Dr. Patrick Moore sent me this last week, and after reading it, I agree with him in his initial note to me that
This is probably the most important paper I will ever write.
Moore looks at the historical record of CO2 in our atmosphere and concludes that we came dangerously close to losing plant life on Earth about 18,000 years ago, when CO2 levels approached 150 ppm, below which plant life can’t sustain photosynthesis. He notes:
A 140 million year decline in CO2 to levels that came close to threatening the survival of life on Earth can hardly be described as “the balance of nature”.
Now, with 400ppm in the atmosphere, the biosphere is once again booming (see figure 8 below). He also points out how environmental groups and politicians are using the “crisis” of CO2 increase to feather their own nests:
A powerful convergence of interests among key elites supports and drives the climate catastrophe narrative. Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; scientists and science institutions raise billions in public grants, create whole new institutions, and engage in a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; businesses want to look green and receive huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as large wind farms and solar arrays. Even the Pope of the Catholic Church has weighed in with a religious angle. Lost in all these machinations is the indisputable fact that the most important thing about CO2 is that it is essential for all life on Earth and that before humans began to burn fossil fuels, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was heading in a very dangerous direction for a very long time. Surely, the most “dangerous” change in climate in the short term would be to one that would not support sufficient food production to feed our own population
A link to the full report follows. I highly recommend it as a sensible and practical take on the issue. – Anthony Watts
Executive Summary
This study looks at the positive environmental effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a topic which has been well established in the scientific literature but which is far too often ignored in the current discussions about climate change policy. All life is carbon based and the primary source of this carbon is the CO2 in the global atmosphere. As recently as 18,000 years ago, at the height of the most recent major glaciation, CO2 dipped to its lowest level in recorded history at 180 ppm, low enough to stunt plant growth.
This is only 30 ppm above a level that would result in the death of plants due to CO2 starvation. It is calculated that if the decline in CO2 levels were to continue at the same rate as it has over the past 140 million years, life on Earth would begin to die as soon as two million years from now and would slowly perish almost entirely as carbon continued to be lost to the deep ocean sediments. The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of plants, including food crops and trees. Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle, thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth.
Introduction
This extremely positive aspect of human CO2 emissions must be weighed against the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause a catastrophic warming of the climate in coming years. The one-sided political treatment of CO2 as a pollutant that should be radically reduced must be corrected in light of the indisputable scientific evidence that it is essential to life on Earth.
There is a widespread belief that CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels for energy are a threat to the Earth’s climate and that the majority of species, including the human species, will suffer greatly unless these emissions are drastically curtailed or even eliminated.
1. This paper offers a radically different perspective based on the geological history of CO2. CO2 is one of the most essential nutrients for life on Earth. It has been approaching dangerously low levels during recent periods of major glaciation in the Pleistocene Ice Age, and human emissions of CO2 may stave off the eventual starvation and death of most life on the planet due to a lack of CO2.
2. This is not primarily a discussion of the possible connection between CO2 and global warming or climate change, although some mention must be made of it. There has been a great deal of discussion on the subject, and it is hotly contested in both scientific and political spheres.
There is no question that the climate has warmed during the past 300 years since the peak of the Little Ice Age. There is also no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and all else being equal, the emissions would result in some warming if CO2 rose to higher levels in the atmosphere. Yet, there is no definitive scientific proof that CO2 is a major factor in influencing climate in the real world. The Earth’s climate is a chaotic, non-linear, multivariant system with many unpredictable feedbacks, both positive and negative. Primarily, this is a discussion about the role of atmospheric CO2 in the maintenance of life on Earth and the positive role of human civilization in preventing CO2 from trending downward to levels that threaten the very existence of life.
End Points
We should ask those who predict catastrophic climate change, including the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, some pressing questions regarding the outcome if humans had not intervened in the carbon cycle.
- What evidence or argument is there that the global climate would not revert to another glacial period in keeping with the Milankovitch cycles as it has done repeatedly during at least the past 800,000 years?
- What evidence is there that we are not already past the maximum global temperature during this Holocene interglacial period? • How can we be certain that in the absence of human emissions the next cooling period would not be more severe than the recent Little Ice Age?
- Given that the optimum CO2 level for plant growth is above 1,000 ppm and that CO2 has been above that level for most of the history of life, what sense does it make to call for a reduction in the level of CO2 in the absence of evidence of catastrophic climate change?
- Is there any plausible scenario, in the absence of human emissions, that would end the gradual depletion of CO2 in the atmosphere until it reaches the starvation level for plants, hence for life on earth?
These and many other questions about CO2, climate and plant growth require our serious consideration if we are to avoid making some very costly mistakes.
LINK TO FULL REPORT: THE POSITIVE IMPACT OF HUMAN CO2 EMISSIONS ON THE SURVIVAL OF LIFE ON EARTH (PDF)
Moore – Positive Impact of Human CO2 Emissions
![Dr-Moore-Photo-2010-120x180[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/dr-moore-photo-2010-120x1801.jpg?resize=120%2C180)
Dr. Patrick Moore is a Senior Fellow with the Energy, Ecology and Prosperity program at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 40 years. Dr. Moore is a Co-Founder of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. Following his time with Greenpeace, Dr. Moore joined the Forest Alliance of BC where he worked for ten years to develop the Principles of Sustainable Forestry, which have now been adopted by much of the industry. In 2013, he published Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout – The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist, which documents his 15 years with Greenpeace and outlines his vision for a sustainable future.
..+ 50 Platinum stars !! Awesome reality…..
There is a difference between C3 and C4 plants. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/phoc.html
Not good enough. They both still require CO2 And especially note his second ‘End Point’ above.
Dr. Patrick Moore is more principled than the whole worldwide network green of activist combined, it’s a pity there aren’t more like him.
Could not agree more! 🙂
“Dr. Moore is a Co-Founder of Greenpeace”.
Really? Are you sure? I can’t find any reference to Dr. Patrick Moore on Greenpeace’s web site.
Being the well funded activists they are, they scrubbed it, lest it hurt the donations, see here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/25/greenpeace-disappears-a-founder-much-like-the-commissar-vanishes-in-soviet-russia/
Doubleplusgood.
brian356 seems surprised:
I can’t find any reference to Dr. Patrick Moore on Greenpeace’s web site.
That’s astonishing… …NOT!
Greenpeace’s current contingent of kleptomaniacs has erased a founding member. It tries to make him a non-person. The Soviets used to do that, too. In fact, there isn’t a lot of difference in attitudes or tactics between Greenpeace and the erstwhile Soviets.
Also, brian356 should know that there is no bright line that identifies the start of Greenpeace. They fiddled with different names until ‘Greenpeace’ was decided upon. Different people came and went, from the (vague) beginning.
At first the organization was very informal. There was no incorporation as a non-profit until later. But there are enough records and hand-written documents to settle the question. They identify Dr. Moore as one of the original founding group. A better question would be: why is Greenpeace propaganda trying to make Moore a non-person?
And why does it matter who started Greenpeace? Apparently it matters a great deal to the current Greenpeace royalty. They’re such a self-serving bunch that they cannot bear to admit that someone as well educated as Dr. Moore was a founding member. And of course, they can’t bear it when Dr. Moore explains that the rise in CO2 has been harmless, and that it is beneficial to the biosphere.
Once someone has the great good fortune to be elevated as a Greenpeace officer or director, they’re set for life. If they aren’t multi-millionaires when they’re annointed, they get to be very well off in short order. They’re not only highly paid, but every expense is covered.
Greenpeace will not disclose any independently audited financials, but for a ‘non-profit’ they appear to be *very* profitable. One director was recently caught flying first class every day to his job, even though a much cheaper “green” train was available. When he was caught using that heavy carbon footprint, what happened to him? Was he fired? Was he disciplined? Fined? Demoted? If brian356 thinks any of that happened, he’s very naive. Greenpeace royalty are as immune from consequences as an EPA bureaucrat causing the Animas river to turn chromium yellow.
The millions of fools who still hand their dues money over to Greenpeace are blinded to reality. They’re part of a vast membership whose money provides an unending river of cash for the organization’s directors to spend however they like.
Greenpeace now is nothing like the casual group of environmentalists that started it. Now it’s a throughly political, self-serving, far-left organization that cares about as much for the environment as the EPA. Greenpeace dues-payers are fools being parted from their money, which provides a rich lifestyle for the few special folks elevated to serve for life as Greenpeace royalty.
Dr. Moore could have been part of that self-serving clique. He had the choice. All he had to do was sell his soul like the rest of them. Instead, he kept his integrity and his ethics. That’s why Greenpeace hates him; Moore’s very existence provides a sharp contrast between their greed and Moore’s honest science, and they hate that comparison.
Thanks db. a thousand thanks!
Well, he was a member of the standing wave committee protesting nuclear testing soon after it started as a Canadian/Alaskan movement and went on to direct that organisation when it became the Greenpeace Foundation…
but Greenpeace as we now see it was formed of an amalgamation of groups founded on the same model in many countries… when that came in to being, he left (after a big row).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist) summarises
so I’d say he founded Greenpeace 1 – but left as Greenpeace 2 came into being, might be a description.
Griff
how many other names have you used here?
dbstealey June 20, 2016 at 8:17 pm
“Greenpeace’s current contingent of kleptomaniacs has erased a founding member. It tries to make him a non-person. The Soviets used to do that, too.”
Some examples. And this was before Photoshop:
http://www.businessinsider.com/people-who-were-erased-from-history-2013-12?IR=T
That is because Greenpeace purposely erased my name from their website(s) in February 2007, where I had been listed a a Founder for over 45 years, since helping start the group in 1971, sailing on the first campaign, and serving as a director on the top committee for 15 years.
All you need do is Google “Who are the Founders of Greenpeace?”
Brians356, that’s because Greenpeace want to disassociate themselves from him because he threatens their fundraising efforts. Check out the earliest photos of Rainbow Warrior and Patrick Moore is in the middle of the photos.
Of course you don’t. Greenpeace was high-jacked by militant ignorant politically correct tree huggers and Dr. Moore was forced out. Similarly the Democratic Party was high-jacked by radical leftists who then gave you Obama, Sanders and Hilary Clinton not to mention ignorant easily manipulated ahole clowns like Gore and Biden and politicized bureaucracies. In case you’ve had your head up your butt for the last few decades it’s time to pull it out and notice that America is no longer a free country so obey big brother or do something about it.
Bravo Dr. Moore (check your six.)
Catastrophic Gaiapogenic Global Carbon Decline (CGGCD) is a serious threat to all life, including man. We owe it to future generations to continue adding more of it. Think of the children.
+10
Well, at least someone is paying attention to the reality of carbon-based life.
I do think he overstates the case a little. Life on earth actually survived the Permian extinction which ended the first great biological carbon draw-down – and more importantly is the nearest analog in terms of planetary temperature and atmospheric carbon levels to the present in geological history. The Mesozoic recovery only reached about 50% the maximum Paleozoic CO2 levels and it would be reasonable to infer that the next great extinction (NGE) would see another roughly 50% recovery. The geological evidence very strongly indicates that planetary carbon outputs are insufficient to maintain parity with biological demands and geological carbon sinks. Happily Dr. Moore actually asserts this publicly.
The Paleozoic lasted roughly 400 MY, the span from the Mesozoic recovery to the present critical level was only about 150 MY. So the period following the NGE could be proportionately shorter – ca. 3/8ths of 150 MY. Freeing carbon “fixed” in coal, oil and methane increases that odds of surviving or delaying a massive extinction event.
Doesn’t Moore realize that actually paying attention to science is a no-no to an activist?
Anyone unfamiliar and/or unsure as to as to the credentials and credibility of Phd. Patrick Moore BEWARE! Surfing the internet for more information on him can also result in finding slanderous accusations and libel against his character……. BUT that is simply because he is a significant threat to Greenpeace and others of that ilk. Even the credibility of Wikipedia has been compromised by such agencies.
Did Wikipedia ever have any credibility?
I have always called it Wackapedia. I do use it for general statistics such as sports people, filmography, geographical areas and cities/countries. When it comes to Global Warming/Climate Change, I find it highly unreliable.
Yes, you can get a good result on non-politcal subjects, such as “Boron”, for example.
dryscottdalegmailcom
Thanks.
May I be seen to try to help?
“Even the credibility of Wikipedia has been compromised by such agencies”
Hmm. Let us try:
“Even the credibility of Wikipedia, which even I can edit, after a glass and a half of shandy, has been compromised by such agencies. And how!!”
Maybe a bit better . . . . . . . . . .
Auto
PS SHandy not BRandy.
Although . . .
Come on, Dr. Moore. You’re arguing AGAINST the global warming Faithful? You’re never going to get rich that way.
I doubt if he cares.
I have managed a comfortable life by telling the truth as I see it. And being able to change my mind when I discover I was wrong. For example, we were very wrong to oppose nuclear energy in the 70s and 80s. I didn’t come to realize that until after I left Greenpeace. In order to atone for my sins I spent 6 years 2006–12 as co-Chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a nuclear-industry funded effort to build popular support for new nuclear build in the US. Today, after a 30-year hiatus, there are 4 nuclear plants under construction in the US. But this is nothing compared to China, planning 100 new nukes, India 50, Russia 50, other countries many more than today. The US has allowed its nuclear industry to fall nearly dormant. This will be seen as a great mistake.
is Patrick he related to Michael Moore?
Henry, I doubt it. But can you imagine the family reunion brawls? 🙂
I have a brother named Michael Moore, but he is thankfully not that one.
Dr. Moore has always been honest and that is why he left Greenpeace .
We should celebrate CO2 and the fact we are lucky enough to be around when it is increasing .
The fundamental mistake made by the scary green show is they picked the wrong thing to act as their boogie man . Climate changes and we won’t be stopping the next cooling cycle . Maybe delaying a bit but
no one will notice .
Plants ,trees ,and the vast majority of animals benefit from a warmer climate . Otherwise lets see a scientific study that says cooling is better .
Why would the green industry oppose something that improves nature ? Maybe they are the pollutants .
As I understand it, this idea began in England when Thatcher was trying to break the coal miners union(s). She succeeded but the Law of Unintended Consequences kicked us in the ass big time. Gave us AGW, UN IPCC, etc. Just shows even the Iron Maiden wasn’t perfect!
You mean the Iron Lady?
Was Margaret Thatcher the first climate sceptic?
Yes, Iron Maiden is either a heavy metal band or a torture device……come to think of it they’re rather similar;>))
a pity that the book costs $34. Selling it cheaper would promote a more general spread in the population.
Kindle version of Moore’s book is $7.75
https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Greenpeace-Dropout-Sensible-Environmentalist-ebook/dp/B004X2I6ZM/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&tag=wattsupwithth-20&qid=1466435378&sr=1-2&keywords=Confessions+of+a+Greenpeace+Dropout
patrick,
The internet is an amazing thing. Amazon shows copies of it “new and used” for $13.99, and as William pointed out, Kindle version is $7 and change.
Dr Moore, like most authors, doesn’t get to “decide” how much to sell his book for…the publishers do. And they have to cover their printing and shipping costs, as well as hopefully, provide Dr. Moore with a profit. Probably not going to make the New York Times best seller list, which would mean the general population was very interested in it, and it could be printed and shipped for cheaper. Pity you don’t understand commerce.
The NYT “best sellers” list is a joke. They calculate their list on how many books are shipped from the publisher to a warehouse, not on actual sales after they get to the warehouse.
Now this is a real Canadian scientist! Thank you Dr. Patrick Moore for shinning light on CO2. It is to be celebrated.
Why do Greenies hate life so much? Not enough love from their mommy? Daddy neglect?
It’s a puzzlement.
Nanna didn’t wear a green bandana on their fourth birthday.
Makes nearly as much sense as their power-grab.
Auto
Western guilt.
Greenies don’t hate life…they hate people who enjoy life!! Life itself is irrelevant to them. All they care about is what “other people” are doing with “life” that annoys the crap out of them. 🙂
The risk of hyperbole.
Suspicious I am of the end-of-life argument from the green leftists who want redistribute wealth by claiming that humans are hurting the planet. My instinctive repulsion of claims of “dire consequences” if we don’t do this, and don’t do that, is not limited to extreme rantings from the left. I am also repelled when the credible AGW skeptics indulge also.
Have you every watched a “discover channel” pseudo documentary/entertainment program that ominously portrays the next catastrophe like a super volcano or asteroid strike? The creepy background music and cataclysmic animations? It is simply tiresome and incredulous to deliver an important subject within the framework of “the sky is falling or the sky nearly fell”.
Dr Moore, you have made quite a conversion from the Green Peace monster that you created. I agree that CO2 is beneficial but I am not alarmed the the rhythm of the planet wiped out some life now and again. The petition project creators have long advocated the benefits of increased CO2. They host a Soon et al paper of which you may be familiar:
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
The subject is important in that increased [CO2] is a benefit rather than a threat. I just don’t think that the hyperbole of maybe plant life nearly ending, substantively adds to your otherwise sound argument.
Perhaps you have not read the entire paper. I can’t see what would have brought the 140 million-year trend in CO2 reduction to an end, other than human emissions. Can you?
Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow)
June 20, 2016 at 10:22 am
Perhaps you have not read the entire paper. I can’t see what would have brought the 140 million-year trend in CO2 reduction to an end, other than human emissions. Can you?
—————————————
Bravo Mr. Moore.
