The Science and Public Policy Institute has released a ground-breaking book chronicling the many benefits of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The 55 benefits discussed are drawn exclusively on the peer-reviewed literature.
Many books and reports rail against mankind’s usage of fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil because of the carbon dioxide or CO2 that their combustion releases into the atmosphere.
Indeed, this phenomenon is routinely castigated in numerous print and visual venues as a result of the unproven predictions of catastrophic CO2-induced global warming that are derived from theoretical computer-driven simulations of the state of earth’s climate decades and centuries into the future.
Now, however, comes a book that does just the opposite by describing a host of real-world benefits that the controversial atmospheric trace gas provides, first to earth’s plants and then to the people and animals that depend upon them for their sustenance.
The book is The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment, written by the son/father team of Craig D. and Sherwood B. Idso. It is encyclopedic in nature, with fifty-five different subjects treated and arranged in alphabetical order — starting with Air Pollution Stress (Non-Ozone) and ending with Wood Density — each of which entries comes with its own set of reference citations.
The book is subtitled How humanity and the rest of the biosphere will prosper from this amazing trace gas that so many have wrongfully characterized as a dangerous air pollutant.
Says Dr. Craig Idso, “It may not be everything you ‘always wanted to know’ about the bright side of the issue; but it illuminates a number of significant aspects of earth’s biosphere and its workings, as well as mankind’s reliance on the biosphere for food and numerous other material necessities that are hardly ever mentioned by the UN IPCC or the mainstream media.”
The book is so unique a reference source that it belongs in the library of every organization or institution concerned about the issues of CO2 enhancement and derived public policy initiatives.
Brief synopses of each of the 55 sections of the book may be found on the SPPI [scienceandpublicpolicy.org] website and that of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change at www.co2science.org
The book can be ordered from Vales Lake Press, http://www.valeslake.com/bookmart.htm
It should definitely be subsidized to the max. Free coal-plant-generated electricity for all, sez I!
🙂
Congrats, father-son Dr. Idso. More CO2, more plant growth, more food production, stable food prices despite ever-rising global population, more humiliation to alarmist-Malthusian cranks like Paul Krugman.
I Guess that in the first few paragraphs the 2 behind CO fell off.
A very CO rich environment isn’t very benificial since we would all die from it.
[Fixed, thanx.]
May I suggest that the SPPI sends a complimentary copy to Prince Charles in the UK. He has long taken an interest in environmental matters. It may help him to take a more balanced view in his comments.
Interesting read however I fear the book, and the institute, will be ridiclued by alarmists if the info at the following link is anything to go by.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute
This will surely be mandated as a compulsory text in all classrooms.
/sarc
About time there was some pushback against the baseless canard that “carbon” is a dangerous pollutant.
And @Patrick Davis: what, exactly, is ridiculous about the SPPI or its supporters? Are they any more ridiculous than the WWF, Treehugger, etc?
Btway, I also plugged this book here, including the earlier book “Climate Change Reconsidered”, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/02/co2-is-useful-gas.html
Because of agenda driven science and with the support of the media and Governments we are being dragged back into the an intellectual dark ages.
Books like this are vital from liberating people from the fear and stigma thats been imposed on them unwittingly through the msm though without the promotion and support of the msm it will only gain so much traction.
Its just not science if it’s not on TV…/sarc
The Idso’s write sane and science based articles and this book must be in the same vein.
“Smokey says:
February 11, 2011 at 1:05 am”
I said the book, and institute, will be ridiculed by ALARMISTS (That is AGW alamists etc) if the info at the site I link to is anything to go by.
From the site “The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming SKEPTICS GROUP which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President; its website draws heavily on papers written by CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON.”
Personally, I think there is lots of useful info at that site.
Ted Maley says:
February 11, 2011 at 12:53 am
May I suggest that the SPPI sends a complimentary copy to Prince Charles in the UK. He has long taken an interest in environmental matters. It may help him to take a more balanced view in his comments.
+++++++++++++++++
We all know that Prince Charles is a proponent of the ‘talking -to-plants-is-good-for-them’ theory. Well, in fact it may really make sense, not because plants appreciate right royal nice words, as the royal prince may think, but actually, by putting one’s mouth and nostrils close to their leaves, which increases the CO2 content to their immediate surround due to the exhaled air while breathing…………Just thinking.
Interesting read: It’s not only land biomass which benefits from increased CO2, but also the hydrosphere biomass increases with CO2. From Andrew Bolt’s blog on the Herald Sun:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Andrew Bolt – Friday, February 11, 11 (06:50 pm)
If you want more fish on your plate, fire up the barbecue, the car, the lights, the afterburner….
From a University of Queensland paper published by Global Change Biology:
Climate change is altering the rate and distribution of primary production in the world’s oceans…. We simulated the effects of change in primary production on diverse marine ecosystems across a wide latitudinal range in Australia using the marine food web model Ecosim…
Under a plausible climate change scenario, primary production will increase around Australia and generally this benefits fisheries catch and value and leads to increased biomass of threatened marine animals such as turtles and sharks.
Hats off to the Drs Idso – this text should be in every high school science classroom in the literate world. Knowledge is the only antidote for superstition and fairy tales used to frighten the ignorant.
this book should be in all schools in the world regardless of the left wing school teachers who tell our kids a load of BS .the ALARMISTS will one day be brought to trial for there actions concerning so called global warming
Can that be ordered Internationally from http://www.valeslake.com/bookmart.htm ?
About time!
CO2 has been demonised for too long.
I am looking forward to reading it from cover to cover.
CO2 a benefit? Who’d a thunk such a thing? /sarc
As we say in the Corps “No screaming eagle sh*t!”
Maybe Anthony or somebody can get a campaign started with the goal of sending 10,000 copies of this book to Lisa Jackson from 10,000 different people for distribution to every dumbass at the EPA who thinks CO2 is a dangerous pollutant.
The thing is, we can not really influence/increase atmospheric CO2 concentration significantly. Natural sources and sinks are overwhelming, IMHO.
We will be able to test this hypothesis in the next few years/decades with the coming global cooling. I predict CO2 concentrations will start dropping too (ice buidup and cooling oceans) without much lag.
We are carbon based lifeforms after all.
Considering CO2 is the first link in the global food chain, it follows that more of this food must be good for something(s)
Name me [a] species that does not benefit from the abundance of food.
There are benefits? …..And after Prince Charles has just changed the Guard at Buckingham Palace?….
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/
They published a book I can recommend
It tells CO2 is our very best friend.
The warming is done
saturated, we won.
Too hard for you warmists to comprehend?
“http://www.transworldnews.com/www.co2science.org” is what I get from the link to CO2Science. I think that needs fixed. (In the penultimate paragraph.)
In the penultimate paragraph, “Brief synopses of each of the 55 sections of the book may be found on the SPPI [scienceandpublicpolicy.org] website and that of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change at http://www.co2science.org” I get the link as “http://www.transworldnews.com/www.co2science.org”, which does not work. I believe a fix is in order.
An excellent companion tome for The Hockey Stick Illusion
I think we need an phrase and acronym.
How about; Human Induced Thriving for Everyone (HITE).
“The book is so unique a reference source that it belongs in the library of every organization or institution concerned about the issues of CO2 enhancement and derived public policy initiatives.”
Interesting comment, Anthony. You wouldn’t say that about the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, which has far more scientists and far more peer reviewed scientific publications behind it than this one. Why is that?
Baa Humbug says:
February 11, 2011 at 4:18 am
Name me [a] species that does not benefit from the abundance of food.
