Is carbon dioxide our friend or our foe?
Guest essay by Iain Aitken
Here is a dossier of key facts about carbon dioxide (and its role in global warming):
· It is an incombustible, colourless, odourless, tasteless and non-toxic gas
· It is a plant nutrient and, as the ‘fuel’ of photosynthesis and the creation of oxygen, it is absolutely essential to the existence of life on Earth
· Its fertilisation effect has meant that, thanks to our anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions increasing concentrations in the atmosphere, crop yields have improved dramatically to date and will continue to improve in the future
· It is a weak greenhouse gas
· Global warming precedes, and then causes, increases in carbon dioxide emissions
· Most global warming experienced since 1950 can be attributed to natural climate variability, rather than enhanced greenhouse gas warming from anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Furthermore the rate of global warming experienced since 1950 has many precedents and is not remotely alarming
Carbon dioxide concentrations today are amongst the lowest found in the entire history of the Earth
· Only 0.04% of our atmosphere is carbon dioxide, which makes it what scientists call a ‘trace gas’; it requires extremely sensitive equipment even to detect it
· There is a very poor correlation between carbon dioxide concentrations and atmospheric temperatures so some thing (or things) other than carbon dioxide must be the key driver (or drivers) of global warming
· Carbon dioxide exerts a diminishing warming effect as its concentrations increase and is today almost entirely exhausted as a greenhouse gas
· At low enough concentrations carbon dioxide could cause catastrophic climate change and the extinction of all life on Earth
· Those who would assert that global warming is man-made and dangerous are denying the facts that global warming has been slowing down at precisely the same time that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions have been rising and that no unequivocal causal relationship has ever been established between those emissions and observed global warming.
The world-renowned theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson has said, ‘The possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated… the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage’. Dr William Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton University, has said, ‘No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide, thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas… The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science…. We’re really in a carbon dioxide famine now… increased carbon dioxide will be good for mankind.’
So the evidence and science is unequivocal: not only are our carbon dioxide emissions innocuous, they could actually be hugely beneficial for humanity.
There now follows another dossier of key alternative facts about carbon dioxide (and its role in global warming):
· It is a highly toxic atmospheric gas that is a dangerous pollutant of our precious planet
· As a result of the warming associated with our carbon dioxide emissions crop yields will fall across the world causing widespread famines
· It is a powerful greenhouse gas, and, as such, is a major contributor to the current global warming crisis
· Increases in carbon dioxide emissions precede, and then cause, global warming
· Most global warming experienced since 1950 can be attributed to anthropogenic activity, in particular anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The rate of global warming experienced since 1950 is alarming and unprecedented
· Carbon dioxide concentrations today are at the highest level ever recorded
· As a result of mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions, largely from burning fossil fuels, carbon dioxide concentrations in our atmosphere have already reached a monumental 400ppm
· There is an extraordinarily close correlation between carbon dioxide concentrations and atmospheric temperatures
· Carbon dioxide exerts an increasing warming effect as its concentrations increase
· At high enough concentrations carbon dioxide could cause catastrophic climate change and the extinction of all life on Earth
· Those who would deny that global warming is man-made and dangerous are denying the fact that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are soaring and that such emissions cause enhanced greenhouse gas warming – and the equally unequivocal fact that ten of the hottest years on record have fallen in this century.
Dr Carmen Boening, Climate Scientist at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, has said, ‘Reaching the 400ppm mark should be a reminder for us that carbon dioxide levels have been shooting up at an alarming rate in the recent past due to human activity.’ The environmental journalist Michael Specter has said, ‘Humanity has nearly suffocated the globe with carbon dioxide.’
So the evidence and science is unequivocal: not only are our carbon dioxide emissions dangerous, they could actually cause the extinction of all life on Earth.
Combining the conclusions from the original facts and the alternative facts, it is clear that carbon dioxide is unequivocally innocuous and dangerous and unequivocally beneficial and catastrophic.