You have shown “scientifically” how actually one can use short term data to conclude over very long term data, with a completely different resolution., in a given aspect of reality.
Sorry but is beyond me to understand how data of a 150 years at most can help one to conclude it’s impact in a given trend of 100 of millions of years……………..the worse ever hockey stick, or “this is really unprecedented ever” claimed position without any real research as what so ever.
What about CH4 Mr. More which its concentration increase is as unprecedented as that CO2 for not saying more?
Is that huge increase of CH4 concentrations at a higher factor than CO2 actually due to the humans?
cheers
Hello Patrick,
I have read this article in WUWT. The response above is to the above article. I am quite satisfied and agree generally that higher [CO2] is beneficial for plants and therefor humanity. I would consider a 30ppb delta a virtual knife-edge to a cataclysm
“This is only 30 ppm above a level that would result in the death of plants due to CO2 starvation. “.
My instinctive response to the rhetoric of end of life, doom and gloom allutions just doesn’t add much to, like i said, a sound argument. As far as the what may have stopped the trend I can only offer speculation and that speculation does not involve human activity. I suspect that since [CO2] lags temperature by 100s of years then it may have something to do with terrestrial & ocean temperature BWO CO2 solubility or natural sequestering in the oceans. I am speculating. and there is always the sun’s thermal impact…
The natural rhythm of the way things change may well have. Human CO2 is not that great an amount as a percentage of the total CO2 produced each year. You refer to a period of 18000 years ago – long, long before man discovered carbon based fuels, other than firewood. Obviously, then, something else reversed the trend, not human usage of carbon fuels. Just the general warming of the oceans would have released additional carbon dioxide. Man’s contribution may well help nudge it up faster, but no, it wasn’t human emissions that brought the down trend to end, nor will it be man’s contribution that has raised it back over 300 alone. The Earth, through whatever process causes volcanoes to erupt, is the heavy lifter, not man.
That does not, in anyway, take away from your argument that burning carbon fuels is beneficial, not destructive. It is always nice to see honest, thoughtful, and genuinely useful argument brought forth to shine light in dark corners.
Tom O:
Human CO2 is not that great an amount as a percentage of the total CO2 produced each year.
Not of any importance as the human contribution is one-way addition, while total natural CO2 produced is more than compensated by natural sinks… Human contribution since ~1850 is about twice the increase in the atmosphere observed in ice cores and direct measurerements (since 1958). The increase is unprecedented in the past 800,000 years and entirely beneficial. See for the past 1,000 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_001kyr_large.jpg
No natural process (volcanoes, vegetation decay, oceans,…) is responsible for the increase, as that conflicts with one or more observations, while human emissions fit all observations…
Dr Moore, I’m sure most here would agree wholeheartedly that, w/o human input, the CO2 level would have done exactly like all the previous interglacials — hung around 280 ppm and then plunged back to 180 or lower during the next glacial. As volcanoes gradually die down, and IF the current glacial continues long enough, C3 plants might gradually die out and perhaps be replaced by a C4 plant ecosystem. Bamboo-forests anyone?
Perhaps we can take up limestone-cooking to keep CO2 up in the far future. There’s alot of limestone….
inspired by mr db stealey’s temperature graph:
http://imgur.com/m30jGLb
sending your enemies on a snark hunt is a tactic to misdirect their attention and resources and weaken them.
getting them to debate whether or not the snark is a boojum is equally effective.
trolls gotta eat
you
Sir,
I would like to thank you very much for the massive dose of REALITY.
The planet NEEDS more atmospheric CO2, not less.
The guys at 350.org banned me pretty quickly when I started posting “TOWARDS 700ppm” sign-offs on their forum 🙂
I have also commented , in the past, that the zig-zag up and down of atmospheric CO2 noticed over the last xxx,000 years, is an absolute classic model of a species (in this case plant life) very much on the brink of existence due to a low food supply.
Paul,
In a PR climate wherein CO2 has been demonized as “pollution”, I don’t hear worrisome hyperbole in a statement like this;
“It has been approaching dangerously low levels during recent periods of major glaciation in the Pleistocene Ice Age, and human emissions of CO2 may stave off the eventual starvation and death of most life on the planet due to a lack of CO2.”
… I hear much needed counter balancing of worrisome hyperbole. We are inundated with demands to accept our “saving” from a catastrophic “tipping point” sort of supposed ceiling level of CO2, at great cost, when the truth seems to me to be more like we are rising a bit off a virtual floor level of this vital substance. Even if we were just having an “academic” discussion, I feel it would be appropriate to at least mention that potential prominently . .
Is there anything else humans can do, apart from tweaking a chemical compound and changing the climate of a planet that is 4.6 billion years old? Walk on water, maybe??? Turn metal into gold? Dream on Patrick. You’re still a believer!
It makes no difference whatsoever how old the planet is, things are as they are.
a bird is a bird
slavery means slavery
a knife is a knife
death remains death
(- Zbigniew Herbert)
I think you might be overestimating the effects of modern emissions on that trend. The trend is not linear and varies in rate and direction of slope over time. The current “increase” is just as easily attributed to recovery from the Little Ice Age if we argue that the lag in atmospheric CO2 levels to temperature changes visible in ice cores is real. The only necessary affect we may be having as a species burning fossil fuels is a shift in Carbon isotope ratios. Otherwise, thank you for making this point. It is important and the reality of geological history gets lost in the shortsighted arguments about human efffects on climate.
Duster,
The temperature – CO2 relation over the past 800,000 years was quite linear at about 16 ppmv/K. Solubility of CO2 in seawater changes with 4-17 ppmv/K in the literature (and practice from over 3 million on the spot samples).
The MWP-LIA drop in temperature was good for about 8 ppmv less CO2 (Law Dome ice core – 20 year resolution). The increase in temperature since the LIA was ~0.8 K. That gives a maximum of ~13 ppmv from warming oceans (and the biosphere is a net, growing sink…). The rest of the ~110 ppmv above steady state for the current area weighted average ocean surface temperature is from the ~200 ppmv that humans have injected in the atmosphere…
On human time scales 140 million years is a hell of a trend. Surpassing, one might say. Even on geologic or astronomical scale it is very meaningful except that meaningful implies meaning implies humans. Regardless, it’s a long time. If there is no previous period in earth history that shows similar decreases then it is relevant to ask why this happened. Since mankind is at least approaching the capability to modify the state of the earth and its atmosphere, we need to be thinking about how we would do that and what the real problems are.
It appears we may have dodged disaster by NOT ACTING TO REDUCE CO2 levels as many were advocating, via iron fertilization or other means. Now, I am comfortable that the doomsayers of CAGW are way over the top regarding really any negative consequences resulting from CO2 levels even considerably higher than today’s. Additionally, I suppose it may be possible that we have actually averted the impending onset of the next ice age, which would be a good thing. Of course, we really don’t know everything about what causes ice ages to start and I have serious doubts about the ability of CO2 to prevent something of that magnitude.
If we can just work steadily on real pollution problems and habitat destruction and maybe hash out a few reasonable plans for warming things up if need be, we should be fine.
FerdiEgb June 21, 2016 at 1:27 pm
Duster,
The temperature – CO2 relation over the past 800,000 years was quite linear at about 16 ppmv/K. Solubility of CO2 in seawater changes with 4-17 ppmv/K in the literature (and practice from over 3 million on the spot samples).
The MWP-LIA drop in temperature was good for about 8 ppmv less CO2 (Law Dome ice core – 20 year resolution). The increase in temperature since the LIA was ~0.8 K. That gives a maximum of ~13 ppmv from warming oceans (and the biosphere is a net, growing sink…). The rest of the ~110 ppmv above steady state for the current area weighted average ocean surface temperature is from the ~200 ppmv that humans have injected in the atmosphere…
That is reasonable and might well be right (I’ve no doubts about the basic chemistry). The lacuna lies in the facts of empirical reality which are more complex and linked in fashions not at all properly understood. Also, just when did the LIA end in your view? If you consider the “end” when the planet actually began to warm after the peak cooling, then the base temperature is quite different than it would be if you consider 1750, 1850 or 1900 the “end” as other analysts have suggested, then again your base temperature is different for each date. I see, using CET, at least a 1.5 K change since the depth of the LIA, which is where I would call the “end.” I also would like your definition of “steady state” as you used it in your response. I have yet to observe anything I can accept as a steady state in nature. They do occur within simplified laboratory systems, but seem rather more dubious in nature. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Have you taken a look at how may math, science, and history exams have been dumbed-down lately for the greater glory of “diversity?” Our average high-school graduate now is 30-40% LESS proficient in these areas than the generations before 1965. When people don’t have the slightest idea of either the scientific method OR critical thinking, they’re very, very easy to fool with emotional narratives and commands from authority. Not an accident.
Goldrider,
May I restate your assertion in the words of Roger Bacon AD 1267 in his Opus Majus:
Four obstacles to real wisdom and truth, viz. errors and their sources (the four general causes of human ignorance):
1) the example of weak and unreliable authority;
2) continuance of custom,
3) regard to the opinion of the unlearned, and
4) concealing one’s own ignorance, together with the exhibition of apparent wisdom.
This describes the situation in Canadian Schooling:
“…A high school teacher was arrested today at Toronto Pearson Airport as he attempted to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a compass, a slide-rule and a calculator.
At a press conference, Premier Kathleen Wynne said she believes the man is a member of the notorious extremist Al-Gebra movement. She did not identify the man, who has been charged by the RCMP with carrying weapons of maths instruction.
‘Al-Gebra is a problem for us’, the Premier said. ‘They derive solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in search of absolute values. They use secret code names like “X” and “Y” and refer to themselves as “unknowns”; but we have determined that they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country. As the Greek philosopher Isosceles used to say, “There are three sides to every triangle.”’
When asked to comment on the arrest, Prime Minister Trudeau said, “If God had wanted us to have better weapons of maths instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes.”
Fellow Liberal colleagues told reporters they could not recall a more intelligent or profound statement by any Prime Minister…..”
In the late 1940s I had a brilliant physics teacher who commented once that the trend in U.S. education was toward 90% college graduates. He said when that happens the education inherent in a college degree will equal that of high school graduates in the 1940s. His reasoning was that was the level of education that 90% of the population could assimilate.
Are we there yet?
Today’s primary and secondary education systems are geared to produce “Chevys” and not “Cadillacs”. Or “Fords” and not “Lincolns”, and so on as examples.
But it is now possible to have AP/Advanced Placement courses for all interested students via computer if not available in their local schools. However, cost is a factor for those who can’t afford online courses.
Paul Westhaver-
Hyperbole? How is it hyperbolic to state FACTS such as: 1) that CO2 ppm was close to 180 during the last major glaciation-and 2) at those levels, it stunts plant growth. 3)Below 150ppm, plants cannot photosynthesize, and plants that cannot photosynthesize…die. ???
How is it hyperbolic to state- “It is calculated that if the decline in CO2 levels were to continue at the same rate as it has over the past 140 million years, life on Earth would begin to die as soon as two million years from now and would slowly perish almost entirely as carbon continued to be lost to the deep ocean sediments.”
“IF”….means that certain conditions would have to be met first…such as the rate of CO2 decline would have to return to it’s previous rate…. AND continue to decline that way for the next two million years!! That is the LEAST hyperbolic thing he could have said, and remained truthful! It’s not as if the man said, much less insinuated something like ” If we don’t continue to spew CO2 in ever increasing amounts, CO2 will decline precipitously in the next few”…decades….or centuries…..or even millennia!!! Two million YEARS he stated.
I, ironically, find your statements about his argument, to be hyperbolic. 🙂
Thank you Aphan. I am a CAGW skeptic, not a natural disaster skeptic.
Bill Nye employing a similar “near miss” hype strategy to promote his interests. It seemed unseemly then.
Oh boy! if the asteroid was fifteen minutes off it’s trajectory then it would have been a disaster, *wring hands, wring hands*.
So no argument with the math at all. Just the need to hype on the back of a nonexistent disaster.
Except, as Dr. Moore points out. plant life actually came close to ending 0nly 18.000 years ago. ( A mere blink in the earth’s history) In the whole of earth’s history runaway warming from CO2 never happened.
Massive asteroid/comet strikes have happened in the past, hence they will happen again in the future.
The only question is when.
Super volcanoes have happened in the past, hence they will happen again in the future.
The only question is when.
That CO2 levels got down to 200ppm is fact.
That plants start dying around 150ppm is fact.
That CO2 levels have been dropping for millions of years, and absent human intervention would continue to drop is also fact.
That you don’t like the possible consequences of these facts, doesn’t make them go away.
I could easily have justified higher level of hyperbole. If we had not emitted the CO2 and reversed the trend, and there was another major glaciation spurred by the Milankovitch Cycles, and CO2 went back down to 180 ppm or lower, and there were 9 billion or more humans on the planet, it would be a catastrophe like none in the history of humanity. But we have saved the day so that can’t happen now.
I agree that an asteroid could strike but it is hard to imagine how that could have improved the situation. As for massive volcanism, it is quite possible that the Earth has cooled to such an extent that there will not again be the level of volcanism that was experienced when the massive emissions of the original CO2 occurred. That is very likely the reason that CO2 has been declining for nearly 150 million years.
everything that follows the ‘ would ‘ is subjunctive and is not a fact.
Energy from Coal is a Win Win. Just scrub out the Mercury and other heavy metals. We still have lots of coal.
MarkW-
“That CO2 levels got down to 200ppm is fact.”
Agreed
“That plants start dying around 150ppm is fact.”
Agreed
“That CO2 levels have been dropping for millions of years, and absent human intervention would continue to drop is also fact.”
FALSE. Conjecture, assumption, educated guess, estimation, prediction. Pick any one of those-but you cannot use the word FACT-because CO2 levels have dropped that low before AND risen again on their own-you cannot eliminate NATURE as a factor-or prove human intervention beyond a shadow of a doubt.
There is correlation, but even perfect correlation does not establish causation.
Patrick Moore – Thanks for your clear thoughts and sterling efforts. I wish I could agree with you that “we have saved the day so that can’t happen now“, but I can’t. Half of all the CO2 that we emit is being absorbed, principally by the oceans it appears, and there is no sign of that absorption slowing down. We have limited fossil fuel resources, and against the combination of ocean absorption and “green” opposition we are unlikely to be able to keep CO2 levels up for more then a century or so. That will leave the next downturn of the Milankovitch cycle free to operate unopposed. Even if we were able to force CO2 concentration further upwards and keep it there, it seems unlikely that it would be powerful enough to have much effect:-
http://members.iinet.net.au/~jonas1@westnet.com.au/ContributionsToTemperature.JPG
[Graph is based on the assumption that the IPCC and the climate models are correct. From https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/31/the-mathematics-of-carbon-dioxide-part-3/%5D
That last link shoul be:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/31/the-mathematics-of-carbon-dioxide-part-3/
Patrick-
“But we have saved the day so that can’t happen now.”
How can you say that? It’s a direct contradiction of what you’ve said in this article!
According to your own words, CO2 concentrations have been falling “steadily” for the past 140 million years. Yet, during the past 140 million years, Earth has had repeated glaciations and Ice Ages (not the same thing), that started when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were much higher than they are today!! (in order for them to have been steadily falling, they must necessarily have been steadily HIGHER in the past)
We may have reversed the CO2 trend, but you cannot, with any degree of certainty, say that we have reversed the warming trend that occurs in every inter-glacial period, or prevented the next glaciation period!! CO2 levels have zero effect upon the eccentricity, axial tilt, or procession of the Earth’s orbit-and it doesn’t matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere if it’s too cold to grow food and water sources dry up as ice sheets are formed instead!
There are some in the scientific community who disagree that ice measurements provide a reliable record of past CO2 levels in the atmosphere due to CO2 escape at deeper levels in the ice sheets. Hence, CO2 levels in the atmosphere never approached the “dangerously” low point of 180 ppm.
Aphan, since those natural things that caused CO2 to start dropping are still in play and will continue to be in play for millions of years into the future, why wouldn’t one assume that the drop in CO2 would also continue.
Patrick Moore said, “…it is quite possible that the Earth has cooled to such an extent that there will not again be the level of volcanism that was experienced when the massive emissions of the original CO2 occurred.”
Then again, it is quite possible that the interior Earth will never cool to such an extent as to suppress future occurrence of massive volcanic activity. It goes in cycles too, and, I suspect, depends somewhat on continental configurations, and myriad other factors.
You mention the “creepy background music.” Every time that comes on, try to superimpose “Mairzy Doats” or Offenbach’s “Can-Can” or possibly the Chopin F-Major Waltz. That would put the content more into perspective, and all of those pieces are in public domain, so you can mentally listen to them at no charge!
Dr. Moore is, indeed, to be commended–but more important, he should be listened to. During my time here in Mechanicsville (VA), I have noticed the size of leaves gradually growing. I have noted that some daylilies bloom earlier than they used to (by a week, perhaps) in spite of temperatures that have not changed much, if at all. My theory is that the growth and maturation of the daylilies may be slightly hastened by the higher CO2 content, so bloom tends to sneak in slightly earlier. (I grow daylilies–15,000 of them–on this property, and have watched their growth and blooming here since 1993.)
That must be breathtakingly beautiful John! I envy you!
Interesting, John. I notice orange daylillies escaping along roadways quite a bit. Or perhaps they’re just wild ones proliferating….
