No, more CO₂ won't help us grow more food
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- The world looks very different when you understand statistics. Go to brilliant.org/... to get started for free!
Contrary to what you might think, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is actually bad news for growing food. In this video I talk about why more CO2 means a warmer planet, a drier planet, and less food. But more than that, food that actually contains fewer nutrients...
REFERENCES
(1) ourworldindata...
(2) e.g. ourworldindata...
(3) www.dailysigna...
(4) www.ipcc.ch/re...
(5) pubmed.ncbi.nl...
(6) e360.yale.edu/...
(7) www.nature.com...
(8) www.smithsonia...
(9) sci-hub.wf/10....
(10) www.politico.c...
(11) www.nature.com...
(12) pubmed.ncbi.nl...
(13) apps.who.int/i...
(14) www.ncbi.nlm.n...
(15) ehp.niehs.nih....
You can support the channel by becoming a patron at / simonoxfphys
Check out my website! www.simonoxfph...
--------- II ---------
My twitter - / simonoxfphys
My facebook - / youtubesimon
My insta - / simonoxfphys
My goodreads - / simonoxfphys
--------- II ---------
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com
Edited by Luke Negus
Video essay about the effects of climate change on agriculture, how climate change will hurt food production, including how climate change will make food less nutritious. More CO2 means more photosynthesis, but more CO2 also means a warmer planet, which means less food, and food lacking in protein. In this video - similar to videos from SciShow, Crash Course, ClimateTown, Our Changing Climate, Veritasium, and Smarter Every Day - I talk about how global warming will impact how much food we can grow.
Huge thanks to my supporters on Patreon: Jimmy Lee, Simon Stelling, Gabriele Siino, Bjorn Bakker, Ieuan Williams, Candace H, Tom Malcolm, Marcus Bosshard, Andrew Knop, Shab Kumar, Brady Johnston, Liat Khitman, Jesper Norsted, Kent & Krista Halloran, Rapssack, Kevin O'Connor, Timo Kerremans, Thines Ganeshamoorthy, Ashley Wilkins, Michael Parmenter, Samuel Baumgartner, Dan Sherman, ST0RMW1NG 1, Adrian Sand, Morten Engsvang, Josh Schiager, Farsight101, K.L, poundedjam, fourthdwarf, Daan Sneep, Felix Freiberger, Chris Field, Robert Connell, ChemMentat, Kolbrandr, , Sebastain Graf, Dan Nelson, Shane O'Brien, Alex, Fujia Li, Will Tolley, Cody VanZandt, Jesper Koed, Jonathan Craske, Albrecht Striffler, Igor Francetic, Jack Troup, SexyCaveman , Sean Richards, Kedar , Omar Miranda, Alastair Fortune, bitreign33 , Mat Allen, Anne Smith, Rafaela Corrêa Pereira, Colin J. Brown, Princess Andromeda, Mach_D, BenDent, Thusto , Andy Hartley, Lachlan Woods, Dan Hanvey, Simon Donkers, Kodzo , James Bridges, Liam , Wendover Productions, Kendra Johnson.
As a plant biologist, thank you for this video. People who make this point know litterally only one thing about plants and have no idea of all the other factors in play here. It's the most undercomplex argument one can make.
But there will be loads of bamboo shoots and kudzu for everybody! Sarcasm aside, it does seem that a little knowledge among the general public does make this more difficult to educate people about. My biology teacher told us that at A level we would learn which O level facts were lies. Then at degree level we would learn which A level facts were lies.
Frankly, the man in the street shouldn't be blamed for making this argument. It has a degree of apparent logic.
It's science education (or education full stop) that should be levelled up, I think.
I've heard plants crave something called Brawndo
Here is some science for you contemplate, during the covid response induced economic slowdowns the drop in CO2 production activities by humans did no show up as a proportional signal in the rate of CO2 rise in the Earth's atmosphere as recorded in the Keeling Curve data set. People who can't explain why that is the case should stop pretending that they understand anything at all about what is happening with our planet's atmosphere. Keep in mind that the UN is the source of both conflicting datasets, therefore there is no easy option available from a dismissal of either fact, you do actually have to make an honest effort to explain why they are at odds with each other.
Exactly! I was stunned when my grandpa (organic and in organic chemist university lecturer for decades, helped set up first computer labs all over south East Asia, wrote a chemistry text book and taught dozens of phd students around the world. ) sure he was 90, but he was still making money on the stock market with code he wrote himself in like the 90s. Smart man right?
Well - he announced in his 90th birthday speech that we need MORE co2 ... to grow more food to feed the increasing population 🤦♀️🤷♀️
The world would be a better place if we had politicians that are actually informed about the topics they reside over. Botany being a key topic
The world would be a better place without politicians.
@@mh1593 Depends, some CEO have more power than politician right now, rendering true free market impossible.
@@charlestrudel8308 That may be so, but the ignorance on display from some of our representatives is mind boggling and severely depressing.
@@tonybennett4159 well, it may even be on purpose because of lobbyism.
Many politicians of the past would do this crazy thing where they sought the expertise and insight of experts in their fields. You just needed a liberal education so you could comprehend what you were being told.
And we elected people like that because the public had the same broad education.
as an agricultural technician i am grateful you made a video about agriculture Simon.
in my career its just prevention and adapting agriculture.
also fun fact at 40-45C chlorophyll annihilates due to heat.
Does that mean a ~1 week heat wave of 40°C would essentially kill off entire fields of crops??
That reminds me of algae death in corals due to rising temperature. Coupled with the current hypothesis that chlorophyll was once a symbiotic relationship between two lifeforms, it sounds kind of analogous. Do the green parts bleach?
What kind of adaptation? More C4 plants?
That fact sounds incredibly not fun...
