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
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/