In a court of law I would have no trouble whatsoever in defending both sets of ‘facts’ and am absolutely confident that I would leave the court a free man in either case. By using selective quotes, being selective with the evidence, being selective with the science, being selective with the timeframes, overlaying all those with emotion, rhetoric and value judgements, and then deploying a dollop of dissimulation and a soupcon of sophistry, I have turned a scientifically objective description of carbon dioxide’s role in global warming into political propaganda – both dossiers of key facts about carbon dioxide, although ‘true’, are extremely ‘dodgy dossiers’. My point is that very different narratives can be spun about the role of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere without having to resort to lies – the people who spin these narratives are relying on the belief that the vast majority of the public, politicians and journalists will not realize that they are being spun a story – and even if they did they would probably struggle to understand the scientific differences between the competing stories and so be inclined to ‘just believe the authorities’ who spin the ‘carbon dioxide is our foe’ story.
Not only might the average member of the public find it extremely difficult to determine the ‘truth’ about carbon dioxide (and its role in global warming) when faced with the above presentations of apparently complex and contradictory alternative facts, even highly educated, highly intelligent (and even highly scientifically literate) people are likely to feel confused. We should form our views logically and rationally based on all the facts – but faced with the above sets of apparently impossible to reconcile facts about carbon dioxide this is very, very hard. Consequently many will perhaps set aside the facts and simply fall back on how they feel about carbon dioxide. And since the second story, that ‘carbon dioxide is our foe’, is perhaps the only story most will have been exposed to (especially in Europe, and quintessentially in Britain) it is far more likely to be the one felt to be true. If you associate carbon dioxide with dangerous warming of the planet then you may feel bad about it; if you associate it with the benign greening of the planet then you may feel good about it. How people feel about carbon dioxide can prove far more successful in shaping public opinion than any number of complicated facts, something very well understood by those who want to ‘sell’ the ‘man-made climate change crisis’ idea, who have established a narrative for carbon dioxide and its role in global warming by flooding the media with emotionally powerful negative images, e.g. polar bears on ice floes floating out to sea, dying coral reefs, flooded cities (preferably flooded American cities). This substitution (triumph?) of political narrative and emotion for scientific objectivity and rationality is a fundamental problem that permeates the entire climate change debate.
So is carbon dioxide our friend or our foe? As set out above, in some ways it is (or could be) the one and in some ways it is (or could be) the other. The vast majority of the public not only do not understand these scientific differences, they positively don’t want to have to understand these scientific differences. As Richard Lindzen has said, ‘Most arguments about global warming boil down to science versus authority. For much of the public authority will generally win since they do not wish to deal with the science.’ Instead they will form their view on the climate change debate almost exclusively on how they feel about it based primarily on the narrative spun in the media (a narrative that is utterly dominated by the propaganda of the climate change alarmists). As Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, ‘The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.’ This is why endlessly repeated simplistic soundbites like ‘climate change is man-made and dangerous’ and ‘the science is settled’ and ‘97% of scientists agree’ have been so powerful. Is there any real truth in these statements? It doesn’t matter – just keep repeating them. In a 140 characters or fewer Tweeting, knee-jerk reaction, internet-driven world of shortening attention spans where ‘TLDR’ (Too Long; Didn’t Read’) is a typical reaction to any complex issue few will take the very considerable time and very considerable trouble to root out, investigate and understand the scientific arguments of climate change sceptics that climate change is probably predominantly driven by natural ocean-atmosphere oscillations, natural solar variations (irradiation and cosmic ray flux), natural cloud cover variations and the (natural) Milankovitch Effect when all they have to unthinkingly believe is that ‘climate change is man-made and dangerous – and that’s a fact’.
I look outside and what do I see.