@@JayLikesLasers Algae in coral doesn't die, the coral evict it so that they are able to host other varieties that are more productive in the current conditions. It is an entirely normal process, a very impressive adaptation to the need to have different genes for different conditions. Research in Australia has proven this to be the case to the extent that they can induce bleaching then introduce specifically selected algae genetic lines to match the conditions on different parts of the great barrier reef. Stop getting your "science" from Disney, read what the CSIRO et al. have actually achieved.
Its so frustrating, most of this has been known for ages but people just wont accept it and will continue to plug their pollution machienes in. Its so painful how slow the change is happening because of money.
by "people" you mean governments and business leaders. so, certain people...
@@mh1593 “certain people” Lots of people in single-occupancy-vehicles. Even as gas prices go through the roof they stubbornly drive everywhere. And they vote for politicians who promise to reduce gas prices. Just a matter of time for politicians to overtly subsidize gas at the pump.
Did you type this on a computer that took 4 barrels of oil to produce?
@@sebucwerd “Did you type this on a computer that took 4 barrels of oil to produce?”
I see this argumentation periodically and don’t really understand it.
On first blush it seems to say that critics are hypocritical of some aspect of the world because they benefit from that aspect. Further it suggests that critique is not allowed, the status quo must win out. No changes should happen because that’s how it’s always been done.
Computers take a great deal of energy, materials and know-how to make. They used to take vastly more of all three back in Turing’s day with vacuum tubes. Like someone saying “vacuum tubes are wasteful… here’s a transistor” someone ought to be allowed to say “we use oil badly… here’s alternative energy…etc”. To suggest any change anyone needs to point out the downside of the old and how a change would be better.
@@CarFreeSegnitz yes but to encourage social change you need leadership from politicians / governments and/or businesses, that was what I was refering to by "cerain people".
We can all complain about all the other people/ourselves but system wide changes can't be made without leaders - just look at BLM - it is a mass movement of citizens for a valid cause but it's soooo slow in the changes being reached; because it's bottom up rather than top down.
As someone who used to farm way up north, specifically in the tiny north-western dot in Canada on the wheat production map, I'm happy to see it addressed that just moving north isn't a simple solution. While we did have the soil required, the droughts in large forested areas nearby have been causing fires and the reduced sunlight from the smoke blowing over has lost the area at least 1 week of growth each year. This put a lot more pressure on our already short growing season of mid May to mid October and farmers were regularly not finishing harvests in time. Those that were finishing often were taking crops off before they had fully matured resulting in low protein counts. Ultimately my family quit farming in 2019 in part due to the weather related changes causing constant strain.
LOL, perhaps you should have studied agriculture in Australia then, they are far more productive and under much more difficult conditions. Ultimately your family quit because they were incompetent.
@@DanielSMatthews Or maybe people are allowed to change jobs when under the constant, looming stress of possible crop failure and bankruptcy? Also, care to quantify what "under much more difficult conditions" means? Not everything in life needs to be a dick-measuring contest.
I've entertained the idea of moving to some cheap land in Grande Prairie and setting up a food forest. I'm assuming that's where you lived based on your description? Although the cold winters (around -40c), and now learning from you that the forest fires have that big of an effect on sunlight, make it seem a lot less doable. I'd feel really limited in terms of what could be grown there. I guess where I live now (Calgary) isn't particularly great either, we get around -35c extremes, the smoke can be pretty bad too for a few days, and now there's even a historic drought happening.
@@DanielSMatthews But we can put in more crops per year than they can, genius.
@@DanielSMatthews Maybe you should look up their relative position to the equator, numb-numb.
props for comparing numbers properly: 230 million -> 8000 million, using the same multiple (million), instead of switching to billion. Right at the beginning 00:10
Loved this video: the repercussions of global warming you speak about are less immediately evident to the layman and it's good that science communicators finally begin talking about it.
Problem is that the average layman has deliberately closed their mind to science and experts. History will show this to be the age where humans turned back to tossed chicken bones and what they learn from grifters and charlatans.
Thank you for this video. Food getting less and less nutritious will definitely be a huge problem in the next decades.
Could you please do a video on the impact that the health of soil has on its ability to store CO2?
Commercial growers inject CO2 into their greenhouses. Presumably then, their produce is deficient in minerals and nutrients.
Also, wouldn't it affect everything alive, making other animals sicker and less nutritious for carnivores/omnivores, meaning that you can't just change food sources?
lower nutrition means physically weaker yes, but more importantly: intellectually stunted.
We can make up for "physically weaker" with modern means, but not intellectually stunted.
Thankyou for this video. Have found lately alot of people spruiking the "greening" of the planet thing, and this is a perfect response.
Yeah, I've noticed that even though the "greening" schtick is several years old, lately it seems that more regular anthropogenic climate change deniers are promoting it.
Very interesting. I've been arguing with people that extra CO2 'won't' provide more food for years - and it's amazing how stubborn people with this belief can be.
For my part - a gardener - one of the most troubling aspects is the fact that extra CO2 will make plants lusher, growing faster and taller.
Unfortunately, this lusher growth makes them more susceptible to damage in extreme weather: they dry up faster in droughts, they break and wither more easily in high winds, they can be more easily battered by heavy rains.
Even worse, all those lusher and softer leaves make them much more prone to pest and disease. Insect attacks are featuring 'more frequently' in the news over the past few years - locusts, for instance - something we in the West seldom heard about before.
On a personal note, I've noticed the recent emergence of several plant diseases and the massive increase in a particular kind of weevil affecting my garden.
The weevil used to stick to wild raspberries as its host plant, feeding on it all the summer. So it never used to be a problem in the past. However, it's now including several other valuable fruit-producing trees and shrubs in the garden, species which it never bothered last year.
