by Craig D. Idso and Caleb S. Rossiter
An inconvenient scientific fact for the climate alarmist industry is that industrial carbon dioxide turns out to be plant food. The burning of fossil fuels to generate electrical power has not only led to dramatic economic growth, and hence the wealth that buys health and life expectancy. It also has led to a greening of the planet by carbon dioxide, an inert, non-polluting byproduct of combustion.
The fossil-fuel-driven 45 percent increase in CO2 levels since 1900 from a bit less than three percent of one percent of the atmosphere to a bit more than four percent of one percent has increased plant growth by at least 15 percent and perhaps as much as a third. (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V20/oct/a14.php) After all, that’s why carbon dioxide is pumped into greenhouses, to increase productivity. NASA has published dramatic images of this “greening” of the planet. (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth)
In 2015 our science education organization, the CO2 Coalition, summarized the relevant studies (https://co2coalition.org/2015/10/19/carbon-dioxide-benefits-the-world-see-for-yourself/). We have a far more detailed White Paper coming out in a few weeks on the latest research.
So, it is perhaps not surprising that the alarmist industry – which usually spends its time and effort publicizing computer models that have significantly over-predicted both the warming effect of carbon dioxide and the climate changes that result — has started to claim that there are costs to crops, and not just benefits, from these rising carbon dioxide levels. A summary study in this new line of attack was published in August 2018 by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, with this headline: “As CO2 Levels Rise, Millions at Risk of Nutritional Deficiencies.” (https://phys.org/news/2018-08-co2-climb-millions-nutritional-deficiencies.html#jCp)
The paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0253-3
Field experiments have long shows that a few crops deliver perhaps five to ten percent less zinc, iron, and protein per unit when carbon dioxide levels are increased from current levels to concentrations that are predicted for the year 2100. As the Harvard researchers acknowledge, people have been “dramatically” and “significantly” increasing their wealth and hence improving their diets for many years, so this small decline in the nutrients in some crops is hardly likely to cause a nutritional crisis. They also acknowledge that plant breeding, fertilizers, and new growing methods can more than compensate for the decline. However, the researchers decided to hold wealth, diets, and agricultural methods constant in their computer model, which resulted in their estimates about “millions” being harmed.
Trying to justify this bizarre view of the future, the Harvard researchers claim that “the aim of this study was not to predict the precise future health burden related to” higher levels of CO2. Oh yes it was! Then they say that, “Macroeconomic trends, environmental changes and the potential for adaptation make forecasting speculative.” Why then, we wonder, did they speculate?
This is what “climate science” has come to: an institution dedicated to promoting public health has created a scary story that supports a proposal to “redouble efforts to reduce CO2 emissions.” But that would require reducing the very fossil fuels that drive economic growth and hence human health in the poorest countries.
Life expectancy in Africa is in the low 60’s, just as it was in China before its fossil-fueled economic boom took it to 76 years of life today. Less than a third of African households have an electrical connection. Businesses across the continent suffer from black-outs and brown-outs, and so rely on highly-polluting diesel generators to meet orders. For the foreseeable future, only fossil fuels can power a reliable grid in Africa. Under pressure from the climate alarmist industry, the World Bank is no longer going to help African countries build coal and gas-fired power plants. Now there’s a real crisis in public health.
Dr. Craig D. Idso is an agronomist and climatologist. He is the chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and the principal adviser on plant productivity at the CO2 Coalition. Dr. Caleb S. Rossiter is a climate statistician and the executive director of the CO2 Coalition.
Welcome to the machine.
A mighty fine song – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AY09DJkQMY
I also liked Blood From A Stone (Giorgio Moroder’s 1984 Metropolis Soundtrack):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoFV6Sie_-U
and of course Freddie Mercury – Love Kills:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wnLuiSIymY
Also Pat Benatar – Here’s My Heart:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnL75jrSU9k
This Metropolis Soundtrack is incredible, worth looking for.