I see trees that are green and in some cases considerably higher than last year,
a proliferation of fruit from those capable of bearing, grass that has needed to mowing once a week for the last 8 months, monumental amounts of various weeds requiring hot water applications from pots on a woodburner, citrus of all types putting out long branches studded with flowers, rain falling every so often, the wind blowing from every direction, the moon rising between northern and southern declinations, the ocassional blessing of an aurora australis,
so whats not to like.
Its not warmer or colder, the tides are not higher or lower, the seasons are slightly out of whack as they tend to be occasionally.
Is there anybody out there happy with the natural world and the way it operates?
Or are we to be continually bombarded with a bunch of deluded dogma such as catastrophic global warming that seems hell bent on destroying everything and then blaming ourselves for it.
What an idiotic concept.
There is very clear evidence of former wilderness greening worldwide from satellite imagery, but you and your tribe refuse to see this, turning your eyes away from it in embarrassment. The silence of public discourse on the fact of CO2 greening which is spectacular good news for planet earth, its biosphere and for us, is disgraceful.
Oops – this was meant to be a reply to Bellman, below.
“There is very clear evidence of former wilderness greening worldwide from satellite imagery, but you and your tribe refuse to see this, turning your eyes away from it in embarrassment.”
I don’t deny there is an increase in vegetation as a result of increases in CO2. The question was is this the main reason for a dramatic increase in global crop yields, rather than other factors, such as warmer temperatures, improvements in agricultural practices, etc.
But if the increase in temperature is directly caused by the increase in CO2, then any greening from temperature is also attributable to increasing CO2
“Its fertilisation effect has meant that, thanks to our anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions increasing concentrations in the atmosphere, crop yields have improved dramatically to date and will continue to improve in the future”
Any evidence for that? It seems unlikely to me that most of the increase in crop yields can be attributed to a 30% rise in CO2, as opposed to say improved farming methods.
Oh, thats just too easy to answer…..
I don’t think improved farming methods can be attributed to benefits that rain forest(s), semi arid and arid areas and well, generally EVERY other area are achieving. Those areas are NOT gaining from the assistance of any such ‘improved farming method’… it a bit tricky getting the tractors in there anyway.
“I don’t think improved farming methods can be attributed to benefits that rain forest(s), semi arid and arid areas and well, generally EVERY other area are achieving.”
Large amounts of rain forest have been cut down to improve crop yields.
“Those areas are NOT gaining from the assistance of any such ‘improved farming method’… it a bit tricky getting the tractors in there anyway.”
There’s a lot to improving farming than bigger tractors.
It didn’t say “most of the increase” was due to CO2. Improved farming methods of course played an important role. Also, your 30% rise in CO2 is a red herring. What is important is that CO2 levels were very low, so a 30% increase most certainly could be expected to have a dramatic effect.
“It didn’t say “most of the increase” was due to CO2.”
I inferred it from the way the statement was worded. – “thanks to our anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions … crop yields have improved dramatically to date and will continue to improve in the future”. No mention of other causes.
“Also, your 30% rise in CO2 is a red herring. What is important is that CO2 levels were very low, so a 30% increase most certainly could be expected to have a dramatic effect.”
It’s 30% of a very low number, so why would it have a dramatic effect? And why doesn’t that argument apply to the greenhouse effect?
“And why doesn’t that argument apply to the greenhouse effect?”
Maybe because that’s not how it works? The vast majority of CO2’s hypothetical efficacy as a “greenhouse gas” has already been used up at concentrations much lower than even pre-industrial times. The effect is logarithmic. Its efficacy as a fertilizer for plants and its role in photosynthesis is an entirely different beast. The latter is also based on sound, repeatable real world science.
“It’s 30% of a very low number, so why would it have a dramatic effect? And why doesn’t that argument apply to the greenhouse effect?”
Logically, no reason at all. It is clearly a stupid argument that something is at such a low concentration that it can have no effect on warming and 30% change can have no effect, then simultaneously argue that it is essential to life on Earth and a 30% change results in massive crop yield increases.
