Scientists Destroy Another Denier Myth

[Old Rocks]

Ah here it is,

Plants may run out of time to grow under ongoing climate change

"The causes and consequences of global warming are still under debate, but what would actually happen to all the plants, essential to many aspects of our lives, if the climate in the planet does get warmer? A new study publishing in the Open Access journal PLOS Biology on June 10th by University of Hawai'i scientists addresses just this question.

A key potential 'benefit' of global warming that has been considered is that plants at northern latitudes will thrive in a warmer world. However, this prevailing assumption ignores the fact that plants in the North will remain limited by solar radiation, curbing the positive effects of warming and additional CO2 availability. In addition, that same warming could surpass plant temperature tolerances in tropical areas around the world, and further be accompanied by drought.

"Those that think climate change will benefit plants need to see the light, literally and figuratively," says Camilo Mora, professor at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa's College of Social Sciences and lead author of the new study. "A narrow focus on the factors that influence plant growth has led to major underestimations of the potential impacts of climate change on plants, not only at higher latitudes but more severely in the tropics, exposing the world to dire consequences," he adds.

The new study shows that ongoing climate change will lead to overall declines in plant growing days by 2100 due to a mixture of warming, drought, and limited solar radiation.

Using satellite-derived data, the study identified the ranges of temperatures, soil moisture (water availability) and light (solar radiation) within which 95% of the world's plant growth occurs today. The researchers then used climate projections to count the number of days in a year that will fall within these suitable climate ranges for plant growth in the future.

Although the study did find that warming trends will increase the number of days above freezing at higher latitudes by 7%, these same locations will remain limited by light, a trend that has been missed by previous studies that focused on temperature alone. "Regions at higher latitudes will likely have less frost and snow on the ground in the future, but many plants will not be able to take advantage of those warmer temperatures because there will not be enough sunlight to sustain their growth," says Iain Caldwell, a co-author of the study. "

more at link

Why then did none of this ever happen when it has been warmer before? You have to ask yourself why not a single disaster that these people bleat about has ever occurred when we KNOW it has been much warmer.

A thinking person would begin to ask some very hard questions of them.

Like 'who pays you to deny climate change on message boards?' Questions like that?

No one. I wish I were paid to do it. I am just a scientist who is tired of watching crap science get passed off as good. It's as simple as that. Learn what the scientific method is and then show us how the AGW crowd is following it....or, more to the point, how they have abandoned it.

Simple risk-analysis:

- if climate change isn't occuring and we take steps to combat it, nothing bad will happen.

- if climate change IS occuring and we DON'T take steps to combat it, we die.

Simple risk assessment, the cost to do anything about global temps is 76 trillion dollars. That is THEIR estimate. Further, for that cost, we get to lower the global temperature in 100 years by ONE degree. Maybe. On the other hand just think of the technology that could be developed for that 76 trillion dollars Think of the ACTUAL pollution that could be cleaned up for that money. Basically, the warmists want to spend the combined GDP of the world (5 times over) on a maybe, instead of dealing with real pollution.

I hate to break it to you, but that is simply asinine.

As has been pointed out many times already, the 76 trillion figure is a lie. And ol' Walleyes is one of the prime liars on this board. Claims to be a Phd Geologist, and continually calls people that are supposedly peer level in the AGU and GSA frauds and liars.

Presently, wind is already about half the price of coal, and solar will soon be cheaper than coal, without any of the externalities of coal. And when you talk about coal, you are talking pollution of water, ground, and air. But that is what Walleyes defends.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah here it is,

Plants may run out of time to grow under ongoing climate change

"The causes and consequences of global warming are still under debate, but what would actually happen to all the plants, essential to many aspects of our lives, if the climate in the planet does get warmer? A new study publishing in the Open Access journal PLOS Biology on June 10th by University of Hawai'i scientists addresses just this question.

A key potential 'benefit' of global warming that has been considered is that plants at northern latitudes will thrive in a warmer world. However, this prevailing assumption ignores the fact that plants in the North will remain limited by solar radiation, curbing the positive effects of warming and additional CO2 availability. In addition, that same warming could surpass plant temperature tolerances in tropical areas around the world, and further be accompanied by drought.