The Green New Deal for the African continent is for the Africans is to stay poor with intermittent power rather becoming more prosperous and living healthier lives. The progressives who support these heinous plans should face charges of crimes against humanity.
it is obvious that all the new train infrastructure, along with the electric car & other green industry will create new jobs & raise them up out of poverty.
it will boost our already booming economy … it is only common sense that it will be a much bigger boon to poor countries.
signed,
Don M
(for A. Ocasio-Cortez)
Problem is, all this “New” infrastructure requires Good Steel and Good Steel requires reliable power and High Temperatures to produce. Both Wind Power and Electric Automobiles require large quantities of Aluminum which also requires large ammounts of reliable electricity to produce. Something that either or both Solar and Wind Cannot produce reliably 24/7/365.
The only thing that Electric Cars will create job wise is… their manufacture will allow Poor countries to put their children into forced labor in polluted pits mining the needed rare earth minerals to produce the batteries to power the electric cars that they will be unable to afford.
Nice “tongue in cheek” post! Sad that so many are as educationally challenged as is the bar-tendress from New York! A study should be done on the brains of liberals… to try and discover why they are blind, to the unintended consequences of their theories!
Brooks wrote:
“The Green New Deal for the African continent is for the Africans is to stay poor with intermittent power rather becoming more prosperous and living healthier lives. The progressives who support these heinous plans should face charges of crimes against humanity.”
Well said Sir! I agree.
I wonder what the British Columbia Greenhouse Growers will say about producing veggies that Harvard School of Public Health claim is problematic?
And also Costco? The Company takes pride in, and promotes its image, providing healthy food. Have they been told?
2nd that. I make the same point repeatedly.
A substantial part of our vegetable supply already comes from greenhouses with artificially high (VERY HIGH!) levels of CO2 pumped into them, and its true all over the world, not just BC. Nobody is challenging the quality of food that comes out of those greenhouses because it is excellent and it would take very little for the greenhouse operators to prove it.
Hi davidhoffer, – I am curious to see any specific greenhouse operators “proof” their high CO2 grown crop has the same % protein, trace mineral(s) &/or carbohydrate/sugar as the same well watered/fertilized/temperature/light field grown crop has. In other words comparing the same plant (C3 vegetable) at ambient CO2 & greenhouse eCO2.
This is not to say I consider eCO2 grown food (ex: greenhouse crop) to be low quality, rather I suspect (based on quite a few reported eCO2 experiments) there will actually be differences in nutrient proportions. If you ( or any reader here) have found a direct comparison I would like to know about it.
There’s a reason why they use nutrients per unit volume instead of listing what the total amount of nutrients being produced per plant.
Agreed David and John!
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) maintains a nutrient database for foods.
No detectable nutrient differences between food means only one entry per food type.
Where companies are producing and selling prepared foods, e.g. “Organic Tomato Bisque”, USDA lists entries for each product by a company. Not because the food is labeled ‘Organic’
Searching for “greenhouse” or “hothouse” tomatoes yields no results.
Here is a generic search for tomatoes:
Before the global warming religion tainted science studies of high concentration CO₂ growth conditions were conducted.
Those studies that claimed reduced nutrition were most likely caused by research constraints where area for root mass was constrained or supplied growing media nutrients were not applied sufficiently high enough levels to match plant growth.
At least one study attempted to minimize nutrient uptake or root growth constraints; “ELEVATED ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE EFFECTS ON SORGHUM AND SOYBEAN NUTRIENT STATUS
‘Contribution of USDA-ARS in cooperation with the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station.
D. W. Reeves, H. H. Rogers, and S. A. Prior
USDA-ARS National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, P.O. Box 3439, Auburn, AL 36831-3439
C. W. Wood
Agronomy and Soils Department, Auburn University Alabama 36849-5412
G. B. Runion
School of Forestry, Auburn University, AL 36849-5412″
One of their findings?
