It turns out the benefits of rising CO2 concentrations offsets any projected agricultural damage from climate warming.
In 2023 US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) activists dubiously raised the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) five-fold due to unsupportable forecasts of agricultural deterioration and declining crop yields resulting from doubled CO2 and consequent climate warming.
The 500% SCC hike was based on a biased-negative model that neglected the significantly positive crop-yield benefits of rising CO2 concentrations.
The analysis the EPA relied upon for its dubious accounting was found in modeling papers (Moore et al., 2017 and Challinor et al., 2014) that tendentiously neglected multivariate factors in agricultural processes (e.g., precipitation changes, atmospheric CO2 changes, water-use efficiency, adaptation, technology…) and primarily focused on an assumed negative effect from a warming climate.
But now a new analysis that does not neglect all these other factors – especially the highly beneficial CO2 fertilization effect – finds any future warming, even up to 5°C, will still result in a net positive effect on crop yields.
“The negative temperature effects are fully offset by gains from CO2 fertilization and adaptation.”
“These coefficients imply that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 doubles from 280 to 560 ppm and causes 3°C warming, the combined effect on yields would be, on average, -14.7% (due to warming) plus 16.8% (due to CO2 fertilization) for a net effect of +2.1%.”
“But after incorporating the newly-available data the conclusions change such that global average yield gains of all crop types under CO2-induced warming are positive even out to 5°C warming.”
The really good news is that CO2 can double and there will be no temperature increase.
In reading this report one should be aware the 280 ppm was back around 1960. Today’s value is 426. 560 is still a few years away, if we get there. At the current rate of increase, I will be long gone.
280ppm was the CO2 concentration during the Eemian era
Which was two to three degrees WARMER than now.
Just saying. History shows no significant correlation between CO2 and temperature, other than for statistically insignificant periods
And in the models, which of course do what you tell them to do.
[…] From NoTrickZone […]
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]