Main measure is what they call GPP:

Gross primary productivity (GPP) quantifies the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) fixed by plants through photosynthesis. Although as a key quantity of terrestrial ecosystems, there is a lack of high-spatial-and-temporal-resolution, real-time and observation-based GPP products.

Looks like the northern latitude boreal forests, if they haven't burned down, 'could' increase their GPP by a full factor of 3X over pre-industrial levels. NASA's OCO has been observing this, and they attribute it to longer growing seasons due to climate change. Most of the rest of the world 'could be' looking at 2X increase in GPP, assuming they're not destroyed by development, fires, or droughts.

Unenthusiastic article here:

https://theconversation.com/plants-are-likely-to-absorb-more-co-in-a-changing-climate-than-we-thought-heres-why-217786

On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 06:58:18 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>Main measure is what they call GPP:
>
>Gross primary productivity (GPP) quantifies the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) fixed by plants through photosynthesis. Although as a key quantity of terrestrial ecosystems, there is a lack of high-spatial-and-temporal-resolution, real-time and observation-based GPP products.
>
>Looks like the northern latitude boreal forests, if they haven't burned down, 'could' increase their GPP by a full factor of 3X over pre-industrial levels. NASA's OCO has been observing this, and they attribute it to longer growing seasons due to climate change. Most of the rest of the world 'could be' looking at 2X increase in GPP, assuming they're not destroyed by development, fires, or droughts.
>
>Unenthusiastic article here:
>
>https://theconversation.com/plants-are-likely-to-absorb-more-co-in-a-changing-climate-than-we-thought-heres-why-217786

Why 20% more? Plants could evolve to absorb 100% more CO2 per acre of
land or sea. When food is available, critters pop up to consume it.
The biosphere of earth is food limited.

Manmade intercontinental species migration also increases CO2
consumption.

In much of the world, the only exit path for trees is logging and
burning. Putting out small fires just makes big fires. More CO2 makes
more biomass to burn per year.

CO2 is good for the planet and its critters; it feeds us all. The
level was getting critically low.

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CO2_5.jpg

On 2023/11/19 7:51 a.m., John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 06:58:18 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Main measure is what they call GPP:
>>
>> Gross primary productivity (GPP) quantifies the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) fixed by plants through photosynthesis. Although as a key quantity of terrestrial ecosystems, there is a lack of high-spatial-and-temporal-resolution, real-time and observation-based GPP products.
>>
>> Looks like the northern latitude boreal forests, if they haven't burned down, 'could' increase their GPP by a full factor of 3X over pre-industrial levels. NASA's OCO has been observing this, and they attribute it to longer growing seasons due to climate change. Most of the rest of the world 'could be' looking at 2X increase in GPP, assuming they're not destroyed by development, fires, or droughts.
>>
>> Unenthusiastic article here:
>>
>> https://theconversation.com/plants-are-likely-to-absorb-more-co-in-a-changing-climate-than-we-thought-heres-why-217786
>
>
> Why 20% more? Plants could evolve to absorb 100% more CO2 per acre of
> land or sea. When food is available, critters pop up to consume it.
> The biosphere of earth is food limited.
>
> Manmade intercontinental species migration also increases CO2
> consumption.
>
> In much of the world, the only exit path for trees is logging and
> burning. Putting out small fires just makes big fires. More CO2 makes
> more biomass to burn per year.
>
> CO2 is good for the planet and its critters; it feeds us all. The
> level was getting critically low.
>
> https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CO2_5.jpg
>
>

Quoting a source that is featured in Newsmax, Fox, and American Thinker
isn't actually a help.

Saying where the data to create that image and the theory might be of
interest.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

I'm still working out the transmission rates of infra-red with respect
to various so-called greenhouse gases and looking at the atmospheric
windows that are left even when the density surpasses 100%.

John :-#(#

On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 10:52:40 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 06:58:18 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Main measure is what they call GPP:
> >
> >Gross primary productivity (GPP) quantifies the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) fixed by plants through photosynthesis. Although as a key quantity of terrestrial ecosystems, there is a lack of high-spatial-and-temporal-resolution, real-time and observation-based GPP products.
> >
> >Looks like the northern latitude boreal forests, if they haven't burned down, 'could' increase their GPP by a full factor of 3X over pre-industrial levels. NASA's OCO has been observing this, and they attribute it to longer growing seasons due to climate change. Most of the rest of the world 'could be' looking at 2X increase in GPP, assuming they're not destroyed by development, fires, or droughts.
> >
> >Unenthusiastic article here:
> >
> >https://theconversation.com/plants-are-likely-to-absorb-more-co-in-a-changing-climate-than-we-thought-heres-why-217786
> Why 20% more? Plants could evolve to absorb 100% more CO2 per acre of
> land or sea. When food is available, critters pop up to consume it.
> The biosphere of earth is food limited.
>
> Manmade intercontinental species migration also increases CO2
> consumption.
>
> In much of the world, the only exit path for trees is logging and
> burning. Putting out small fires just makes big fires. More CO2 makes
> more biomass to burn per year.
>
> CO2 is good for the planet and its critters; it feeds us all. The
> level was getting critically low.
>
> https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CO2_5.jpg