Paul, it is not hyperbole. Primary production shuts down as CO2 becomes unavailable. The last glacial maximum saw atmospheric CO2 levels descend to very, very close to that limit; some plots estimate levels lower than the limit. In comparison the height of the Mesozoic saw levels about 10 times the present. The key point is that as CO2 draws down, ecological systems become far more susceptible to external insults – things like meteorite impacts. It would not wipe life on earth, but it could lead to a Permian-level extinction event. What the planet would look like afterward is anyone’s guess, though we can probably expect ferns, palms, grass, cockroaches and rats and maybe coelacanths.
As much as I like CO2 for photo-synthesis & have little angst over temperature, it seems the fellow has made an inaccurate declaration that at least 1,000 ppm CO2 is best for plant growth.
If this is based on greenhouse practices on vegetable crops, which I presume is the case, then it has overlooked the actual
method of CO2 enrichment.
Unlike greenhouse increased CO2 in field conditions now the level of C02 is not only higher than last 23 million year range
(140 – 320 ppm CO2) during the day, but also that same amount
higher at night. Point to understand is greenhouse conditions
let operators shut off that high CO2 enrichment & out in the field plants are getting (& will get more) round the clock higher CO2 than have been adapted to.
24 million years ago CO2 was above 400 ppm, like it is now, yet plants have since then fine tuned their pathways to lower levels; in fact when it fell to less than 200 ppm CO2 a greater number of C3 plant species came along. It was ~7 million years ago that the C4 pathway into use; yet 96% of current plant species are still C3
& since these account for ~ 94% of earth’s biomass outside of the greenhouses we have reasons to question how higher C02
impacts the plant.
Have been commenting lately on a nook size tablet & seen some poorly edited instances. I try to develop context when comment &
this little screen makes it annoying to check for errors when am
pressed for time.
gringojay-
You claim to be pressed for time, so does that explain why you failed to mention that the biosphere is greening because of the benefits of increased atmospheric CO2?
Hi Alan Robertson, – I am very content with greening. What am going on about is that photosynthesis fixing of carbon from CO2 is not the only thing a plant does. In brief, dealing with living the plant has to perform diverse things & these largely required adjusting electric charges (reduction & oxidation, or redox for short). Once changes in CO2 levels are considered we need to look at what changes in redox can arise which alter
plant growth dynamics.
For example, plants imperative is reproduction (not providing humans with more greens or greenhouse peppers) & as such seed composition is the end game of their seasonal growth. In general more protein in seeds, rather than the recently higher less, was what plants harmonized their growth for these last 23 million years; since protein content in seeds relates to quality.
In the photo-synthezing leaf an iron molecule (ferre-doxin) is integral to keeping redox happening & yet the enzyme for assimilating nitrogen in the form of NO3- also needs to use ferre-doxin. A conflict arises since the enzyme that uses ferre-doxin (ferre-doxin NADP reductase) to get NADP+ recycled into formation of NADPH
(as part of redox balancing) has a much higher ability to call upon the available ferre-doxin than the NO3- nitrogen assimilation enzyme (nitrate reductase).
When plants evolved under relatively low/lower CO2 they did not fix so much carbon & consequently did not have to do down as much downstream related redox juggling. In other words they did not need as much of their ferre-doxin to form NADPH & NO3- assimilation enzymes had more of what they needed.
C3 plants were adapting to use NO3- nitrogen under high O2 (lower CO2 than now & earlier than ~24 million year when CO2 over 400 ppm). Their O2 use at RuBP gives a 13 carbon molecule + another 2 carbon molecule (unlike how CO2 give different carbon molecules); the 2 carbon molecule gets the cell involved in what is called photo-respiration (the frequency of which elevated CO2 diminishes).
It is Mn++ (manganese) at the Rubisco catalytic site which not only orientates it to engage in oxygen processing (“oxygenation”), but also gives redox electrons to NADP+ in order to generate NADPH; this rise in NADPH makes it possible for the organic acid malate to be synthesized. When Mg++ (magnesium) binds to the same site on Rubisco it orientates toward CO2 processing (“carboxylation”). The ancestral adaptation of plants to live under old higher O2 to lower CO2 ratio than now can be gauged by the fact that Mn++ has more than 5 times greater potential to dock with Rubisco.
C3 plant photo-respiration requires the chloroplast to shuttle out the organic acid malate to where (cytoplasm) it engenders redox reactions that lead to the 1st steps taken to assimilate NO3- nitrogen (to NO2- nitrogen). In other words the C3 plant has a mechanism to improve it’s nitrogen usage that worked very well for a getting good seed protein (reproductivity) & current/experimental higher CO2 works contrary to that end.
The reason C4 plants require different discussion is that their fixation of carbon (from CO2) creates more malate & NADH right in their cytoplasm (unlike C3). Thus, their assimilation (not the same as uptake) of NO3- nitrogen is less of a problem when the rising CO2 around leads to less production of the 2 carbon intermediate (i.e: less photo-respiration, which elevated CO2 is often touted as beneficially reducing).
Higher CO2 effectively means that with less photo-respiration (processing 2 carbon intermediate molecules from Rubisco “oxygenation”) the plant needs to re-allocate resources (malate, redox potential,etc.) to assimilate NO3-. A lot of field plants, like grasses/ “vegetables”/deciduous , were adapted to use NO3- nitrogen for growth; in part because that is what is available in large enough quantity in those micro-environments. These preferentially adapted to NO3- nitrogen feeders initial boost from higher CO2 then go on (~ 4 years later) to show their relative growth rate does not hold up (in earlier thread I cited 10 year desert study showing this loss of CO2 related gains.)
A recent topic was arctic trees are going to be doing just fine; the soil they live in supplies more NH4+ nitrogen (as does wetland soil & pines’ soil). The dynamic I broached above is not the same for plants preferentially adapted to NH4+ nitrogen because it’s assimilation is different & does not need to draw on
the same amount of redox actors.
gringojay-
“If this is based on greenhouse practices on vegetable crops, which I presume is the case, then it has overlooked the actual method of CO2 enrichment. Unlike greenhouse increased CO2 in field conditions now the level of C02 is not only higher than last 23 million year range (140 – 320 ppm CO2) during the day, but also that same amount higher at night. Point to understand is greenhouse conditions
let operators shut off that high CO2 enrichment & out in the field plants are getting (& will get more) round the clock higher CO2 than have been adapted to.”
HUH? Commercial greenhouse operators that use “CO2 enrichment” mechanisms, strive to MAINTAIN the level of CO2 in their greenhouses somewhere between 900 and 1500 ppm….at all times. They pump large quantities of CO2 into the greenhouse and then gauges monitor the levels so the enrichment machine/pump/system goes on and off like a thermostat-keeping the CO2 levels in a narrow range. They turn them OFF at night because……plants PRODUCE CO2 at night, so there’s no need to leave the enrichment on at night, the plants MAINTAIN the approximate level the greenhouse is programmed to stay at. Field plants get LESS CO2 round the clock than CO2 enriched greenhouse plants do. Period. Your knowledge of CO2 enrichment in actual greenhouses that use it, seems to be limited. And incorrect.
“24 million years ago CO2 was above 400 ppm, like it is now, yet plants have since then fine tuned their pathways to lower levels; in fact when it fell to less than 200 ppm CO2 a greater number of C3 plant species came along. It was ~7 million years ago that the C4 pathway into use; yet 96% of current plant species are still C3 & since these account for ~ 94% of earth’s biomass outside of the greenhouses we have reasons to question how higher C02 impacts the plant.”
No, we actually don’t need to question how higher CO2 impacts plants. Major scientific studies have been done that PROVE that in conditions where the plant is getting adequate nutrients, sunlight, and water, higher levels of CO2 boosts plant growth AND food production. Period. It certainly has never been proven to HARM plants in any way at greenhouse levels. (think about it….why on earth would greenhouse operators do things to their plants that harm them or cause them to reduce productivity???)
“in fact when it fell to less than 200 ppm CO2 a greater number of C3 plant species came along. ”
Um….I hate to point out the elephant in the room, but when it fell to less than 200 ppm….THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES were much lower and ice sheets were growing!!! Plants need more than CO2 to grow. They need soil exposed to sunlight, nutrients in that soil, temperatures within a certain range, and water along with their CO2. You do realize that all of those things change during glaciation periods….and not just the CO2 levels…right?
The difference between C3 and C4 plants-
http://www.midway.k-state.edu/livestock/docs/What%20is%20the%20difference%20between%20C3%20plants%20and%20C4%20plants.pdf
I read somewhere recently, that some C4 plants can actually turn off the 4th CO2 process, and in doing so respond even more to raised CO2 than some C3 plants.
Hi Aphan, – I am not trying to say there is something wrong with greenhouse production. More hope to draw attention to the fact that just because it is usually profitable for ornamental & edible plants (tomato/cucumber/peppers/etc,) which are our human priorities, not actually the plants’ reproductive seed viability.
I am not going to parse temperature variables or individual greenhouse practices. Although would like to say the fertilization & water are more perfectly tuned than field grown plants; which themselves contribute to both yield & dealing with sequel to higher CO2.
Furthermore, I don’t mind we humans get more food production but I do want to make sure that the relative reduced protein content of that plant source used for food is understood. It is not enough to assume the reduction in plant protein content is more than compensated for by the greater volume of that plant part. Not everyone gets more of what they would eat; look at countries with rationing – unfortunately if ration is X pounds of flour they aren’t bumped up to X + ration.
Night time CO2 for the plant (not our relatively short time growing vegetable crops) is related to what I wrote above; which I hope you will consider reading. Modern/experimental higher night time CO2 likewise reduces the assimilation of NO3- nitrogen & this then reduces the rate of protein synthesis at night (as compared to what plant adapted to).
Whether elevated CO2 at night decreases “dark” respiration varies with the kind of plant, where a plant is in it’s life cycle and how much nitrogen is available; a lot of taken in NO3- is not assimilated & is usually ~60% of nitrogen in a plant. When C3 plants get just daytime elevated CO2 then ~ 50% of NO3- nitrogen assimilation is done at night.
Higher CO2 also reduces the level (activity) of enzymes (mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase & mitochondrial cytochrome C oxidase) that would otherwise get more of the carbon in carbohydrates utilized by mitochondria; which also lowers mitochondrial energy output for using NO3- nitrogen. About 25 % if carbon is used to achieve NO3- assimilation (~ 12 ATP/NO3- assimilated); if generalize thatmost C3 plants’ ideal temperature range = 25-30 Celsius then the plant also uses 11 ATP/ CO2 fixed.
With higher CO2 the uptake (absorption) of NO3- nitrogen by many plants goes down a little bit, but the assimilation of NO3- goes down more significantly. In very general terms, higher CO2 provides ~ 30% more CO2 fixed (which early in greenhouse plants jump-starts their growth rate) & then in weeks the same level of CO2 evokes ~ 12% of it fixed; this later phase still works out to ~8% plant growth yet with ~ 14% less nitrogen in it’s shoots than otherwise (elevated CO2 causes a decrease in levels of the enzyme nitrate reductase).
Higher than ancestral adapted CO2 levels also results in more CO2 getting (diffusing) into the stroma part of a chloroplast, which lowers stromal pH & that decrease in pH also fights the NO3- assimilation process. NO2- nitrogen made from NO3- nitrogen in the cell cytosol does come back into the chloroplast well under elevated CO2; it (NO2-) there has to endure redox conditions (“reduced”) to create NH4+ nitrogen; then that NH4+ nitrogen can make amino acids in the stroma of a chloroplast in a way that also requires the “reduced” kind of iron molecule ferre-doxin (explained in earlier reply).
gringojay says, “It is not enough to assume the reduction in plant protein content is more than compensated for by the greater volume of that plant part.”
==============================================
It is not an assumption. Total protein grows, and all the benefits of vegetables increase along with bio-mass. Literally thousands of experiments prove this! We do not eat vegetables primarily for their protein content. In addition this increased production is done with out any increase in water or land! Your concerns regarding nitrogen utilization are likewise unfounded as nitrogen utilization also increases under elevated CO2.
Seriously, the benefits of increased CO2 are real, studied, manifesting, and not overstated, while the projected harms are MIA.
gringojay,
The issue that is different now compared to when CO2 first fell below 280 ppm, 24 million years ago, is that the planet is much dryer today.
There was simply more precipitation 24 million years ago and this continued until about 8 million years ago when the Earth started drying out. The very first C4 savannas appeared, the very first grass herbivores appeared. One of the primates in the completely forested world before that time, decided to start trying to walk on two legs to navigate the new savanna.
It seems like the trend toward the Earth becoming dryer is continuing. Maybe it will even get worse.
The C3 plants need both high CO2 and high rainfall.
Someday, the C4 plants will probably take over and replace the C3 plants. The day when the Sun becomes that little bit warmer and there is then less precipitation everywhere. I imagine Bamboo-like C4 plants will become the dominant vegetation.
Hi Bill Illis, – Yes, C4 plants are going to do better where it is dry (& hot); they do better in where monthly average temperatures are above 22 Celsius. I have some data from elevated CO2 grown peppers that actually parses the effect different water conditions make on pepper yields. Generally, high CO2 improves the yield parameters; interestingly high CO2 & too much water gave worst results.
Higher CO2 does lead to less leaf stomata (pore) openness, this reduces the flow of sap upward in the xylem. As the root keeps trying to load nitrogen into the sap translocation upward gets sluggish destabilizing the linear rate of nitrogen going up into aerial shoots; which is another factor of why % of nitrogen in leaves goes down over time.
When high CO2 has leaf stomata less open & when there is low relative humidity (dry) that dry air induced stress hormone (“ABA”, abscisic acid) increase, which naturally itself (ABA) closes leaf stomata thus augmenting the pre-exisiting high CO2 induce stomata reduction. Point being these 2 factors cumulatively help leaf not lose water but also further reduce inflow of fluid (whether water or sap) up through the stem into the leaf.
Leaves “call” on water with higher CO2 ( with or without dryness issue), in a sense, as feedback given to root water dynamics is less. This is one reason why studies of higher CO2 impact under different soil moisture conditions have led to variable results; with lots of water, like in greenhouses or in the desert having rainy years, the effect of higher CO2 the influence of ABA hormone usually is not taken into account.
When different aspects of those peppers on low water, just right water & excessive water under elevated CO2
are looked at the involvement (or lack of it under just right water) of ABA hormone complicates the issue of
saying what CO2 did. Once ABA is involved a whole slew of other plant hormone cascades become involved.
Gringo
I do not believe the research purporting to show harmful effects of high (growing) CO2 on plants. I am a biologist and kniw how easy it is to prestidigitate molecular and biochemical minutiae to spin any harm/scare story. It has the strong smell of spinning of selected measurement to give an impression of harmful effect of growing CO2 levels. I suspect that transient effects of little long term relevance are being blown up into something that they are not.
The simple fact that the multicellular biosphere has evolved and thrived for hundreds of millions of years with CO2 levels of thousands of ppm CO2. In this context the proposition that CO2 levels growing from the (very low) level of 400 ppm is harmful to plants, makes no sense whatsoever. In this Phanerozoic context, nor does any of the CAGW narrative.
ptolemy2, well said.
Bill, it is worth considering that carbohydrates not only fix carbon, they also fix freshwater. Off I hand I can’t see how that could actually affect the planetary water budget, but … the coincidence is curious.
Hi potolemy, – Plant biology nuances mean they change more over 24 million years than do microorganisms. It seems you are not interested in the relevance of decades worth of reports that relatively higher CO2 for plants generates relatively lower protein for that plant.
Maybe it does not make any difference for you because assume you can eat more or eat something else to make up for the protein content reduction. I’ve been involved in field crops with
poor native people for over 45 years on several continents & protein content is relevant to their
harvest.
As they say around the fire pretty much in every language: “he who smelt it dealt it.” Of course usually not after only eating green leaves, unless the individual is a ruminant.
Total protein does increase,, just the density of protein shows a small decline. This is proved in thousands of experiments and is not an assumption. Therefore your concern for poor is unnecessary with regard to CO2 increase, which also produces far more in drought conditions, and, as explained before, increases nitrogen efficiency as well. The poor are primarily energy poor, and in limiting CO2 increase you would certainly be harming them. Protein is only one of the benefits of vegetables, and not the primary reason for eating them, although as said, total protein increases along with biomass. Your concerns are unfounded.
Hi David A, – Allow me to repeat that I have no issue with CO2 levels & am confident they adapt. Every poor field crop farmer I
have known does not eat more of their harvest when a crop yield
is higher. They sell/barter bounty & are thinking of the protein ratio of their children’s meal; nor how physically demanding their
adult lives might be causing them to break down internal protein.
700 ppm enriched CO2 (many experiments used this to be a doubling of contemporary 350ppm CO2, which is now 400+ppm)
plants of the C3 kind grown from seedling impressively had ~ 44% more biomass after 2 weeks than 350 ppm controls when fertilized with NO3- nitrogen. On the other hand, the high CO2 induced high biomass actually resulted in the green shoot part
( of those reared on NO3- nitrogen) having ~13% lower protein
than those reared on NO3- at 350ppm.
What needs to be understood is that the kind of nitrogen a C3 plant uses does not affect how much more CO2 is assimilated
when C3 plants grow in much higher CO2 than had for millions of years. My intent is in explaining the plant science beyond just a
simplistic conclusion that biomass gain = diluted protein.