I spend hours picking them off by hand - as I don't want to use chemical sprays. However, farmers won't do that. They'll spray crops with even more chemical pesticides, which requires more industrial processes to produce, producing much more CO2 in the making.
How many more times have we got to learn that all chemical sprays do have an eventual effect on the human body?
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the drop in human infertility is related to pesticides and herbicides, e.g. Atrazine is nasty stuff. Nevermind, I guess they make millions for a very small number of people 🙄
it does depend on whats in the spray and how it works. for example, blocking or antagonising a critical enzyme that doesnt exist in humans. also if the spray is based on a natural product, it should be broken down by bacteria and such, though natural sprays are highly likely to develop resistance towards them in their targets which is why theyre often avoided afaik.
@@jonathanodude6660 Agreed, but one of the OP's 2 main points still stands - more reliance on chemicals means more heavy industry, which means more CO2
@@jeffbenton6183 this is unavoidable until weve developed a renewable economy. but its true for everything in general. i think we should be retooling everything for their eventual future power sources, but simply stopping things while we wait for those power sources to be ready isnt going to help them come about any faster.
its about investment, so losing money to failed crops and reduced output from less food being available to be eaten will definitely be a drain on the resources we need to fund it.
Dear denialists, whether plants like more CO2 is irrelevant if climate is so wrecked that there is nowhere to grow them.
Get back to me when they can predict the climate.
It do go down 😂😂👌. Thanks for this explanation. We have been producing “junk” calories for years…
The soil interactions are very complex and I am not sure we have a perfect understanding of the interactions yet, but you are heading in the right direction. The natural patterns are changing and most likely not in a sustainable direction. Thanks for the clear explanation.
The nutrition collapse is like not discussed nearly enough
Simon is a BRILLIANT (Atmospheric) Physicist but the end EFFECT is for an Earth or Environmental Scientist. Simon tells the the physical characteristics forecast from the models, the Earth Scientist takes them, and then estimates what the planet's ecology will be in the various regions of the planet, then stands back and exclaims "Oh Shit."
Terrifying really, but also good to know these effects are avoidable. Thanks for this one!
How exactly are they avoidable?
@@MrNicoJac if we keep working to reduce carbon emissions then these effects would be far less worse than what they're projected to be.
@@ajaysinghrathore1940
Are you hopeful we'll reach carbon net negative before it's too late?
I'm not very hopeful, especially after this video.
(it seems like the costs will increasingly increase, while people will get dumber and distracted by more immediate concerns, and I think the financial markets' focus on short-term maximum gains will be too big of an obstacle - but I'd _love_ to be proven wrong)
Avoidable for humans in 1800.
It was also technically avoidable in 1970. Now it is basically unavoidable given that we will never even bother to reverse any projects until catastrophic effects happen.
I've seen some great research for carbon sequestration using microbes. They're searching for the most carbon sequestering (is that a word?) microbes in soils for development. A lot of the carbon is released after the plants are harvested, however there are certain microbes which help retain the carbon post harvest. If we can exploit these microbes and even develop them further we could potentially sequester a lot of carbon in the soils.
Yes that happens naturally, but to a lesser extent on farmland, because the soil gets compacted and the spraying with pesticides, deteriorates the living conditions for for the bacterial flora. In undisturbed forest soil that is mostly the end product of composting, you can push a stick down 2 feet, because the soil is porous and air permeable, so a much larger volume of sequestering bacteria are able to live there.
Except polar temps rise faster than equator, and the 4°C polar temp rise is melting permafrost releasing more CO2 and Methane than humans produce. Even at zero human CO2, we have pushed Earth's Carbon cycle beyond Earth's ability to correct it if we stop polluting.
In (parts of) Germany we have a big problem with drought now.
I have a little vegetable garden and it's bad. Basically no rain in March, a little in April, nothing so far since that little in April.
There is a lot of agriculture located around where I live. They are probably in trouble too.
There's a man who produces tomatoes in the East of England very close to a sugar beet factory.
The beet production produces lots of co2, and the tomato grower pipes the co2 to his glasshouse He seems to produce around double the yield as he did without the co2.
Yes, but that extra growth is carbs (those "carbs" are from the "CARBon dioxide)
@@annoloki in the green stuff, not the red. And the latter is what he sells, the green stuff going back into the ground as compost
Greenhouse aren't the same a the atmosphere. Under the *right* conditions added CO2 can aid plant growth with certain crops/plants but an atmosphere with higher levels of CO2 won't.
And lack of magnesium stops the body from using the sugars, leading to obesity and type II diabetes. One metastudy found a 15% reduction in change of developing diabetes is correlated with a 100mg increase in daily magnesium intake. In the US & UK, we see less than half of the population is meeting its daily magnesium intake requirements. This problem is already here.
I saw this brilliant comment in the comment section of a PragerU video. "Life has existed with 10 times higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere". Well yes mister Conservative, but not current life and certainly not humans.
And you are correct Simon, the Last Jedi sucks
Yep, thing is, there was no fungus capable of breaking down wood for 60 million years after the first trees evolved... so, trees that didn't burn, were buried, becoming coal etc. Once fungus evolved the ability to break down wood, that period of massive carbon removal ended. Now, dead trees mostly rot or burn, returning the carbon to the atmosphere. And we've been returning the carbon from the 60 million year window to the atmosphere too. This puts us back to the time before trees evolved.
I study organic vegetable production and regarding crops being less nutrient dense, in our course of soil fertility we studied how cultivated soil around the world having every year less organic matter because of practices like tilling and keeping the soil barren, isn't able to provide nutrients in the correct amounts. This is not only caused by the decrease of soil organic matter but also by the decrease of the soil biota which is the mediator that plants use to absorb nutrients. But it was very interesting to discover a new interpretation of the problem
Just add on artic sea ice loss , ocean acidification ,microplastics , forever chemicals , ageing nuclear waste depositories , very aging ww2 munition dumps , soil loss, fresh water reserves at record lows .military expenditure at record highs , mass extinction event well under way and things probably be fine .