Hi ATheoK, – 2,264 replicates at FACE elevated CO2 (eCO2) experiments on 130 species/cultivars are addressed 1st in regards to contradictory findings & confounding due to sample size by Loladze in (2014) “Hidden shift of the ionome of planta exposed to elevated CO2 depletes minerals at thebaseof human nutrition”; free full text available on-line.
I refer anyone interested to cited review’s Fig. 2 showing assorted mineral decreases, Fig. 4 showing mineral decreases in edible tissue, Fig. 5 showing mineral decreases in non-FACE design eCO2 experiments, Fig. 6 showing mineral decreases in FACE trials & Fig. 8 charting more related data.
Many times WUWT commentators dismiss research findings by declaring methodology spurious &/or fault the experimental design. I understand this/these can be relevant, but I rarely see such objections elaborated upon.
For me, I take the criteria used in a meta-analysis as reasonable enough &
reflecting the researchers’ good faith.
By the way the cited author Loladze also discusses current micro-nutrient deficiency using zinc as an example. Since already there is some mineral nutrient deficiency even in developed countries who are overweight the suggestion to eat more eCO2 food (to counter lower mineral content) runs up caloric intake that risks more weight gain.
Meanwhile, I am still looking for some direct comparison of greenhouse eCO2 edible (C3) plant portion’s nutrient breakdown to it’s ambient CO2 field edible portion. The USDA database does not get into this, nor does organic crops.
Yes, I did read your linked soybean & sorghum study. I could not find precise mineral nutrient comparisons for their soybean (which I think were nodulating, as opposed to non-nodulating) just averages, so will refer you back to Loladze’s explanation of contradictory findings.
However, I will add that I have seen a recent soybean eCO2 research report describing phosphorus fertilization (akin to your nutrient sufficiency) generally resolves soybean mineral levels. Lastly, sorghum is a C4 plant so, for brevity, will skip talking about it here.
The plant protein that converts CO2 to food is called Rubisco. With higher CO2 around the plant, it needs less rubisco to get the job done. Hence less protein and some other nutrients.
But what does the plant do with the resources this frees up? Almost certainly, the plant becomes richer in other micronutrients.
What effect does that have on mammalian well-being? I would love to see feeding studies with greenhouse plants grown under different CO2 levels. But the politics of alarmism pretty much guarantee falsified results that could take a century to correct. And that tortured “science” could kill a lot of people.
I MISS science. It was a search for Truth once upon a time.
LadyLifeGrows wrote:
“But the politics of alarmism pretty much guarantee falsified results that could take a century to correct. And that tortured “science” could kill a lot of people.”
Well said, but I must point out that “TORTURED SCIENCE” HAS ALREADY KILLED A LOT OF PEOPLE – the false science of socialists/greens has caused many millions of deaths to date.
I seriously question the motives of the entire cabal of socialists, Greens, global warming alarmists (aka warmists) etc. Their history is horrific and reprehensible.
It is clearly NOT about the environment or the well-being of humanity – almost everything they have done is anti-human AND anti-environmental.
In the 20th Century, socialists Stalin, Hitler and Mao caused the deaths of over 200 million people, mostly their own citizens. Lesser killers like Pol Pot and the many tin-pot dictators of South America and Africa killed and destroyed the lives of many more. Not all these people were murdered by psychopathic tyrants – many deaths in the FSU and China were caused by starvation and deprivation, due to the false agricultural science called Lysenkoism.
Modern Green Death probably started with the 1972-2002 effective ban of DDT, which caused global deaths from malaria to increase from about 1 million to almost two million per year. Most of these deaths were children under five in sub-Saharan Africa – just babies for Christ’s sake!
Warmists can take credit for the food-for-fuels fiasco, the clear-cutting of the rainforest to grow sugar cane for ethanol and palm oil for biodiesel, the rapid draining of the vital Ogallala aquifer for corn ethanol and biodiesel, bird-and-bat-chopping wind turbines, runaway energy costs and reduced grid reliability, increased winter mortality and similar social and environmental disasters.
The number of Excess Winter Deaths and shattered lives caused by runaway energy costs in the developed world and lack of access to modern energy in the developing world probably exceeds the tens of millions of malaria deaths caused by the DDT ban.