Odonellus Rosei? Gorica Alberto?
Perhaps someone should ensure that all members of Congress and all Senators get a copy. I know they have difficulty reading Bills, but perhaps one of their staffers would read it and advise them.
They need to realize what it was that helped defuse Paul Ehrlich’s ‘Population Bomb’.
“The desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.”
—Isaiah 35:1
Increased atmospheric CO2 augments plant growth and reduces water requirements–together these two factors are turning deserts worldwide into green, productive vegetation. (Existing agricultural areas are also experiencing the benefits.)
Consider the ramifications in light of the fact that over one-third of the earth’s land surface is devoid of significant vegetation. Over one-third!
What if Global Warmers/Climate Changes, disrupters/Malthusians/Sierra-Clubists/Green and Red-Greens/Recycling fundamentalists, etc. really are ALIENS, living beings composed of Silicon instead of Carbon?..That would explain their fanaticism against our friendly carbon dioxide! 🙂
How stupid is it to want to lower CO2 levels, when CO2 levels have been dropping ever since we evolved.
We should be worried and studying why CO2 levels started out so high, why almost everything we know evolved when CO2 levels were that high…
…and why CO2 levels have been dropping ever since
A sane person would be thinking is it possible for CO2 levels to naturally drop so low….
…that everything dies
Anthony, clicking on the link you give above for
http://www.co2science.org
redirects to:
http://www.transworldnews.com/www.co2science.org
whichis a missing page
The Idsos, along with Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon and Art Robinson, are the Pioneering Heroes of resistance to the Carbon Cult. They were on the battle lines before anyone else, and showed the truth to most of us directly or indirectly.
I’m lookng forward to their next volume, “The Marvels of Methane”, followed by “A Million and One New Uses for Chloroflourocarbons “, and “Mustard Gas, Its not all bad news!”
Dave Springer says:
February 11, 2011 at 3:25 am
CO2 a benefit? Who’d a thunk such a thing? /sarc
As we say in the Corps “No screaming eagle sh*t!”
Maybe Anthony or somebody can get a campaign started with the goal of sending 10,000 copies of this book to Lisa Jackson from 10,000 different people for distribution to every dumbass at the EPA who thinks CO2 is a dangerous pollutant.
Dave, this is a great idea. This book is necessary. Lets do it. As Smokey intimated, about time we take an offensive position.
Baa Humbug says:
February 11, 2011 at 4:18 am
Considering CO2 is the first link in the global food chain, it follows that more of this food must be good for something(s)
Name me [a] species that does not benefit from the abundance of food.
———————–
Humans… You’ve just got to look at the rates of obesity in countries like the US and UK to see that!
A C Osborn @2:48: From Toronto, I just ordered a copy.
Noelle:
At February 11, 2011 at 5:36 am you quote Anthony Watts saying:
“The book is so unique a reference source that it belongs in the library of every organization or institution concerned about the issues of CO2 enhancement and derived public policy initiatives.”
And you ask;
“Interesting comment, Anthony. You wouldn’t say that about the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, which has far more scientists and far more peer reviewed scientific publications behind it than this one. Why is that?”
May I suggest the reason could be that the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report is tripe.
Numbers of people and publications prove nothing. Only empirical evidence proves anything, and the two Idso (each of whom I have had the privilege of meeting) provide empirical data in abundance to support all they say.
But, of course, to a true believer mere evidence pales to insignificance when compared to the IPCC’s untrue anecdotes about disappearing himalayan glaciers, imaginary threats of increased storms (that are actually reducing in both severity and frequency), assertions of acclerating sea level rise (that is not happenening), etc.
Richard
Perhaps the American Medical Association should print a pamphlet about the benefits of carbon dioxide in the human bloodstream. Of course, they’d have to mention that there is a RANGE in which carbon dioxide is beneficial, below which or above which, the system undergoes some unpleasant changes.
They left out GW as one of the beneficial effects — CO2 does have some warming GHG effect, so if present CO2 trends continue, wastelands like Siberia and Minnesota ‘-) may eventually become habitable.
In the longer run, CO2 warming may ward off the next, otherwise inevitable ice age. According to two recent articles by Dana Royer surveying atmospheric CO2 estimates over the past 550 million (not thousand) years, concentrations have ordinarily been 1000-3000 ppm (with no detrimental effects on corals or clams), while concentrations under 500 ppm have been associataed with eras of glaciation. It’s not clear what the casuality is — does low CO2 cause catastrophic cooling, or does cool weather cause low atmospheric CO2? — but it might be worth a shot.
Latitude says:
February 11, 2011 at 5:57 am
How stupid is it to want to lower CO2 levels, when CO2 levels have been dropping ever since we evolved.
_______
Depends on how far back you want to take the human family tree I suppose. We’ve enjoyed a relatively range-bound level of CO2 for the past 800,000 years at least, with it generally varying from 180 to 280 ppm, as it fluctuated in perfect unison with Milanokovitch cycles and glacial periods, such that there has been NO DOWNWARD TREND over this period. See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/fig_tab/nature06949_F2.html
It is of course, only the last few hundred years that it broke significantly out of this range with the industrial age of humans.
Frostbite says:
February 11, 2011 at 5:54 am
What if Global Warmers/Climate Changes, disrupters/Malthusians/Sierra-Clubists/Green and Red-Greens/Recycling fundamentalists, etc. really are ALIENS, living beings composed of Silicon instead of Carbon?
There’s no doubt some enterprising film crew are already shooting the movie!
Seriously though, I keep wondering Holywood is going to make of this now.
I’ve already got Danny DeVito lined up as Mann?
I think Steve Furst (comedy star of children’s TV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Furst) would be ideal for Jones.
Any idea for Anthony? McAlpine?
Kudos to the Idsos
Thank God, Finally another break through.
I mentioned in GreenFrye blog run by alarmists that Florida’s climate has become greener in the last 30 years.
Might as well talk to a wall.
Paul
Noelle says:
February 11, 2011 at 5:36 am
Interesting comment, Anthony. You wouldn’t say that about the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, which has far more scientists and far more peer reviewed scientific publications behind it than this one. Why is that?
Tel you what… rather than use Anthony’s valuable time — here is a link to another site which has some articles on the IPCC documentation and the validity of the peer review process. Donna did a significant survey of the IPCC documentation. It has been widely reported — but maybe you missed it?
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/
A few excerpts… enjoy!
Opinions regarding how the IPCC deals with errors are diverse. They can also be provocative. One IPCC official thinks public scrutiny of its reports should be discouraged.
“According to scientists who’ve helped write its reports, the IPCC is not a scientific body first and foremost. Rather, its primary purpose is to lay the necessary groundwork so that an international climate change treaty can be negotiated.”
“IPCC insiders say non-peer-reviewed literature is essential and unavoidable when they write one of the world’s most important reports. Yet chairman Pachauri has, for years, insisted only peer-reviewed material gets used. Why haven’t scientific organizations set the record straight”
For some time I have been telling anyone who would listen,
“CO2 IS GOOD FOR PLANTS, GOOD FOR THE EARTH, AND GOOD FOR YOU!”
Time for a bumper sticker!
/Mr Lynn
They should be called to testify before the congress. It would provide a break from fantasy after Jackson’s testimony.
@RockyRoad
“over one-third of the earth’s land surface is devoid of significant vegetation. Over one-third!”
Consider the sizes of Greenland and Antarctica then you’re not left with that much desert really. :p
Noelle: Interesting comment, Anthony. You wouldn’t say that about the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, which has far more scientists and far more peer reviewed scientific publications behind it than this one.
