From the National Review I don’t don’t know about you, but I’m going to crack open a lovely carbonated beverage and raise it in salute to Roy for having the courage to say this. Salud! (burp).
By Dr. Roy W. Spencer
There seems to be an unwritten assumption among environmentalists — and among the media — that any influence humans have on nature is, by definition, bad. I even see it in scientific papers written by climate researchers. For instance, if we can measure some minute amount of a trace gas in the atmosphere at the South Pole, well removed from its human source, we are astonished at the far-reaching effects of mankind’s “pollution.”But if nature was left undisturbed, would it be any happier and more peaceful? Would the carnivores stop eating those poor, defenseless herbivores, as well as each other? Would fish and other kinds of sea life stop infringing on the rights of others by feasting on them? Would there be no more droughts, hurricanes, floods, heat waves, tornadoes, or glaciers flowing toward the sea?
In the case of global warming, the alleged culprit — carbon dioxide — just happens to be necessary for life on Earth. How can Al Gore say with a straight face that we are treating the atmosphere like an “open sewer” by dumping carbon dioxide into it? Would he say the same thing if we were dumping more oxygen into the atmosphere? Or more nitrogen?As a climate researcher, I am increasingly convinced that most of our recent global warming has been natural, not manmade. If true, this would mean that global temperatures can be expected to peak in the coming years (if they haven’t already), and global cooling will eventually ensue.Just for the sake of argument, let us assume that manmade global warming really is a false alarm. In that case, we would still need to ask: What are the other negative effects of pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere?Well, plant physiologists have known for a long time that most vegetation loves more carbon dioxide. It grows faster, is more drought-tolerant, and is more efficient in its water use. While the pre-industrial CO2 concentration of the atmosphere was only about 280 parts per million (ppm) by volume, and now it is around 380 ppm, some greenhouses pump it all the way up to around 1,000 ppm. How can environmentalists claim that helping vegetation to grow is a bad thing?The bigger concern has been the possible effect of the extra CO2 on the world’s oceans, because more CO2 lowers the pH of seawater. While it is claimed that this makes the water more acidic, this is misleading. Since seawater has a pH around 8.1, it will take an awful lot of CO2 it to even make the water neutral (pH=7), let alone acidic (pH less than 7).Still, the main worry has been that the extra CO2 could hurt the growth of plankton, which represents the start of the oceanic food chain. But recent research (published on April 18 in Science Express) has now shown, contrary to expectations, that one of the most common forms of plankton actually grows faster and bigger when more CO2 is pumped into the water. Like vegetation on land, it loves the extra CO2, too!It is quite possible that the biosphere (vegetation, sea life, etc.) has been starved for atmospheric CO2. Before humans started burning fossil fuels, vegetation and ocean plankton had been gobbling up as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as they could, but it was like a vacuum cleaner trying to suck through a stopped-up hose.Now, no matter how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere each year, the biosphere takes out an average of 50 percent of that extra amount. Even after we triple the amount of CO2 we produce, nature still takes out 50 percent of the extra amount. Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor.
I think it is time for scientists to consider the possibility that more CO2 in the atmosphere might, on the whole, be good for life on Earth. Oh, I’m sure there will be some species which are hurt more than helped, but this is true of any change in nature. There are always winners and losers.For instance, during a strong El Nino event, trillions of animals in the ocean die as the usual patterns of ocean temperature are disrupted. When Mother Nature does something like this it is considered natural. Yet, if humans were to do such a thing, it would be considered an environmental catastrophe. Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?The view that nature was in some sort of preferred, yet fragile, state of balance before humans came along is arbitrary and philosophical — even religious. It is entirely possible that there are other, more preferable states of balance in nature which are more robust and less fragile than whatever the state of nature was before we came along.You would think that science is the last place you would find such religious opinions, yet they dominate the worldview of scientists. Natural scientists tend to worship nature, and they then teach others to worship nature, too… all under the guise of “science.”
And to the extent that this view is religious, then making environmental laws based upon that view could be considered a violation of the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The automatic assumption that mankind’s production of CO2 by burning of fossil fuels is bad for the environment needs to be critically examined. Unfortunately, scientists who question that point of view are immediately branded as shills for Big Oil.
But since I am already accused of this (falsely, I might add), I really don’t mind being one of the first scientists to raise the issue.
— Dr. Roy W. Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He is author of the new book,
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
have two for me. i don’t touch that stuff since they won’t sweeten it with real sugar.
beer on the other hand….
“beer on the other hand….”
I’ll drink to that 🙂
Did someone say beer?
Stop the $1.2Trillion Carbon Tax: http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/news/sections/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsLang=en&newsId=20080430005814
Hint: if you want soda flavored by sugar, look for the little “K” on the can. One can stock up if one is aware of the impending appropriate holidays.
Kosher soda does not permit the usual substitutes.