The best objective measure of scientific competence is the ability to predict. Note that every very-scary prediction by the warmists over past decades has FAILED to materialize. Nobody should believe anyone who has a PERFECTLY NEGATIVE PREDICTIVE TRACK RECORD.
Read Dr. Patrick Moore’s essay, “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement”, written in 1994, especially “The Rise of Eco-Extremism”
http://ecosense.me/2012/12/30/key-environmental-issues-4/
Patrick observed that Eco-extremism is the new “false-front” for political Marxists, who were discredited after the fall of the Soviet Union circa 1990 and took over the Green movement to further their political objectives. I have corresponded with Patrick on this essay and we both agree that he “nailed it”.
Regards, Allan
One only has to ask one question to understand these kinds of stories:
“Would these authors have been able to publish a negative result to the climate hustle?”( That is, tell a not scary story?)
In that simple question we see the dilemma facing today’s supposed “scientists” and “health experts” in academia (“extramural” research in the parlance) and in government intramural research.
They need grants to keep their jobs, to get tenure, to get raises, to be able to hire assistants, secretaries, technicians, statisticians, grow their research. The need grants to get more accolades from colleagues, to be a part of their institution’s glory of making the next “Who got a big grant” news article in the university publication.
Grants that come from making waves. Grants that require positive results to a scare story to get ever more grants. Grants that don’t come from negative results or nothing-to-see-here results.
========
(to the subject of nutrition in grains under climate change)
The stupid thing of course is simply to look at the common white flour we buy in the grocery store and every food maker now uses in their finished products (bread, pastries, pastas, noodles, etc). Flour of course comes from wheat. But flours in grocery stores are now “enriched” with B vitamins (folic acid, riboflavin, niacin, and thiamine), iron, and calcium. The flour makers have been doing this since at least the 1930’s, long before climate hustle took hold, or even rising CO2 levels became relevant to the hustle.
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_flour
So please, next time someone asks you about a increasing lack of trace nutrients in grains with climate change CO2 levels, please ask them to describe why fortified flour came about over 80 years ago.
Then Ask them why clean white rice from the UK led to B vitamin nutritional deficiencies in vegan Hindu men in Great Britain when it didn’t in their native India? (hint: bugs)
To be clear, vitamin deficiency has long been a clinical problem in India and other areas where strict diets are not supplemented with meats, fruits and veggies, foods rich in vitamin nutrients. Those subsisting on basic diets of common grains like rice and wheat must have nutrient supplementation, else the long observed history of BeriBeri, pernicious anemia, and other B vitamin deficiencies (skin rashes, malaise, etc) will be observed. Climate Change not required.
Joel,
You might be confusing enriched with fortified. The wikipedia article you link to defines enrichment as being the process of putting back in the nutrients that processing takes out. There is an entire industry devoted to conning people twice — first by taking the nutrients out of the processed food and the selling people supplements that they wouldn’t need if only they ate unprocessed food. Fortified floor has extra minerals in it the main one being folic acid to stop birth defects.
Similarly people eating unprocessed rice (aka brown rice) get the vitamins they need including vitamin B.
enriched or fortified. A distinction without a difference.
Add in nutrients the basic grains lack. Even simply eating Duram wheat grains will lead to a B vitamin deficiency (BeriBeri), just not as quickly as white flour. This was recognized 80 years ago.
British sailors go the name “Limeys” for their quest for Central American lime juice to take in casks to consume on long ocean voyages to avoid scurvy. And protein is needed to avoid to prevent Kwashiorkor Disease.
My point is that nutrient supplementation of any basic grain diet (with meats, fruits, colorful veggies) has always been necessary. Climate Change scam not required.
“Trump’s Pick to Head the World Bank Signals Move Away From Funding Misguided ‘Green’ Projects”
Didn’t we just see that article on the 12th?
Yes, this may be about to change .