Can’t speak for Anthony, but actually I would say that about the IPCC report. For roughly the same reason that I would expect to find Richard Dawkins in my pastor’s library…
Latitude, a sane person would NOT be thinking that CO2 levels can drop so low that everything dies, just as a sane person should NOT be thinking that CO2 levels can grow so high that everything dies.
If CO2 levels drop low enough that certain types of plants can no longer function, then those die and the CO2 level increases again. It’s part of the mechanism that balances levels of atmospheric gases.
Earth is the only planet we know of where LIFE is part of the natural regulation of anything.
The sane people recognize that a lot of things are regulated naturally, and will oscillate around some value, and worrying about certain things is just a waste of time. It is far more productive to worry about J-Lo’s career or LinLo’s theft charge than about CO2, and yet last night a large number of people didn’t sleep well because of their fear of CO2.
You can be sure that it will be among those publications on the BBC/PBS blacklist, these media outlets have decided that positive aspects of CO2 will not be discussed or aired or spoken of. There is always and always has been a political reason why some peddle fear and misery as a package deal.
I would guess that the very last thing those behind the CAGW fraud would like to see are the positive things a boost in CO2 levels would bring, after all a happy prosperous well fed confident well educated humanity would be far less amenable to being bossed around and crushed by an almighty overbearing state.
Noelle,
Good point about AR$ (Whoops kept the shift key down – must have been a Freudian shift). Add one word, change one letter and now we’re set for AR$(4)
“The book is so unique a flawed reference source that it belongs in the library of every organization or institution concerned about the issues of CO2 enhancement and derided public policy initiatives.”
1DandyTroll says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:47 am
@RockyRoad “over one-third of the earth’s land surface is devoid of significant vegetation. Over one-third!”
“Consider the sizes of Greenland and Antarctica then you’re not left with that much desert really.”
Yeah – but when the Vikings drove into Greenland with SUVs a thousand years ago they made a pretty good living out of farming – shame we can’t do it now!
More CO2 and globull warming – That’s what we need!
“SteveE says:
February 11, 2011 at 6:58 am”
Which is linked to rates of inactivity. As you site the UK as an example, in the 1970’s caloric intake of rubbsh food was high, BUT, physical activity was high too! People in the UK then, like myself, were actually “healthier” then than people of a similar age now.
“Noelle says:
February 11, 2011 at 5:36 am”
Maybe because some of what is contained in that IPPC 4th report is utter alarmist garbage?
That’s simply not true, for several reasons:
Since Jan Ingenhousz discovered in 1779 that plants use CO2 to grow, and release O2 in the process there have been innumerable experiments published in peer-reviewed papers proving that CO2 is actually plants food, despite of the efforts made by the IPCC people (sorry I can call them scientists) to hide this fact.
There are thousands of relatively easy to perform experiments proving that the higher CO2 levels are the more plants grow. You can find over 10000 citations at Idsos’ webpage, http://www.co2science.org/
All of this is empirical data (meaning data collected by performing experiments), whereas much of what is collected by the IPCC is not. Many peer-reviewed papers collected on IPCC are ‘theoretical’ papers that deal with computer models. These models are not empirical, neither are validated. The models deal with ‘forcings’ and ‘parameters’ whose values in many cases have not been measured experimentally, instead, they have been parametrized to give a preconceived result.
Nobody knows how much the ‘climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling’ constant is, (and therefore nobody can proof it is actually a constant) because nobody has experimentally measured it. Same goes with ‘forcings’ like anthropogenic ozone or cloud cover feedbacks. The models are full of parameters that haven’t been measured experimentally, whereas the feneficts of CO2 exposed in the Idsos’ book come from experimental data collected since 1779.
John Brookes says:
February 11, 2011 at 6:28 am
You forgot to add a “/sarc off” at the end of your statement.
Cassandra King says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:54 am
You can be sure that it will be among those publications on the BBC/PBS blacklist, these media outlets have decided that positive aspects of CO2 will not be discussed or aired or spoken of. There is always and always has been a political reason why some peddle fear and misery as a package deal.
I would guess that the very last thing those behind the CAGW fraud would like to see are the positive things a boost in CO2 levels would bring, after all a happy prosperous well fed confident well educated humanity would be far less amenable to being bossed around and crushed by an almighty overbearing state
_____
Actually, most “overbearing states” know that keeping people fat and happy is the best way to maintain power. It only when people get discontent on a large enough scale that they represent a threat to the “overbearing” central power. One needs only think of every major revolution in the past few hundred years to see this is action…most notably, the current turmoil in Egypt. Hence why the Saud royal family in Arabia needs to make sure they keep their “subjects” content and will spend whatever it takes of their oil wealth to do so.
CodeTech says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:53 am
================================
Exactly, you got it…..
…and as usual Gates didn’t LOL
This planet used to support animals that were a whole lot bigger too. 😉
Rising CO2 is melting the Arctic.
…oh, wait…
[snip – eadler, if you want to continue posting here, learn not to cite videos produced by a an Gore trained antogonist as “proof” of anything. And how about actually buying the book and READING it before make pronouncements on how terrible it is. You really are nothing more than an uncurious dogma regurgitator when you post comments like this. – Anthony]
1DandyTroll says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:47 am
Point well taken so I’ll adjust the figures to something more applicable. Subtracting Greenland and Antarctica (both “polar deserts”) still gives 7.3 million sq miles of desert. The non-polar deserts still comprise 12.7% of the land surface (total earth’s land surface is about 57.5 million square miles), and that’s significant compared to the total arable land surface (21% of the earth’s land surface).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deserts_by_area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land
I submit that we ARE left with a lot of desert that could potentially be converted to arable land–non-polar deserts are 57% as large as current arable land. And the increase in CO2 helps make that possible.
@juanslayton says: February 11, 2011 at 7:50 am ,
Actually my pastor does have Richard Dawkins in his library. All moderate religious leaders have to be aware of all types of militant extremist (like Dawkins), be they atheists, capitalists, secularists, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, CAGW-ists etc. etc. etc.
This is wonderful news. I have to get a copy of that book, and will see if I can persuade my local library to buy a copy, too.
I just wish more people would see the relevance of direct experiments of animals in near-ambient CO2 levels as well. Three teeny experiments of chicken eggs suggest CO2 would be good for us diretly as well as by increasing primary production.
http://www.co2science.org/education/book/2011/55BenefitsofCO2Pamphlet.pdf
Benefit 21, Human longevity shows nearly perfect correlation with atmospheric CO2. As CO2 levels have increased over the past 100 years, so has human longevity.
We all know that CO2 is part of the life cycle on earth. Given the gradual decline of its concentration over geologic times, it won’t be long that we will have to forcibly inject CO2 into the atmosphere in order to maintain life on this planet. Without humans this planet will eventually die.
Sunspot:
I think we are trying to make the same point. Perhaps I have been unclear, should have stated the reason explicitly: ‘One needs to know the enemy.’ : > )
R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:11 am
Perhaps the American Medical Association should print a pamphlet about the benefits of carbon dioxide in the human bloodstream. Of course, they’d have to mention that there is a RANGE in which carbon dioxide is beneficial, below which or above which, the system undergoes some unpleasant changes.
—————————————————-
The point is taken.
Plants tolerate CO2 from 100ppm to 20,000ppm.
Elephants can handle from 100ppm to 10,000ppm.
Mice, the same.
Humans, also from 100ppm to 10,000ppm.
Warmies and their polar bears can only stand it between 350 and 351ppm!