For the most part I agree with Dr. Spencer, but I feel he glosses over the established fact that altered environments will produce altered species compositions. Locally and regionally, effects can be devastating even though the biosphere as a whole is capable of accommodating the shift. Sure, a particular phytoplankton species might love increased CO2, but is it a species that feeds the zooplankton that feed the fish that support an ecosystem? Let’s not use natural environmental system variability as an excuse for irresponsible disposal of our wastes. At the same time, let’s not use this carelessness as an excuse to beat people into submitting to unattainable utopian dreams.
CO2 levels appear to have been much higher than now back in prehistoric times (e.g. the Jurassic, 200 – 150 million years ago) which presumably encouraged the lush plant life of that era (and didn’t do much harm to other life forms such as coral, either.)
Botanist David Bellamy has also been speaking out on this subject for some time.
So yes – cheers! Let’s hear it for the much-maligned fizzy stuff. 😀
I’ve come to view it as obsessive-compulsive behavior rather than religion. Some of these folks are so obsessed with CO2 that they’re in need of an intervention.
Now what was that about beer again? These pretzels are making me thirsty…
Is the grossest tasting thing on the planet.
Great entry Roy. I followed the same line of reasoning researching the idea of “CO2 starvation” in wrote a paper I wrote for my own edification that uncovered the following.
“If CO2 levels have increased from 180 ppm to current levels of 384 ppm recently, then theoretically we should have experienced an increase in vegetative production as a result thereof, and we should be able to measure this in some fashion. Recently, a number of scientists have done just that using the Keeling Curve. The Keeling Curve is the plot that has been created tracing the measurements of atmospheric CO2 taken at the Mauna Loa, Hawaii since 1959, named after Dr. Charles David Keeling, professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. This plot contains not only the average annual CO2 concentration, but also the fluctuations that occur from season to season. On planet earth, most of the land mass and consequently, most of the terrestrial vegetation is in the northern hemisphere. Each spring as the Northern Hemisphere’s vegetation comes out of winter dormancy, the photosynthetic process reduces the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by a measurable amount. In the late fall, the process is reversed. This oscillation in CO2 concentration during the course of the year, “the breath of the biosphere”, creates a sine wave that plotted over a number of years, slopes upward towards the present. Of particular interest is the fact that the amplitude of the wave, the difference between the high and low seasonal points of each year, serves as a relative measure of the vegetative productivity for a given year, and the amplitude has been increasing. Between 1958 and 1999, this “breath of the biosphere” has increased by 19.5%, and “is primarily a direct result of atmospheric fertilization” (18).”
The source of the material was:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/other/co2amp.jsp
Considering the fact that CO2 levels were about 4000 ppm when plants first evolved, 3500 ppm when gymnosperms first evolved, and 2250 ppm when angiosperms first evolved, it is difficult to imagine that levels modestly above today’s levels will have dramatically negative effects. If we did not have run-away greenhouse at 4000 ppm, we are certainly not going to experience it at 400, 500 or even 600 ppm.
Mr. Spencer’s point is apt considering that during the height of the ice ages, CO2 levels have fallen to as low as 180 ppm. At this level, most vegetation is CO2-starved and growth rates are only at 50% of current levels while a few species are cut 90% and others are not affected as much. Over time, this results in a completely different bio-environment.
Curiously, the mass extinction events associated with the end of the last ice age are likely related to the fact that our current plant biosphere recovered as CO2 levels rose to 280 ppm and some species such as grasses, no longer dominated the environment. The giant grass-eating herbivores were the first to go.
The evidence shows that almost all plant vegetation grows subtantially better with increased CO2 levels so I imagine the whole planet will be better off; plants, animals, and humans.
Regarding fake sugar….
It turns out that there is more soda made with real sugar than you would think.
Jones makes some, Dublin (Texas) Dr. Pepper is made with Imperial brand sugar,
Some Coca Cola from Mexico is fake-free (some isn’t, read the label).
Beer is good.
Stop trying to convince us that Carbon Dioxide and Gorebull warming are not connected.
Those that can be convinced were convinced long ago. The rest use words like “faith”, “believe”, and “consensus” and can not be convinced.
Interesting–“consensus”–the only place I know of where te socialists actually thing the majority vote is worth any thing, and they are wrong.
Sad–realized that at 3-score and 9 I probably won’t live long enough to be warm again.
You guys need to stop talking common sense and start yelling fire in the theatre. Don’t you know the world cannot withstand one more ton of CO2? Everytime I think about it, I start to hyperventilate, which means of course, I’m emitting more CO2 than normal. Ughh! I think I’m going to jump off a cliff.
Excellent post. The net effect on the biosphere of increased carbon dioxide is clearly a positive thing. Yet another bit of proof that many so called “environmental” groups really don’t care much about the environment.
Jeff,
Is the grossest tasting thing on the planet.
You are obviously not a geologist. Before receiving your degree in geology, you must be able to consume mass quantities of beer on field trips and during field camp. Those that can’t become forestry majors.
Anyway, three cheers… er, beers for Roy!!
