we are increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere while warming the planet
and the C3 plants(including trees) are m0re efficient at warmer temperatures
how nice
How full of shit.
How many times do you have to be told it's the rate of change, not the far future of supposedly better circumstances, that is disastrous? Schmelzer of course had a political agenda and a childishly naive upbringing - are you claiming the same excuse?
Too late to walk it back, and impossible in ignorance - you posted the Republican wingnut propaganda meme, and you have posted similarly on this forum dozens of times. The response has been the same for years of your bs now: It's the rate that matters, the variance that kills. AGW is predicted to cause ruin, globally, for centuries to come. It's not going to be "nice" until a couple of hundred years after the CO2 boost has leveled off and the new climate has stabilized - which will take centuries in itself (the relaxation time of the Pacific Ocean, at a minimum).
and the C3 plants(including trees) are m0re efficient at warmer temperatures
According to research: No, they are not. Efficiency depends on the rate, the variance, the timing, etc.
C3 plants - including trees - do not remain more "efficient" (at what?) under the rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations humans are imposing unless irrigated and fertilized and protected from the side effects. C4 plants often do not benefit even in the preliminary stages of a climate shift, before crossing the wrong tipping point wipes them out of a given locale - essentially nothing is known to benefit reliably in the middle run of the current rapidly drastic global climate change.
Not even crops, outside of greenhouses, reliably benefit - most of them (especially rice and corn) in most circumstances of the incoming AGW (temperate zone rainfall agriculture) are injured by such rapid and drastic changes.
ignore the hyperbolic rhetoric of those who are so full of self loathing
Among the people you insist on slandering and lying about,
while hiding behind nasty (or merely idiotic) innuendo and carefully maintained specific "ignorance" (like this latest link of yours, which we are apparently supposed to to pretend you simply failed to understand)
it's not loathing of self.
All studied wild or natural plant communities are eventually injured by the rate of warming and the ecological or biochemical effects of CO2 accumulation at this rate. Trees are especially vulnerable, dependent as they are on symbiotic fungi and mutualistic pollinators etc, vulnerable as they are to evapotranspirative deficit as well as sharp changes in temperature and great variance in weather conditions (windspeed, timing and severity of variance in precipitation, timing and severity of variance in temperature changes and weather regimes, etc.)
Once again, for the slow and willfully obtuse: AGW is almost certainly disastrous because of the rate and pattern of change it imposes. It's not the extra CO2, but the rate of accumulation, that is the problem. It's not the newly warm weather but the rate and pattern of warming that is ruinous in so many ways.