The CO2coalition was founded by this senile nut:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/21/william-happer-trump-white-house-climate-crisis

Not a one of those jokes is an atmospheric physicist, and they are too dumb, or arrogant, to accept the fact of their understanding of the science as being wholly inadequate.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:06:38 -0800, John Robertson <jrr@flippers.com>
wrote:

>On 2023/11/19 7:51 a.m., John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 06:58:18 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Main measure is what they call GPP:
>>>
>>> Gross primary productivity (GPP) quantifies the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) fixed by plants through photosynthesis. Although as a key quantity of terrestrial ecosystems, there is a lack of high-spatial-and-temporal-resolution, real-time and observation-based GPP products.
>>>
>>> Looks like the northern latitude boreal forests, if they haven't burned down, 'could' increase their GPP by a full factor of 3X over pre-industrial levels. NASA's OCO has been observing this, and they attribute it to longer growing seasons due to climate change. Most of the rest of the world 'could be' looking at 2X increase in GPP, assuming they're not destroyed by development, fires, or droughts.
>>>
>>> Unenthusiastic article here:
>>>
>>> https://theconversation.com/plants-are-likely-to-absorb-more-co-in-a-changing-climate-than-we-thought-heres-why-217786
>>
>>
>> Why 20% more? Plants could evolve to absorb 100% more CO2 per acre of
>> land or sea. When food is available, critters pop up to consume it.
>> The biosphere of earth is food limited.
>>
>> Manmade intercontinental species migration also increases CO2
>> consumption.
>>
>> In much of the world, the only exit path for trees is logging and
>> burning. Putting out small fires just makes big fires. More CO2 makes
>> more biomass to burn per year.
>>
>> CO2 is good for the planet and its critters; it feeds us all. The
>> level was getting critically low.
>>
>> https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CO2_5.jpg
>>
>>
>
>Quoting a source that is featured in Newsmax, Fox, and American Thinker
>isn't actually a help.

Would you reject Ohm's Law if Infowars linked to it?

Go to Wikipedia, look at the CO2 articles, and then you can mock
Wikipedia for the rest of your life.

>
>Saying where the data to create that image and the theory might be of
>interest.

Past concentrations of CO2 are available from many sources and are
very similar. In the most profilic periods of life and evolution, we
had numbers like 5000 PPM. It's experimentally demonstrable that
plants die at low CO2 levels.

>
>"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Apply that concept to life on Earth being destroyed this century by
500 PPM of CO2.

>
>I'm still working out the transmission rates of infra-red with respect
>to various so-called greenhouse gases and looking at the atmospheric
>windows that are left even when the density surpasses 100%.

The CO2 absorption lines are almost saturated now, so more CO2 won't
have much affect on temperature but will really feed plants. Besides,
warm is good for life.