For a no-nonsense introduction to the benefits of CO2 and how it works, visit
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate5.htm
R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:11 am
Perhaps the American Medical Association should print a pamphlet about the benefits of carbon dioxide in the human bloodstream. Of course, they’d have to mention that there is a RANGE in which carbon dioxide is beneficial, below which or above which, the system undergoes some unpleasant changes.
So, Gates, it’s always “Be afraid, be very afraid of CO2”? Yep, that sure sounds exactly like Climate Science = Post Normal Science = Not Real Science, to me.
I stand to be corrected by any biochemist or respiratory physiologist, etc., around, but the ballpark average human body pCO2 = 40-44 = 5.6% = 56,000 ppm., compared to atmospheric = .04% = 400 ppm, a number already used in respiratory physiology and medical practice for at least 40 yrs.! So getting rid of the body’s metabolic CO2 load to the atmosphere by increasing “ventilation”/breathing rate via the lungs is not a problem, although there are some work standards and toxicity numbers which have been mentioned several times already at WUWT.
Regardless, the human body can adjust to and produce wide internal ranges of pCO2 to help keep the approximate normal body pH at around 7.41 – which most people don’t know is actually the main function of CO2 concentrations in the “bloodstream”, that is, to allow or cause body pH to stay in the range of normal as per the needs of the biochemical reactions necessary to maintain life.
In practice, normally all that has to happen is for the ratio of the concentration of bicarbonate [HCO3-] to the dissolved CO2 concentration to stay around 20 = [HCO3-]/pCO2 [.03], normally approx. = 26/1.2.
The human body makes the adjustments automatically, basically through ventilation/breathing rate and depth changes in response to [CO2] and the pH itself, and via Kidney responses to adjust [HCO3-].
In the human body using CO2 + H2O = H2CO3 = H + HCO3, H2CO3 concentration is low enough that it can be ignored, so that:
pH = pKa + log [base]/[acid] = 6.1 + log [HCO3]/dissolved CO2 = 6.1 + log 20 = 6.1 + 1.3 = 7.4
Also ballpark, starting at about pCO2 = 60-80, vs normal of about 40-44, pCO2 can have a direct “narcotic”/obtundation-coma effect and can even suppress the automatic ventilation/breathing rate response induced at its lower levels.
Patrick Davis says @February 11, 2011 at 1:26 am [ … ]
Patrick, I’m sorry I misread your post.
Oliver Ramsay says:
February 11, 2011 at 12:11 pm
The point is taken.
Plants tolerate CO2 from 100ppm to 20,000ppm.
Elephants can handle from 100ppm to 10,000ppm.
Mice, the same.
Humans, also from 100ppm to 10,000ppm.
=====================================================
Everything else we shoot for the middle, and without exception, we’re told that’s optimum.
According to palaeo measurements / reconstructions of atmospheric CO2:
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/289/logwarmingpaleoclimate.png
about 200-300 ppm is the bottom of a wide range of CO2 levels associated with stable temperature, the top being 7-8000 ppm.
The lines on the chart are self-evident nonsense. The dots tell the story.
R. Gates says:
Actually, most “overbearing states” know that keeping people fat and happy is the best way to maintain power. It only when people get discontent on a large enough scale that they represent a threat to the “overbearing” central power.
Bread and Circuses – and we’ve got plenty.
Historically, the “bread and circuses” era occurred in Rome after it had almost entirely farmed out its military service to provincials, and the citizenry was mostly unemployed, poor, and idle. Which is the much-hoped-for condition pursued by progressives, greens, and Warmists.
Alex, fenbeagle;
As I’ve observed before, it’s competent and polite to provide direct links to referenced items, not generic “Front Page” URLs, which force the reader to go looking for things that have since been buried by later features.
Fenbeagle’s ‘roos for horses ‘toon: http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/changing-the-guard-at-buckingham-palace/
Alex’s Australian oceanic food chain: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/fishlovers_united_for_global_warming/
@Patrick Davis
I take it you are new to all this as Sourcewatch is not a reliable resource,
Sourcewatch (Discover the Networks)
Center for Media and Democracy (Discover the Networks)
People need to look farther then their first Google result.
That is not what it says.
Oxygen is good. What would happen if we doubled the concentration of oxygen? I can’t imagine there might be a downside.
http://secure.ntsg.umt.edu/publications/2010/ZR10/Zhao_Running_Science_2010.pdf
I always thought it would be great fun to watch the tree Huggers and the global warmists duke it out amongst themselves. Maybe this book will help make that a reality.
eadler says:
February 11, 2011 at 9:55 am
[snip – eadler, if you want to continue posting here, learn not to cite videos produced by a an Gore trained antogonist as “proof” of anything. And how about actually buying the book and READING it before make pronouncements on how terrible it is. You really are nothing more than an uncurious dogma regurgitator when you post comments like this. – Anthony]
The idea that droughts and floods would impact agriculture in AGW proceeded past 2C comes from the IPCC report and the US EPA. The USDA points out that weeds would benefit the most from CO2, and the effect of weed killers would be reduced, and that the plants grown with higher CO2 concentration contain a lower concentration of the nutrients that humans need.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/agriculture.html
Agriculture is highly sensitive to climate variability and weather extremes, such as droughts, floods and severe storms. The forces that shape our climate are also critical to farm productivity. Human activity has already changed atmospheric characteristics such as temperature, rainfall, levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and ground level ozone. The scientific community expects such trends to continue. While food production may benefit from a warmer climate, the increased potential for droughts, floods and heat waves will pose challenges for farmers. Additionally, the enduring changes in climate, water supply and soil moisture could make it less feasible to continue crop production in certain regions.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded:
Recent studies indicate that increased frequency of heat stress, droughts and floods negatively affect crop yields and livestock beyond the impacts of mean climate change, creating the possibility for surprises, with impacts that are larger, and occurring earlier, than predicted using changes in mean variables alone. This is especially the case for subsistence sectors at low latitudes. Climate variability and change also modify the risks of fires, pest and pathogen outbreak, negatively affecting food, fiber and forestry.
I don’t need to read their book to see that the Idsos’ assessment is one sided. It is evident from the description you provide.
REPLY: You are one to talk about being “one sided”- you have only one train of thought here – Anthony
“Poptech says:
February 11, 2011 at 3:25 pm”
The site I link to I thought was interesting because it was one of the first sites Google spat back at me. This seems, to me at least, Google is clearly biased (Seemingly in favour of AGW and misinformation sites like the one I linked to and the one you mention, Wikipedia, which I know to be suspect, not only for articles about climate etc). Not sure when this rot set in, maybe after Climategate?
Here in Australia, the Govn’t climate adviser, Prof. Ross Garnaut (Economist)publically stated CO2 concentrations are forecast to double (~790ppm/v) by 2030. Not sure where he gets that forecast from, likely a computer based model. Big nasty “carbon” monster propaganda is growing here in Australia.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/carbon-pollution-set-to-double-garnaut-20110211-1aqet.html
>> eadler says:
February 11, 2011 at 4:55 pm
The idea that droughts and floods would impact agriculture in AGW proceeded past 2C comes from the IPCC report and the US EPA. <<
Warming causing increased flooding I might buy; droughts in a warmer world with more atmospheric water vapor and more precipitation, not so much. In any case, I don't believe there is any research showing an increase in either one.
The three weather phenomena which have actually been quantified, tropical cyclones, tornados, and extreme temperatures, show no increase over the past. Either the alarmists are wrong about global warming causing increasing incidents of extreme weather, or they are wrong about the planet warming. Take your pick.