"Those that think climate change will benefit plants need to see the light, literally and figuratively," says Camilo Mora, professor at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa's College of Social Sciences and lead author of the new study. "A narrow focus on the factors that influence plant growth has led to major underestimations of the potential impacts of climate change on plants, not only at higher latitudes but more severely in the tropics, exposing the world to dire consequences," he adds.

The new study shows that ongoing climate change will lead to overall declines in plant growing days by 2100 due to a mixture of warming, drought, and limited solar radiation.

Using satellite-derived data, the study identified the ranges of temperatures, soil moisture (water availability) and light (solar radiation) within which 95% of the world's plant growth occurs today. The researchers then used climate projections to count the number of days in a year that will fall within these suitable climate ranges for plant growth in the future.

Although the study did find that warming trends will increase the number of days above freezing at higher latitudes by 7%, these same locations will remain limited by light, a trend that has been missed by previous studies that focused on temperature alone. "Regions at higher latitudes will likely have less frost and snow on the ground in the future, but many plants will not be able to take advantage of those warmer temperatures because there will not be enough sunlight to sustain their growth," says Iain Caldwell, a co-author of the study. "

more at link

Why then did none of this ever happen when it has been warmer before? You have to ask yourself why not a single disaster that these people bleat about has ever occurred when we KNOW it has been much warmer.

A thinking person would begin to ask some very hard questions of them.

I'm pretty sure temperatures have been consistently increasing since industrialization, and I'm sure it did happen, it's just we haven't really had extensive research done into the effects of climate change that long ago, and people need to realize going back hundreds of thousands of year, what fucking carbon sinks are.

You would be correct, but only if you ignore the fact that the end of the Little Ice Age coincides with industrialization. We STILL have not returned to the temperatures that prevailed before the LIA. You fail again.

That, of course, is a lie.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Abstract
A frequent conclusion based on study of individual records from the so-called Medieval Warm Period (∼1000-1300 A.D.) is that the present warmth of the 20 th century is not unusual and therefore cannot be taken as an indication of forced climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. This conclusion is not supported by published composites of Northern Hemisphere climate change, but the conclusions of such syntheses are often either ignored or challenged. In this paper, we revisit the controversy by incorporating additional time series not used in earlier hemispheric compilations. Another difference is that the present reconstruction uses records that are only 900–1000 years long, thereby, avoiding the potential problem of uncertainties introduced by using different numbers of records at different times. Despite clear evidence for Medieval warmth greater than present in some individual records, the new hemispheric composite supports the principal conclusion of earlier hemispheric reconstructions and, furthermore, indicates that maximum Medieval warmth was restricted to two-three 20–30 year intervals, with composite values during these times being only comparable to the mid-20 th century warm time interval. Failure to substantiate hemispheric warmth greater than the present consistently occurs in composites because there are significant offsets in timing of warmth in different regions; ignoring these offsets can lead to serious errors concerning inferences about the magnitude of Medieval warmth and its relevance to interpretation of late 20 th century warming.

 

[eagle1462010]

Why then did none of this ever happen when it has been warmer before? You have to ask yourself why not a single disaster that these people bleat about has ever occurred when we KNOW it has been much warmer.

A thinking person would begin to ask some very hard questions of them.

Like 'who pays you to deny climate change on message boards?' Questions like that?

No one. I wish I were paid to do it. I am just a scientist who is tired of watching crap science get passed off as good. It's as simple as that. Learn what the scientific method is and then show us how the AGW crowd is following it....or, more to the point, how they have abandoned it.

Simple risk-analysis:

- if climate change isn't occuring and we take steps to combat it, nothing bad will happen.

- if climate change IS occuring and we DON'T take steps to combat it, we die.

Simple risk assessment, the cost to do anything about global temps is 76 trillion dollars. That is THEIR estimate. Further, for that cost, we get to lower the global temperature in 100 years by ONE degree. Maybe. On the other hand just think of the technology that could be developed for that 76 trillion dollars Think of the ACTUAL pollution that could be cleaned up for that money. Basically, the warmists want to spend the combined GDP of the world (5 times over) on a maybe, instead of dealing with real pollution.

I hate to break it to you, but that is simply asinine.