Paul Jackson illustrates this below. Far from 400ppm being too low a level to cause warming, it is almost at too high a level for further increases to cause more warming.
Seaice
“Paul Jackson illustrates this below. Far from 400ppm being too low a level to cause warming, it is almost at too high a level for further increases to cause more warming.”
So more isn’t a problem it’s only a benefit.
These another point that confuses me about these sorts of arguments. How is it that a 30% increase in CO2 can be be accepted as sufficient to cause a dramatic increase in crop yields, but are assumed to be insufficient to have any effect on warming?
“These” -> “There’s”
It has to with Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, which is how much warmer the Earth should become if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled. Although what the actual value of ECS is a point of contention, lets for the sake of argument assume it is 2.0, the atmospheric CO2 is 180ppm and NYC is buried under a sheet of ice a mile thick. Add 180ppm of CO2 and the temps become moderate but coolish with the additional 2 degree increase. To get to the next 2 degree increase we have to add not 180, but 360ppm. This also assumes that there are no unanticipated forcing kicking in; such as water vapor transporting latent heat high into the atmosphere away from the surface.
” How is it that a 30% increase in CO2 can be be accepted as sufficient to cause a dramatic increase in crop yields, but are assumed to be insufficient to have any effect on warming?”
__________________________________
Bellman – increase of crop yields effects warming?
Please explain.
Paul Jackson
“It has to with Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, which is how much warmer the Earth should become if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled.”
Yes. So a 30% increase in CO2 should result in a roughly proportional increase in temperature. If your 2C figure were correct a 30% increase would mean an increase of around 0.75C. This would be the irrespective of how much CO2 was around to begin with.
My objection is to those who use a hand-wavy argument that there is just too little CO2, e.g.
“Only 0.04% of our atmosphere is carbon dioxide, which makes it what scientists call a ‘trace gas’; it requires extremely sensitive equipment even to detect it”
with the implication that this is in someway relevant to the question of global warming.
Bellman
“Any evidence for that”
There is very clear evidence of former wilderness greening worldwide from satellite imagery, but you and your tribe refuse to see this, turning your eyes away from it in embarrassment. The silence of public discourse on the fact of CO2 greening which is spectacular good news for planet earth, its biosphere and for us, is disgraceful.
Does it seem surprising to you that more CO2 will benefit plants? Can you tell me the reason why greenhouse operators pump CO2 up to >1000 ppm CO2 inside greenhouses claiming that this makes plants 🌱 grow faster and better. Do you want to tell them that they are wrong?
See my response to the first part of your comment above.
For the questions you asked:
“Does it seem surprising to you that more CO2 will benefit plants? Can you tell me the reason why greenhouse operators pump CO2 up to >1000 ppm CO2 inside greenhouses claiming that this makes plants 🌱 grow faster and better. Do you want to tell them that they are wrong?”
No.
To increase growth.
No.
Bellman, as far as the effect of increased CO2 levels on crop yields is concerned, I think Matt Ridley puts it a lot better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCcLggcPcj0
The difference is that Warmist “facts” are actually primarily lies, though they may contain grains of truth here and there. They also use highly emotional language. This idea that even highly intelligent people can not distinguish between truth and lies is itself a lie. They may have to actually use their brain a little bit though, which requires some work. And people are lazy.
All plant life appears to be doing better at the moment without any input from me.
I am grateful for this as it means I have not gone blind and the exhaust system from my 62 year old car has not affected anything much.
Id rather just put it down to weather for a guilt free existence.
Betting against the side predicting global apocalypse is always a wise move. Betting against the side that refuses to debate is always a wise move.
Experts can always come up with enough facts to bolster their chosen opinion. In that light, facts don’t actually matter as much as we think they should.
Here’s a link to a paper that studies what happens when an eminent scientist dies. People from outside the field pick up the slack and bring new and novel ideas. In other words, eminent scientists are actually a drag on progress.
Folks like to think of scientists as super rational. In fact, they are anything but that.