I think the decline in the nutritiousness of plants has less to do with varieties, or CO2, and more to do with modern farming practices that deplete soils of minerals and of micro-organisms that are essential for creating symbiotic relationships with plants that provide them with nutrients. Read up on what people like Dr Elaine Ingram have to say on the matter.
More CO2 in the atmosphere won't provide more food - I agree.
But if you have a thriving biosphere, CO2 will not harm to the climate.
The problem is that we are causing massive desertification of our planet - mainly by plant agriculture.
What we have to do is to stop eating plants and put large stock of ruminants on the land and use these to regenerate the soil.
Healthy soil is the key to prevent desertification / climate change. Not some carbon counting or nonsense like that...
Sorry bud, ruminants produce methane, which means the climate cult wants to kill them all.
The declining nutritional value of food since the 1950s is an interesting question. I have heard various hypotheses for this phenomenon. The people who hate Monsanto blame it on the herbicide Roundup, various organic and regenerative farming groups blame it on artificial fertilisers and pesticides. Now it is increasing levels of CO2 to blame. Has anyone done any serious practical research to prove exactly what is happening with our food.
As he mentioned in the video. The CO2 hypothesis was further tested and confirmed by multiple studies.
Acid rain also washed minerals from soils, reducing availability for plants. More than one thing is happening.
My first suspect with that would be poor soil. Less iron or calcium in soil, less uptake. If CO2 really impacts that, then time to start cultivating or GMOing varieties that can still be nutritious with higher CO2 levels.
Thanks for doing these videos. I really don't know how you can read all this stuff and still be motivated to tell anyone. Well done :)
Seen a lot of videos on this topics, but this is probably the most well explained on by far, amazing work!
As a general rule, if something is good or necessary doesn't mean an excess of it would be beneficial. Everything is about balance. Life is no exception. Also nice job featuring Uncle Roger, didn't see it coming 😂
Only one technology gives me hope.. GMO
It can help fixing both issues, making plants more resilient to heat and droughts, and making more nutrients dense food….
If this makes you sad and/or gives you anxiety, read „Climate change is altering the seasonal rhythm of plant life-cycle events“ from „The Conversation“ to get oven more or that/those feeling(s)
I imagine that if this applies to human food chains, then might this also apply to nature as a whole?
Which in turn will mean animals all up the food chain will also have nutrient deficiencies.
The delivery here is one of undisputed fact. There are shortcomings to the argument, some possibly introduced after this video was made. Measurements are increasingly showing a difference between actual weather patterns and IPCC predictions. The Antarctic ice shelves, atmospheric temperature, severity of typhoons/hurricanes (though there is more coastal damage due to increasing development along coastlines, flattened trees are not headline material) The wheat belt covers a very wide range of latitudes and climate, a 1 deg rise will not affect the majority of it. Greenhouse farming utilises pumped in CO2.
Basically, we do not fully understand climate, or whether we can have the slightest effect on it. I am a biologist and have spent 35 years working in the environmental field. I keep track of all climate updates on a daily basis.
With regard to climate change I'm sitting on the fence, I've found nothing either side to tempt me down!
As for the IPCC, net zero (utterly ridiculous to remotely consider factoring that in) be highly suspicious of anything affected by politicians or the global elite. There is money and power at stake. Incidentally, does anyone know what the wind turbine blades are made of? Solid balsa wood with a non recyclable cover bound with a resin that can leach bisphenol A's into the surrounding environment. Check them out. Statistics regarding the likely concentrations and possible medical effects are generally produced by companies with an interest. Also check to see the effects of balsa deforestation in Equador.
Nothing is proven, we cannot produce a policy, we can only depend on independent science.
How much of a RISK for your descendants is small enough to sit on your ass and do NOTHING???
Keep up the great work, Simon!
Also, not really about plants but still important, is that the increase in co2 that is projected could cause a significant cognitive decline.
Which if we look at what leaded fuel did (not entirely the same but it also caused a cognitive decline), could among other things cause crime practically violent crime to increase.
Are you able to show any research on this specific issue (CO2) ? "crime" is very subjective to the society it is reported by. ie; different parts of the world treat different things as crimes, including violence.
I think we just breathe a bit faster
Well, I already don't know how nutrition works, and it sounds like I should pay more attention to it if food will get less healthy.
To me it would make more sense that the nutrient deficiency is caused by exhaustion of the soil and overusing it. We do not give enough organic matter to our soils now and we rely on artificial fertilizers too much. We are just depleting our soils constantly by the means of modern agriculture. That is probably the main reason of today's food being less nutritious than it used to be. We cannot solve everything by just not emitting CO2. The humanity has many more problems than just one gas. Whole our system is based on exploitation of the planet and it is not sustainable. We do not solve everything by using so called green technologies not emitting CO2. Although that's a good thing to do it is not enough.
True. Problem isn't so much artificial fertilisers, but it's that those fertilisers are the minimum required to grow the plants... we're not returning the micro nutrients. A fertiliser that contained those would be more expensive. There is also the issue, though, of the increase in soil pH from increase in rain pH, this also washes out many minerals. This was seen in much higher levels before sulphur emissions controls gave us the "acid rain" problem. Even where this is now under control, that doesn't mean the soils have been restored.
I wish more people knew this
So does this mean that certain foods grown in greenhouses tend to be less nutritious? Usually the CO2 concentration is controlled and elevated to levels like 1000ppm in a greenhouse. Are making these climate controlled houses suboptimal for the quality of the crop?
Great video! Soil moisture loss in higher temps is a massive problem .