Original Post is being snide about researchers acknowledging factors which might affect their projections when editorializes “… why … did they speculate….” WUWT readers can read on-line the free full research text (via yandex browser at least) itself titled: “Impact of Antropogenic CO2 emissions on global human nutrition.”
Researchers assessed over 200 different foods & considered the impact of diferent foods eaten in different regions. They identify regional risk potentials.
Acknowledging animal derived foods intake off sets elevated CO2 (eCO2) nutrient dilution of C3 crops & where C4 grain crops predominate the authors highlight their risk prediction. In other words they are most concerned with cultures mostly eating vegetable foods (inc. C3 grains).
Thus the report assesses the nutritional impact of eCO2 is more concern in India, China, Middle East, Africa & S.E. Asia. With the lowest income populations there most vulnerable eCO2 crop reductions in zinc, iron & protein.
For example Table 1 of the cited study finds India will have the greatest % (2.6-3.2%) increase of zinc deficiency under eCO2; followed by Central Asia/N.Africa/Middle East % (2.5-2.9%) inc. of zinc deficiency under eCO2. If interested in other regions check the data there.
As for protein under eCO2 again cited Table 1 shows India will have the greatest % (1.5-3.1%) increase of protein deficiency; followed by South Asia % (1.1-2.5%) inc. of protein deficiency unser eCO2. Other regions’ data is given if interested.
I am skipping examples of iron from Table 1 for brevity. While will close pointing out that O.P. hypes the cited study “… threaten Africans health …” while Africa is not in the top 2 regions vulnerable to protein deficiency (under eCO2) & only North Africa is projected to be the second most vulnerable to zinc deficiency (under eCO2).
The OP also highlighted that the researchers held income and other factors constants in their analysis – factors that would greatly improve, totally offsetting trivial and error-bar levels of supposedly decreasing nutrition. They shafted the poor in the world to subsidize corn (causing all grain prices to rise dramatically), and now they warn them against upgrading their systems to modern and cheap coal or natural gas to keep them from enjoying bumper crops that don’t need any help from Monsanto. SHAME on them!
Hi JimG, – if you read the actual research you will see they specify the lowest income population with traditional C3 plant based diets are who have issues to eCO2 related nutrient dilution. The O.P. does not link to the free full text & takes license playing to sensationalism.
The actual report is not telling anybody not to upgrade, or particularly concerned with corn (C4 plant grain). It is the O.P. that drags in talking points of strategy.
There is no “supposedly decreasing nutrition” from eCO2 grown crops in terms of trace minerals & protein. This is not to say that among different crops (& cultivars of the same crop) these nutritional composites are not uniform (ie: error bars should be understood to reflect variable experimental tactics, not negation of eCO2 trends).
I read through your comment twice, and I have no idea what your point was. Something about zinc deficiency?
But zinc is a common metal that can easily be supplemented. Simple knowledge. Like a polio vaccine. Or a B vitamin supplementation.
The basic problem for world hunger is not nutrients. Vitamin an minerals supplements can be delivered easily. It is basic daily calories that defines starvation and hunger in the world. Yes, protein is important too. But that has *zero* to do with grains with diminished nutrients grown under elevated CO2 levels. People and especially the children need protein. Protein that comes from eggs, milk and meat to build their brains. The science is quite clear on that point about adequate protein and CNS development in children.
Maybe that explains AO-C?
Hi J. O’Bryan, – I encourage you to read the actual report & not just the O.P. gripe(s) about it. You will see the authors address the current failure attempting to remedy zinc deficiency in certain regions & where the authors consider this in terms of eCO2 related zinc decline in plants. Extrapolating from the existance of supplements is logical for many of us, however it is lineal thinking to assume “we” can definitely get everyone consuming zinc supplements.
If I read your 2nd paragraph correctly you dismiss (“zero”) the % of grain protein decrease under eCO2; maybe your phrasing is mixing me up. The study specifies they
take into account those with traditional & economic means to get animal derived foods (eggs,milk,meat you mention) ; with the clear statement they are less concerned in that/those cases about eCO2 nutrient dilution in plants (C3).