On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 12:45:07 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:06:38 -0800, John Robertson <j...@flippers.com>
> wrote:
> >On 2023/11/19 7:51 a.m., John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 06:58:18 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Main measure is what they call GPP:
> >>>
> >>> Gross primary productivity (GPP) quantifies the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) fixed by plants through photosynthesis. Although as a key quantity of terrestrial ecosystems, there is a lack of high-spatial-and-temporal-resolution, real-time and observation-based GPP products.
> >>>
> >>> Looks like the northern latitude boreal forests, if they haven't burned down, 'could' increase their GPP by a full factor of 3X over pre-industrial levels. NASA's OCO has been observing this, and they attribute it to longer growing seasons due to climate change. Most of the rest of the world 'could be' looking at 2X increase in GPP, assuming they're not destroyed by development, fires, or droughts.
> >>>
> >>> Unenthusiastic article here:
> >>>
> >>> https://theconversation.com/plants-are-likely-to-absorb-more-co-in-a-changing-climate-than-we-thought-heres-why-217786
> >>
> >>
> >> Why 20% more? Plants could evolve to absorb 100% more CO2 per acre of
> >> land or sea. When food is available, critters pop up to consume it.
> >> The biosphere of earth is food limited.
> >>
> >> Manmade intercontinental species migration also increases CO2
> >> consumption.
> >>
> >> In much of the world, the only exit path for trees is logging and
> >> burning. Putting out small fires just makes big fires. More CO2 makes
> >> more biomass to burn per year.
> >>
> >> CO2 is good for the planet and its critters; it feeds us all. The
> >> level was getting critically low.
> >>
> >> https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CO2_5.jpg
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Quoting a source that is featured in Newsmax, Fox, and American Thinker
> >isn't actually a help.
> Would you reject Ohm's Law if Infowars linked to it?
>
> Go to Wikipedia, look at the CO2 articles, and then you can mock
> Wikipedia for the rest of your life.
> >
> >Saying where the data to create that image and the theory might be of
> >interest.
> Past concentrations of CO2 are available from many sources and are
> very similar. In the most profilic periods of life and evolution, we
> had numbers like 5000 PPM. It's experimentally demonstrable that
> plants die at low CO2 levels.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. You're talking about a past so distant, it wasn't the same planet:

'The average temperature wasn’t much more than 10 degrees C above today’s, and those of you who have heard of the runaway hothouse Earth scenario may wonder why it didn’t happen then. Major factors were that the Sun was cooler, and the planet’s orbital cycles were different.'

https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/

> >
> >"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
> Apply that concept to life on Earth being destroyed this century by
> 500 PPM of CO2.
> >
> >I'm still working out the transmission rates of infra-red with respect
> >to various so-called greenhouse gases and looking at the atmospheric
> >windows that are left even when the density surpasses 100%.
> The CO2 absorption lines are almost saturated now, so more CO2 won't
> have much affect on temperature but will really feed plants. Besides,
> warm is good for life.

On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 6:58:24 AM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Main measure is what they call GPP:
>
> Gross primary productivity (GPP) quantifies the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) fixed by plants through photosynthesis. Although as a key quantity of terrestrial ecosystems, there is a lack of high-spatial-and-temporal-resolution, real-time and observation-based GPP products.
>
> Looks like the northern latitude boreal forests, if they haven't burned down, 'could' increase their GPP by a full factor of 3X over pre-industrial levels. NASA's OCO has been observing this, and...

The 3x number isn't what's measured, however; at current (circa 1.5 C) warming, the measured plant uptake
is about 1.1x over pre-industrial and if we don't go disastrously higher in warming we won't ever see the 3x or 2x change
occur (in that single term of the full series of CO2 sources and sinks that adds up to a net effect).

It's not a game-changing effect being discussed.

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:45:07 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:06:38 -0800, John Robertson <j...@flippers.com> wrote:
> >On 2023/11/19 7:51 a.m., John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 06:58:18 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> >"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
>
> Apply that concept to life on Earth being destroyed this century by 500 PPM of CO2.

Recycled denialist propaganda - actively misleading so -2.

Not a claim that anybody is making. The real problem is that the crops that we eat aren't well adapted to a warmer world with higher CO2 levels, and some weed or other will turn to be better adapted and compete all too effectively with the crops we can still manage to grow,

> >I'm still working out the transmission rates of infra-red with respect
> >to various so-called greenhouse gases and looking at the atmospheric
> >windows that are left even when the density surpasses 100%.

The concept that has been missed here is "effective radiating altitude" where 50% if the relevant infra-red radiation can make it out to outer space.

Higher CO2 levels push that higher in the atmosphere where the air is colder and radiates less.

> The CO2 absorption lines are almost saturated now, so more CO2 won't have much affect on temperature but will really feed plants. Besides, warm is good for life.

That was the fallacy was stopping Ahhrenius from being taken seriously when he died in 1927. Better spectroscopy and better models of the atmosphere eventually sorted this out, but the news hasn't got to John Robertson and John Larkin.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Monday, 20 November 2023 at 07:17:29 UTC+2, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:52:40 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> >
> > In much of the world, the only exit path for trees is logging and burning. Putting out small fires just makes big fires. More CO2 makes more biomass to burn per year.
> >
> But most of it rots, rather than burns, and that is the usual exit path for trees, not getting consumed in forest fires.
>
Lot of boreal forests are mixed with boreal bogs. Typical reason of it is
that beavers like to organise little floods in forest. The resulting cloud of mosquitoes
in mixed bog/forest keeps humans farther, fire hazard is lower there and lot of
biomass turns into peat instead of burning or rotting.