops by the one who is doing agriculture, only the company who is producing it can supply the seeds that is where the problem will begin in the future.

[Poker Player]

Yeah just for the few decades but humanity existing for more than 50,000 years atleast so how these hybrid seeds are giving high yields than organically grown seeds. And you know one thing? Its not possible to get seeds from the hybrid crops by the one who is doing agriculture, only the company who is producing it can supply the seeds that is where the problem will begin in the future.

I know, of course I know, and I am not a fan of companies like Montsanto (now owned by Bayer), but this negativist discourse is very old and the reality is that today more people than ever are being fed. Countries where people were thin because they were malnourished have obesity epidemics. The negativist Malthusian discourse and its variants undervalue human adaptability, creativity and productivity.

[Cnut237]

a lot has happened since Malthus, who, for those who don't know, predicted a catastrophe in which there would not be enough resources to feed a growing population in the world, and the fact is that the population has continued to grow and grow, while more and more people eat more and more.

Malthusianism is definitely out-dated, and exponential population growth - or indeed any overall population growth - is no longer a given.

The five-stage Demographic Transition Model is I believe more relevant:

In Stage 1, which applied to most of the world before the Industrial Revolution, both birth rates and death rates are high. As a result, population size remains fairly constant but can have major swings with events such as wars or pandemics.
In Stage 2, the introduction of modern medicine lowers death rates, especially among children, while birth rates remain high; the result is rapid population growth. Many of the least developed countries today are in Stage 2.
In Stage 3, birth rates gradually decrease, usually as a result of improved economic conditions, an increase in women’s status, and access to contraception. Population growth continues, but at a lower rate. Most developing countries are in Stage 3.
In Stage 4, birth and death rates are both low, stabilizing the population. These countries tend to have stronger economies, higher levels of education, better healthcare, a higher proportion of working women, and a fertility rate hovering around two children per woman. Most developed countries are in Stage 4.
A possible Stage 5 would include countries in which fertility rates have fallen significantly below replacement level (2 children) and the elderly population is greater than the youthful population.

_{https://populationeducation.org/what-demographic-transition-model/}



There are of course various projections of when overall population might start to fall, but whilst, for now, population is still growing, it is an indisputable fact that the rate of increase has slowed dramatically over recent decades...


_{https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/06/2019-Revision-%E2%80%93-World-Population-Growth-1700-2100-772x550.png}