I remember you did a video showing how you chose climate dynamics as a research topic (specifically the extreme warming events induced by the shifts in the cold donut of air circling the arctic), could you do a longer one, showing how you ended up on the specific problem you ended up tackling for your PhD (maybe a tree-based explanation haha)?
I'm sure I want to do a PhD in ML-related climate science, but the field of specifically climate science seems overwhelming at time (currently at MS-level in Machine Learning)
Keep up the great work!
Regarding the nutrient collapse point: I find it interesting that you didn't answer the most obvious question when it comes to battling that. Why can't we just synthesize our own vitamins?
We've known how to for a long time, and Vitamin C in a pill isn't that much different than Vitamin C in an orange. Or course, the orange offers more than just vitamin C, but we can solve that by making multivitamins, right? Am I missing something here?
Rice, Wheats , grains may not increase, but what about fruits and vegetables?
Eg grapes and wine now made in Southern England where before it was not possible.
Interesting video for sure though.
One point not touched upon is the changes in soil fertility/crop yields in southern parts of world will exacerbate mass migration!
And given it is places like Africa and Asia whose populations are the ones expanding so rapidly this bodes ill for nations in North (Europe/UK) whose populations are not at replacement level.
Here in the state of New York, on the coast, It rained all last week. In the American West one of the dryest states is on fire. Yes, the Gulf stream and the water cycle is not working the way it used to..
Interesting video, but you talk about only part of the story. It's also a fact that due to the functioning of the enzyme Rubisco (where CO2 is fixed into plant biomass), increased CO2 in many plant species (especially C3 plants) will result in higher levels of net photosynthesis (plant production). It could be that drought and other things related to higher temperatures will offset this advantage, but this impact of CO2 on net photosynthesis should be mentioned. It should also be mentioned that life expectancies in underdeveloped countries like Ghana and Bangladesh, for example, has been increasing at a rapid rate over the last decades. Much of this is due to developments in medicine and probably also generally more food availability. It could be that decreasing nutrients in food (as related to increasing CO2) impact health in these regions, but this must be balanced against other considerations like medical developments and the ability to obtain nutrients by other means. I appreciate the plea of reducing CO2 emissions. I'm all onboard with that, but this video only presents part of the story in relating CO2 to plant production and human health.
Isn't the higher levels of photosynthesis the exact reason why the nutrients that the plant takes from the soil get diluted in a more carbohydrate-rich plant??
Seems like you didn't really hear what he was saying...
@@MrNicoJac the study he mentioned was focused on current elevated CO2 and did not consider future temperatures. Ribulose bisphosphate carboxylate/oxygenase fixes CO2 in the pathway generating most sugars. It can either use CO2 or O2. Increasing CO2 concentration increases carbon dioxide fixation whereas increasing temperature increases oxygen fixation. The oxygen fixation is a large drain on the metabolism of the plant and it is why a carbon concentrating mechanism has independently evolved 60 something times.
@@Jay_Johnson
I am _amazed_ by how much info you managed to fit into a short comment, while keeping it clear and understandable 😲👌🏼
Thanks! ^^
For the first part I think he didn't mention because it was kinda obvious
So this will be affecting non domesticated plants too presumably. All animals will be weaker and more prone to disease (giving the disease a greater spread and risk of mutating to cross species) and will affect livestock meaning farmers will need to use more antibiotics and generally reduce quality while at the same time increasing the cost of meat.
Could we genetically modify plants to intake more nutrients? I know we already use GMOs commonly. Would gene editing be able to deal with problem or not?
Would you please be able to do a video on the effectiveness of carbon capture techniques? It's something I've seen debated a lot recently
Heat wave in India, sandstorms in Iraq, bad news from the Antarctic as a glacier there may collapse, record drought in the southwestern US, bad news from the Arctic as the permafrost thaw is faster than hoped, the list goes on and on. Why are we allowing this?
Money.
I guess a good analogy that might be easier to understand is water: all life on earth needs water, some more and some less, but there is a minimum amount. Our grains, corns, beans and tomatoes hoverever will not grow better or faster if we drown them in water.
I wonder if a summary of the video should be a short as well
This info is accurate only the the extent to what was discussed. 99% of farms are contributing to CO2 despite the fact that the extra CO2 in atmosphere is benefiting them. The problem is they are farming with dead soil. Myself and some others are farming with live soil by feeding soil biology and that food is sugar coming from photosynthesis and CO2 and if all other things in soil is correct over 50% of this sugar goes to roots and thru root exudates feeding the bacteria and fungus which then also breakdown rocks and pebbles bringing bio available minerals to the plants which then put that into the crop and makes for a very healthy food. This process is a net gain for the climate and health of anything that eats it and for mankind.
So if I may make a correction to this article I will say that the extra C02 in the atmosphere is not the problem but rather the harmful synthetic fertilizers and chemicals that farmers use. If this was corrected there would be more super healthy food than ever before and fix climate change. Sad thing is this will likely not happen until it is to late and might already be.
Never trust someones predictions about the future who don't recognize the reality of the present. Simon shows two very important graphs at the beginning of the video showing a rapid rise in human population and CO2, almost in direct proportion. In the present CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 50% over preindustrial time AND food production is at an all time high while malnutrition is at an all time low (how else do you get such a rapid increase in human population?). These facts blow a big fat hole in Simon's predictions for the future. Today with more C02 in the atmosphere we are already nourishing more people than ever before.
He’s full of crap. So are the so called climate scientists that are in constant need of funding. It’s about the money and keeping the narrative alive.
By burning fossil fuels, humans are releasing more CO2 than Earths plants and oceans can absorb. Where does the extra CO2 go? Do you deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Do you deny the greenhouse effect of Earth's atmosphere?
@@Tortuga6able
Do you deny the following? Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are about 30% higher than they were about 150 years ago at the dawn of the industrial revolution. Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others. But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle - by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 51 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in thousands of years. (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of has taken just 120 years).