We would not be here if it was not for co2. Neither would polar bears (both carbon based life forms.)
C02 and increased plant growth.
http://www.news.wisc.edu/17436
http://aspenface.mtu.edu/
http://news.duke.edu/2009/08/carbonseed.html
http://www.ias.sdsmt.edu/STAFF/INDOFLUX/Presentations/14.07.06/session1/myneni-talk.pdf
The Sahel has been greening in recent decades:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.03.008
JPeden says:
February 11, 2011 at 12:31 pm
R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:11 am
Perhaps the American Medical Association should print a pamphlet about the benefits of carbon dioxide in the human bloodstream. Of course, they’d have to mention that there is a RANGE in which carbon dioxide is beneficial, below which or above which, the system undergoes some unpleasant changes.
So, Gates, it’s always “Be afraid, be very afraid of CO2″? Yep, that sure sounds exactly like Climate Science = Post Normal Science = Not Real Science, to me.
_____
Point is, which it seems you missed, is that there is a RANGE, in which CO2 is “good”, and of course, the definition of “good” is relative to the life form or species or ecosystem you’re referring to. There are undoubtedly benefits to CO2, so long as it remains within a range, as it has for the past 800,000 years, during which time (mainly during the past 10,000 years) humans have enjoyed the benefits of that range. We are now out of that range and continuing upward into uncharted territory so far as modern humans are concerned. The whole nature of the climate debate is what that uncharted territory will be like.
Patrick Davis,
Google results are based on PageRank a Google metric that is roughly based on the number and popularity of incoming links to pages. Roughly put if a page is linked off of many very popular websites it will show up higher in Google search results. All a top Google result means is that it is likely one of the most popular sites relating to that Google search. It is not surprising when searching for AGW skeptic websites in Google for these results to be at the top, since alarmists spend all their time trying to find something to attack these sites with. SourceWatch is religiously used to try and smear AGW skeptics and websites.
This same problem happens with Wikipedia and Google. Until people understand what sites like Wikipedia really are “truth based on who edits last”, they will continue to falsely cite them as a valid source.
John Brookes says:
February 11, 2011 at 6:28 am “…I’m lookng (sic) forward to their next volume…”
And we’re looking forward to your next stupid statement. 😉
PS: lookng is actually spelled “looking”. Just fyi! Regards!!
Otherwise, on serious matters, I look froward to reading this book. Bravo, Messrs. Idso.
R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:56 pm
R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:11 am
“Perhaps the American Medical Association should print a pamphlet about the benefits of carbon dioxide in the human bloodstream. Of course, they’d have to mention that there is a RANGE in which carbon dioxide is beneficial, below which or above which, the system undergoes some unpleasant changes.
Point is, which it seems you missed, is that there is a RANGE, in which CO2 is “good”, and of course, the definition of “good” is relative to the life form or species or ecosystem you’re referring to. There are undoubtedly benefits to CO2, so long as it remains within a range, …(We are now out of that range and continuing upward into uncharted territory so far as modern humans are concerned. The whole nature of the climate debate is what that uncharted territory will be like.”
Mr Gates, you have made one of your worst posts ever. To pretend for a minute that we are outside the range at which the KNOWN benefits of CO2 are, is 100% WRONG.
Not only are we no where near toxic levels of CO2, we are well below where the KNOWN biological benefits of CO2 begin to taper off. The biological benefits continue to increase in a linear or greater fashion up to at least 1,000 PPM, well above any level we will get to, while the KNOWN benefits continue to increase, the POTENTIAL and UNREALIZED and UNOBSERVED harmful effects of increased CO2 decrease on a logarithmic scale.
Re eadler says:
February 11, 2011 at 4:55 pm
eadler says:
February 11, 2011 at 9:55 am
[snip – eadler, if you want to continue posting here, learn not to cite videos produced by a an Gore trained antagonist as “proof” of anything. And how about actually buying the book and READING it before make pronouncements on how terrible it is. You really are nothing more than an uncurious dogma regurgitator when you post comments like this. – Anthony]
“The idea that droughts and floods would impact agriculture in AGW proceeded past 2C comes from the IPCC report and the US EPA. The USDA points out that weeds would benefit the most from CO2, and the effect of weed killers would be reduced, and that the plants grown with higher CO2 concentration contain a lower concentration of the nutrients that humans need.”
Eadler, you should read the book. A lower concentration of nutrients, maybe, yet the mass increases far more, so there is a NET GAIN in nutrients. Also the weed points is addressed, but you need to do a little research on your own. (hint)
Eadler goes on…”Agriculture is highly sensitive to climate variability and weather extremes, such as droughts, floods and severe storms. The forces that shape our climate are also critical to farm productivity.”
Eadler, do you recognize tautology in the above statement, the fact is that increases in CO2 make plants MORE tolerant of heat drought and weather extremes, hint, read the book.
Eadler continues….
“Human activity has already changed atmospheric characteristics such as temperature, rainfall, levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and ground level ozone. The scientific community EXPECTS such trends to continue. While food production MAY benefit from a warmer climate, the increased POTETIAL for droughts, floods and heat waves WILL pose challenges for farmers.”
Eadler for your edification, MAY and POTENTIAL refer to things that have not happened, so one cannot say they WILL do anything,
Eadler continues….”Additionally, the enduring changes in climate, water supply and soil moisture COULD make it less feasible to continue crop production in certain regions.” Wow Elder, OK, climate ALWAYS changes, water supplies ALWAYS have flux, crops ALWAYS have some good and some bad years. The fact is that increased CO2 is KNOWN to increase the ability of food to grow, even with a reduction in water and or an increase in heat, and there is evidence that more CO2 will reduce drought.
Eadler and the IPCC continue…”The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded: Recent studies INDICATE that increased frequency of heat stress, droughts and floods negatively affect crop yields and livestock beyond the impacts of mean climate change, (Elder, a pause for your reading skills and a chance for you to recognize yet more tautology, of course studies have KNOWN this for a long time, and any increase of extreme events will of course have greater impacts, but there has been NO SUCH INCREASE OBSERVED.
Eadler continues…” creating the POSSIBILITIES for surprises, with impacts that are larger, and occurring earlier, than predicted using changes in mean variables alone. This is especially the case for subsistence sectors at low latitudes. Climate variability and change also modify the risks of fires, pest and pathogen outbreak, negatively affecting food, fiber and forestry.
Eadler think, much more likely and as has been OBSERVED, increased CO2 can and DOES positively affect food fiber and forestry in the real world. READ the Book.
Eadler concludes “I don’t need to read their book to see that the Idsos’ assessment is one sided. It is evident from the description you provide.”
Respectfully Eadler you do, as the book carefully compares what the IPCC says COULD, MAY, POSSIBLY and POTENTIALLY will happen, with what REAL WORLD studies and PEER REVIEWED research says DOES happen.
Brief synopses of each of the 55 sections of the book may be found at http://www.co2science.org/education/book/2011/55BenefitsofCO2Pamphlet.pdf, while the book can be ordered from Vales Lakes Publishing, Inc.
The Brookhaven National Lab FACE site has a wide range of global Free Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment site data and resulting scientific paper listings. http://www.bnl.gov/face/Publications.asp. The authors’ conclusions drawn from the various studies do not agree with each other. Tracking back through some of the authors personal views indicate scientific fault lines here as well.
John Brookes says: February 11, 2011 at 6:28 am
you missed the volume: “1001 uses of Radium”
Radium suppositories anyone?
http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/radsup.htm
Weak Discouraged Men!