Many are super serial though.
There is no scientific evidence to support these statements, which are untrue:
· Global warming precedes, and then causes, increases in carbon dioxide emissions
· Most global warming experienced since 1950 can be attributed to natural climate variability, rather than enhanced greenhouse gas warming from anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Furthermore the rate of global warming experienced since 1950 has many precedents and is not remotely alarming
· There is a very poor correlation between carbon dioxide concentrations and atmospheric temperatures so some thing (or things) other than carbon dioxide must be the key driver (or drivers) of global warming
· Those who would assert that global warming is man-made and dangerous are denying the facts that global warming has been slowing down at precisely the same time that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions have been rising and that no unequivocal causal relationship has ever been established between those emissions and observed global warming.
So the evidence and science is unequivocal: not only are our carbon dioxide emissions innocuous, they could actually be hugely beneficial for humanity.
This pair of statements is misleading:
· Carbon dioxide concentrations today are amongst the lowest found in the entire history of the Earth
· Carbon dioxide concentrations today are at the highest level ever recorded
Yes, there have been higher concentrations, but not during human history/the period in which our current civilisation was established
Nobody is asserting this in the terms presented:
· It is a highly toxic atmospheric gas that is a dangerous pollutant of our precious planet
It would have been nice if some scientific evidence for the first set of (erroneous) propositions had been presented.
There is of course ample observation based evidence (not modelled!) for the second set (where the arguments are not misrepresented).
Assertion is not evidence.
[neither is opinion -mod]
Yes, there have been higher concentrations,…
…and then plants evolved and sucked it out
Griff, you need to back up your assertions,otherwise you can’t be taken seriously.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
~
Authority is so easily and always corrupted.
Authoritarianism is evil.
There is no getting around the fact carbon dioxide is one of the absolutely essential ingredients of life. Water and oxygen are both far more dangerous and destructive.
From the original post:
It is a plant nutrient and, as the ‘fuel’ of photosynthesis and the creation of oxygen,
Actually it’s water that is the ‘fuel’ and creator of oxygen not CO2.
It is a weak greenhouse gas
It’s a ‘strong’ greenhouse gas.
“Actually it’s water that is the ‘fuel’ and creator of oxygen not CO2.”
Photosynthesis does not occur without CO2, H2O and light.
Given H2O and light, photosynthesis increases with increasing CO2.
Plant growth increases with increasing CO2.
Crop yield increases with increasing CO2.
Importantly, the temperature of maximum photosynthesis increases with increasing CO2.
Also, oceanic plankton photosynthesis, growth, and population increase with increasing CO2.
The odd argument (above somewhere) is that the part of the process that releases O2 does not directly involve CO2. I am pretty sure that part would not happen on its own, or would not be useful anyway, so the argument is a bit weak.
A bit weak?
It’s a load of ignorant hogwash you mean don’t you?
It’s a ‘strong’ greenhouse gas.
True that. CO2 exerts a lot of radiative forcing for it’s concentrations.
However, global warming tends to lead to a more moderate less variable climate, factors also benign for life on earth.
If only there were no water…
It’s a ‘strong’ greenhouse gas.
…when is it supposed to kick in?
My favorIte chart on this subject.
Good selection for the range of the graph since human cultures survive and thrive in seasonal and annual climates which span that full extent.
Here is what that graph reveals when it is scaled so as not to hide the data.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/an_wld.png
Latitude
You’ve missed a trick. Why not start your y-axis at absolute zero, -273.15C? That way it becomes even ‘more’ difficult to determine temperature changes in a data series that has a standard deviation of +/- 0.36 deg C over its 137 full years. It would be even less useful than that chart you love so well.
Robert
Which might be appropriate if the data were purporting to show the range of seasonal range in climates; but it’s not. It shows global annual average land and ocean surface temperatures, which severely restricts the range since these don’t change very much on a year-to-year basis.