Follow me back to that same C3 seedling data; a cohort fertilized with NH4+ nitrogen at 700 ppm CO2 gained ~78% more biomass
than on 350ppm. What is more striking is that their green shoots
only tested for a ~6% reduction of protein (compared to 350 ppm CO2 controls) which is much less than the ~13% protein reduction on NO3- nitrogen (at 700ppm).
Poor open field farmers I know do not have the money to fertilize/insecticide/irrigate like modern farming practice is
able to. The kind of soil nitrogen then becomes the issue I have
described here & since NH4+ nitrogen is not the predominate available (microbes & volatilization don’t leave much for plants) then NO3- nitrogen is what most C3 plants get to use.
Millions of years gave C3 plants the capability (explained previously) to use NO3- nitrogen most had to rely on. Sure, it requires ~ 25% of carbon leaves get from CO2 to assimilate NO3- nitrogen; but at their CO2 level it also perfected their (not our) protein gain. In high NH4+ soils, like wetlands & among pines, the experiments with elevated CO2 show ~ 25% increase in productivity in part because only ~3% of carbon plant took in is used to assimilate NH4+.
Am typing on little tablet & if have not addressed any concerns well enough to any reader please reply. Posting this unedited.
The 150 ppm and the ~2 million years estimates are correct (they can easily be googled from other credible sources), but are misleading taken alone. The main ‘permanent’ carbon sink is calcium carbonate forming ocean phytoplankton, for example coccolithoflorids. That biological sink rate would take the world to 150 ppm in about 2-2.5 million years if it were the only carbon cycle mechanism. It is not. Plate tectonics produces subduction zones where mantel heat calcines the carbonates back into oxides and CO2. That CO2 gets reinjected into the atmosphere via volcanism.
It seems the present steady state absent fossil fuel consumption is around 280 ppm. That is still low enough to have caused ‘recent’ evolution of ‘more CO2 efficient’ C4 photosynthesis plants, which comprise now about 15% of terrestrial plant species. Maize and sugar cane are C4. Wheat, rice, soy, potatoes, pulses, most fruits and vegetables, all trees are C3 and ‘green’ with more CO2.
Higher CO2 also benefits C4 plants (about 5% of plant species). If you read the entire paper you will see that all your points are taken into account. It is the “net” of CO2 up and CO2 down that determines its concentration in the atmosphere, along with the temperature of the oceans. There was no “steady state” of CO2, it was steadily declining for 140 million years and there is no reason to think that trend would have ended had we not come along and burned fossil fuels.
Excellent paper!
Agree with the importance of it and it’s your best yet Patrick Moore.
Craig Idso also has some outstanding information that many are familiar with:
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf
https://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/photosynthesis-and-co2-enrichment/
http://www.co2science.org/
Higher CO2 benefits C4 plants, but to a lesser extent than C3, because these all also retained C3 metabolism.
Dr Moore-
I agree with the statement that CO2 had been “steadily” falling (we’re talking majorly smoothed trend though) for 140 million years before human industry could possibly have affected it’s levels, but 200 million years before that-(340 million years ago), it rose and fell, and if there was anything “steady” about it, it was that it was consistently over 1000ppm.
My question is how does that most recent 140 million years compare to the previous 140 million year segments? What reasoning causes you to tend to think that the most current 140 million year trend of “declining” C02 levels would have continued “IF humans had not come along and burned fossil fuels”? That there is a correlation between the events is obvious. But correlation is not causation. And Earth’s own physical evidence demonstrates that is has had FAR MORE epochs with higher levels of CO2 than today with ZERO humans (or mighty few of them) than it has had WITH humans around to burn fossil fuel.
Aphan, Since the Indian sub-continent is still pushing into the Asian continent, I would presume that the crop in CO2 in the atmosphere would continue, absent intervention by man.
MarkW-
“Aphan, Since the Indian sub-continent is still pushing into the Asian continent, I would presume that the crop in CO2 in the atmosphere would continue, absent intervention by man.”
Crop? Or “drop”?
Tectonic plate movement can cause both increases and decreases in CO2 in the atmosphere, so not sure what your point is…
http://dilu.bol.ucla.edu/
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/30/E3997.long
‘Had we not come along and burned fossil fuels’. how delusional!
Aphan,
India crashing into Asia created the Himalayas.
The Himalayas being made of granite work with water to weather CO2 out of the atmosphere.
As long as the Himalayas continue to grow, CO2 will continue to drop.
MarkW-
“Aphan,
India crashing into Asia created the Himalayas. The Himalayas being made of granite work with water to weather CO2 out of the atmosphere. As long as the Himalayas continue to grow, CO2 will continue to drop.”
Mark, unless you have empirical evidence that the Himalayan Mountains are the sole governing factor for atmospheric CO2 dropping, you cannot logically proclaim with certainty that CO2 will continue to drop. You could say that as the Himalayas continue to grow…AND…every other factor/variable that we currently know of, understand, and measure accurately concerning CO2 in the atmosphere remains constant and doesn’t change in any way, CO2 would likely continue to drop. But even that is based upon the unproven assumption that all of the factors that we KNOW OF are, in reality, all of the factors that actually exist.
The Himalayan Mountains didn’t even begin to form until 40-50 million years ago…and CO2 was dropping long before then. Hence, they cannot be the sole governing factor. Not to mention, subduction zones, where one plate is forced under another plate-such as between the Indian and Asian plates, are regions that have a high rate of volcanism and earthquakes, as well as mountain building. And regions of volcanism and earthquakes are also regions where additional CO2 is released into the atmosphere.
“Weathering” happens to the mountain or rocks on land, not to the atmosphere. (The atmosphere is where “weather” takes place….the affect that the weather has on other things=weathering.) C02 in the air mixes with water and rains down onto rocks in a very weak carbonic “acid” solution. This slightly acidic rain helps to erode or “weather” the surface of the mountains along with wind and other factors. But the process takes hundreds of thousands of years AND is dependent upon the mineral content of the rock. Some rocks break down into a form of carbonate-like limestone-that “locks” the CO2 in, and forms a carbon sink. Some rocks don’t break down into carbonates easily, or at all.
Granite is one of the hardest, least porous rocks on the planet. It’s made of quartz, feldspar, and potassium and contains very little, if any, calcite. It erodes (weathers) extremely slowly and is one of the stones least affected by “acid” in rain water. That is why it’s often used to create building foundations, and other things that are exposed to the elements because it breaks down so much slower than any other type of rock. Because of it’s inability to break down into carbonate rocks-the type that locks away carbon-granite mountains are some of the least able to “scrub” CO2 from the atmosphere.
C4 plants endure low C02 conditions quite well, but they grow poorly in cold conditions. So during the low Co2 ice ages, the better adapted C4 plants were unable to colonise the colder high altitude regions where C3 plants had been decimated by low Co2.
So while C4 plants were able to recolonise high altitude regions in the N of S America, where the climate is warm, they were unable to recolonise the high and cold Gobi desert region. So the entire north of China and all of Mongolia became one vast Co2 deprived desert.
R
“C4 plants endure low C02 conditions quite well, but they grow poorly in cold conditions. So during the low Co2 ice ages, the better adapted C4 plants were unable to colonise the colder high altitude regions where C3 plants had been decimated by low Co2.”
This makes no sense. You cannot prove that low CO2 is what “decimated” the C3 plants in high altitude regions. The temperature drop could have, or the lack of water and water vapor in the air, or the lack of exposed soil. You can pump 1000 ppm of CO2 into the air over Antarctica and still not be able to grow plants on it.
“So while C4 plants were able to recolonise high altitude regions in the N of S America, where the climate is warm, they were unable to recolonise the high and cold Gobi desert region.”
http://www.slidego.com/res/palooza/world/LatinAmericanGeography/1B043FFF.jpg
The higher the altitude, the lower the temperatures, even in South America, and the more dominant C3 plants become. The average height of the Amazon basin is 300 ft above Sea Level. That’s NOT a “high altitude region”, but it is warm because it’s near the equator AND at low altitude. In the high altitude regions of the Andes (in the N of S America) very little plant life exists. It’s too cold, too high, and not enough good soil.
The Gobi Desert is much further North by latitude than South America is. It gets less rain, and is colder by default, being further away from the equator, as well as being of high altitude and it’s climate is harsh-ranging between very hot and dry to very cold and dry very quickly. C4 plants most likely never grew there at any time, so how could they recolonize?
>>The average height of the Amazon basin is 300 ft above Sea
>>Level. That’s NOT a “high altitude region”.
I had the Popaya Plain in Columbia in mind, not the Amazon basin. It is high but reasonably warm there, which is why there was recolonisation by C4 grasses in the region during the low-Co2 LGM.
.
>>This makes no sense. You cannot prove that low CO2
>>is what “decimated” the C3 plants in high altitude regions.
>>The temperature drop could have, or the lack of water and
>>water vapor in the air, or the lack of exposed soil.
During the LGM, Co2 concentrations dropped by 100 ppm, while tropical temperatures dropped by about 3.5 oc. A 3.5 oc temperature drop equates to about a 600m reduction in the mountain treeline. But the 100 ppm fall in Co2 during the LGM represents a 3,000m reduction in the Co2 mountain extinction zone. So ice age Co2 reductions have a far greater effect than temperature reductions.
The latest PMIP3 LGM simulations show little reduction in moisture over northern China at the LGM. While Chinese studies have demonstrated that lakes and lake-beds in the region had significanly higher water levels during the LGM. So it was not a simple lack of moisture that cased the Gobi to become a shifting-sand desert, or the Chinese treeline to shift south by 1000 km.
But you are right that moisture is also important, because C3 plants need much more water in low Co2 conditions, because their stomata open up and increase transpiration. So the Gobi region received a double-blow, both from low Co2 and it generally being a low moisture region. In contrast, C4 plants are tolerant of both low moisture and low Co2 conditions. But they cannot tolerate the cold of the Gobi, so there was no C4 recolonisation in this region.
.
>>C4 plants most likely never grew there (Gobi) at any time,
>>so how could they recolonize?
Grasses can spread widely, within a few millennia. The last ice age took 100 kyr to culminate in depths of the LGM, which is quite long enough for C4 grasses to encroach on the Gobi from the four points of the compass.
Ralph
Ralph,
“I had the Popaya Plain in Columbia in mind, not the Amazon basin. It is high but reasonably warm there, which is why there was recolonisation by C4 grasses in the region during the low-Co2 LGM.”
I cannot find a reference for “Popaya Plain”, but Popayan is 1760 m above sea level and it’s average temperature is 18-20C (64-68F). THAT is what you call “reasonably warm”?
“During the LGM, Co2 concentrations dropped by 100 ppm, while tropical temperatures dropped by about 3.5 oc. A 3.5 oc temperature drop equates to about a 600m reduction in the mountain treeline. But the 100 ppm fall in Co2 during the LGM represents a 3,000m reduction in the Co2 mountain extinction zone.”
You are acting as if the 3.5C temperature drop in the “tropics” and or a fall of 100 ppm in CO2 and it’s resulting “reduction in treeline/extinction zone” can be automatically equated across the globe! But that can only be extrapolated if you control for everything else that affects plant growth-hours of sunlight, water availability, soil, wind, predators, and geological location/original temps.
What if there is no “mountain treeline”? What if the location has no mountains at all?
What if the location, like the Gobi desert, is surrounded by mountains that are 10,000m tall? Then the “CO2 mountain extinction zone” drops 3,000 m (to 7,000 m)…which is still 2000m above the valley floor which is still at 5,000m above sea level!!!
What if the temperature there DID NOT drop by 3.5 C because it’s not located in “the tropics”?
“So the Gobi region received a double-blow, both from low Co2 and it generally being a low moisture region. In contrast, C4 plants are tolerant of both low moisture and low Co2 conditions. But they cannot tolerate the cold of the Gobi, so there was no C4 recolonisation in this region.”
You don’t get it. The Gobi today, after the Ice Sheets have melted away, and the Earth has “warmed” up again, STILL is not growing C4 plants-and unless you can prove it ever did with fossil remains, it’s entirely possible that it NEVER DID-because the Gobi’s temperature extremes might still too harsh to grow C4 plants, or the sandy soil isn’t right nutrient wise, or something else. You cannot say that for sure that CO2 levels in the Gobi prior to, or during, or after the LGM were ever low enough to create a “CO2” desert. You’ve never even defined exactly what levels constitute a “CO2” desert, or how you extrapolate those levels across the globe accounting for all known factors that effect plant growth!
“So ice age Co2 reductions have a far greater effect than temperature reductions.”
NO. Do you understand why I’m saying that you can’t say that? You can say “In some instances, ice age CO2 reductions might have had a far greater effect than temperature reductions”. But you cannot say that as if in all cases they DID until you have proven that you have eliminated every other factor that affects plant growth in every other location and altitude and geological environment on the planet, and the evidence demonstrates that you CAN say that.
>> Popayan is 1760 m above sea level and it’s average
>>temperature is 18-20C (64-68F). THAT is what you call
>>“reasonably warm”?
Warm enough for plants.
Especially as this is a year-round temperature.
.
>>You are acting as if the 3.5C temperature drop in the
>>“tropics” and or a fall of 100 ppm in CO2 and it’s resulting
>>“reduction in treeline/extinction zone” can be automatically
>>equated across the globe!
Because it sort of was. The PMIP3 maps show a very wide band of 3.5 oc temperature reductions, and stable precipitation. And I demonstrated that the small areas of low precipitation and greater cold in the PMIP simulations were abaerations, caused by scientists using treelines as temperature guages and rain gagues. However, if trees are actually responding to CO2 deprevation – C02 guages – these aberrant temperature and precipitation anomolies disappear. So the current LGM models are likely to be wrong.
.
>>What if there is no “mountain treeline”?
>>What if the location has no mountains at all?
What if the Moon was made of cheese.
.
>>You don’t get it. The Gobi today, after the Ice Sheets
>>have melted away, and the Earth has “warmed” up again,
>>STILL is not growing C4 plants
Because the Gobi is STILL too cold for C4 plants, so I do not get your point. But the tropical Popaya plain was warm enough, even during the LGM to grow C4. That is the difference. Understand?
.
>>You can say “In some instances, ice age CO2 reductions
>>might have had a far greater effect than temperature reductions”.
>>But you cannot say that as if in all cases they DID until you have
>>proven that you have eliminated every other factor that affects plant growth
Hey, come on Aphan, step by step. I am proposing a mechanism that apparently no climate scientist has ever considered before. Lets establish the principle first, before we investigate every single variable possible in field investigations. And as an aside, my paper is wholly privately funded. Give me a $20 million grant, as other climate scientists would naturally get, and I can take it further. But science papers demonstrating that CO2 does not greatly effect world temperatures do not get funding.
Ralph
ristvan- There is no such thing as “steady state” in geologic time. From the time the earth formed it has been cooling. The convection in the mantle, the driver of plate tectonics & volcanism, is slowing down. Dr. Moore’s primary premise is that the slowing of volcanism is slowing the replenishment of CO2 into the atmosphere. I don’t necessarily agree with the certainty of Dr. Moore’s biosphere termination date. But two fact are undeniable- 1) the core of the earth is cooling, 2) higher CO2 levels in the past have enabled a more productive biosphere.
The amount of cooling over a few million years time, is not enough to matter.
MarkW, the amount of cooling over roughly the last 5 million years is the difference between ice age and not ice age. That counts the Pliocene as the early ice age. If you go strictly with Pleistocene the span is half that.
Tom, the key problem with CO2 is that biological processes, which fix carbon (limestone forming lifeforms, corals, coal formation from buried plant material, petroleum creation [I think the abiological production of oil is possible but not important], and all the the other ways that living matter “fixes” carbon) out perform geological production. The planet is still very highly active and plate tectonics are far from dying out and any change over the last half-billion years would be fairly limited. Life, in short, is its own worst enemy. The declines are not due to geological changes.
Tom
Weathering of silicates and carbonates in rocks exposed by tectonic turnover is what sucks down CO2 out of the atmosphere over the long term.
Here are a couple of papers on weathering. Is essentially silicate grabbing CO2 and becoming carbonate.
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/~suerigby/GEP/Academic%20precis/carboniferous%20plants%20and%20climate.htm
http://web.colby.edu/ch217public/files/2016/02/Berner-Lasaga-and-Garrels-1983.pdf
To use the word “green” to describe the movement that is engaged in the war on CO2 is a monument to the prescience of George Orwell
“Green” = “Money”, not “Green” = “Vegetation”.
Green, it’s the new Red.
That’s what I don’t understand – Hollywood has been telling these sorts of Orwellian cautionary tales for generations, but see absolutely unable to see it playing out right in front of them – or worse, when they’re actually ushering it into reality. In fact, it’s almost like they used them as instruction manuals.
Sunshine +H2O +CO2 +Minerals = O2 +Sugars(food)
Not
Sunshine +H20 +Pollution +Minerals = O2 + Sugars(food)
Wow! Someone understands something.
“Now, with 400ppm in the atmosphere, the biosphere is once again booming”
No, I and my green friends wants 1200ppm to be comfortable.
Dr Moore:
I am sitting at the Pacific Centre looking once again at the wonder of the greenery that surrounds Vancouver. I saw the abundance of (living) nature on the highway to Whistler and appreciate all that the environmentalists from BC have done to clean up the planet. It is a big improvement on what I experienced in my youth in Toronto.