And the authors address the suggestion people should eat more of the more abundant food matter eCO2 creates in order to compensate for lower protein, zinc & iron content in food. They state this is a strategy with the potential to be a factor fostering weight gain that is undesirable.
In earlier WUWT threads I pointed out that eCO2 increases the carbohydrate (& “sugar”) content of many crops; doing so in multiples of the reductions in minerals & protein. Thus eating more eCO2 plants/grains (C3) to get more of the eCO2 decreased nutrients will disproportionally involve increased carbohydrate intake.
Caloric deficit relationship to hunger is a different context than caloric starvation. I will agree eCO2 boost in edible crop biomass is good for more caloric value. This is not what the cited research was about however; nor does eCO2 yields have anything to do with the politics/supply of caloric food to everybody.
My point was/is the O.P. down played the research & used the fact it’s scenarios are considering eCO2 to make their own (the O.P.’s) polemical reasoning(s) appear more valid. The O.P. hails eCO2 as making the earth greener, without explaining what that means for human C3 crops (ie: more total biomass, yet dry weight partitioning of carbon more to roots/stems which may not be the part eaten; & also more grain, yet with lower % protein plus varied amini acid profiles; & also more “anti-oxidants”, yet less % of trace minerals that are metabolic co-factors; & more carbohydrate/”sugars” content, yet not necessarily more resistant starch our colon benefits from).
I have no problem with eCO2, nor wish to alter our climate. My interest here is scientific & then considering implications of eCO2 research, which cited research tried to qualify (while O.P. merely tried to invalidate using quantity).
Gringojay,
All this speculation is pointless. Use common sense. The big picture here is if rising CO2 has any affect on plant nutrition, it is very minor, and can be compensated for with fertilizers or other methods, or just ignored. You are looking for a problem where there isn’t one.
h.e. Birtwistle, – If you so far have not liked my comments consider the following. In 1997 research by Senewera et al. found elevated CO2 reduced iron in rice by 17% & reduced zinc by 28%.
Since rice is a major nutritional component in many countries it seems negligent if this is “just ignored.” As there already in 2019 exists zinc deficiency in many people a 28% reduction in a staple food is not “very minor”.
Compensation “with fertilizers or other methods” is at present something we can not guarantee is an option outside of the relatively wealthy commercial farming ventures. Gringolandia (a developing country) neighbors with small parcels are already stretched financially for obtaining fertilizer/insecticide during the growing season & in light of this long running issue(s) projecting an elevated CO2 plant matter increase will guarantee profitability is ”speculation”.
2011 zinc deficiency risk was for 1.1 billion people, down from 1.2 billion people in 1992. In 2011 the risk of zinc deficiency in Africa was 25 +/-20%; in Americas was 7 +/-10%; in Asia was 17+/- 14 ; in Europe 3 +/- 2% & Oceania 2% +/-0%. Source available if anyone wants it.
The 45% increase in CO2 is not due to fossil fuels. It is mostly natural. Even if we stopped all emissions, CO2 levels would continue to increase.
Tell them again, …… and again, …….. I would but I stutter. 😊
The reader has to distinguish between 2 ‘bad’ effects of trace element changes in food.
The first case is when CO2 enhancement dilutes trace element concentrations by increases in the mass of the major food components. One can weave a story claiming that yields overall go up by (say) 5%, but trace elents do not go up in proportion, so the new food is 5% more deficient in trace elements – with the inference that this is bad.
The second case is that some people in a population are deficient in a particular trace element; and that a decrease in the concentration of that element in customary food leads to more illness. This is the serious case in a debating sense, but in a real sense it is not so serious because supplements are known technology.
There is no convincing argument against CO2 enhancement of food growth. Not one has any weight.
More attention is needed for the Sherrington tooth syndrome. Enhanced teeth growth from higher ambient CO2 is visible in most Millenniums and those a decade older. In ways shown by chimpanzees and the like, large tooth displays indicate agression and can lead to non-optimum communal decisions.