Selecting an inappropriate scale on which to display data is a form of cherry-picking. For instance, here is a chart showing the range in human body temperatures on the Kelvin scale. On the left side of the chart you die of cold; on the right side you die of overheating. Putting it on an inappropriate scale makes the difference between the two extremes seem minuscule, if visible at all, when in fact it’s immense in human terms.
http://oi64.tinypic.com/2enax5f.jpg
Selecting an inappropriate scale on which to display data is a form of cherry-picking………..
?zoom=2
It is a very strong greenhouse gas in its fundamental bend. Here it is at 1 ppm according to modtran:
The fundamental bend is saturated at 400 ppm. The nearby fairly strong transitions at 618 and 720.8 are very nearly saturated. What will remain when they become saturated is a bunch of very weak transitions.
Yes Phil, in a small sliver of the IR window.
Please don’t mislead people, you are too smart for that.
sunsettommy May 15, 2017 at 1:10 pm
Yes Phil, in a small sliver of the IR window.
Right at the peak in the Earth’s emission spectrum.
Run MODTRAN with 400ppm CO2 for Tropical atmosphere at surface T of 299.7K, you get:
Upward IR Heat Flux 297.923 W/m2
Repeat with 0ppm CO2:
Upward IR Heat Flux 329.072 W/m2
That’s a ~10% reduction in the upward IR heat flux due to CO2.
This would be a ~7ªC drop in temperature, a full ice age.
Phil, never disputed your comment science content, it is what you don’t mention, is what is misleading since most of the IR window is outside of CO2 absorptive range.
sunsettommy May 15, 2017 at 8:10 pm
Phil, never disputed your comment science content, it is what you don’t mention, is what is misleading since most of the IR window is outside of CO2 absorptive range.
I explicitly said that CO2 reduces the IR emission to space by 10%, how is that misleading?
I’m sure most people would realize that that leaves 90% (i.e. ‘most’) which does reach space.
Turbulent Eddie May 15, 2017 at 5:40 am
“Actually it’s water that is the ‘fuel’ and creator of oxygen not CO2.”
Photosynthesis does not occur without CO2, H2O and light.
Correct but the production of oxygen requires water and CO2 is not involved.
That is just too pedantic
To explain my view, that part of photosynthesis does NOT create the carbohydrates that plants need to survive. It’s not going to happen on its own, so should not be disassociated from the full process of photosynthesis. The full process of photosynthesis takes in CO2 and releases O2, therefore the assertion is correct.
You take on part of the process that does not use CO2 and does produce O2, and then claim that the process as a whole does not use CO2. That is disingenuous imo.
Jer0me May 15, 2017 at 5:25 pm
To explain my view, that part of photosynthesis does NOT create the carbohydrates that plants need to survive. It’s not going to happen on its own, so should not be disassociated from the full process of photosynthesis. The full process of photosynthesis takes in CO2 and releases O2, therefore the assertion is correct.
Actually it does happen on its own, the first step in the process is the absorption of light by chlorophyll which breaks down water into O2, H+ and electrons. Subsequently CO2 is reacted using the energy produced by this step in the Calvin cycle (which doesn’t use light) to produce carbohydrates.
You take on part of the process that does not use CO2 and does produce O2, and then claim that the process as a whole does not use CO2. That is disingenuous imo.
I did not ‘claim that the process as a whole does not use CO2’, I disputed the ‘fact’ that CO2 was
” the ‘fuel’ of photosynthesis and the creation of oxygen”.
Mr. Aitken,
“It is a weak greenhouse gas”
It is when compared to the entire IR spectrum.
Phil,
“It’s a ‘strong’ greenhouse gas”
Only in its main band, weak everywhere else in the IR spectrum..
“Two Competing Narratives on Dihydrogen Oxide”
Water’s pretty good until you drown in it.
The gas which increases life on earth is somehow deemed harmful to life on earth. Weird.
Water that is essential for life on earth is deemed harmful. Weird.