Now Bubble Over with Joyous Vitality
Through the Use of
Glands and Radium
“. . . properly functioning glands make themselves known in a quick, brisk step, mental alertness and the ability to live and love in the fullest sense of the word . . . A man must be in a bad way indeed to sit back and be satisfied without the pleasures that are his birthright! . . . Try them and see what good results you get!”
“Vita radium suppositories are guaranteed entirely harmless”
just like CO2!!
Or even the “smoking tobacco never harmed anyone”
R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Point is, which it seems you missed, is that there is a RANGE, in which CO2 is “good”…. We are now out of that range and continuing upward into uncharted territory so far as modern humans are concerned. The whole nature of the climate debate is what that uncharted territory will be like.
Gates, since you don’t think that I was in any way talking about CO2 concentration “ranges”, it seems we might simply have a difference of word definitions for “range”: imo, you are possibly confusing your own given psycho de-range-ment, which does indeed appear to necessarliy involve that you will always be “continuing upward into uncharted territory”, with a consideration of what a “range” of CO2 concentrations might mean back here in the real world.
Well, at least it works for me.
Walt man says:
“Vita radium suppositories are guaranteed entirely harmless”
“just like CO2!!”
walt man could certainly use this.☺
David says:
February 12, 2011 at 12:20 am
Eadler, you should read the book. A lower concentration of nutrients, maybe, yet the mass increases far more, so there is a NET GAIN in nutrients. Also the weed points is addressed, but you need to do a little research on your own. (hint)
A lot of work has been done on the effect of CO2 on plant growth. It turns out that the effect depends very heavily on the type of plant, and the conditions of growth in addition to CO2. According to this paper, the experimental results of CO2 stimulated growth need to be characterized by these other conditions in order to determine what the effects are.
http://se-server.ethz.ch/Staff/af/AR4-Ch4_Grey_Lit/Ko110.pdf
Plant CO2 responses: an issue of definition, time and
resource supply
Christian Körner, Institute of Botany, University of Basel, Schönbeinstrasse 6, CH-4056 Basel Switzerland
Conclusions
In this review I tried to highlight major co-determinants of plant CO2-responses, which need to be accounted for, should the resultant trends not just reflect the abundance of a certain type of studies (Pendall, 2002). The results of 20 experiments, with examples for plants growing under conditions of a close to natural nutrient cycle in >160 ppm above ambient CO2, yield a different picture of CO2 biomass effects as had previously
emerged from not separating expanding versus steady state, fertilized versus
unfertilized or young versus mature plant stands. These types of experimental
conditions appear to be far more important than whether plants grow in enclosures or not.
….
Studies conducted under conditions in which plant growth was coupled to the nutrient cycle, and particularly those in which plants had reached a steady state canopy development, revealed far smaller (often zero) influences of elevated CO2 on standing crop biomass and productivity than had been found in systems decoupled from natural resource supply by either fertilizing, disturbing or wide spacing. Altogether these data warn at overstating beneficial effects of a CO2 rich world for plant growth, based on
inappropriate experimental conditions for such projections or unconstrained models, in essence based on photosynthesis. I had not presented any mean responses as became popular in such reviews, because any such mean would simply reflect the mix of data used. A best guess may be that the upper limit of a long-term steady biomass response is below +10 %, with steady state effects close to zero being most likely under natural conditions. The biosphere may in fact be carbon saturated already at current CO2 concentrations (Körner, 2003b). It is important to keep in mind that any growth stimulation would enhance forest dynamics and would translate into greater abundance
of fast growing taxa, with likely negative effects on overall carbon storage. Disregarding such forest dynamics effects, a global upper limit of net ecosystem C-fixation due to elevated CO2 was considered to be 10 % of the projected anthropogenic CO2 release by 2050 (Hamilton et al., 2002). Even agricultural yield predictions for a double CO2 world have come down dramatically (to ca. 10%), after experimental approaches adopted the
28 relevant scales (Kimball et al., 2002). Such trials are, unfortunately, missing for the major natural forest biomes of the globe, but are urgently needed in light of the rapid alteration of the globes carbon diet and its effects on biodiversity (Körner et al., 2006).
This science definitively has to move beyond primarily looking for missing carbon.
REPLY: LOL! Eadler will write up most anything to keep from having to read the book – A
John Brookes says: I’m look[i]ng forward to their next volume, “The Marvels of Methane”
Why not?
Marvelous methane feeds forests of fascinating animals that flourish on the ocean floor, including tube worms, polychaete worms, mussels, blind shrimp and crabs. Methane fuels life below the Arctic, at the equator, in anaerobic ocean sediments, in Lake Tanganyika, at the deepest layer of the Earth’s crust, in the Gulf of Mexico and in Siberian permafrost. Methane is feedstock for chemosynthetic primary production in a variety of marine ecosystems. Methane is oxidized in human habitats for cooking, heating and transport. Methane hydrates are used to make apartment blocks for ice worms:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2001/05.04.01.methane.ice.worms.jpg
Methane is not the bogeyman described by climate scientologists in their desultory propaganda: it is a a natural life-enriching wonder. Maybe I should write that book.
How do you like my design for a badge?
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=7c81d25831&view=att&th=12e160007b7464bc&attid=0.1.1&disp=inline&zw
[Try it again, Henry. ~dbs]
eadler says:
February 12, 2011 at 8:19 pm
David says:
February 12, 2011 at 12:20 am
Eadler, you should read the book. A lower concentration of nutrients, maybe, yet the mass increases far more, so there is a NET GAIN in nutrients. Also the weed points is addressed, but you need to do a little research on your own. (hint)
Elder responds; “A lot of work has been done on the effect of CO2 on plant growth. It turns out that the effect depends very heavily on the type of plant, and the conditions of growth in addition to CO2.…”
Sorry Ealder, but this is simply more tautology. Believe it or not science has known for a little while that other factors must be taken into account when attempting to isolate the effect of a particular property or environment.
The Idso book contains hundreds of studies and results on “different” plants, under “different” conditions of growth, at “different” stages of plant maturity, with “real world” observations tasking into account other factors. CO2 may be close to saturated as a greenhouse gas, but as plant food enhancing more rapid growth, greater biomass, stronger survival rates under unfavorable conditions, it is not close to saturated, and the benefits increase at a linear rate, or greater beyond 1,000 PPM.
For you to bring up ONE study, which you have no idea if it does, or DOES NOT specifically relate to a ANY of hundreds of studies referred to in the book, and attempt to use that as evidence for your assertion is sad. As I tried to express to you, the book examines in detail the IPCC view which you are attempting to represent. It does not ignore it.
eadler says:
February 12, 2011 at 8:19 pm
David says:
February 12, 2011 at 12:20 am
Eadler, you should read the book. A lower concentration of nutrients, maybe, yet the mass increases far more, so there is a NET GAIN in nutrients. Also the weed points is addressed, but you need to do a little research on your own. (hint)
Elder responds; “A lot of work has been done on the effect of CO2 on plant growth. It turns out that the effect depends very heavily on the type of plant, and the conditions of growth in addition to CO2.…”
Sorry Ealder, but this is simply more tautology. Believe it or not science has known for a little while that other factors must be taken into account when attempting to isolate the effect of a particular property or environment.
The Idso book contains hundreds of studies and results on “different” plants, under “different” conditions of growth, at “different” stages of plant maturity, with “real world” observations tasking into account other factors. CO2 may be close to saturated as a greenhouse gas, but as plant food enhancing more rapid growth, greater biomass, stronger survival rates under unfavorable conditions, it is not close to saturated, and the benefits increase at a linear rate, or greater beyond 1,000 PPM.