As has been pointed out many times already, the 76 trillion figure is a lie. And ol' Walleyes is one of the prime liars on this board. Claims to be a Phd Geologist, and continually calls people that are supposedly peer level in the AGU and GSA frauds and liars.

Presently, wind is already about half the price of coal, and solar will soon be cheaper than coal, without any of the externalities of coal. And when you talk about coal, you are talking pollution of water, ground, and air. But that is what Walleyes defends.

What is the cost of replacing over 60 QUADTRILLION BTU'S in the United States from fossil fuels?

What are the economic consequences?

Why is Fuel Poverty rising in Europe?

What is the cost of going Green? Specifically Germany versus the United States?

 

[eagle1462010]

Ah here it is,

Plants may run out of time to grow under ongoing climate change

"The causes and consequences of global warming are still under debate, but what would actually happen to all the plants, essential to many aspects of our lives, if the climate in the planet does get warmer? A new study publishing in the Open Access journal PLOS Biology on June 10th by University of Hawai'i scientists addresses just this question.

A key potential 'benefit' of global warming that has been considered is that plants at northern latitudes will thrive in a warmer world. However, this prevailing assumption ignores the fact that plants in the North will remain limited by solar radiation, curbing the positive effects of warming and additional CO2 availability. In addition, that same warming could surpass plant temperature tolerances in tropical areas around the world, and further be accompanied by drought.

"Those that think climate change will benefit plants need to see the light, literally and figuratively," says Camilo Mora, professor at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa's College of Social Sciences and lead author of the new study. "A narrow focus on the factors that influence plant growth has led to major underestimations of the potential impacts of climate change on plants, not only at higher latitudes but more severely in the tropics, exposing the world to dire consequences," he adds.

The new study shows that ongoing climate change will lead to overall declines in plant growing days by 2100 due to a mixture of warming, drought, and limited solar radiation.

Using satellite-derived data, the study identified the ranges of temperatures, soil moisture (water availability) and light (solar radiation) within which 95% of the world's plant growth occurs today. The researchers then used climate projections to count the number of days in a year that will fall within these suitable climate ranges for plant growth in the future.

Although the study did find that warming trends will increase the number of days above freezing at higher latitudes by 7%, these same locations will remain limited by light, a trend that has been missed by previous studies that focused on temperature alone. "Regions at higher latitudes will likely have less frost and snow on the ground in the future, but many plants will not be able to take advantage of those warmer temperatures because there will not be enough sunlight to sustain their growth," says Iain Caldwell, a co-author of the study. "

more at link

Why then did none of this ever happen when it has been warmer before? You have to ask yourself why not a single disaster that these people bleat about has ever occurred when we KNOW it has been much warmer.

A thinking person would begin to ask some very hard questions of them.

I'm pretty sure temperatures have been consistently increasing since industrialization, and I'm sure it did happen, it's just we haven't really had extensive research done into the effects of climate change that long ago, and people need to realize going back hundreds of thousands of year, what fucking carbon sinks are.

You would be correct, but only if you ignore the fact that the end of the Little Ice Age coincides with industrialization. We STILL have not returned to the temperatures that prevailed before the LIA. You fail again.

That, of course, is a lie.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Abstract
A frequent conclusion based on study of individual records from the so-called Medieval Warm Period (∼1000-1300 A.D.) is that the present warmth of the 20 th century is not unusual and therefore cannot be taken as an indication of forced climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. This conclusion is not supported by published composites of Northern Hemisphere climate change, but the conclusions of such syntheses are often either ignored or challenged. In this paper, we revisit the controversy by incorporating additional time series not used in earlier hemispheric compilations. Another difference is that the present reconstruction uses records that are only 900–1000 years long, thereby, avoiding the potential problem of uncertainties introduced by using different numbers of records at different times. Despite clear evidence for Medieval warmth greater than present in some individual records, the new hemispheric composite supports the principal conclusion of earlier hemispheric reconstructions and, furthermore, indicates that maximum Medieval warmth was restricted to two-three 20–30 year intervals, with composite values during these times being only comparable to the mid-20 th century warm time interval. Failure to substantiate hemispheric warmth greater than the present consistently occurs in composites because there are significant offsets in timing of warmth in different regions; ignoring these offsets can lead to serious errors concerning inferences about the magnitude of Medieval warmth and its relevance to interpretation of late 20 th century warming.