Well-fed populations like those in some USA States, are seeing this tooth display in people like AOCortez, and are at risk of poor communal decisions – that is, if your own large toothed offspring allow you to think this way.
Geoff
Yes, wheat, rice, produce more carbo hydrate, so lower in nutrients. But most of us discard those nutrients anyway because eat white rice, and pasta.
So this study is deeply flawed.
Well, CO is dangerous…. when it comes frothing out of a nearby anoxic lake that has an overturn event…
Yet again I see those dreaded words, Ä computer model”
Don’t we know how to analize things such as a plant without having to write a computer programme. Remember GIGO.
Le us get back to how we did things before the PC. We somehow managed.
MJE
The NASA video claims current CO2 levels have not been seen in 500,000 years. That is a BS claim since we do not have sufficiently high resolution data to make such claims about the distant past.
The last 50y is a blip on paleo map. Such claims are unjustifiable bunk from the alarmist camp.
+42×1042
Particularly since every method of estimating pre-instrumental CO2 except Antarctic ice cores indicates that atmospheric CO2 routinely exceeded 300-350 ppm, even occasionally topping 400 ppm.
The instrumental record (MLO) doesn’t even break out of the Cenozoic noise level.
Well ….. SURPTISE, …… SURPRISE, ……. that the guesstimated quantity of CO2 sequestered in Antarctic ice cores, …. just by a sheer stroke of luck and a lot of fancy fingerwork, ….. pretty much correlates exactly with all the other “climate expertly” derived CO2 proxies.
Ice core research gives NEW meaning to …….. “squeezing the truth out”.
File this under: Turning ourselves into a pretzel to make our work fit the narrative.
I’m doubting my previous long held understanding that fossil fuel CO2 is well defined….even that science seems less settled these days. Maybe the growth is far more natural than our hubris suggests.
Excerpted from article:
Well now, fossil records prove the above stated “risk” is exactly correct.
Prior to 252 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 began a horrific increase, ….. which triggered a horrific increase in green-growing biomass (herbivore food), ……. which triggered a horrific increase in the numbers and sizes of herbivore dinosaurs, ……. which triggered a horrific increase in the numbers and sizes of predator dinosaurs, ……. and all the dinosaurs were happy n’ fat n’ eatin good.
But then that CO2 level “risk” hit the dinosaurs bout as hard as an asteroid “strike” when its atmospheric quantity dropped below 1,000 ppm at about 66 million years ago causing the green-growing biomass to QUIT growing so fast ……… and all them big ole dinosaurs started starving to death.
First the herbivore dinosaurs ran out of food and died …… and then the predator dinosaurs ran out of food and died, ……. and then the “meek” animals inherited the earth.
Samuel C Cogar February 19, 2019 at 4:37 am
But then that CO2 level “risk” hit the dinosaurs bout as hard as an asteroid “strike” when its atmospheric quantity dropped below 1,000 ppm at about 66 million years ago causing the green-growing biomass to QUIT growing so fast ……… and all them big ole dinosaurs started starving to death.
___________________________________________________
It WAS a asteroid:
https://www.google.com/search?q=kt+grenze+dinosaurier&oq=kt+grenze&aqs=chrome.
Johann Wundersamer – February 19, 2019 at 6:57 am
You wish …….. it was an asteroid, ……. then you wouldn’t have to re-program your subconscious mind by storing the “correct” info into the DNA of a brain neuron and synaptically “linking” it to associated data for easy recall.
That “dino-killing” asteroid strike you insinuated in the above …… is nothing more than a dumb aresed guess of a “natural event” that maybe shoulda, coulda, woulda, probably put a “hurtin” on dinosaurs living near the equator iffen it had actually happened, …….. but surely not those residing in the higher latitudes of both the NH and SH.