For you to bring up ONE study, which you have NO idea if it does, or DOES NOT specifically relate to a ANY of hundreds of studies referred to in the book, and attempt to use that as evidence for your assertion is sad. The book does a better job then you do of representing the IPCC viewpoint, it does not ignore it, it just takes it apart.
The implications of what is presented in this book may have enormous implications.
It seems increasingly likely that the primary contribution that the AGW community will have made to society after the scientific debate is concluded will be in the field of economic education. Classical economics teaches that socially optimal resource allocation and use occurs only when the price of the resource is equal to the marginal cost of the resource. If we assume, as we have for the last few decades, that a net negative social externality exists as a consequence of converting C into CO2, then social optimality can be achieved most efficiently by charging a fee on top of the fuel price in order to raise the price to a point where both the private and social marginal costs are borne by the user and hence reflected in the quantity of fuel demanded. I believe that the AGW community has done an excellent job of increasing public awareness of this fundamental economic principle, and, with the development of Cap and Trade schemes, have devised a politically palliatable strategy for implementing such a program.
Any members of the AGW community that are motivated primarily by collectivist or Malthusian political beliefs are not however, likely to enjoy much pride-in-accomplishment from this if it turns out that CAGW is nonsense. Symmetry exists in economics. If we assume that the negative component of social cost inherent in the oxidation in carbon is eventually found to be trivial, then the positive effects documented in this book would predominate, and the externality inherent in the burning of carbon would be positive. Users of fossil fuel would, in the absence of intervention, be paying more than the total marginal cost of that fuel, causing them to burn less than the socially optimal amount. Optimality could best be achieved by subsidizing the consumption of fossil fuel. The cost of the subsidy, in order to equate the price of agricultural commodities with their actual total marginal cost, thus achieving socially optimality, would have to be collected in the form of a fee from all people who eat. Since we in the U.S.A. produce about three times the amount of CO2 than we consume in the form of food, this would result in substantial income coming into this country which would accrue to GDP and relieve balance trade worries. The developing world would also benefit as the increased CO2 production induced by the subsidy, would push up agricultural productivity worldwide. The increase in the price of food that results from the “food tax”would decrease the quantity of food demanded worldwide, which, along with the increase in agricultural productivity would create and expand agricultural surplus’s which are the foundation of all the economic development that has ever occurred anywhere.
I am looking forward to that sunny day when the science really is settled, and we can replace talk of “Cap and Trade” with an economically efficient and socially responsible “Burn and Earn” program. We can then begin the task of beating the eyesores we refer to as windmills into ’68 Pontiac GTO’s, and melting the famine-promoting solar panels down and re-casting them into 100 inch flat screen 3d TVs.
Chris R;
Thanks for putting some academic stuff to back up my suggestion for CO2 subsidies, first post on the thread. Contemplating the consequences is lovely fun!
BTW, typo/logic lapse: “the implications … may have enormous implications” is kinda un-sensical.
That one even has to argue the case that more CO2 means more Green shows a retardation of grade school science teaching .
To call CO2 just plant food is to call O2 just animal food .
Oh dear, that’ s a lot of duplication (most of it simply says that plants grow more, or that stomata open less). Not to mention that many of the factoids assert that they are good, without qualifying why. Nor are any supporting references given. And some things are just plain wrong (e.g. 10: plant carbon does not end up in the depths of the ocean).
sorry, just forgot that I was only reading the promotional flier, so I assume my point about no references is wrong. But the rest still stands.
#
#
David says:
February 13, 2011 at 5:21 am
eadler
For you to bring up ONE study, which you have no idea if it does, or DOES NOT specifically relate to a ANY of hundreds of studies referred to in the book, and attempt to use that as evidence for your assertion is sad. As I tried to express to you, the book examines in detail the IPCC view which you are attempting to represent. It does not ignore it.
The paper references 87 studies which it classifies according to subject:
General reviews 1, 2, 3, 4, 5s, 6, 7, 8, 9s, 11,
Agricultural plants 12, 13, 14s, 15, 16,
Grassland 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
Trees and forests 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 11,
Aspects of photosynthesis 32, 33, 34, 35, 36s, 37, 38s, 39s, 40,
Plant respiration 41, 36s, 42, 28,
Plant water 43, 44, 45, 46s, 47s, 48, 49, 15, 50, 21,
Plant nutrients 51, 36s, 52s, 37, 53, 38s, 15, 54s,
Below ground responses 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62s, 63, 64,
Temperature interactions 65, 4, 66, 67, 68s,
Tissue quality 69, 70, 52s, 11, 54s,
Competition and biodiversity 71, 72, 73, 74, 17, 46, 11, 75, 76, 77, 78,
Reproduction and phenology 79, 80, 7, 81,
Conceptual works 32, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87
Idso is a coauthor on 2 of them.
Although I didn’t read the book, I did look at the online presentation based on the book. The author’s credentials are as good as the Idsos’. He is a professor of Botany.
The article I referred to above is not the only work that indicates we need to be skeptical of the idea that increased CO2 concentration is a great benefit for crops. It appears that the crops the feed the world, soy, wheat, corn and rice do not really benefit greatly and may be hurt by the side effects increase in temperature if it gets to 3C.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov09/carbon1109.htm
Ealder,
By refusing to read the book you have no idea if the objections you raise in one or two studies is relevant and supported in the vast literature. Because the first link you gave references numerous studies, does not mean you know in what context.
Let us take one subject which you intimate does not respond to additional CO2. Rice. There are about 182 studies of rice, from controlled greenhouses to field studies with numerous other conditions and stresses. A 300 ppm increase in these 182 studies produced a mean increase of dry bio-mass of 34.4%. In an additional 22 studies involving an 600 ppm CO2 increase the mean bio-mass growth was 141%. http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/o/oryzas.php
It is not just finale bio-mass growth that matters. It is how rapidly this growth is reached. In numerous studies increased CO2 has the potential to produced additional crops per season due to the accelerated growth.
A good mind closed, is a waste.
Eadler, here are three of those 182 studies, 300 PPM increase.
De Costa et al. (2007)
Grain yield biomass of 16 different genotypes of rice grown in open-top chambers under standard lowland paddy culture with adequate water and nutrients at the Rice Research and Development Institute in Sri Lanka from November to March (maha season) 44%
Fan et al. (2010)
Plants of the variety Asominori (Japonica) were grown from the seedling stage to maturity out-of-doors under standard agricultural practices in a FACE study conducted at Anzhen Village, Wuxi City, China 64%
Fan et al. (2010)
Plants of the variety IR24 (Indica) were grown from the seedling stage to maturity out-of-doors under standard agricultural practices in a FACE study conducted at Anzhen Village, Wuxi City, China
ginckgo;
Since the vast majority of organisms, including photosynthetic ones, lives in the oceans, and the CO2 they consume does indeed end up incorporated in carbonates on the ocean floor, your “error example” is itself in error. What a surprise! Not.
Ealder,
Mean result for 235 studies 300 ppm increase of CO2 from ambient level for Triticum aestivum L. [Common Wheat] 32.1% increase in dry bio-mass.