Riddle me this.................was the ice in the world melting before industrialization? Was the Ice melting before gasoline and oil was ever found? Has the world been warming since the last little Ice Age?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Myths that are easily disposed of by actual science.
Scientists destroy another climate denier myth Rising CO2 levels aren t good for plants - Salon.com

Salon.com

Another epic failure...

There is so much wrong with this article... Just for fun lets show just how stupid these people are....

"The study, published last week in the journal Nature Communication, examines one Montana meadow over 44 years"

They dont look at water saturation during the study at all.. The paper from Montana State University does not make the claims that Ms Abrams is making in her political hit piece. The paper shows that even with a raised CO2 level, which could not be maintained during times of wind and occurs naturally, was the only "reason" for the study.

My first question to Ms Abrams would be, Did you even read the paper?

Nothing more than alarmist drivel.. From a left wing hack source to boot.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ah here it is,

Plants may run out of time to grow under ongoing climate change

"The causes and consequences of global warming are still under debate, but what would actually happen to all the plants, essential to many aspects of our lives, if the climate in the planet does get warmer? A new study publishing in the Open Access journal PLOS Biology on June 10th by University of Hawai'i scientists addresses just this question.

A key potential 'benefit' of global warming that has been considered is that plants at northern latitudes will thrive in a warmer world. However, this prevailing assumption ignores the fact that plants in the North will remain limited by solar radiation, curbing the positive effects of warming and additional CO2 availability. In addition, that same warming could surpass plant temperature tolerances in tropical areas around the world, and further be accompanied by drought.

"Those that think climate change will benefit plants need to see the light, literally and figuratively," says Camilo Mora, professor at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa's College of Social Sciences and lead author of the new study. "A narrow focus on the factors that influence plant growth has led to major underestimations of the potential impacts of climate change on plants, not only at higher latitudes but more severely in the tropics, exposing the world to dire consequences," he adds.

The new study shows that ongoing climate change will lead to overall declines in plant growing days by 2100 due to a mixture of warming, drought, and limited solar radiation.

Using satellite-derived data, the study identified the ranges of temperatures, soil moisture (water availability) and light (solar radiation) within which 95% of the world's plant growth occurs today. The researchers then used climate projections to count the number of days in a year that will fall within these suitable climate ranges for plant growth in the future.

Although the study did find that warming trends will increase the number of days above freezing at higher latitudes by 7%, these same locations will remain limited by light, a trend that has been missed by previous studies that focused on temperature alone. "Regions at higher latitudes will likely have less frost and snow on the ground in the future, but many plants will not be able to take advantage of those warmer temperatures because there will not be enough sunlight to sustain their growth," says Iain Caldwell, a co-author of the study. "

more at link

Why then did none of this ever happen when it has been warmer before? You have to ask yourself why not a single disaster that these people bleat about has ever occurred when we KNOW it has been much warmer.

A thinking person would begin to ask some very hard questions of them.

Like 'who pays you to deny climate change on message boards?' Questions like that?

No one. I wish I were paid to do it. I am just a scientist who is tired of watching crap science get passed off as good. It's as simple as that. Learn what the scientific method is and then show us how the AGW crowd is following it....or, more to the point, how they have abandoned it.

Simple risk-analysis:

- if climate change isn't occuring and we take steps to combat it, nothing bad will happen.

- if climate change IS occuring and we DON'T take steps to combat it, we die.

Simple risk assessment, the cost to do anything about global temps is 76 trillion dollars. That is THEIR estimate. Further, for that cost, we get to lower the global temperature in 100 years by ONE degree. Maybe. On the other hand just think of the technology that could be developed for that 76 trillion dollars Think of the ACTUAL pollution that could be cleaned up for that money. Basically, the warmists want to spend the combined GDP of the world (5 times over) on a maybe, instead of dealing with real pollution.

I hate to break it to you, but that is simply asinine.

Then Number is 76 TRILLION DOLLARS.... Billion was so yesterday......