Meanwhile the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade. This rate of recent warming is 10x that of the gradual warming that ended the last glacial period.
@@hosnimubarak8869 It all sounds pretty accurate me.
So what tho. Looking at 150 years or even 2000 years as some sort of a scale on a planetary change that has 4.5 billion years of history is ridiculous. Do you deny the following CO2 levels were at 6 to 7 thousand during the Jurassic period? Big deal they have gone up. Why is it that climate activists think that co2 levels have to stay the same or it will be disaster. They aren’t going to. Human behavior is be afraid of the unknown? It’s not unknown tho. There was beauty and abundance in previous times of higher Co2. I am not saying we should not be good stewards of the planet, because we absolutely should. The world is not going to end if all the ice caps melts tho. This hair on fire crap is ridiculous and unfounded. It’s about the money.
So, the entire premise of this video is fake. More CO2=faster growing plants. Fact. It's ALREADY HAPPENING. It's been scientifically shown over and over again that most plants grow faster with more CO2.
Maybe you need to change the title of your video to reflect that. Because this isn't a video about CO2, is it?
So what your saying, the dinosaurs were fat? Because co2 levels were much higher during the Mesozoic causing a hot house and sugary plants
And there were 2 mass extinctions that put the CO2 in the atmosphere to make the Mesozoic warm. Comparing the stabilized Mesozoic to the destabilized Holocene is like saying atomic bombs aren't damaging because Nagasaki was so quiet the day after the bomb.
@@Pistolita221 yep, now humans will transform the quaternary into the Anthropocene hot house (unless action is taken)
Do one on how much micro
ano plastics we drink eat and breathe every week, about a credit card in weight and what nasty chemicals are in them and why we shouldn't worry so much abut climate change or the future.
We have to concern ourselves with longer term saving humanity as a species...most of us will suffer in the change....but this also will be the result of trying to keep things as they are...
Commenting to increase your engagement. Thanks for shedding some light on the misinformation being pushed in the realm of atmospheric science. There is far too much misinformation circulating around me to handle.
One factor you didn't consider is that plant geneticists are constantly breeding new varieties that better adapt to climatic conditions.
How are the crop yields sensitivity to climate change estimation made ? For instance, do they take into account changes in cultivar as adaptations to climate change ?
Do they take into account changes in land use ? In particular, how much land will be available for agriculture (after all, what we really care about is the total production) ?
And how does the effect interacts with other agricultural issues (soil erosion, eutrophisation, peak phosphorus, pest resistance, water pollution and biodiversity losses ...).
Why don't YOU fucking READ the publications that Simon referenced?? Can you read??
@@mrunning10 Sensitive much
Just like a porcupine, sharps on the outside and all squishy on the inside. Your question to Simon should be very simple "What's IN a model?"
Read, learn, do some work, stop voting for fossil fuel. You think our high tech world that keeps us alive on this planet can be understood by the knowledgeable equivalent of fucking Neanderthals? No, without learning your vote is not random it is conspiracy emotional reaction. Care about this. Focus on ONE thing: CARBON exchange process on this planet.
Ask Simon an intelligent question like "hey Simon are all of the model forcing functions linear?" @@TyrianHaze
Sometimes I wonder what it takes for a person like me, just watching the video, to prove whether the claims in it are true.
I guess the books you pointed out must be well researched but still...
If it is truth, it's a truth that people don't want to hear
Well the citations are there. That’s the point of a bibliography
Eh, don’t trust it.
Most of the studies he cites rely on repeatedly failed models.
He has no idea what the warming will mean for us. None of them do. The system is just too complex, and we just aren’t as smart as we pretend to be.
@@JM-zg2jg imagine ignoring someone with a phd in atmospheric physics because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Stop pretending you know what you’re talking about
Thankful for your videos dismantling climate myths. You’re one of the clearest, most knowledgeable communicators in the climate space.
It’s just a bit disheartening knowing that the anti-science myths will just keep coming, because they are (usually) not fair-minded questioning of scientific dogma. Myths like these start from the premise that “modern society running on fossil fuels is good, therefore it must be the science telling us we need to change that is bad.”
TH-cam didn’t show me this video despite having notifications enabled
Ok I’m really confused, I’m not a botanist, but I’m pretty into permaculture and this seems to really butt heads with findings in how our soil has changed over the last few centuries. Not only has our soil health decline, but we have selectively bred for plants to taste sweeter and destroyed most of the heirloom varieties at least in North America. So did these studies account for these co-founding variables? Also, with warmer climates, what about more warm loving grains and other tropical plants? Yea we get a lot of our calories from grains and of course potatoes being a winter crop don’t like warmer weather, but what about rice production? Why not discuss that in a warmer climate? Finally I’m confused- so does this mean that more CO2 actually produces greater amounts of sugars in plants as per your last point, and doesn’t that mean more CO2 would affect plant growth in a positive way? Ok so zinc levels are falling, what about our soil quality? Were those and other variables such as species and genetic history held constant? I’m not narcing on climate change here it just, respectfully speaking, seems like there’s a lot of holes with this. More temperature equates to a lot more germination rates for the majority of plants grown for foods, and more sugars in the environment would seemingly equivocate to a greater total amount of energy into the ecosystem. Finally, I’m extremely intrigued into the data you got from rain patterns, and I hope to research that soon. What sort of processes with greater volatility of temperature equates to less rain? Or more, which I’m assuming is what you where talking about, less landfall rain, and is there a remedy to this involving sea water transportation? Climate change is real and is a problem, but respectively, why are we all sitting here crying about it if it’s a reality, and why aren’t we trying to work with the changes as we seek to reduce the problems causing them?
