Potholer54 posts well notated videos on youtube where he explains (among other things) climate science and mostly debunks false information. He is a geologist by degree, but has spent his career in science communication. Videos are infrequent but well done, and he makes no money from them. He sites his sources and does a great job of tracking down primary sources, all of which are linked.
One of his oft repeated ideas is: "Why should you believe what some guy on youtube is saying about climate change? You shouldn't! But if an idiot like me (potholer54) can read and understand the source material, you can too." Not only does he provide sources, he is very good about following up when people point out mistakes in his videos.
Anyway, here is a two parter where he responds to the attitude that CO2 is good for plant growth and so it is good for us.
One of the key points is that yes: if you hold everything else equal and increase CO2, it does increase plant growth -- but in the real world, climate change isn't just increasing CO2, it affects temperatures and rainfall too. Also, some plants use "C3" photosynthesis and benefit significantly from increasing CO2 while "C4" photosynthesis crops (like corn) don't. But there is a lot more in there.
Insightful video. CO2 coalition (funded by Exxon) says 140-million year trend of dangerously decreasing CO2, with the implication that more CO2 is good. Potholer54 talks about this paper. Two insights:
a) CO2 levels have been below 200PPM for millions of years, and life on the planet was fine.
b) Over 140 million years, CO2 has been dropping 0.00001 ppm/year. We are adding 2 PPM/year now, 200,000x faster. This rate of change is unprecedented.
Yeah the whole “I know someone whose panic is not sufficiently data-based to satisfy me, therefore there is no reason to panic” is not a particularly strong (or data-backed) argument.
The problem seems to be the opposite. Climate scientists have been too conservative with their models and predictions, and we are hitting points that they thought would be years out.
So it's good and bad, whereas we only hear the bad part of climate change. As in there's nothing good coming from climate change. Which is a bit misleading. It is a big problem, but some good does come from it in terms of plant growth.
Pop media doesn’t really do nuance. If we have to frame climate change as good or bad, it’s clearly bad.
The fact that nuances make it good for some plants, for some people, is true and there for those who want details. The problem is that mitigating details are often used to rebut the first order problem. As the brilliant marketing people in Attack of the Killer Tomatoes put it, “giant tomatoes mean bigger pizzas!”
Another common refrain from Potholer54 is: don't listen to the media -- what are the climate scientists (the primary sources) saying?
But overall the picture is bad. There are regions where things will benefit, and climate research has said so for decades. But overall this rate of change is going to have bad long term consequences for the biosphere (including humans).
One of his oft repeated ideas is: "Why should you believe what some guy on youtube is saying about climate change? You shouldn't! But if an idiot like me (potholer54) can read and understand the source material, you can too." Not only does he provide sources, he is very good about following up when people point out mistakes in his videos.
Anyway, here is a two parter where he responds to the attitude that CO2 is good for plant growth and so it is good for us.
Part 1: https://youtu.be/ZqA4bDVmBB8?si=TjwFJFR4QzFCXfGR Part 2: https://youtu.be/VJoijPh2i-A?si=wUc0gfnQynZXWdHJ
One of the key points is that yes: if you hold everything else equal and increase CO2, it does increase plant growth -- but in the real world, climate change isn't just increasing CO2, it affects temperatures and rainfall too. Also, some plants use "C3" photosynthesis and benefit significantly from increasing CO2 while "C4" photosynthesis crops (like corn) don't. But there is a lot more in there.