That movements for good are distracted into decayed versions cannot be a big surprise, but it is still disappointing each time it happens.
Your message about the importance of CO2 is well made and appreciated at this juncture. Like the scientist in Australia who challenged the Great Barrier Reef Is Dead nonsense, you are standing up to the invested profiteers earnestly calling for their sub-group to embedded in the chain of command. Thanks for your efforts.
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
― Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time
One can use the “Laffer Curve” idea to make sense of this phenomena. If the independent variable is “intensity of social pressure” and the dependent variable is “net social benefit”, then what one sees is a maximum of net social benefit at a particular level of laws/mores/regulation/police/military/legislation.
What happens is that the law of diminishing returns ALWAYS operates and at some point an additional increment of social pressure becomes so costly that things start getting worse rather than better. In that circumstance, greater freedom/liberty/individual-action actually improves society.
This paradigm is correct whether the subject is taxes, or environmental law, or social mores, or military action, or “law and order”. Stronger laws and regulations are beneficial up to a point, beyond which they begin making things worse. No exceptions.
that’s a fine mythology.
obviously there’s no disputing what you are. you’re only dickering on how deep you like it.
and pretending that’s wisdom…lol
Actually the logic follows quite inevitably from the micro-economic principle that people will tend to act in accordance with the incentive structure that they face.
Speaking of “pretending that’s wisdom…lol” I see that you are ignorant of the punctuation rules you ought to have learned in grade school, and that you are afraid to use your real name…lol.
obedience to dogma, dictum or convention is not the hallmark of a functioning mind
obsession over trivia is the hobgoblin of the picayune.
did you ever hear of e e cummings ?
so you went to school on a sports scholarship, was it?
Enviros clean the planet by removing millions of trees for useless
Wind farms and legally killing (thanks to obama and demorats) eagels and thousands of other birds. Switching from coal to wood at Drax, using water for solar ,……
Congrats Dr. Moore on a fine essay. Dr. Salby in on the same page and backs it up with physics and math.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/fearless-physics-from-dr-salby/
Whoops. “is on the same page as you”
Ron, Dr. Salby is wrong on a lot of items, including the cause of the increase since ~1850, which is largely human, as Dr. Moore says, but largely temperature related as Dr. Salby says (but he is wrong…).
Ferdinand Engelbeen
I have been trying to find scientific evidence of your assertions that “Salby is wrong on a lot of items” but I can only find the assertion; no real arguments. Your statement that Dr Salby is wrong when he states that Co2 increase is largely temperature is useless. Salby presents a rational argument and only a rational argument should be presented to show he is wrong.
Give me an argument that shows his argument errors. Please.
NO, Salby just has a different stance on these things than you do.
That does not make him wrong.
DCS,
I have listened to Dr. Salby’s lectures in different places and was in London, where he spoke in the Parliament buildings a few years ago. Didn’t answer my questions, as there was little time, but even so, there are several pertinent errors. To name a few:
– Ice core CO2 levels at peaks are too low (not repeated in his last speech in London last year). That is simply impossible: if the peaks were much higher (factor 10-15 in his speeches), any migration would have redistributed the extra CO2 over the glacial period (90% of the time), meaning that the already very low (~180 ppmv) CO2 levels originally were even lower, effectively killing all C3 plants…
In reality the -theoretical- migration deduced from remelt layers in the Siple Dome ice core show a very modest migration of a few decades over 75,000 years in the relative “warm” coastal ice cores. None measurable over 800,000 years in the much colder inland ice cores.
– According to Dr. Salby, one must integrate temperature to obtain the CO2 increase, as the variability in CO2 and temperature are highly related (with a lag), but most variability is caused by the influence of temperature on tropical forests, while global vegetation is a small, but growing net sink for CO2. Thus variability and trend have different causes and one can’t attribute the trend to temperature without further confirmation.
Moreover, he points to the fact that human emissions and vegetation decay have the same 13C/12C “signature”, which is true, but as the oxygen balance shows, the whole biosphere (plants, bacteria, molds, insects, animals,…) is a net source of O2, thus a sink for CO2 and preferentially 12CO2, thus not the cause of the 13C/12C ratio decline which is completely in ratio with human emissions…
The minimum CO2 concentration where plants can survive and continue to make use of CO2 ranges from less than 10 ppm to 145 PPM depending on the kind of plant, according to the PDF obtained from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/pdf
And just how tasty are those lichens that grow at 10ppm?
Reindeer love em.
But that sucks if you are a vegan.
Please reference exact page and paragraph from your link where it states that-“The minimum CO2 concentration where plants can survive and continue to make use of CO2 ranges from less than 10 ppm to 145 PPM depending on the kind of plant”. Thanks
Per Aphan’s request to show what page and paragraph in j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x-1.pdf downloadable for free from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/pdf
The paragraphs are not numbered, as usual for such kind of documents. These are not patents, which in the US have their paragraphs numbered.
On page 6, middle-late in the first and long paragraph after the heading “IV. Early low-[CO2] studies”: “The author found that corn and sugar cane (now known to be
C4 plants) could draw down [CO2] below 10 ppm, whereas the other species (now known to be C3 plants) could only draw down [CO2] between 60 and 145 ppm.”
Thank you Donald-
I wanted to check out the context from which you took your statement.
The article you referenced, at this point, is talking about a study in which plants were grown in a controlled environment and “focused on the compensation point of plants, as well as comparing respiration and photosynthetic rates among species and genotypes.”
You said- “The minimum CO2 concentration where plants can survive and continue to make use of CO2 ranges from less than 10 ppm to 145 PPM depending on the kind of plant, according to the PDF”… isn’t exactly accurate unless you specify that those CO2 levels were accompanied by specific and controlled levels of oxygen and a precise temperature as well. And even then, it’s not talking about the CO2 concentration in the AIR, it’s talking about the CO2 compensation rates of those plants….which means something entirely different.
“The CO2 equilibrium between the rate of photosynthesis and respiration of a leaf in a closed system is the CO2 compensation point or “F”. Factors such as temperature, O2 concentration and water stress, which alter the rate of photosynthesis or photorespiration may change “F”. http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/58/2/143.full.pdf
The CO2 compensation rate then, is NOT the “minimum amount of CO2 in the air in which a plant can survive”, but the difference in the rate of C02 that plant uses for photosynthesis and the rate that plant uses for respiration.
This link sheds more light on what CO2 compensation levels in plants mean-
http://www.pnas.org/content/92/24/11230.full.pdf
“The CO2 compensation point (CO2F) is defined as the CO2 concentration at which net CO2 fixation is zero at a given 02 level and temperature (12,13). It has been assumed that at the CO2F respiratory and photorespiratory processes oxidize carbohydrate to CO2 as fast as CO2 is photosynthetically fixed. This concept may have to be modified to include CO2 fixation by phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase at low ratios of CO2 to O2 (seeDiscussion). The CO2F is “50 ppm CO2 for an isolated C3 plant in a closed chamber at 21% O2 and 20 C. A minimum atmospheric Co2 equilibrium, resulting from the capacity of plants for CO2 uptake and counteracted by abiotic and biotic CO2-generating processes of the global carbon cycle (14), was probably reached millions of years ago. Ice cores from the past 165,000 years (15) show that such an equilibrium has been -235 +/- 45 ppm CO2 until the last century.”
So outside of a controlled environment, the “minimum atmospheric CO2 equilibrium levels for plants” is somewhere between 190 and 280 ppm. MINIMUM.
sorry! Forgot to “unbold” after “controlled environment” in the second paragraph. 🙂 my bad
I applaud Dr. Patrick Moore, he has eloquently presented many of the simple truths about CO2.
However, he included this line:
“There is also no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and all else being equal, the emissions would result in some warming if CO2 rose to higher levels in the atmosphere.”
In my own pursuits of the truths concerning CO2, I have yet to find any sort of equation that scientifically describes the greenhouse gas property of CO2. (Or any other gas.) This conflicts with the proclamation that there is no question. There are simple questions that we can pose about the purported greenhouse property of a gas, but there are no mechanisms to formulate an answer. There is no scientific method to quantify the greenhouse gas property, and if we can’t measure it then there is no actual physical property.
Please enlighten me otherwise.
One example of a simple question is an extension of the proclamation itself: “… result in some warming if CO2 rose to higher levels in the atmosphere”.
Take two separate hypotheticals of higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The first is to only double CO2 itself, and then we would have roughly 800 ppm of CO2. The second is to double the entire contents of the atmosphere. In this case, the amount of CO2 is still doubled, however it remains at the same ppm as today.
How do these scenarios differ in terms of the greenhouse gas property of CO2?
It is a well established fact that CO2 absorbs some of the long-wave radiation emitted by the earth and then re-radiates it at certain wave-lengths. Because their are many factors that are dynamic, non-linear, and coupled(resulting in many feedbacks, both positive and negative) it is not possible to predict what the result will be in the real world. Many researchers believe that a doubling of CO2 would result in an increase in temperature of 1ºC or less. The IPCC estimate is up to 4 times higher than that.
The fact that temperature did not rise significantly (other then during El Nino events) over the past two decades, during which about 1/3 of all human CO2 has been emitted, indicates that CO2 has little, or possibly no significant effect in the real world.
Well said, Sir 🙂
Dr Moore-
You state above-
“Because their are many factors that are dynamic, non-linear, and coupled(resulting in many feedbacks, both positive and negative) it is not possible to predict what the result will be in the real world. ”
But you DID previously “predict” what the result would be…in fact, you said there was no question about your prediction!
“There is also no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and all else being equal, the emissions would result in some warming if CO2 rose to higher levels in the atmosphere.”
Thomas Homer is calling you out on that. 🙂
reradiates some of it.
i don’t suppose anybody has some numbers on how much is lost by collision with other molecules, does he?
i mean- 0.04% of the atmosphere means each single molecule of it is mixed in with 2500 other molecules of gas.
and we know what ‘temperature’ means, right? it’s the average kinetic energy – how things bounce around- not what color they are.
Thank you for your response Dr. Patrick Moore. (And thank you Aphan for extending the query.)
Dr. Moore states above:
“It is a well established fact that CO2 absorbs some of the long-wave radiation emitted by the earth and then re-radiates it at certain wave-lengths.”
How can it be “well established” when we have no way of measuring it? Or are you saying that we can measure it but we choose not to? Shouldn’t we be measuring this property so we can track changes?
Why don’t we have a Radar gun like tool to emit the long wave radiation and then capture the uptick of the “certain wavelength” that CO2 re-emits? We could then see how altitude changes this behavior, since Denver has less atmosphere over it than Miami does, we should see a difference in this measurement, correct? But we aren’t measuring it, we have no charts tracking this property. We should be able to plainly see how atmospheric tides change this measurement throughout the course of each day regardless of location.
You can’t even begin to formulate an answer to my example question that attempts to define the “Greenhouse gas” property of CO2 as a function of quantity or of density. That’s a fundamental distinction. Yet, there are no axioms, postulates, or laws of this “Greenhouse gas” property to apply. Why is that still the case after 150 years of access to this “well established fact”?
I have other simple questions to pose about this property, but alas there are no rules to apply and we can’t even begin to formulate an answer. Ultimately, the question comes down to the inference that the “Greenhouse gas” property of various atmospheric gases means that the thermal capacity of the atmosphere is not a function of mass. Is that consistent with your theory? How do you reconcile that with the laws of thermodynamics?
The increase in atmospheric CO2 has two benefits: 1) Increased plant growth and higher yields (including cereals and grains) by roughly 50% and 2) Reduction in plant loss of water due to less trans-respiration.
C3 plants (trees, cereal crops, and shrubs) lose roughly 50% of the water they absorb due to trans-respiration (loss of water from the plant’s stomata.) When CO2 rises C3 plants produce less stomata which reduces water loss in the plant. This results in more water at the root of the plant which enables synergistic bacteria on the roots to produce more nitrogen byproducts which increases plant growth.
A higher level of atmospheric CO2 enables plants to make more effective use of water and enables the plant to survive in regions of low water such as deserts. Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 are beneficial net significantly beneficial to the biosphere.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
William,
Very nice clips, but I would offer one minor quibble to the following quote: “The plant must decide which it needs more: water or carbon dioxide.”
As you point out, the largest single reason that plants need water in the first place is to replace that water lost as a consequence of their CO2 scavenging operation. I.e., water requirements are so closely linked to the CO2 scavenging operation that these two needs are in a sense, inseparable.
Thus, it doesn’t quite parse for the author to write: “water or carbon dioxide”. Better would be something like: “The plant must decide whether its water supply is sufficient to enable it to acquire an optimum amount of CO2.” In arid regions the answer nearly all of the time is, no.
Hence, cacti that take 100 years to reach a size of a few feet in height. There is CO2 all around them, but they can’t acquire that CO2 without a catastrophic loss of water. Therefore, they sit in full sun for decades without really growing.
As a grower of cacti, I think you underestimate how quickly they can and do grow.
Also, see CAM plant metabolism…they take in CO2 at night while humidity is high.
Separate mechanism than either C3 or C4.
Excellent paper by Moore. A major significance of the paper is the data in the geological record that does not support any notion that CO2 drives the climate system as claimed by failed climate modelers. The correlation of CO2 and temperature is terrible and unsupportive of this claim about CO2.
Failed climate modelers, of course, ignored this as well as the founding principles of atmospheric science that demonstrate CO2 is a GHG of only secondary importance and does not drive the climate system or control the earth’s OLR. The hydrological cycle does and there is nothing humans can do to influence this.
It’s just one of those things skeptics/climate realists are supposed to say. But it is meaningless, and adds nothing to their argument.
Dr. Moore. Thank you for a well written exposition of the benefits of CO2.
http://oi65.tinypic.com/erets1.jpg
He’s probably not a credentialed climate scientist.
“He’s probably not a credentialed climate scientist.”
What nonsense! What is a “credentialed” climate scientist? Most I know are political activists and know little about how the climate system works and are woefully ignorant of atmospheric or related science.
I think Jean was joking!!
Hi Patrick: If she is then my mistake and apology.. BUT….you know this is a typical response from those who disagree with the environmental religion of AGW….”you’re not credentialed or qualified to comment or write papers about “climate science””. I see it all the time.
I meant agree with the environmental religion of AGW….:)
Yes, I was joking. (and Jean Parisot was definitely not a girl – http://www.badassoftheweek.com/valette.html )
It’s okay, Chuck – living in Oregon, I’m conditioned to expect that sort of thing too.
.
I would agree. But the threat to flora during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) was greater than Moore says. Because the partial pressure of Co2 reduces with altitude, plants at high altitude were severely starved of CO2 (just as we are starved of O2 at high altitude). The result of this was a widespread extinction of flora throughout the Gobi Desert, which became a Co2 desert instead of a moisture desert. And became a shifting-sand desert, instead of steppe grasslands. And the resulting dust storms from this new Co2 desert covered the northern ice sheets in dust, lowered their albedo, and allowed them to absorb more insolation and melt. Thus the interglacial was able to progress, and warm the planet.
My paper on this theory has been approved by Geoscience Frontiers, a peer-review science journal, and will be published in July. And as an aside, the paper demonstrates that Co2 is a minor player in the saga of the ice age cycle.
However, I would disagree with Moore that we were on the brink of another ice age. Because orbital eccentricity is currently at a minimum, the Milankovitch cycle has a very small amplitude. And so there is no deep Great Winter (Milankovitch insolation minimum), to drive the climate into an ice age. So it is likely that the world would have remained climatically stable, whether we produced emissions or not. (And the main warming emissions we are emitting are dust and soot, not Co2. Chinese smog and soot darkens the ice sheets, and melts the ice sheets.)
Looking at the orbital cycles, the next (mild) Great Winter capable of initiating an ice age does not happen for another 60 kyr. And the next really deep Great Winter which would most certainly initiate an ice age is in 200 kyrs time. So we happen to be in a very stable climatic period. And we could easily stave off the (mild) cooling in 50 kry time, by spraying soot on the ice sheets. The effects of albedo changes on climate are orders of magnitude greater than the paltry effects of Co2.
I will give a link to the peer-review paper, when the final version is formerly published. And thanks to Mike Palmer for mentoring this complex and time-consuming project.
Ralph Ellis.
Ralph, I look forward to it.
I would like to engage with you further on this, especially the vagaries of the Milankovitch Cycles. Are the most recent 4 glaciation cycles, as seen in the Vostok ice cores, typical of the past 2.5 million years or are there other patterns of cycles? I have read there have been 22 documented glaciations of various intensity. Do they all follow the 100,000 yr. pattern? What constitutes the requirement for a Great Winter? Has it to do with the alignment of the 3 cycles? It is not easy to find details on this subject so I would appreciate any direction you could send me in. pmoore@ecosense.me.
Dr Moore-
Here’s the newest, really interesting study on Co2-Insolation related glacial inceptions.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7585/full/nature16494.html
From the abstract-
“Using an ensemble of simulations generated by an Earth system model of intermediate complexity constrained by palaeoclimatic data, we suggest that glacial inception was narrowly missed before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The missed inception can be accounted for by the combined effect of relatively high late-Holocene CO2 concentrations and the low orbital eccentricity of the Earth7.