Yes, grain growing Alberta, Canada now facing a drought that has the idiot provincial government already talking about how to manage it, while still being in talks with an Australian coal company whose production in the Rockies Mountains, will pollute the rivers that flow in that area.
I accept all the science here, but I'm a litttttle bit more optimistic on the famine-front, for three reasons.
First, global population is almost certainly going to plateau and peak before 2100, probably around 2070 at 9 billionish, the UN population projections are too high (other demographers have produced other models, and even if you just look at data from the 3 years since it was published, the 2019 predictions are increasingly off).
Second, a large amount of our crop production is underutilised - massive amounts of crop land is essentially wasted to produce meat. This gives humanity 'wiggle room'. Even assuming we don't all switch to being vegan/vegetarian on our own steam (and we should, at least in regards to beef because it's catastrophic emissions wise), and governments don't see this coming and encourage it, you'd expect to see meat consumption decrease as it becomes more expensive, freeing up land for producing calories in a more efficient way.
Third, some of these impacts can probably be ameliorated by technical solutions. Not completely, but partially. Crops can be bred, engineered or just swapped-out to keep yields up in hotter regions. Currently somewhat-impractical things like indoor vertical agriculture will get more efficient and price-competitive. Decreasing nutrients in food can be addressed via supplementation or food fortification (the latter of which isn't even that expensive). Again, I'm not saying there won't be serious issues and that all possible actions shouldn't be taken to avoid climate change (I'm personally willing to make drastic lifestyle alterations and pay more to see this happen), but famines are the type of thing that _does_ prompt innovation.
Difficult to breed crops that are resistant to hurricanes, wildfires, mudslides and flash floods. The improvements by genetic engineering have been minimal after decades. The political willingness to change always lags behind the need to change - in this case the general population may be forced to go vegan after tens or hundreds of millions of deaths but the middle and upper classes are very careful about guarding their consumption priviliges. If they won't reduce CO2 production, why would they bother to reduce consumption?
@@pattheplanter on the genetic engineering front the progress has been so little cos it is still illegal in most places. The agrobacterium CRISPR Cas9 method will give results as soon as we understand the plant metabolism. Unfortunately the base understanding of plant metabolism doesn’t get the attention it deserves. If you want to feel a bit more optimistic read some of the work by the C4 rice consortium.
UN estimates circa ~2010 are that the global population will naturally plateau at 11 billion individuals by 2050. However a lot of things (Covid-19, etc.) will influence this, not least mass migration, weather effects, famines, wars, and other aspects directly attributable to global warming.
@@mh1593 I think you mean 2100?
@@Jay_Johnson no the study was published in 2010 and referred to figures for 2050
I’ve noticed former climate change deniers now moving to saying “but co2 is good!”
You might want to read some history on Norman Borlaug (dwaft wheat), and Golden Rice. Those 2 are just the begining. In the long term there will be no issues with nutrients composition; though there are some frightening possibilities if we come too close to monoculture.
It is helping us grow more food. Lots more. It is the reason that greenhouses PAY for CO2 to increase levels to 1000 ppm. It is one of the reasons that crop productivity records are being broken every subsequent year. Dems da facts man!
Did you watch the video or are you just speaking out your ass?
@@user-xsn5ozskwg Why should he watch the movie Simon clark is mentally insane there can't be enough CO2 for plants, we are already at starvation values right now.
@@albin4323We are literally throwing away 40% of the food we produce what are you talking about. Starvation since the 1930's has been a direct result of poor logistics getting food to the people who need it, typically because of explicit political or economic policies.
And again, the science does not agree. More CO2 does not result in more food, it *can* result in bigger plants but that doesn't mean their edible yield increases. To say nothing of how they are affected by subsequent changes in temperature, whether, and other parts of the ecosystem that don't thrive on increased CO2 like ocean life and insects.
@@user-xsn5ozskwg Bigger plants have more leafes/food on them so you make no sense, are you saying a bigger apple tree usually don't have more apples on average are you really that thick? What a completely mess you are.
Simon, nutrition deficiency isn't really due to food. Even as nutrient deficiency fall, people are eating more food - processed food that has nutrients pulled out. Nutrient fall is more significant from the application of pesticides, herbicides that is causing mineral nutrient leachates and also minerals locked in landfills that are too toxic to be used.
blah blah blah, what are YOU doing NOW?
The population chart in the beginning is wrong. There is no 0 AD; 0 wasn't invented yet, so it was called 1 AD. Anyway, our food being less nutritious is why I'm all for banning cars, suburbs, and air conditioning. People lived before air-con after all.
How tf do you *_invent_* a number?
This will give meat eaters a reason to eat more meat without understanding that lifestock get the minerals from plants
God bless you, Simon. You truly are a good person. Compassionate heart and clear explanation. Thank you.
(solar panels in desserts give shade and shelter to crop and animals)
when every living cell holds an ocean within water wants to flow slow
We could probably grow enough food even in a warmer climate if we took away animal agriculture, but it would be less effective, more drought-prone and overall worse than if we just stopped warming
arent they already in a 1 in 1000 year (20 year plus) megadrought. watching the PBS short on the Colorado basin "The Worst Drought in 1200 Years: What Does it Mean for Your Food?", the problem is less about rainfall (most commonly assumed 'drought') but more about the amount of evaporation occuring. I was amazed at the state of the soil the Hopi guy was farming in, but a dustbowl effect must be possible if it dries out any more.
the problem I see is there are polticans and people so entrenchen in their ways that they do want to admit they need to change, it will hur their ego or wallet. this I was drepressed when I read an expose from the NYT that documents how certain republican states set up strategies to punish companies that investigated in green or alternative energies or divested from oil and coal industry, trying to reverse any efforst to improve things.