Some examples for you…
Hogy et al. (2009)
Total biomass of well watered plants grown together with typical weeds out-of-doors south of Stuttgart, Germany, in a FACE study
37%
Hogy et al. (2010)
Grain yield biomass of well watered and fertilized plants grown from seed to maturity out-of-doors in the field in a FACE study conducted south of Stuttgart (Germany)
25%
Fan et al. (2010)
Plants of the variety IR42 (Indica) were grown from the seedling stage to maturity out-of-doors under standard agricultural practices in a FACE study conducted at Xiaoji Village, Yangzhou City, China, using seeds produced by plants that had been grown for two generations in a similar FACE study
50%
Mean result for 235 studies 300 ppm increase of CO2 from ambient level for Triticum aestivum L. [Common Wheat] 32.1% increase in dry bio-mass.
Yes Eadler, truth is that under a host of conditions including standard farming practices, when Wheat Soy Rice and Corn are subjected to increased CO2, all grow to maturity faster, all produce greater bio-mass, all endure drought heat, and cold better.
As to your 3 C increase in daytime highs, please show me ONE study where the current trend in truly rural conditions (at growing locations) even begins to approach a 3C increase in daytime highs which you say MAY (which also means may not) have harmfull effects.
Brian, Gincko speed read the promotional flyer, confirmed his pre formed POV, made one general and wrong dismissal, and made two completely wrong specific points. Seriously, these people need a mirror. Prior to CAGW no one would even question the hundreds of studies which have had real world applications in crop production for many decades, demonstrating in experiments and practices the benefits of CO2.
Eadler states “It appears that the crops the feed the world, soy, wheat, corn and rice do not really benefit greatly and may be hurt by the side effects increase in temperature if it gets to 3C.”
Eadlder here are 570 results which disagree with you. Experimental and Real World results for 300 ppm increase from ambient in hundreds of studies of rice, wheat, corn and soy…
Triticum aestivum L. [Common Wheat]
Statistics
300 ppm
Number of Results 235
Arithmetic Mean 32.1%
Standard Error 1.8%
Glycine max (L.) Merr. [Soybean]
Statistics
300 ppm
Number of Results 179
Arithmetic Mean 46.5%
Standard Error 2.8%
Zea mays L. [Corn]
Statistics
300 ppm
Number of Results 20
Arithmetic Mean 21.3%
Standard Error 4.9%
Triticum aestivum L. [Common Wheat]
Statistics
300 ppm
Number of Results 235
Arithmetic Mean 32.1%
Standard Error 1.8%
Eadler you will find that corn, soy wheat and rice all grow significantly quicker, produce greater bio-mass. endure heat cold and drought better, when exposed to 300 ppm increase in CO2.
I don’t find that report convincing at all. Example: Increasing CO2 only gives beneficial bacteria – and not harmful bacteria? There was this once a century flood in Australia, Pakistan, a very bad drought in China, etc. and a new study links all that as a result of human activity (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/earth/17extreme.html ). We have enough CO2, and trees are growing just fine with the existing level. I don’t think increasing CO2 will make desert a fertile place.
Jody F says:
February 16, 2011 at 8:46 pm
I don’t find that report convincing at all. Example: Increasing CO2 only gives beneficial bacteria – and not harmful bacteria?
Jody, please do not put words in the mouthe of authors. They never state that in the summary or the book. The summary is that peer reviewed research suggest that the balance of bacteria increase will be beneficial and takes into account the possible negatives. Likewise read the peer reviewed reports that debunk any CO2 relationship to recent bad weather. As to the benefits of increased CO2, see the comment above yours. Changing desserts to crops is not the issue, although slowing the growth of desserts, or slowly shrinking them is beneficial.
David,
Sure, they never used the word ‘only’, you are correct. But on this: “Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will likely allow greater numbers of beneficial bacteria (that help sequester carbon and nitrogen) …” Biological systems are much harder to predict than physical systems. It would be difficult to believe what they say when they say (not here, but generally) that climate change cannot be predicted, but then they make a prediction on a more complex system.
Another one: “Unless the air’s CO2 content continues its upward trajectory, humans will experience mass starvation, and untold numbers of plants and animals will face extinction over the last half of the current century.” Carbon cycle in biological systems does not alter CO2 levels one way or other (or does not need the alteration of CO2) – it is the use of fossil fuel that increases CO2. So why do we need increased CO2 to sustain biosystems? If they are implying a general warming because of CO2 making Canadian tundra suitable for cultivation, some other areas will become less fertile, and most reports I have seen lowers the available land for cultivation. There are so many such statements in that article.
I also find it fascinating that they imply global warming, and state that it is good (increase life expectancy). Natural variation? No correlation with industrial revolution and CO2.
The paper that just came out in Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/full/470316a.html ) is a highly peer reviewed article linking green-house gases to increased rainfall.
Jody
This is not logical. The Idso book summary says, “Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will likely allow greater numbers of beneficial bacteria (that help sequester carbon and nitrogen) …” In the book they talk about harmfiul effects, they show a balance of the peer review, and the summary is the conclusion, read the book.
And this“Unless the air’s CO2 content continues its upward trajectory, humans will experience mass starvation, and untold numbers of plants and animals will face extinction over the last half of the current century.” is taken out of context. If human population grows and more land and water resources are not devoted to food then…” Damm, right now, with out the current level of man made CO2, we would need about 12 to 15 perrcent more land and water to produce the food we have now.
Concerning your nature paper please see the debunking of it and check out these peer reviewed papers. Over the period of 1965–2008, the global TC activity, as measured by storm days, shows a large amplitude fluctuation regulated by the ENSO and PDO, but has no trend, suggesting that the rising temperature so far has not yet an impact on the global total number of storm days.” Wang, B., Y. Yang, Q.‐H. Ding, H. Murakami, and F. Huang, 2010. Climate control of the global tropical storm days (1965–2008). Geophysical Research Letters,
“(1) There is no significant overall long-term trend common to all indices in cyclone activity in the North Atlantic and European region since the Dalton minimum.
Bärring and Fortuniak, 2009 International Journal of Climatology,
“Over the past 24 yr, the land falling tropical cyclones clearly show variability on inter-annual and inter-decadal time scales, but there is no significant trend in the landfall frequency. from Zhang et al., 2009
Chan and Xu write “An important finding in this part of the study is that none of the time series shows a significant linear temporal trend, which suggests that global warming has not led to more landfalls in any of the regions in Asia.” from Chan and Xu, 2009 Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 465, 3011-3021.
Phillipines 1902 – 2005 Annual TLP from 1902 to 2005 using the two definitions shows dominant periodicity of about 32 years before 1940 and of about 10–22 years after 1945; however, no trend is found.” Chan and Xu, 2009 International Journal of Climatology, 29, 1285-1293.
The 1900–01 to 2006–07 trends in the annual percentage of high- and low-extreme snowfall years for the entire United States are not statistically significant.”
Sorrel, P., B. Tessier, F. Demory, N. Delsinne, D. Mouaze. 2009.
France, …no evidence is found of any increase in the frequency or intensity of storms, and in fact, the large storms of southern France seemed more frequent more than 100 years ago. Sabatier, P., L. Dezileau, M. Condomines, L. Briqueu, C. Colin, F. Bouchette, M. Le Duff, and P. Blanchemanche. 2008. Reconstruction of paleostorm events in a coastal lagoon (Hérault, South of France). Marine Geology,
Analyses show that although economic losses from weather related hazards have increased, anthropogenic climate change so far did not have a significant impact on losses from natural disasters. The observed loss increase is caused primarily by increasing exposure and value of capital at risk. Laurens M. Bouwer Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 2010
Also do not forget http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/ipcc-forecast-decreased-snowfall-for-north-america/ and http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/ipcc-forecast-milder-winters/ and even NOAA does not agree with you or the nature paper. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/21/noaas-csi-explains-record-snows-global-warming-not-involved/