They said it was climate change

[shtferbrains]

Co2 is necessary for plant life, but too much will end animal life.

At what level of Co2 will we start seeing the cows dieing?

What about all those dogs in the urban areas?

Will those poor people have to watch their dogs die a terrible excess Co2 death?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

It appears that agstar isn't going to respond, so I will generously help him out.
CO2 is immediately fatal at 10% concentration. That would be 100,000 ppm.
That is a mere 240 times higher than the current 420 ppm concentration.
What do you think agstar, do we have enough fossil fuels to accomplish that?

[fjlip]

Now I'm SCARED!

[agstar77]

Aren't you curious why they picked co2 over o2? No vested interest? Funny how they are funded by big oil.

[shtferbrains]

Aren't you curious why they picked co2 over o2? No vested interest? Funny how they are funded by big oil.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Now , WTF are you talking about?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Aren't you curious why they picked co2 over o2? No vested interest? Funny how they are funded by big oil.

Perhaps because there is no war on Oxygen, but there is a declared war against CO2?

[fjlip]

https://co2coalition.org/facts/

Interesting site about C02.
Strong group of members.

Excellent site! Facts need to be in public's face, NOT fear mongering lies in MSM. Rotten governments with an agenda. Thanks

[chuckChuck]

The flat earth climate change deniers will, so it seems, never accept the science that proves CO2 from burning fossil fuels causes climate change.

They will resort to all kinds of dumbass ideas in their denial.

Like A5 they disregard the all the signs of climate change and serious consequences and focus on the very small benefits of increased plant growth that will be offset by higher temperatures and increased frequent drought and heat stress in southern Alberta.

We all know CO2 levels are not a limiting factor in crop production in the southern prairies. The limiting factor is moisture.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Like A5 they disregard the all the signs of climate change and serious consequences and focus on the very small benefits of increased plant growth that will be offset by higher temperatures and increased frequent drought and heat stress in southern Alberta.

We all know CO2 levels are not a limiting factor in crop production in the southern prairies. The limiting factor is moisture.

The scientific literature disagrees with your assertion. See the last sentence in this short cut and paste from Chen et al 2024:

The CO2 fertilization effect has been dominant driver of the global-scale increase in “leaf area index” (LAI), or greening, since the 1980s. Scientists have estimated that CO2’s photosynthesis-enhancing capacity is 70% responsible for the greening trend (Zhu et al., 2016 ([url]https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004[/url])).
....

Using much more reliable MODIS data, scientists (Chen et al., 2024 ([url]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989423004262[/url])) can now say the LAI trend in the 21st century is robustly positive, and that 2001-2020 “global greening is an indisputable fact.”

The satellite data indicate 55.15% of global areas are greening “at an accelerated rate,” whereas just 7.28% have undergone a browning trend since 2001.

CO2 fertilization is still the dominant (75.63%) driver of Earth’s 21st century greening trend. Any drought trends in recent decades cannot overtake the positive CO2 fertilization effect, as all drought can do is slightly slow down the acceleration of the CO2-induced greening trend.

[blackpowder]

First, start with Co2 contributes to climate change. Causes climate change implies it is the only factor.
Cleaning up statements would go a long way towards some believability.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/climate-change-farming-1.5461275

Is CBC still a reliable source, Chuck?
Because they claim Canada will be a huge winner of global warming. Canada could have 5 times more farmland than we currently do by 2080.
Do you think the loss of the Palliser triangle desert (200,000 sq km total, only a fraction of which is arable) would be missed if we add 4.2 million sq km of farmland?

Canada will add a huge share of the land that becomes climatically suitable for growing major crops as the world's temperatures continue to rise, a new study suggests.

The study, published today in the journal PLOS ONE ([url]https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228305[/url]), predicts about 4.2 million square kilometres of Canada that are currently too cold for farming crops like wheat will be warm enough by 2080 if greenhouse gas emissions continue to climb.

"It may become our bread basket for the future. In that regard, it's good for Canada," said co-author Krishna Bahadur KC, an adjunct professor of geography at the University of Guelph.

Currently, only a million square kilometres in Canada are warm enough for growing crops like wheat, corn and potatoes, he said.

Does this make CBC a denier organization?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

What about this journal study which suggests global farmland could expand by almost a third?

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228305

Or do you think these models will prove to be a wildly inaccurate as every other model you post, such as climate change, renewable energy, covid, etc?