Additionally, our analysis suggests that even in the absence of human perturbations no substantial build-up of ice sheets would occur within the next several thousand years and that the current interglacial would probably last for another 50,000 years. However, moderate anthropogenic cumulative CO2 emissions of 1,000 to 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon will postpone the next glacial inception by at least 100,000 years8, 9. Our simulations demonstrate that under natural conditions alone the Earth system would be expected to remain in the present delicately balanced interglacial climate state, steering clear of both large-scale glaciation of the Northern Hemisphere and its complete deglaciation, for an unusually long time.”
Yes, I know…simulations…model…intermediate complexity….all nasty words. But it’s interesting. I take it as them saying that the bullet you want to say we dodged with Human Emissions might not actually have been fired yet…
>>Patrick
>>would like to engage with you further on this, especially
>>the vagaries of the Milankovitch Cycles.
Sure, I will send details.
What appears to have been missed before, is that interglacials only occur every four or five Great Summers (Milankovitch maximums), and are therefore either every 85 or 105 kyr apart. In addition, the Great Year has a cycle that varies from 15 to 27 kyr. So any Fourier harmonic analysis of these highly variable ice age or Great Year cycles are sort of doomed to failure. As has been demonstrated in many papers – they end up looking at completely the wrong correlations.
The ice age cycle is variable because orbital eccentricity enhances the Great Year – both the Great Summer and the Great Winter – over the 100 kyr eccentricity cycle. Which is one reason why ice ages appear to have a roughly 100 kyr cycle. In addition to this, the other main driver of interglacial warming is CO2 REDUCTIONS ! These CO2 reductions are direcly proportional to temperature, and so another driver of interglacials is ice sheet growth, and thus sea temperature reductions, and thus CO2 reductions, and thus CO2 desert production.
Whatever the strength of the Great Year, an interglacial cannot occur until CO2 deserts have been formed, and dust storms have covered the northern ice sheets in dust. Only now can an eccentricity-enhanced Great Summer get enough leverage on the reflective ice to generate an interglacial. And it takes about 80 kyr before the ice sheets are latge enough and the temperatures and CO2 low enough, that CO2 deserts are formed. Thus any enhanced Great Summers before this time are ignored by the climate and do not produce warming.
In addition, the eccentricity cycle has an extended minimum every 400 kyr. This produces weak Great Summers and Great Winters, meaning that the interglacial warming can be extended – because there is no strong Great Winter to force the climate into its glacial mode. We happen to be in an eccentricity minimum at oresent, with weak Great Years. And so the interglacial can be extended either naturally or via human intervention (by spraying soot on the northern ice sheets).
So there is a simple (complex?) interaction of a dozen variables, which control the ice age cycle. Which is probably why this cycle has to be solved and explained by a thought experiment, rather than a mathematical analysis.
Ralph
eccentricity, obliquity, precession, ice sheets, cold temperatures, oceanic solubility, CO2 reductions, flora decimation with altitude, CO2 desert production, dust production, ice albedo reductions, insolation absorption, ice sheet melting.
>>Aphan
>>Here’s the newest, really interesting study on
>>Co2-Insolation related glacial inceptions.
Which appears to explain very little (in the abstract). Apart from confirming my assertion that we are not due to have another ice age for at least 50 kyrs. (Do you have the full paper, non-paywall?)
Firstly, this paper only appears to relate to the Holocene.
Secondly it does not explain interglacials, which is the most difficult aspect of ice age modulation reasoning and explanation.
Thirdly it merely assumes that CO2 is the primary climatic warming agent. But where is the evidence for this? CO2 increases are also coincident with oil production increases, but this does not mean that CO2 aids oil production.
Fourthly, their fig 1 makes it look as if we are in an eccentricity maximum, when we are actually in an eccentricity minimum.
So what does this paper explain, exactly? Apart from ‘CO2 keeps us warm’ and in an interglacial. (Which it does not – the present interglacial is likely being maintained by European, then American, and now Chinese dust and soot emissions.)
R
ralfellis:
http://sci-hub.bz/10.1038/nature16494
>>Gnomish
That link comes up with a Russian site if indeterminate nature.
What does it do?
R
gawd.. never mind, then. why freakin bother.
last time i get you past a paywall, lazy person.
Sorry, Gnomy, would you click on a site you cannot read?
uh… how do you suppose i find wonderful things like paywall busting site named sci hub?
you could google that, but nooooo
or you might have noticed the rest of the URL which by no coincidence is the DOI number for 10.1038/nature16494, but noooo
instead what do you do? you lose out cuz lazy and scared.
so lie to yourself that you were exercising discretion – but the real phenomenon is unadulterated lame.
i have an allergy to that. it offends the hell out of me. excuses are not coin and no apology changes anything.
such individuals don’t deserve favors and i don’t give second chances.
learn the lesson or not. i won’t bet on a loser twice.
grow some or go crawl back in.
I would change some of the wording.
I am afraid “nadir” is too obscure for many people.
Well done. There is no doubt that plants have been evolving toward more effective CO2 removal for tens of millions of years. Not just C4 plants, but other cellular structural changes, such as CAM. This is not new, people have been studying photosynthesis for quite a while. Evolution is a matter of survival over long time periods.
Another excellent Patrick Moore post
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/21/moores-law-co2-good-climate-change-bunk-greens-follow-religious-fundamentalism/#more-111768
Good for you bw.
CAM plant metabolism is often overlooked, but many commercially important crops use this mechanism.
And not just pineapples.
Also, most plants are not restricted to one or another mechanism, but can utilize multiple metabolic pathways depending upon conditions.
It seems likely that the genes exist in many plants to activate unused mechanisms when the need presents itself.
We know very little of the extent to which epigenetic changes can and do occur in pants and animals, but who is going to be surprised to learn that life is far less fragile than many suppose?
What has happened after every single major cataclysmic upheaval?
I think it is important to note that CO2 has gone below 200ppm on numerous occasions during the Pleistocene, probably more that we have records for as ice cores go back only 800,000 YBP. So all terrestrial plant life has been tested by low CO2 over many millennial cycles, providing the opportunity for selection of traits that confer survival under lower CO2 than during the deep historical record.
Regardless, though, of the discussion of possible future climate states, CO2 was in an apparently inevitable decline for a very long time and unless a miracle occurred, would continue to be sequestered into the deep sediments as CaCO3. I am simply postulating the humans are that (secular) miracle, bringing a balance back to the global carbon cycle.
Sounds to me like carbon capture at source is vital to ensure we can fertilize the planet into the future and save humanity.
gaining media traction – well done
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/20/greenpeace-co-founder-argues-rising-emissions-are-/
I’m very surprised and skeptical that there has been a decrease in vegetation surrounding most of the Arctic. If anything, these are the areas that should have seen the biggest increase in primary productivity over that time span.
I notice that most of the US east coast (on the map) is 0 percent growth. I am quite sure that Pennsylvania and other areas of the Appalachians have grown at least 10% during the last 20-30 years. I know of areas that have become overgrown with vegetation in this eastern US area. I guess it could be because of development, but PA has lost population.
Oops, looks like PA has grown in population by about a million. 11.86 M in 1980 to 12.79 M in 2014…
I know that Philadelphia has list a lot of it’s population, from over 2,000,000 to around 1,500,000.
( and there are many more trees in Philly since 1980) – just a hunch.
I agree, same for the Arctic where we are being told by other sources that it is greening too.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-studies-details-of-a-greening-arctic
Should open a dialogue with CSIRO in Australia who have produced the global greening map.
The imbeciles and liars at Hot Whoppers are predictably in a spittle-flecked fury about it:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/10/climate-disinformer-patrick-moore-talks.html
“Spittle flecked fury”. My new favorite phrase. 🙂
Bruce, that is how one knows when one is over the target…the flak, and flecks, increase dramatically.
I think Dr. Moore has navigated to a position likely to come under intense fire…which means he is right on the mark.
Bravo Dr. Moore!
Hate, it’s what she does. “Sou”, aka Miriam O’Brien has nothing else left in her life as far as I can tell.
“Sou” sure is obsessed with you and all of us at WUWT.
I can see a future when all the fossil fuels are exhausted that man starts grinding rocks to extract CO2 to pump it into the atmosphere so that plants don’t die…..
I believe that is entirely plausible. At the average rate of decline over the past 140 million years, only 34,000 tons of C as CO2 would be required to maintain CO2 at a stable level. Even today cement manufacture emits 5% of human C emissions as CO2 of 10 billion tons/yr so about 0.5 billion or 500,000 tons. So we are already converting more than 10 as much CaCO3 into CaO and CO2 as would be necessary to stabilize the atmospheric level. Not to worry!
Patrick Moore-
“At the average rate of decline over the past 140 million years, only 34,000 tons of C as CO2 would be required to maintain CO2 at a stable level. ”
Are you sure? Math check!
“The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux.” – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.6BmXdrfq.dpuf
A gigaton=1 billion tons, so 8 gigatons equals 8 BILLION tons. That is MUCH, much more than 36,000 tons of carbon. And if cement production emits 5% of human emissions every year, that’s not “0.5 billion, or 500,000 tons” Dr. Moore (if emissions are 10 gigatons instead of 8) that’s 0.5 billion or 500,000,000 tons (rather than just Five Hundred Thousand tons, you need three more zeros…Five Hundred Million tons)
In order to maintain the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere, we’d have to be able to consistently make sure the Earth and it’s carbon systems CONTINUALLY produce and absorb 202 gigatons (202 billion tons) of carbon every year, AND humans would have to continue to put 8-10 gigatons (8-10 billion tons) into the atmosphere along with it. I don’t know where you got 34,000 tons, but I’d like to see your math. 🙂
As you have repeatedly pointed out Dr. Moore, all by itself, Earth was been putting less and less Co2 into the atmosphere for the past 140 million years. So if the previous rate of decline remains constant, we’d have to put a little more, and a little more, and a little more into the atmosphere over time to compensate for the rate of decline. Right?
“but I’d like to see your math.”
I presume it goes
140M yrs ago, CO2=2500ppm = .0025*12/30*5e+18kg=5000Gtons C
Now CO2=400*12/30*5e+18kg=800Gton C
Decline rate=(5000-800)e+9/(140e+6)=30000 tons C/year
Maybe he reckons more than 2500 ppm back then.
Nick-
Here’s YOUR math-not Dr. Moore’s, which I’d like to see.
“I presume it goes
140M yrs ago, CO2=2500ppm = .0025*12/30*5e+18kg=5000Gtons C
Now CO2=400*12/30*5e+18kg=800Gton C
Decline rate=(5000-800)e+9/(140e+6)=30000 tons C/year”
You seem to have missed those extra 3 zeros too. Unless you want the stable level of CO2 to be different than today’s level. Because human yearly contribution is 10G, and Nature’s is approximately 200G. That equals 210G a year. To maintain today’s level, would require 210 G year without a decline rate, and humans contribute 10 G a year. Not 10 tons, not 10,000 tons. Not 30,000 tons. 10,000,000,000 metric tons…WITHOUT any rate of decline added onto Nature’s portion.
Oh, and we’d have to be able to control Nature’s output as well. Which is 200 times more than ours. To be “stable”. Cake!
“To maintain today’s level, would require 210 G year”
Well, that’s what is called reductio ad absurdum. CO2 has been changing only slowly for millions of years. If maintaining that requires a source of 210 Gtons per year, then where is it coming from?
It’s the usual fallacy. “Nature’s is approximately 200G”. Not sure whether you mean source of sink, but the absurd follows either way. Nature’s net contribution has to be small, and isindeed probably about 34,000 tons negative. Your 200Gtons consists mainly of photosynthesis/respiration, and seasonal ocean exchange. They have to balance in the medium term. The respiration/decomposition source is necessarily of recently reduced (by photosynthesis) C. And the sea exchange is mainly seasonal. What is absorbed in winter is outgassed in summer. The temperature is cyclic, and so is the CO2 flux.
Anyway, I’m pretty sure PM’s arithmetic is as I suggested, and is sound.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf
Nick, we’re talking MUCH bigger numbers. And maintaining the “status quo” of our climate indefinitely -stabilizing it at it’s current levels. According to this chart, my numbers were way of…as in WAY too SMALL.
From the IPCC 2001 report- Global Natural and Anthropogenic Sources and Absorption of Greenhouse Gases in the 1990s- http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf
“CO2-Annual in the Atmosphere”
Source-Nature-770,000 MILLION metric tons
Source-Human-23,100 million metric tons
Total-793,100 Million Metric tons
Absorption-781,400 Million Metric tons
793,100 million metric tons-793,000 million metric tons=
ANNUAL INCREASE in Gas (CO2 in this case) in the Atmosphere-11,700 Million Metric tons”
(of course the IPCC and the federal government could be complete and utter fools who cannot estimate or add or subtract accurately-so take it up with them if these particular numbers are “absurd”)
We’re not talking thousands Nick, or hundred thousands, or even millions. We’re talking hundred thousand millions.
So, in the 1990’s the total amount that NATURE emitted, in CO2, into the atmosphere, ANNUALLY (which I believe still means 1 year even in climate science) during the 1990’s was “770,000 million metric tons” or 770,000 PLUS 6 more zeros= 770,000 million=770,000,000,000 (ten zeros together) And humans emitted, in CO2, into the atmosphere, ANNUALLY in the 1990’s-23,100 MILLION metric tons=23,100 (plus 6 zeros) or 23,100,000,000.
Now, 770,000million metric tons converts/equates to 770Gigatons. And if that is how much CO2 was put into the air in the 1990s, PER YEAR, to create the climate of the 1990s, and we wanted to “maintain” or “stabilize” our climate at those levels-we’d have to be able to MAKE SURE that NATURE continued to contribute 770,000million metric tons to the atmosphere every year, and that humans continued to contribute 23,100 million metric tons to the atmosphere. Every year.
But apparently NATURE has been slowing decreasing the amount of Co2 it emitted into the atmosphere over the past 140 million years, because it used to contribute…ON IT’S OWN, enough CO2 every year to create what you are assuming was 2500 ppm in the atmosphere. That’s more than 600 times more CO2 than Nature AND humans contribute every year combined right now. (400 ppm)
Also, I noted your equations were not “equal”…you made 2500 ppm =.0025
“140M yrs ago, CO2=2500ppm = .0025*12/30*5e+18kg=5000Gtons C”
But did NOT convert 400 ppm=.0004…”Now CO2=400*12/30*5e+18kg=800Gton C”
I hate math. Loathe it. Suck at it. Avoid it whenever possible. But even I’m not stupid enough to mistake 23,000 tons for 23,000,000,000 tons.
I had thought the numbers for the manufacture of cement, concrete… and gypsum as well… were higher than 5% of the total.
Aphan: You keep telling Dr. Moore and Nick Stokes their math is wrong. But it looks to me like your math is what is messed up.
Using atmospheric science, I compute at 2500 ppmv CO2 you have 39.548Kgm^-2CO2. At 400 ppmv you get 6.327Kgm^-2CO2. Using the molecular weight fraction of 12/32 those reduce to 14.831Kgm^-2C and 2.373Kgm^-2C respectively. With the area of earth being 5.1e14m^2 and using the appropriate conversions
( 1Kg = 1.10231e-3 tons) you now get 8,336.7 GtC and 1,330.4 GtC for 2500ppmv and 400ppmv respectively.
So now 8,336.7GtC – 1,330.4GtC = 7,006.3GtC/140 million years = 50,045 tons of carbon per year reduction.
While I come out about 20,00 tons per year carbon larger than their computations, the order of magnitude is the same, so Dr. Moore and Nick Stokes did the computation correctly with their methods and you are way off the mark.
I can;t seem to Reply to the individual Replies to my Post above.
I used 2500ppm and 280ppm (pre-industrial), not 400 ppm. This leads to 34,000 tons C net loss per year over 140M yrs. Not very much in the scheme of things, but net negative nonetheless.
One must differentiate between stock and flows of C and CO2. Yes, the annual flux is much greater than the human emissions. But the C in annual flux is already in the carbon cycling between the atmosphere, ocean surface, plant growth and death, and soil carbon. Our fossil fuel emissions are adding NEW carbon to the cycle, carbon that was lost to the cycle for hundreds of millions of years. Our cement production is returning carbon to the global cycle that was locked in carbonaceous rocks, CaCO3, during the past 500M yrs.
So I calculate that just our CO2 emissions for cement production are more that 10 times as much as would be required to maintain CO2 at a stable level. There is every reason to believe we will increase CO2 to 800-1000 ppm eventually. This will possibly double biomass production and spread forests to land that is now grassland and tundra.
Hi Patrick: In my calculation of this because everyone claims CO2 is a “well mixed” constituent in the troposphere, I computed a mixing ratio of the grams of CO2 to a kilogram of dry air at one earth atmosphere of pressure, which is 3.825 grams CO2 to a kilogram of dry air for 2500 ppmv. Likewise, if you’re using 280 ppmv or a pre-industrial concentration of CO2, then there are .4284 grams of CO2 to a kilogram of dry air.
The mass then under one atmosphere for each amount thereafter reduced by the molecular weight fraction of 12/32 gives 8,336.7GtC for 2500ppmv and 933.7GtC for 280 ppmv.
So that gives me 8,336.7GtC – 933.7GtC = 7,403GtC/140 million years = 52,879 tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere per year.
My numbers are larger than yours primarily because I don’t think CO2 is as “well mixed” in the atmosphere to a zero pressure which I assumed. If you clipped off 200 millibars of total pressure or so from the total atmospheric mass, the numbers would be closer to yours but I didn’t venture to guess at what pressure the mixing of this constituent from the surface stops.