Johann W, ……. iffen it had been a colossal asteroid “strike” in the Gulf of Mexico that caused the demise of the dinosaurs over the course of 20 or 30mya, …… then near-surface temperatures would have been drastically reduced along with reduced atmospheric CO2 ….. but temps remained unchanged as denoted on THIS PROXY GRAPH
Dust particulate in the atmosphere from such an asteroid strike would cause BIG temperature decrease.
The movement to control CO2 emissions is really the movement to impose socialism on nature. Check and mate.
“The fossil-fuel-driven 45 percent increase in CO2 levels since 1900 from a bit less than three percent of one percent of the atmosphere to a bit more than four percent of one percent has increased plant growth”
Because this article was written to counter the misinformation about loss of nutrition in increased CO2 growing environments, the authors included this erroneous statement from the heart of the warmists play book. In reality human induced CO2 is a bit player in the recent rise of atmospheric CO2 (Harde 2017) and those who write about the skeptical view of global warming should stop repeating it. There are several good analyses of the relation of human emissions and the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere (https://tambonthongchai.com/ ) is a good start.
I have not heard from any master gardeners or greenhouse specialists. When many commercials seeds are designed for production some nutrients and flavor dissipates. Tomatoes is a great example of having ethylene reduced for slower ripening, but has reduced flavor. Such as paying for a vine weight with tomatoes does not make the tomatoes vine ripened. Once the you cut the vine from its nutrients it is no longer vine ripe. Tomatoes are just about finished when the outer layer begin to turn its color. I keep my large compost pile next to my garden to increase CO2 near crops while waiting for compost to complete it’s cycle. Plant nutrients are based on soil conditions and fertilization. If nutrients are not in the ground they will not be in the crops.
Oh yes, the relation of human emissions and CO2 growth is very clear. I´m skeptical about the warming part of this hysteria. If the claim is global warming, I´m waiting for it.
Craig D. Idso and Caleb S. Rossiter said:
“So, it is perhaps not surprising that the alarmist industry – which usually spends its time and effort publicizing computer models that have significantly over-predicted both the warming effect of carbon dioxide and the climate changes that result — has started to claim that there are costs to crops, and not just benefits, from these rising carbon dioxide levels.”
How dare they! Damn socialists.
“Field experiments have long shows that a few crops deliver perhaps five to ten percent less zinc, iron, and protein per unit when carbon dioxide levels are increased from current levels to concentrations that are predicted for the year 2100.”
Uhh……. Didn’t you just criticize them for saying that?
And “a few crops”… Which ones? If it’s something that not many people eat, or at least not many poor people, then it’s still good to know, but may not matter much.
If one of them is rice however, a great many people living in poverty may be effected.
“As the Harvard researchers acknowledge, people have been “dramatically” and “significantly” increasing their wealth and hence improving their diets for many years, so this small decline in the nutrients in some crops is hardly likely to cause a nutritional crisis.”
And many people are still living in poverty with no dramatic improvement in sight. It’s pretty weak to just seclare that because people have been dramatically and significantly increasing their wealth, that this decrease in nutrients doesn’t matter. How many are wealthy enough that the changes in nutrients won’t matter to them? How many are poor enough that they will be effected? Is it the poorest who rely on rice who are the most likely to have problems?
“They also acknowledge that plant breeding, fertilizers, and new growing methods can more than compensate for the decline. However, the researchers decided to hold wealth, diets, and agricultural methods constant in their computer model, which resulted in their estimates about “millions” being harmed.”
Can. Lots of things can be done if you’ve got money. Are you assuming that what can be done with money will be done everywhere?
From the abstract:
“Regions at highest risk—South and Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East—require extra precautions to sustain an already tenuous advance towards improved public health.”
Unfortunately what could have been an informative skeptical analysis of this paper looking at it weaknesses, and what we can learn from it, ends up being a page and a bit of ideologically motivated politicking.
And, thanks to gringojay for actually providing some skeptical insight into the issues.
Isn’t the Harvard School of Medicine the outfit that Michael Bloomberg purchased?
John Hopkins Bloomberg Medical School named 2001 honoring donations of US$2.9 billion; not purchase is probably what you mean.