Lack of understanding and perspective.
Global measures of biomass and vegetative health appear to be increasing, not decreasing.
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/plants/plant-growth/plant-growth-co2-carbon-yield-increase.gif
Given that irrigation involves the dispersal of vast quantities of water over otherwise dry areas of the planet, and that that a great proportion of that water (unused by plants) becomes water vapour…could we assume that Warmists would fundamentally oppose Irrigation…given that it releases large quantities of a powerful Greenhouse Gas; water vapour…into the atmosphere?
Could we assume that more GHGS are released into the atmosphere daily through irrigation than combustion?
There is a considerable contribution to climate change due to unsustainable farming practices. Some of the vast amount of irrigation has depleted the ground water of an area. Conversion of wild land to agricultural has been documented to change weather patterns. Not all of these changes are bad, but they affect the best crops for an area.
Note, I wrote “climate change” not warming. When there is significant drought caused by unsustainable agriculture (such as the United States in the 1930s or Syria in the last twenty years), then it tends to get much warmer. A reduction in evapotranspiration from plants causes a reduction in rainfall. The lack of rain causes the warming, the warming doesn’t cause lack of rain.
The reduction in groundwater that we see in Texas and California also contributes to local droughts and they contribute to sea level increases. Since the ground is dry, rainfall tends to be absorbed more quickly rather than contribute to the local rain cycle.
That being said — few people argue that agriculture is a net harm.
It should be pointed out that much of what is called “climate change” is highly localized. Climatists love to conflate localized changes to “global climate change”. In the grand scheme of things, man’s effect on climate is very very small.
Even the part that is used by plants eventually becomes water vapor.
Partly the green blob relies on “the hard sell” and “the big lie” tools of propaganda/advertising, which usually work in the short term. The long term is a different issue, but as a cynical economist once wrote” In the long term, we are all dead”.
No one ever discusses the role of cabonates. There is a lot more carbon tied up in rock than fossil fuels. If we burn all the coal, oil, and natural gas we can find, the majority of carbon is still tied up in limestones. Where I live in Illinois I’m sitting on top of a few hundred feet of it. We all need to thank the snails for cleaning the majority of the CO2 out of the atmosphere.
So, here’s a question. It may be a silly question, but IF the temperature (or the ‘back-radiation due to greenhouse effect) and the CO2 proportion are linked so inexorably, and we have a graph of the relationship, can we measure the temperature/forcing/DWIR/whatever and derive the CO2 proportion, as a check against direct measurement? That’s what happens with a REAL control knob.
Mr. Aitken’s analysis is well done. Though many of the supposed facts on both sides of the argument are, at least, fundamentally based upon known physics and chemistry, the bottom line from a true science standpoint continues to be that correlation does not equal causation. This is particularly true when there are so many exogenous variables involved resulting in high multicolinearity even within the supposed correlations. Making very expensive decisions to take actions based upon such information is therefore both foolish and potentially dangerous. Also, knowing that we are so close to the level of CO2 required to keep our planet from dying from the lack thereof should cause caution on our part regarding attempting to lower its level. The very hard push from the left on this subect is obviously about control, politics and money.
The whole thing is pretty simple. The IPCC’s climate model and GCMs’ climate model are based on the Myhre’s equation about the radiative forcing of CO2. The there is the positive water feedback also in these models. If these two formulas are correct, then IPCC’s science is correct. I have published and studied these basic issues and the results are: there is no positive water feedback doubling the GH gas warming effects. The Myhre’s formula gives practically 100 % too high values, because it is probably calculated in the atmosphere of fixed relative water content. The end results: the climate sensitivity is not 3.0 degrees but 0.6 degrees:
Link: http://www.seipub.org/des/paperInfo.aspx?ID=11043#Abstract
Alarmists have bombarded us with doomsday scenarios for a long time. Most of us are tired of it, but some of them managed to persuade themselves that they are right. They want to declare their models, not Mother Nature, the ultimate arbiter.