At any rate, carry on, good work and it looks like Aphan needs to work on his math skills a bit more and comprehend better what your point was in using these figures.
Chuck,
Sorry about the delayed response…getting kids ready for camp. Love summer!
First, Dr Moore did not say we’d need 34,000 tons IN ADDITION TO what humans are now emitting. He said “at the average rate of decline over the past 140 million years, only 34,000 tons of C as CO2 would be required to maintain a stable level”. He has since clarified that the “stable level” he was talking about was 280 ppm (preindustrial).
He also said “Even today cement manufacture emits 5% of human C emissions as CO2 of 10 billion tons/year so about 0.5 billion or 500,000 tons.”
MATH issue-
Now, 5% of 10 billion (or 10 Gt is 0.5 billion (half of one billion), but 1 billion is equal to a thousand millions or numerically 1,000,000,000. Half of that would be five hundred million or numerically 500,000,000. Do you see a difference between 500,000 tons (which Dr Moore stated) and 500,000,000 tons (as correctly representative of 0.5 billion) or is it just me?
Now, after clarifying which CO2 level he was referencing-280 ppm, pre-industrial, and not 400 ppm today,he states-“This leads to 34,000 tons C net loss per year over 140M yrs. Not very much in the scheme of things, but net negative nonetheless.”
Now, let’s examine his logic-
Silly assumption #1 – we can calculate with some degree of accuracy just how much CO2 we’d have to add to the atmosphere every year to “stabilize” the CO2 in our atmosphere at the 1880 rate of 280 ppm by simply estimating how much CO2 the Earth was “naturally” injecting into the air 140 million years ago, and divide the difference between that amount of CO2 and the 1880’s rate of CO2 equally by 140,000,000! Easy peasy this Earth’s CO2 system is!
Silly assumption #2- based upon our math above, the world has been losing exactly 34,000 tons of CO2 EVERY YEAR, not more, not less for 140 million years, so we’d only have to put THAT specific amount of CO2 into the atmosphere every year to stabilize it.
Silly assumption #3- The reason we’d only have to put exactly that amount of CO2 into the air is because we can assume that the Earth’s natural CO2 emissions STOPPED/halted/froze exactly where they were in 1880, and did not continue dropping further, and have not risen even a fraction, and thus we’d only have to put 34,000 tons of additional CO2 into the atmosphere to keep the planet at exactly 280 ppm CO2.
Silly assumption #4- You can talk about tons of CO2 and tons of C as if they are the exact same measurement. 1 GtC= 1 billion tons of Carbon 1 GtC= 3.76 GtCo2
But let’s assume illogically that the rate of CO2 ppm in the atmosphere was dropping exactly 30,000 tons a year, every year, for the past 140 million years. Was that because the Earth was ejecting/emitting less Co2 into the atmosphere every year, or because the land/oceans were absorbing more? Or both? How did Dr Moore calculate all three and determine that the solution was we just need to add 30,000-50,000 tons to the atmosphere? THAT is the math I want to see. Why? Because according to the IPCC and “experts” the Earth currently absorbs 17 Gt Co2 a year MORE than it produces on it’s own!!! 17 BILLION tons (not 30,000). So I just don’t see where “ONLY 30,000 tons of C as Co2 ” could stabilize anything!!!
http://www.brighthub.com/environment/renewable-energy/articles/121086.aspx#imgn_10
Oh, and Chuck, I’m a “she”, not a he. 🙂
Aphan: The 4 “silly assumptions” you cite are all based upon your misunderstanding of what it is Moore was implying when he used 34,000 tons as an annual reduction in atmospheric CO2 over the last 140 million years.
You don’t seem to comprehend that this number is merely the DIFFERENCE between the 2500 ppmv and pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppmv divided by 140 MILLION years. It merely points out that with all of the widely varying instantaneous values found in other parts of the geological record that if one were to draw a linear trend line through the other variations, that it would show a very slow decline of atmospheric CO2 over 140 million years PRIOR to the beginning of the industrial revolution that equals around 34,000 tons of carbon per year.
So if NOTHING ELSE CHANGES moving forward in time, based upon where nature was prior to the industrial revolution, over another long period in the earth’s record, it would only take this amount of future carbon emissions to stabilize the LONG TERM loss of atmospheric CO2 that was being caused solely by nature. That’s easy to accomplish and Moore already answered you that CURRENT emissions are far greater and are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise, even with increased ocean sink rates.
What is also obvious is that the current ocean uptake of increased emissions is what it has always been, based upon a reversible chemical equation that involves the ocean temperatures and the partial pressure equilibrium of CO2 in the atmosphere and undisolved CO2 in the oceans. Moore points out that current emissions and simple carbon models point to an eventual stabilization of atmospheric CO2 between 800-1000 ppmv. The ones I saw suggest stabilization below this value, but there is some guesswork in all of this.
The main point is as suggested in this work is that there is no reason to be concerned about human CO2 emissions of CO2 causing either “climate change” or ocean acidification and the increase in atmospheric CO2 is actually beneficial to plant life and humans as a consequence.
So in your claims of math error you are comparing apples to oranges and don’t seem able to separate short term variations that vary greatly compared to long periods in the record such as calculated over 140 million years that are linear and their relevance to the discussion.
Chuck
You said to Patrick-“@ Patrick: I just realized I put in an oxygen value vs. CO2 in the denominator that I used in my computations above to convert CO2 molecular weight to carbon. So instead of 12/32 it should be 12/44.”
I’m glad you admitted that you had the wrong value in your equation. The 12/32 value is wrong, but because of the incorrect way you are still presenting your numbers, your equations were/are still written as converting Carbon into what you assumed was CO2, not the other way around-CO2 into carbon.) If I can’t trust your math or your ability to identify/calculate well known molecular weights-I certainly won’t automatically accept your opinions as accurate.
CO2’s molecular weight is 44, carbon’s is 12, so when converting CO2 to carbon you divide 44 by 12 which is written- 44/12. To convert carbon to CO2 you divide 12 by 44, which is written 12/44. One ton of Carbon=3.67 tons of CO2.
One ton of Carbon=3.67 tons of CO2
And it is not “apples and oranges” to point out to a man that 500 MILLION apples is several truckloads more apples than 500 THOUSAND apples. But apparently no one wants to admit that. Fine.
CW said to me-“You don’t seem to comprehend that this number is merely the DIFFERENCE between the 2500 ppmv and pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppmv divided by 140 MILLION years.”
I totally comprehend it, and it is why I commented early on that his hypothesis was based on presenting a highly smoothed (artificially equal) trend. YOU don’t seem to comprehend that my argument is with the premise was that we could “easily” stabilize the climate by adding 36,000 tons of C as CO2 into the atmosphere annually! 1) it would be anything except “easy” and 2) according to the experts of the IPCC (cough) without ANY human emissions currently the Earth’s yearly carbon cycle has at least a 17Gt deficit-meaning the planet pulls 17 Gt more per year out of the cycle than it puts into it. 17 Gt of carbon converts into a whole $%## of a lot more CO2 than just 36,000 tons.
http://images.slideplayer.com/24/7421021/slides/slide_16.jpg
If those numbers are even close to actual (and everyone with any degree of informed science on this matter knows that number is the just an average/median ESTIMATE with enormous margins of error on both sides of it) then JUST to stabilize the CO2 in the air right now, minus all human emissions, we’d have to inject at least 17 Gt of carbon, OR 69 Gt of CO2 into the atmosphere every year just to balance the carbon in/carbon out cycle of the Earth alone!! But everyone here who knows anything about the current “estimations” of CO2 and Carbon emitted/cycled through the system by the planet alone knows that the “estimated” human contribution could fit within the error margins of those estimates multiple times!!! And if the best calculations have an error range that encompasses multiple GIGATONS- a measly 36,000 tons of CO2 per year couldn’t possibly come close to changing anything.
CW-“So if NOTHING ELSE CHANGES moving forward in time, based upon where nature was prior to the industrial revolution, over another long period in the earth’s record, it would only take this amount of future carbon emissions to stabilize the LONG TERM loss of atmospheric CO2 that was being caused solely by nature.”
Ahhh…and there we have the world’s most enormous and anti-scientific qualifier of all time-IF NOTHING ELSE CHANGES. Every single geological piece of evidence we have of this planet’s history demonstrates that as far as Earth goes-EVERYTHING CHANGES, ALL THE TIME.
I like Dr. Moore. Really. I respect him and agree with almost everything he’s saying currently. I’m not the least bit concerned that rising CO2 levels are going to cause dangerous (or even uncomfortable) global warming or ocean acidification or anything else. It simply cannot do either of those things.
Which is why I’d like Dr Moore to respond to the question/issue that both myself and Tom Homer brought up early on. Upon what scientific evidence does Dr Moore base his opinion that 1) the increased CO2 since the Industrial Era can be totally attributed to humans without 2) proof that Earth’s C or CO2 yearly inputs to the carbon cycle are either still dropping or halted so it could only be human emissions and 3) that additional CO2 in the atmosphere has the capability to heat or re-heat or even remotely affect the surface temperatures of the planet when all it CAN do is slow down the rate at which the Earth COOLS itself and we don’t even know for what length of time it currently does slow that rate.
@ Patrick: I just realized I put in an oxygen value vs. CO2 in the denominator that I used in my computations above to convert CO2 molecular weight to carbon. So instead of 12/32 it should be 12/44.
That’s part of the reason why my result was higher. So just plugging in the correct fraction and using your 2500 ppmv and 280 ppmv pre-industrial, over one earth atmosphere of pressure, I now get a reduction of 38,461 tons of carbon per year over the 140 million year value. Much closer.
And the difference between this new value and your 34,000 ton per year value is no doubt due to their not being the same mixing ratio of CO2 to dry air at the top of atmosphere as I stated and that mixing ratio probably terminates at the top of the troposphere.
Aphan: You’re still not getting this. You are clinging to a background reduction in CO2 caused by nature before the industrial revolution began and you’re comparing very short time frames over the geological record in this modern period that are considered “noise” with many varying contributions making the larger atmospheric CO2 swings, including human emissions. Very short time “noise” is not a comparative to this problem. And so yes, to insure that atmospheric CO2 did not continue its very slow decline as it was doing pre-industrial at 280 ppmv, that is all we would have to burn to stop the decline in the natural record.
You say: ” I totally comprehend it, and it is why I commented early on that his hypothesis was based on presenting a highly smoothed (artificially equal) trend. YOU don’t seem to comprehend that my argument is with the premise was that we could “easily” stabilize the climate by adding 36,000 tons of C as CO2 into the atmosphere annually! 1) it would be anything except “easy” and 2) according to the experts of the IPCC (cough) without ANY human emissions currently the Earth’s yearly carbon cycle has at least a 17Gt deficit-meaning the planet pulls 17 Gt more per year out of the cycle than it puts into it. 17 Gt of carbon converts into a whole $%## of a lot more CO2 than just 36,000 tons. ”
Your claim is wrong. According to the IPCC chart you present ( which has to be CO2 because we are not emitting 106Gt of CO2 per year ) there is an atmospheric SURPLUS of CO2 of 12Gt per year. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing due to fossil fuel burning. So you are claiming that if we stopped all fossil fuel burning that the oceans would continue to absorb 338Gt of CO2 per year. This means you’re stating that the partial pressures between the boundary of the ocean and atmosphere would not change. Sorry, but that’s quite impossible. The atmospheres partial pressure would drop rather dramatically if this were so and the oceanic absorption would quickly drop as well and may even reverse leading to some outgassing of CO2 from the oceans. So there is no way you can assert and be correct that you would need 17Gt of CO2 to “stabilize” the current atmospheric concentration with the oceans. You need to read up on this because your static comparisons won’t work in the real world. The uptake equation by the oceans is reversible and dependent upon ocean temperatures as well as the partial pressure across the atmospheric/ocean interface.
As far as the math goes, yes, there was an error ( or possibly just a typo) in Moore’s stating 1/2 billion tons was 500,000 tons. To me this is irrelevant because it was not used in any calculation he made. As for me, the lesson learned is not to click the post comment button before double checking your computations. But mine are correct using the weight fraction of 12/44 which I knew and which corrects the answer to 38,461 tons of carbon or -38,000 tons rounded down. Slightly more than Moore’s answer but the reason for this I have already explained.
Chuck-
“Your claim is wrong. According to the IPCC chart you present ( which has to be CO2 because we are not emitting 106Gt of CO2 per year ) there is an atmospheric SURPLUS of CO2 of 12Gt per year.”
I’m going to try to get you to SEE my point one more time. I cannot believe that you still cannot grasp it.
The chart is from the IPCC in 2001. There is “SURPLUS” on the chart is because humans are adding 29 Gt of carbon to the atmosphere!!!! Which is why I said “2) according to the experts of the IPCC (cough) without ANY human emissions currently the Earth’s yearly carbon cycle has at least a 17Gt deficit”. According to that 2001 IPCC chart, WITHOUT human CO2, the Earth SUCKS UP 17 GT more CO2 than it produces by itself. It fills that deficit by absorbing 57% of the CO2 that humans emit….which leaves the remaining 43% of human CO2 as “surplus” CO2 every year. Which is why CO2 concentration in the atmosphere today are GROWING.
Here are some more recent/updated totals.
http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp#_ftn36
“10.216 billion tons of anthropogenic carbon emitted annually as CO2 × 3.67 molecular weight of CO2/carbon = 37.5 billion tons of anthropogenic CO2 emitted per year
37.5 billion tons of anthropogenic CO2 emitted per year / 770 billion tons of natural CO2 emitted per year = 4.9%
37.5 billion tons of anthropogenic CO2 emitted per year × 43% of anthropogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere = 16.1 additional tons of CO2 in the atmosphere each year”
Read this part slowly. 57% of anthropogenic CO2 gets ABSORBED by the Earth’s carbon cycle (because there is a deficit between what the Earth produces AND absorbs on its own-so it CAN absorb that much of our CO2 contribution…leaving just 43% of our emissions in the atmosphere as “surplus”. Right? What is 57% of 37.5 billion tons of anthropogenic Co2 emitted every year? 21.3 GT (even higher than the 17 GT from the 2001 chart!!)
SO…if the Earth’s CO2 budget was balanced, then ALL of the CO2 we are emitting every year would be “surplus” in the atmosphere. But it’s NOT. Only 43% of it is surplus. So in order to BALANCE the Earth’s CO2 budget right now, at 400 ppm, humans would have to ADD at least that 57% of their current CO2 emissions to the atmosphere!
That means that humans would have to add at least 21.3 Gt of CO2 every year…not 36,000 tons!
“As far as the math goes, yes, there was an error ( or possibly just a typo) in Moore’s stating 1/2 billion tons was 500,000 tons. To me this is irrelevant because it was not used in any calculation he made. ”
It is COMPLETELY relevant TO MY POINT which is that he’s wildly INCORRECT in claiming that stabilizing” the CO2 levels would be “relatively easy” and that “just 36,000 tons” of CO2 would cover it!! He’s not JUST grossly wrong about the difference between 500,000 tons and 500,000,000 tons, he’s ALSO grossly wrong about 36,000 tons of CO2 filling the GAP/DEFICIT created by the PLANET all by itself-which is currently 21.3 Gt….not 36,000 tons.
21.3 Gt of CO2= 5.8 Gt of Carbon, which is also nowhere NEAR 36,000 tons of Carbon either.
“As for me, the lesson learned is not to click the post comment button before double checking your computations. ”
Maybe you need to learn the lesson of understanding what someone’s exact point is before clicking on the post comment button and responding with “atmospheric science” calculations that only prove that you are as wrong as Dr. Moore is on how much CO2 we’d have to add to balance/stabilize CO2 levels. THAT was the math I originally questioned-quote-
(Dr. Moore)“At the average rate of decline over the past 140 million years, only 34,000 tons of C as CO2 would be required to maintain CO2 at a stable level. ”
(Me) Are you sure? Math check!”
I was NEVER arguing about the difference in the amount of CO2 between 2500 ppm and 400 ppm!!! I was arguing about that difference (36,000 tons or close to it-doesn’t matter) NOT BEING ENOUGH to add back into the CO2 budget to stabilize it, because at this point, there’s a much, MUCH bigger NATURAL deficit (21.3 Gt) happening!!! If humans “only” added 36,000 tons of CO2 to the pre-industrial-“Natural” level of CO2 that was occurring then, the CO2 budget TODAY would STILL be falling by 21Gt of CO2 every year.
And I’m done trying to explain a concept so obvious that a child in a sandbox trying to fill a hole (with a teaspoon) that I’m continually digging (with a shovel), could easily grasp.
Aphan: You continue to deny that what you’re doing is mixing the long term, pre-industrial average rate of decline by nature in atmospheric CO2 and the subsequent computations of stability that Moore and I did with much larger source/sink numbers in the current industrial record that are short term that include human emissions of CO2 and claiming removing the human emissions requires that in order for the atmosphere and oceans to reach an equilibrium requires that we emit 57% of the current human emissions, or according to your updated numbers, 21.3Gt of CO2.
This continues to gloss over the relevant chemical equilibrium equation I pointed out that would require that oceanic absorption of CO2 MUST decrease if emissions are reduced. Right now there is no equilibrium partial pressure between the ocean and atmosphere. The ocean is in catch up mode to equilibrium, a part of which is owed to warmer temperatures over the last century plus increasing human emissions. If human emissions stopped tomorrow, you would not need anywhere close to 21Gt of CO2 emissions to create a new equilibrium between the oceans and atmosphere. You are completely ignorant about this subject but more importantly, your claims are wrong.