With great respect to Dr Spencer, one of the first ‘global warming scientists’ Guy Callendar, a British meteorologist, made very much this point back in 1938, when he suggested that an increase in anthropogenic CO2 was likely in several ways to ‘prove beneficial to mankind’ by promoting plant-growth and therefore agricultural production. The same is true of warming itself. The real danger of any reversal in the recent warming trend (as is being so admirably documented on this website) is that it could cost a loss of 5-10 percent in global food production, at just a time when the world is facing a significant food shortage. Look at what is happening already in Minnesota where cold, wet ground is delaying the planting season and therefore lowering prospective yields (let alone all those Californian grapes you’ve already reported on).If people want to keep eating (and drinking), it’s more warming and CO2 we need, not the reverse.
Humans Save Planet Earth!
What if humans never evolved past the primate stage and never started unleashing stored and carbon back into the atmosphere? CO2 levels were once in the 4000 ppmv and have slowly been decreasing throughout history. Yes there have been short periods of increases here and there but the overall trend has been less and less CO2. Could Planet Earth have been on its way to self destruction? Could the natural sequence of planets overrun by plants always lead to self destruction as all of the CO2 becomes sequestered or used up? If the trend had continued unabated and the level of CO2 dropped below 160ppmv, would all plant life have died off? Would Earth have become a barren waste land fit for nothing? Perhaps that is the natural way of the universe and we, the Humans, have saved Mother Gaia from her own self destruction. It is time to praise us as a species!!!!!
What if humans never evolved past the primate stage
Ook? *Skritch-scratch*
Fellow primates, unite!
(You have nothing to lose but your primacy.)
I drank 8 Bud Lites last nite, all of them really bubbly and just loaded with CO2!
Does that make me a bad person?
LOL
Thanks for the site, I have learned a lot here.
Tom in Florida,
I really love the contrarian suggestion. Isn’t it funny how things that are relatively obvious are so often completely overlooked?
Great comment.
It is widely recognized that one reason why there is not more CO2 in the atmosphere is because of the “biological pump”, ie. phytoplankton using up the CO2 doing photosynthesis, and dumping it to the bottom of the oceans in the form of dead bodies or fecal material. It is estimated that the biological pump removes about 200 ppm of atmospheric CO2 all by itself. It is thought that one reason why CO2 was so low during the glaciation is because the biological pump actually works even harder when it’s cold. See: the “feedback” works both ways.
One thing to remember is that life is both adaptable and highly opportunistic. If there is more CO2, it will adapt. If there is less CO2, it will adapt as well. Most species on Earth have been present for a few million years or more, and have survived multiple glaciations. Models do not include that simple fact. They assume that if environmental conditions change, the species will die off, like polar bears. Most models try to predict the future, but have a hard time figuring out exactly how much fertilization has already occured. Yet the CO2 sink keeps expanding as we keep feeding it, so something, somewhere, is benefitting.
I broadly agree with Dr Roy’s point that our recycling of stored hydrocarbons into useful energy, water vapour and CO2 is a good thing, but I’d like to ask about one point.
Surely the CO2 content of the oceans is affected by the temperature of the oceans much more than how much CO2 we release into the atmosphere. The warmer the oceans the less CO2 and vice versa. (Or the warmer the beer, the flatter it gets.)
The other point I’d like to make is that mankind does influence the environment and so does every other living thing. Ever since the first microscopic creature figured out a way to take energy from the sun and use it to combine H2O and CO2 from it’s environment and produce carbohydrates to grow its cells, life has been grossly influencing its environment. Indeed, that particular trick completely changed the atmosphere from lots of CO2 with trace amounts of oxygen to lots of oxygen with trace amounts of CO2, thereby killing off a lot of competing organisms that couldn’t tolerate the oxygen rich atmosphere.
Of course nature then evolved another creature that could eat the carbohydrates, strip out the carbon and burn that with oxygen to produce energy, which it then used to move about so it could hunt down those tasty carbohydrates. (Actually, that particular creature was just incorporated into a multi-celled animal and produced it’s energy in return for a meal. We refer to their descendants as mytochondria.)
All this is well known, but a great many people refuse to acknowledge it and persist in seeing anything that man does as a bad thing. We are part of Nature, part of the process of change and change is neither good nor bad.
Whether we temporarily save some cuddly animal, pretty plant or fascinating insect is neither here nor there to nature. Change happens on small scales and large scales, slowly and suddenly and sometimes catastrophically. If our intelligence and ingenuity allow us to cope with change then we should use them. That’s what they evolved for.
Evan: “Ook? *Skritch-scratch*Fellow primates, unite!
(You have nothing to lose but your primacy.)”
Sorry, should have been “primative” not “primate”.
save the world, pls 😉
Claims without reference are false claims. I can support any argument with the false rhetoric technique of informational flooding and any third grade kid will be persuaded.
Talk (or write) less, verify more (or at least let also access to your sources).