Because IPCC claims are based on the scientific studies, the arguments must also be based on the published papers. In the end we will see, what is right. The moment of truth is, when the global temperature starts to decline. Before that, this a is a game “a word against a word” even though there are scientific words.
Lol. When it cools down we will be proved right until then it’s word game.
Welcome to WUWT.
The true climate change believer uses the cause has a refuge from thinking about real threats such as War, Pandemics, and Famine. It makes life so much easier believing that the real threat is climate change as opposed to the other three. The real question is how do we allow them to keep their belief without allowing them to constrict the economy, leave millions in poverty, and wasting hundreds of billions of dollars?
I’m reminded of a visit to Budweiser brewery in Houston a few summers ago. There was a caution sign in the elevator and about the facility. It said to exit the building if the alarm went off. It was set to alarm at 30,000ppm of CO2. I was not aware CO2 was dangerous at that level. And we are going to suffocate at 400ppm CO2?
“The environmental journalist Michael Specter has said, ‘Humanity has nearly suffocated the globe with carbon dioxide”
Specter is a wee bit less than truthful in his desperation to convince people to buy into his alarmism. But science honesty and integrity do seem to be frequently lost as one becomes more and more alarmist.
CO2 is non toxic and necessary for most life at low concentration, but contrary to what the title says is positively lethal starting at above 10% concentration. A couple of breaths will make you unconscious and you die quite quickly.
As was found out from the holds of ships carrying citrus fruit.
Well since we would need to see CO2 increase about 2500 times to get to 10% concentration I will not be holding my breath in fear. 😱
Danger-Danger-Danger ~
A mere 250 times increase of current CO2 levels would do it, hunter !!!
Oh noes! It’s worser than we thought!
OSHA, no surprise errs on the side of caution. Luckily the US Navy is exempt:
“Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas and should be treated as a material with poor warning properties. It is denser than air and high concentrations can persist in open pits and other areas below grade. The current OSHA standard is 5000 ppm as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) concentration.
“Gaseous carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant. Concentrations of 10% (100,000 ppm) or more can produce unconsciousness or death. Lower concentrations may cause headache, sweating, rapid breathing, increased heartbeat, shortness of breath, dizziness, mental depression, visual disturbances or shaking. The seriousness of the latter symptoms is dependent on the concentration of carbon dioxide and the length of time the individual is exposed. The response to carbon dioxide inhalation varies greatly even in healthy normal individuals.”
If there be an ideal CO2 concentration, it’s between 800 and 1300 ppm, as in commercial greenhouses. Above that level, plants don’t reap further benefit from increases. So at least a doubling of current concentration would be healthy for plants and other living things.
Should anyone (yes, anyone) get down as far as this on this thread/blog . . . .
I have read Iain Aitken’s excellent original guest essay (main post) and all the helpful comments that follow with great interest. Since following WUWT every day for the last (however many) years – often just lurking – I have (i) missed Jimbo’s regular contributions and (ii) developed an almost neurotic need to comprehensively list all the different ways that mankind generates the so-called ‘pollutant’ CO2 and adds this ‘dreaded’ CO2 to ‘the sky’. Again, no one, not anyone (including the author) has listed all the ways we simply make more and more CO2. Why?
Whether it be from processes needed to decaffinate coffee, human cremation, global beer production, CO2 from limescale removing products – or even bicarbonate of soda used to clean false teeth, my argument is this. “If CO2 is so bad, why do we use the gas to do all these things for humans?”.
So if, we now (since late 70’s) use dry-ice CO2 pellets (instead of sand) to actually sand-blast buildings, just HOW has this process helped contributed to the ‘dangerous’ levels of 400ppm (1/2,500th of the sky)
Got to serve our dinner up now, let me know.
I do my bit to sequester all the CO2 I can by partaking of that “global beer production”.
I’ll take my payment in beer, thanks. Belgian or Czech by preference 🙂