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
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.