My math computations using atmospheric science and those by Moore are correct about pre-industrial equilibrium requirements to stabilize atmospheric CO2 by creating emissions of around 38,000 tons per year to stop the noted gradual decline of this amount. We can say this with confidence because of the length of the natural record and large swings in between. This is a 140 MILLION year average decline. Your claiming this doesn’t matter is more proof you are in over your head.
The rest of your rant is emotional drivel which I’m not into. If Dr. Moore wants to add to your potential education, I’ll leave it up to him to blog with you, but at this point we are done.
What are we grinding the rocks with? ie-where is the energy coming from the grind the rocks?
Humans? Expending the energy to grind rocks will require more calories, meaning food production, more eating of plants and animals. Where is the food production energy coming from? Are we burning plants to create it? Seems counter productive. Eating animals that eat plants? Also counterproductive. Why don’t we just blow open volcanoes or open cracks in the Earth to the core? 🙂
Just drill deeper. By that time there will be other good forms of cheap energy. I don’t know now but in 200 years there will be new forms of energy – i am sure. just ask me again then lol.
J Philip Peterson, not just deeper, but further afield.
There is a great deal more buried fossil fuels that most suppose is the case.
And we currently have no way to economically produce the vast amounts of carbon fuel in methane clathrates and in permafrost, but that could easily change in the future.
It is perfectly possible to burn CaCO3 with solar energy. Much CaCO3 is in the form of chalk, not that I am advocating burning the While Cliffs of Dover, at least not until the situation requires it to maintain CO2 above a certain level. We could also use nuclear energy to process CaCO3 and convert it into CaO and CO2. There is enough nuclear fuel for tens of thousands of years.
Opening cracks in the Earth to the core would e more difficult! And we might find the core has cooled to the extent it is no longer a reliable source of CO2.
An outdoor humorist, Pat McManus, once wrote, in effect, that, “When I was a kid there was no such thing as “pollution”. We just called it “dumping stuff in the crick”‘.
Dr. Patrick Moore strikes me as one who was (and is) honestly and sincerely concerned about “dumping stuff in the crick”.
But when “the cause” was suborned for political gain at the expense of honesty, he backed out.
Bravo Dr. Moore. Regarding CO2 and the greening of the planet, there is one part of the idea that adding CO2 in the atmosphere causes a certain quantum of warming that is simply, unequivocally, untrue. Proponents of warming unwittingly, I suspect, assume ‘ceteris paribus’ conditions (meaning all other factors held constant). With greening, along with being a sink for CO2 is also a sink for energy – which is taken out of circulation. That is to say, that from the sterile equation for warming due to CO2 must be subtracted the energy ‘sunk’ in new living matter.
I wish people who are out doing the fieldwork would not let themselves be constrained in their collection of data by theory alone (if the theory turns out to be substantially incorrect, then field expenses have been poorly used). Even warmists have big doubts and have turned to throwing stones instead of doing science. An example for fieldwork: I suspect that in the fringing greening around arid regions, soil moisture is rising and temperatures are moderating -it would be good to have this data, although not welcomed by doomsters.
As a geologist starting in the late 50s, a field geologist not only mapped rock formations but, simply because he was there, he roughly estimated where meaningful, timber, pulpwood, the head on rapid sections of substantial streams, wild life sighting frequency and the like. Also, each day’s field notes were headed by cloudiness (eg 5/10ths low or high cloud) wind strength and direction, last and first frosts, rain (sometimes snow), etc. Although conscientiousness on the amount of this extra data collected probably varied considerably in those days, I would bet that geologists aren’t doing any of this now. I do know that if someone wanted to know what the weather was like in the taiga and tundra in the early days, they could get a pretty good idea from archives of old field notes. I even sketched a huge rock painting that was on a granite bluff about 50m long and and 20m high on the west shore of Karsakuwigimac Lake. It was so faint that it looked like iron staining up close but out a few hundred feet from shore you could see patterns – caribou horns, suns, arrows, etc. It was very old judging by the condition of some known to be several thousasnd years old and better perserved. This is now underwater with further development of Churchill River/Southern Indian Lake hydro projects.
Allow me to be a bit sceptical about a couple of points.
1. I haven’t really seen any evidence that CO2 has much effect on climate. A lot of hot air (to coin a phrase) from the alarmist side, but a lack of experimental evidence (Really, how difficult would it be given the billions of dollars slopping around Climate Science, for a group with a real lab to simulate conditions in the atmosphere and actually measure the greenhouse effect of CO2 – and then to measure how that would allow more water to remain as vapour and not form clouds?). So, IMHO “saving the day” by burning fossil fuels to increase atmospheric CO2 really won’t do much, if anything, to avoid the next glacial period. And that will achieve all the alarmist’s ends for them through mass starvation (quite possibly preceded by some rather unpleasant wars), and reduce human population to less than a billion. You read it here first!
2. Evolution by natural selection has resulted in a stunning diversity of life forms in environments that often seem hostile to life forms. If CO2 were to go below 150 ppm, it would be quite normal for new kinds of plant life to appear that tolerate low-CO2 air. Not “the end of life” but another chapter in an ongoing saga of evolution. In fact, it would be remarkable if that didn’t happen. I can’t get worked up about a new apocalypse when I try to convince my small (and shrinking) circle of friends that the old apocalypse won’t be happening.
Dr. Moore, you really are to be congratulated on seeing through the excesses of the mutated ecology movement, but I would ask you not to swing too far to the opposite pole. Try the middle ground.
It is true we cannot be definitive about saving the day from the coming ice age plunge, but using the alarmists IPCC math, we can assert that and certainly that assertion has policy implications. However we can be definitive abut feeding close to a billion more people on the same amount of land and water due to the increase in CO2, and that may well be considered to be saving the day..
At the end of the last glaciation the planet came perilously close to extinction of all plants and animals because of lack of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The fixation on CO2 level needs to be put in context. Bar chart displays graphic emphasis in Figure 5 at http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com
Carbon dioxide levels, ppmv
40,000 Exhaled breath
20,000 OK in submarines
8,000 OSHA limit for 8 hr exposure
5,000 OSHA limit for continuous exposure
5,000 Approximate level 500 million years ago
1,500 Artificial increase in some greenhouses to enhance plant growth
1,000 Approximate level 100 million years ago
1,000 Common target maximum for ventilation design for buildings
404 Current atmospheric level
275 Atmospheric level before industrial revolution
190 Atmospheric level at end of last glaciation
150 All plants and animals become extinct below this level.
Thanks Dan for that listing of CO2 concentrations and for linking to your monograph. I have instinctively thought that global warming and cooling was driven mainly by the sun and the oceans, but you have made that thesis explicit. I have to digest your analysis, but on first impression it is consistent with Dr. Salby’s portrayal of CO2 effects as “orders of magnitude” less than other factors, especially water and clouds.
Lets rule out shills in the pay of the nuclear industry.
My understanding of CO2 has nothing to do with the nuclear industry. I am a big supporter of nuclear energy, partly because it is clean, but for me that has nothing to do with CO2, which is not only clean, it is the basis of life. So your comment is not only ignorant, it is also derogatory and stupid.
When someone make a comment which is implicitly critical of nuclear, it is obvious, to me at least, that they are not the sort that really wants to solve anything.
If carbon dioxide was the world-ending boogeyman they want everyone to believe…if they really and truly believed this themselves, there is no way they could be antinuclear as well.
Unless they are simply and completely anti-human and opposed to a continuation of an industrial society, and of civilization in general.
Hey Redback, we are also going to rule out trolling warmistas.
Aren’t we all lucky that all this CO2 has been sequestered for us in the form of hydrocarbons … which power our lives & have enabled the extraordinary quality of life we have … and that we, in turn, can release that back to the environment & powers the lives of plant life on this planet , which is essential to all life going ahead. Thank you Mr. Moore for bringing wider attention to this fact !
A truly blessing for all ! Hopefully the alarmists can have just enough introspection to realize this.
Now that’s what I call sustainability.
While there is no arguing that Co2 can be regarded as a ‘greenhouse gas’ due to its heat latency, even Patrick More overlooks the fact that in terms of physical properties Co2 is heavier than air and always sinks to the lowest levels of the atmosphere. Co2 can hardly be found much above 10,000 feet (coincidentally the limit of plant growth) and certainly has a limited function in atmospheric heating. Even at 10,000 feet the atmosphere is near freezing and above that it gets colder by degrees while at night the heat accumulated during daylight hours is conducted into space. The ‘greenhouse effect’ is grossly over rated by climate experts.
Peter,
While huge quantities of CO2 released at once do creep near ground, smaller quantities are rapidy mixed by wind into the rest of the atmosphere and remain mixed with levels up to 30 km hardly less than at ground level. See for an explanation “Brownian motion”: even sand from the deserts travels over thousands of km by wind, while many times heavier than air…
Eventual warming effect is indeed small and needs the full air column to be measurable…
There’s no argument that co2 is good and required for plants to live. The problem is that large quantities in the atmosphere are creating global warming and that is a threat to our environment.
Regardless we will eventually run out of oil so why not start using renewables now.
The fallacy of wind turbines is revealed with simple arithmetic.
5 mW wind turbine, avg output 1/3 nameplate, 20 yr life, electricity @ wholesale 2 cents per kwh produces $5.8E6.
Installed cost @ $1.7E6/mW = $8.5E6. Add the cost of standby CCGT for when the wind does not blow. Add the cost of land lease, maintenance, Administration.
Solar voltaic and solar thermal are even worse.
The dollar relation is evidence of energy relation. Bottom line, the energy consumed to design, manufacture, install, maintain and administer renewables appears to exceed the energy they produce in their lifetime. Without the energy provided by other sources renewables could not exist.
Nukes will accommodate the energy demand as fossil fuels peter out in future centuries.
1. Wrong. There is no real-world evidence (models are not evidence) that the increased CO2 has or is creating global warming, much less that it is “threat to our environment”.
2. Logically fallacious argument. Oil is plentiful now, and will be for the forseeable future. That makes it the cheapest and the best fuel to use in the transportation, and to some extent, heating industries.
Dr. Moore,
I am following your work already for a long time, as I am a former worker in the chlorine/PVC industry and had a lot of fights with Greenpeace at that time (up to a court case in Hamburg, Germany).
I did see your defense of chlorine for the better applications, against the stance of Greenpeace to ban all chlorine uses. That was very much appreciated at that time.
Again, I appreciate your work on CO2 this time. A beacon of reason in a time of exaggeration and misleading…
Thanks a lot for your hard work.
Ferdinand Engelbeen
former chairman Chlorophiles
(website not maintained anymore)
SOME HISTORY – ON CO2 STARVATION:
I wrote the following on this subject on 18Dec2014, posted on Icecap.us:
On Climate Science, Global Cooling, Ice Ages and Geo-Engineering:
[excerpt]
Furthermore, increased atmospheric CO2 from whatever cause is clearly beneficial to humanity and the environment. Earth’s atmosphere is clearly CO2 deficient and continues to decline over geological time. In fact, atmospheric CO2 at this time is too low, dangerously low for the longer term survival of carbon-based life on Earth.
More Ice Ages, which are inevitable unless geo-engineering can prevent them, will cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations on Earth to decline to the point where photosynthesis slows and ultimately ceases. This would devastate the descendants of most current [terrestrial] life on Earth, which is carbon-based and to which, I suggest, we have a significant moral obligation.
Atmospheric and dissolved oceanic CO2 is the feedstock for all carbon-based life on Earth. More CO2 is better. Within reasonable limits, a lot more CO2 is a lot better.
As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on Earth, I feel it is my duty to advocate on our behalf. To be clear, I am not prejudiced against non-carbon-based life forms, but I really do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. They could be very nice. 🙂
Best, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#comment-79524
[excerpts from my post of 2009]
Questions and meanderings:
A. According to para.1 above:
During Ice ages, does almost all plant life die out as a result of some combination of lower temperatures and CO2 levels that fell below 200ppm (para. 2 above)? If not, why not? [updated revision – perhaps 150ppm not 200ppm?]
When all life on Earth comes to an end, will it be because CO2 permanently falls below 200ppm as it is permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks, hydrocarbons, coals, etc.?
Since life on Earth is likely to end due to a lack of CO2, should we be paying energy companies to burn fossil fuels to increase atmospheric CO2, instead of fining them due to the false belief that they cause global warming?
Could T.S. Eliot have been thinking about CO2 starvation when he wrote:
“This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.”
Regards, Allan 🙂
I am acutely aware that I am not the first person to understand the threat of declining CO2 to life on Earth. But at least until now we have been one hand clapping, with little, actually no notice in the big world of ideas. I am hoping this paper will kick-off a wider discussion as it is certainly more plausible that the guff from the CAGW crowd.
Are you aware of the newly-formed CO2 Coalition http://www.co2coalition.org ? Our newly designed website will be up soon.
And it would no doubt be a long whimper, millions of years, but it would nonetheless have continued to diminish over time if we had not intervened.
If higher CO2 did not exist, we would need to produce more of it.
I learn so much from reading this website. This thread being a very good example. It is really a pleasure. Thanks to all contributors.
For those who prefer video to type, I can highly recommend
2015 GWPF Annual Lecture – Patrick Moore – ‘Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?’
Having read the full article, it is really good. Take the time to read it, as it is worth your while.
However, I can predict that the BBC and Grauniad will not mention it. And yet there are still some people who think that warming and climate are a matter of science, rather than politics.
R
I just watched the entire presentation of 2015 GWPF Annual Lecture – Patrick Moore – ‘Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide’.mp4, and my major objection is his misunderstanding regarding “fossil fuels”. Petroleum, Coal and Natural Gas are NOT “fossil fuels”! Please read Thomas Gold’s “The Deep Hot Biosphere” and understand that Petroleum, Coal and Natural Gas are a constantly renewing resource of an abundant hydrocarbon mineral found everywhere throughout the Solar System, and perhaps the Universe! Petroleum is produced from rock chemically and perhaps biologically on a continual basis (and hence the appropriateness of its name, Petroleum (Rock Oil). Petroleum is definitely not created from dead trees and algae. There is no such thing as “fossil fuels”!
I had not realized there are people who still believe this to be true. Coal is derived from terrestrial plants, their fossils are evident for goodness sake. Oil and gas are derived from the organic remains of calcareous marine plankton largely coccolithophores and foraminifera, but other marine creatures too.
Hydrocarbons on Earth are of life-origin.
I concur, but there remains the possibility that some gas and oil are from microbes deeper within the crust than marine organisms of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Eras.
THX
Thomas Gold has a theory that is plausible. But plausible is different from “confirmed”. Gold only ever refers to his theory as a hypothesis and even suggests at the end of it that further research is necessary. To put it in other words, YOU are more sure of his postulation than he is.
The word Petroleum goes back to Greek times, and just because it means “rock oil” does not mean the Greeks had studied crude oil formations under a microscope and concluded that it was made from rocks…it simply was found underground near/around rocks. The Greek pantheon is not made of pants, or panthers.
@THX1138 “Petroleum, Coal and Natural Gas are a constantly renewing resource of an abundant hydrocarbon mineral found everywhere throughout the Solar System”
Even if this were the case, it does not detract from the main point that it is our responsibility to release CO₂ into the atmosphere to prevent the extinction of life on Earth. As a responsible greenie, I will ensure that I burn my fair share of fossil fuels, regardless of their origin.
As with any corrupted organization, the precept of “Follow the Money” applies here:
Annual Reports & Financial Statements – Greenpeace USA
“Greenpeace Inc 2014 Audit”
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/about/annual-reports-and-financial-statements/
The dimwit ‘s running the EPA are the real deniers , As Dr,.Moore summarized , CO2 is highly beneficial and essential to life on earth . Why is the EPA set on destroying plants and animal friendly habitat ?
Why would the government continue to fund a department (EPA) that has a mission to undermine one of the earth’s greatest source of plant food ?
The only people standing in phone booths will be the losers at the EPA that will be calling their lobbyist friends to suck up for jobs .
We can expect the EPA to go 9into full rant mode for the next 6 months before they are standing in phone booths sucking up to the lobbyists’ that used to be on their payroll .
Why would the EPA be against plant food ?
I want to thank Mr. Moore for all his writings that have been available on line for free.
He is a rare PhD — with easy to follow writing that doesn’t get readers bogged down in math and statistics.
In my opinion, the coming global warming catastrophe will not matter because we will all be dead first from DDT and other pesticides …. or was that acid rain? … no, I mean the hole in the ozone layer … or had that been replaced by global cooling ? … well, what I’m trying to say is there are so many environmental catastrophes already “coming”, since the 1960s, there is little chance any of us will still be alive when the global warming boogeyman finally arrives ( I’ve been waiting 40 years — not even a phone call ! ).
For leftists, there will always be a catastrophe “coming” … and bigger government is always the “solution”.
If the global warming catastrophe fantasy is refuted … by cold weather … another “coming catastrophe” will replace it.
No one knows what the next “crisis” will be be — my guess is either “GMO foods”, or exploding silicone breast implants.
And the solution will be more government control over the private sector.
My climate blog for non-scientists
Free
No ads
No money for me
A public service
Leftists should stay away
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
I like the laugher effect best…..