A good analogy is how the health of Coral Reefs have been. Coral bleaching, occurs I think when too much dissolved co² is in the water and it alters the pH of the water as well as oxygen levels, as well as increased temperature. Similar would occur on land with the rain issues, and air temperature, etc.
Wait so plants are getting fat?
So can we change a bit by the eating habits by adding zinc into the daily consumption or other needed nutrients in the diet.
I wonder how this impacts the forests and jungles on our world. It can't be good, right? :(
Then why on earth do they maintain a minimum of 1600 PPM Co2 in greenhouses where they grow food? No don't tell me they like wasting money?
Who is they? Nobody i know makes any changes to the air mixture in their greenhouse.
@@Stealthbong well I know of ten tomato green houses in Ontario and they all run 1600 PPM Co2 in their green houses! And they have to pay a special carbon tax for producing the Co2 even though the plants eat it all! And the pot green house in town bought a huge Co2 generator from the company I work for!
@@terenceiutzi4003 I guess running 1600ppm in a greenhouse for tomatoes is different to grains growing out in the open, and greenhouses have the added benefit of there being no ice sheets or glaciers the CO2 will thaw.
@@Stealthbong no it just gives the fruit and vegetables closer to the amount of Co2 that was in the atmospher when they evolved
And every paper that I have read they give the grain massive amounts of Nitrogen that makes them grow plant and not fruit
Eesh that's kind of scary some of the stuff in that paper.
im loving this editing style
TBH that was a badly chosen meme at 1:15, not only for the film. Not every word, indeed not even most of what that the politician said was wrong, he just left an important part of the picture out. There is nothing wrong with the core plant physiology behind the assessment of "more CO2 gives more food"; this has good theoretical basis and has been thoroughly proven in experiments over several decades, it is just that there is the climate aspect that overwhelms the positive effect. A lot of what we eat is even grown with artificial CO2 fertilisation.
An interesting aspect of this,is the satalight tracking of the sands from the Sahara migrating around the planet(spreading)where the analogy of earth becoming mars comes to mind.no one has really done an documentary about the migrating saharan sand's yet'
The logic are that on a warmer earth there will be more water evaporating from the ocean. Where is this expected to fall?
Is there any model info for predicting the past using reversed dataset that start with today and go back like what we expect the trend to be the historic data.
We should then have prediction that match the historical observed data.
We had a warming in the middle age and how would a similar period effect be in the models if it was include on top of the effect from CO?
Similar the little ice age was a very difficult time many places. How would a similar period effect the predictions from models?
My take on this is that trusting models to much and only planning for what the models predict is not a good strategy.
"The logic are that on a warmer earth there will be more water evaporating from the ocean. Where is this expected to fall?" where it rose to begin with. A greenhouse planet has weaker wind patterns to distribute the precipitation. That's why Simon's talking about drought.s
Damn these one day ago comments
Fr they ruining my comment algorithm
Video and topic aside, i really like your capybara picture
Thank you!
What is this _Last Jedi_ you speak of? It looks like Star Wars but they only made three of those, didn't they? The effects of extra hurricanes and extreme weather events are hard to predict but are certain to make farmer's lives awful.
Can you make a video on stratospheric aerosol injection?
Being a carnivore I’m not sure how much this affects my food source. i don’t eat any glucose
What do you think farm animals live on? Air?
Your meme game was very good on this video.
Why did warming start almost a century before industrial co2 was significant?
Simon, how much CO2 is too much CO2 in the atmosphere(?) in metric tons?
Never heard this question. My first thought was equating it to having more oxygen in the atmosphere for us humans. too much will eventually kill us. Through what is called "Oxygen Toxicity". being in the sense that too much Carbon means the plants get a similar effect. being they can't live in it.
Now to watch the video to see if i'm wrong.
Its fire will get you in high oxygen environments..and giant insects !
Reason why more carbon in the air isn't gonna help as explained by this Video:
First reason:
Heat, Plants don't like it when it gets warmer & with higher levels of Carbon the more heat is gonna get trapped. Increasing the heat and Creating more droughts. Heat kills crops.
2nd Reason:
Less Nutrition/Proteins in the food we grow. as they absorb less nutrients/Proteins from the soil instead of the air. Which means people will have increased amount of health problems by not getting the required Nutrients & Proteins that a they require.
Conclusion: I was entirely wrong. though 2nd reason is somewhat similar, but it will not stop the plant growing. It will instead stop it gathering important nutrients & proteins.
@@Bretout plants don’t absorb proteins from the soil they make them
I’m not sure why but this one scared me a lot? For all the other problems the privileged can stave them off with air-con and such; but if we start starving on our own food source that’s terrifyingly inescapable
Air-con will help with almost none of the effects of climate change. In rich nations, our wealth is built on exploitation of developing nations, either directly or indirectly. For many of us, economic growth has already slowed to a crawl (a huge problem in an economic system which absolutely requires permanent growth forever) -- that will be massively compounded when vast areas of those developing nations become unlivable.
And, of course, all of those people need to go somewhere. In the latter half of this century, we're on course to see the greatest migration of human beings that has ever happened. Most will probably move within the borders of single nations, but even that will cause economic turmoil that the capitalist world has never seen... And of course millions upon millions will flee to wealthy nations, again to dwarf any migrant crisis we've seen so far.
Those are perfect conditions for the development of authoritarian rightwing reactionary movements -- like we've seen in Hungary & the United States for example, & like that which drove Brexit. This pressure will ramp up in the extreme.
The long & the short of it is, we're on crash-course with the end of our whole civilizational paradigm... not the end of civilization, but the destruction of our capitalist world order -- maybe even the destruction of our nationalist conception of the world. & things like that don't go down easily or peacefully.
"Carbon is plant food" say the denialists. Well yeah, and fat is human food, and we all know what happens when we eat too much of that don't we?
You dont get fat from fat.
Wow, how did I not know this until now?!?!