 

[Old Rocks]

Effects of elevated CO2 on the protein concentration of food crops a meta-analysis - TAUB - 2007 - Global Change Biology - Wiley Online Library

Abstract
Meta-analysis techniques were used to examine the effect of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide [CO2] on the protein concentrations of major food crops, incorporating 228 experimental observations on barley, rice, wheat, soybean and potato. Each crop had lower protein concentrations when grown at elevated (540–958 μmol mol−1) compared with ambient (315–400 μmol mol−1) CO2. For wheat, barley and rice, the reduction in grain protein concentration was ∼10–15% of the value at ambient CO2. For potato, the reduction in tuber protein concentration was 14%. For soybean, there was a much smaller, although statistically significant reduction of protein concentration of 1.4%. The magnitude of the CO2 effect on wheat grains was smaller under high soil N conditions than under low soil N. Protein concentrations in potato tubers were reduced more for plants grown at high than at low concentrations of ozone. For soybean, the ozone effect was the reverse, as elevated CO2 increased the protein concentration of soybean grown at high ozone concentrations. The magnitude of the CO2 effect also varied depending on experimental methodology. For both wheat and soybean, studies performed in open-top chambers produced a larger CO2 effect than those performed using other types of experimental facilities. There was also indication of a possible pot artifact as, for both wheat and soybean, studies performed in open-top chambers showed a significantly greater CO2 effect when plants were rooted in pots rather than in the ground. Studies on wheat also showed a greater CO2 effect when protein concentration was measured in whole grains rather than flour. While the magnitude of the effect of elevated CO2 varied depending on the experimental procedures, a reduction in protein concentration was consistently found for most crops. These findings suggest that the increasing CO2 concentrations of the 21st century are likely to decrease the protein concentration of many human plant foods

The overall effects of elevated CO2 on plants are not a simple linear response. But once we make the experiment, we cannot undo that experiment. And we have already increased the CO2 by 40%.

 

[Old Rocks]

Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon nitrogen and water relations six important lessons from FACE

Abstract
Plant responses to the projected future levels of CO2 were first characterized in short-term experiments lasting days to weeks. However, longer term acclimation responses to elevated CO2 were subsequently discovered to be very important in determining plant and ecosystem function. Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments are the culmination of efforts to assess the impact of elevated CO2 on plants over multiple seasons and, in the case of crops, over their entire lifetime. FACE has been used to expose vegetation to elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 under completely open-air conditions for nearly two decades. This review describes some of the lessons learned from the long-term investment in these experiments. First, elevated CO2 stimulates photosynthetic carbon gain and net primary production over the long term despite down-regulation of Rubisco activity. Second, elevated CO2improves nitrogen use efficiency and, third, decreases water use at both the leaf and canopy scale. Fourth, elevated CO2 stimulates dark respiration via a transcriptional reprogramming of metabolism. Fifth, elevated CO2 does not directly stimulate C4 photosynthesis, but can indirectly stimulate carbon gain in times and places of drought. Finally, the stimulation of yield by elevated CO2 in crop species is much smaller than expected. While many of these lessons have been most clearly demonstrated in crop systems, all of the lessons have important implications for natural systems.

Another group of experiments, with interesting results. Again, not simple or linear.

 

[eagle1462010]

4. The CO2 fertilization effect higher carbohydrate production and retention as biomass and seed yield

4. The CO2 fertilization effect: higher carbohydrate production and retention as biomass and seed yield

Summary of comprehensive reviews
Several recent symposia proceedings and reviews leave little doubt that crop plants can respond well to elevated CO2 (Rozema et al., 1993; Woodwell and Mackenzie, 1995; Wittwer, 1995). Poorter (1993) compiled information from 156 plant species and found that doubling CO2 provided an average growth increase of 37%. The distribution of weight ratios of CO2-enriched and control plants is shown in Figure 4.6. Poorter's compilation showed a 41 and a 22% increase for C3 and C4 plants, respectively. As a group, C3 herbaceous crop plants responded more than wild herbaceous species (58 vs. 35%). Furthermore, the fast growing wild species responded more strongly than slow-growing wild species (54 vs. 23%).

Poorter (1993) imposed two restrictions on his compilations that may have led to larger than expected responses to elevated CO2. Firstly, plants grown in competition were not included. Secondly, only vegetative stages of plants were compared since compiled data were selected prior to flowering.

A number of studies have shown that vegetative growth responses may be greater than reproductive (seed yield) responses. Therefore, the compiled data of Poorter may give an impression of greater response than would be observed throughout the life cycle. Secondly, crops in field conditions usually are grown in dense populations where they compete for space and light. Under more realistic field conditions, crop plants are likely to respond as a community rather than individual plants, wherein light (solar radiation) becomes a limiting factor for growth. Under these conditions, elevated CO2 cannot promote horizontal expansion and greater light capture. Although the actual field responses may be less, the CO2 fertilization effect is clearly well-established.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Old Rocks]

4. The CO2 fertilization effect higher carbohydrate production and retention as biomass and seed yield

The rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration from about 280 m mol/mol before the industrial revolution to about 360 m mol/mol currently is well documented (e.g., Baker and Enoch, 1983; Keeling et al., 1995). The consensus of many studies of the effects of elevated CO2on plants is that the CO2 fertilization effect is real (see Kimball, 1983; Acock and Allen, 1985; Cure and Acock, 1986; Allen, 1990; Rozema et al., 1993; Allen, 1994; Allen and Amthor, 1995). However, the CO2 fertilization effect may not be manifested under conditions where some other growth factor is severely limiting, such as low temperature (Long, 1991). Also, plants grown in some conditions, where limitations of rooting volume (Arp, 1991), light, or other factors restrict growth, have not shown a sustained response to elevated CO2 (Kramer, 1981).

The main objectives of this chapter are to assess the direct effects of rising atmospheric CO2 and indirect effects of potential climate changes on crop growth and yield. The approach will be to (1) provide a general overview of CO2 effects on plant growth processes; (2) analyse some specific experimental data on crop plant responses to elevated CO2 and climate change factors; (3) summarize recent reviews of plant responses to elevated CO2; and (4) discuss some crop modelling assessments of rising CO2 and climate change factors on agricultural productivity based on predictions of global climate change models. Also, some adaptations for improving crop productivity in a higher CO2 world will be suggested.

Overview of CO2 effects on plant growth processes
Most of the following discussion of CO2 effects on plants applies to species with the C3 photosynthetic pathway and not necessarily to species with the C4 pathway. Other aerial, non-biotic environmental factors that affect plant growth and development are light and temperature. Plant photosynthetic rates generally increase linearly with light across relatively low ranges of light intensity, and then the rates decelerate until they reach an asymptotic maximum. Because of crowding and shading of many leaves, most crop canopies do not reach light saturation at full sunlight; that is, they would be able to respond to light levels well beyond full solar irradiance. Likewise, crop photosynthetic rates respond to increasing levels of CO2 but then level off at higher concentrations (around 700 m mol/mol or greater, depending upon species and other factors). However, leaf photosynthesis usually increases with temperature up to some maximum value, and then declines. Furthermore, temperature affects not only photosynthesis, but also respiration, growth, development phases and reproductive processes.

Not at all a simple linear response.

 

[Old Rocks]

4. The CO2 fertilization effect higher carbohydrate production and retention as biomass and seed yield

Reproductive biomass growth as well as vegetative biomass growth are usually increased by elevated CO2. However, the harvest index, or the ratio of seed yield to above-ground biomass yield, is typically lower under elevated CO2 conditions (Allen, 1991; Baker et al., 1989), which may also be evidence of the lack of capacity to utilize completely the more abundant photoassimilate.

A great many of the agricultural plants are those whose seeds we use for food.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ps to the OP...........not for nothing but nobody cares about this...........

 

[Old Rocks]

4. The CO2 fertilization effect higher carbohydrate production and retention as biomass and seed yield

Summary and conclusions
Elevated CO2 increases the size and dry weight of most C3 plants and plant components. Relatively more photoassimilate is partitioned into structural components (stems and petioles) during vegetative development in order to support the light-harvesting apparatus (leaves). The harvest index tends to decrease with increasing CO2 concentration and temperature. Selection of plants that could partition more photoassimilates to reproductive growth should be a goal for future research. As more is learned about the effects of anticipated climate changes on crops, more effort should be directed to exploring biological adaptations and management systems for reducing these impacts on agriculture and humanity. Whether regional climates become drier or wetter with global warming remains to be seen.

For C3 plants.