Life on Earth was nearly doomed by too little CO2

July 2, 2017

Say it after me, folks: “Carbon dioxide is plant food, not a demon to be feared.”

Watts Up With That?

During the last ice age, too little atmospheric carbon dioxide almost eradicated mankind

Guest Essay by Dennis T. Avery

Aside from protests by Al Gore, Leonardo Di Caprio and friends, the public didn’t seem to raise its CO2 anguish much above the Russians-election frenzy when Trump exited the Paris Climate Accords.

Statistician Bjorn Lomborg had already pointed out that the Paris CO2 emission promises would cost $100 trillion dollars that no one has, and make only a 0.05 degree difference in Earth’s 2100 AD temperature. Others say perhaps a 0.2 degree C (0.3 degrees F) difference, and even that would hold only in the highly unlikely event that all parties actually kept their voluntary pledges.

What few realize, however, is that during the last Ice Age too little CO2 in the air almost eradicated mankind. That’s when much-colder water in oceans (that were 400 feet shallower than today) sucked most…

View original post 1,075 more words


Hawkesbury River Study: CO2 improves tree growth, drought tolerance

October 17, 2015

Yet another example of how increasing CO2 (aka “plant food”) is actually good for the Earth, the cult of Climastrology notwithstanding.

Watts Up With That?

Hawkesbury River, NSW, Australia - Uploaded by berichard, Author maarjaara - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hawkesbury_River_1.jpg Hawkesbury River, NSW, Australia – Uploaded by berichard,
Author maarjaara – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hawkesbury_River_1.jpg

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to Belinda Medlyn, a theoretical ­biologist with Western Sydney University, trees exposed to enhanced CO2, in the gigantic open air Hawkesbury River climate study, grow 35% faster than their neighbours in the control group.

“Either they’re getting more carbon for the same amount of water, or they’re getting the same amount of carbon but using less water.”

Since 2012, the researchers have pumped extra CO2into three of six basketball court-sized rings of 80-year-old bush. This has raised the CO2 concentration in the three plots to about 550 parts per million, up from the ambient level of 400 ppm.

Measurements revealed that for each unit of water absorbed, the trees in the CO2-enriched rings reaped 35 per cent more carbon than the trees in the control plots.

Read more: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/trees-reap-benefits-ofnbspclimate-change/story-e6frg8y6-1227572132164

The abstract…

View original post 455 more words


Another benefit of climate change and increased CO2 – trees continue to grow at a faster rate

September 17, 2014

CO2: it’s not a demon threatening to destroy the Earth — it’s just plant food.

Watts Up With That?

WUWT readers may recall this WUWT story from 2011: The Earth’s biosphere is booming, data suggests that CO2 is the cause, part 2

Image: data from SEAWIFS showing vegetation chlorophyll and change. Source: http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/BACKGROUND/Gallery/ Image: data from SEAWIFS showing vegetation chlorophyll and change. Source: http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/BACKGROUND/Gallery/

Now there is even more evidence. From From Technische Universität München: Study highlights forest growth trends from 1870 to the present- Global change: Trees continue to grow at a faster rate

“…scientists are putting the growth acceleration down to rising temperatures and the extended growing season. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen are other factors contributing to the faster growth.”

Cynthia Schäfer and Eric Thurm, doctoral candidates at the Chair for Forest Growth and Yield, take a growth ring sample from an experimental plot tree. Cynthia Schäfer and Eric Thurm, doctoral candidates at the Chair for Forest Growth and Yield, take a growth ring sample from an experimental plot tree.
Cynthia Schäfer and Eric Thurm, doctoral candidates at the Chair for Forest Growth and Yield, take a growth ring sample from an experimental plot tree. (Photo: L. Steinacker / TUM)

17.09.2014,  Research news

Trees have been growing significantly faster since the 1960s. The typical development phases of trees and stands have barely changed, but they have…

View original post 891 more words


Saving the planet takes your breath away

December 1, 2009

Literally. The head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, has declared that regulating carbon emissions may not be enough to save the Earth from catastrophic climate change. We must remove carbon from the air itself!

Carbon must be sucked from air, says IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri

In an interview with The Times, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), proposed that new techniques should be applied to help to mop up atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide that have been pumped into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.

“There are enough technologies in existence to allow for mitigation,” he said. “At some point we will have to cross over and start sucking some of those gases out of the atmosphere.”

Speaking days before the start of the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, Dr Pachauri, who collected the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC with Al Gore, said that such a strategy needed to be pursued as a matter of urgency.

The Indian scientist, 69, also said that the target adopted by the 192 governments that are due to attend the conference, of restricting average global temperature rises to less than 2C (3.6F), may be insufficient to prevent catastrophic warming impacts such as a rise in sea levels of between 0.5m and 1.4m (1.6ft and 4.6ft) and enough to devastate many coastal cities around the world such as Shanghai, Calcutta and Dhaka. Instead, he said, a 1.5C rise was a safer target.

Dr Pachauri raised the prospect of so-called geo-engineering, whereby carbon dioxide is actively stripped from the atmosphere. A range of techniques have been proposed including seeding artificial clouds over oceans to reflect sunlight back into space, sowing the oceans with iron ore to boost plankton growth and using carbon capture and storage technology to fix emissions from power stations.

Right. So to deal with a “crisis” that now has every indication of being created by green statists in government and their hysteria-pimp enablers at CRU and other institutes of “higher learning,” we not only have to cripple the most productive economies in the world that have created the highest standard of living humanity has ever seen, we must re-engineer the atmosphere itself!

They laughed me in Vienna, the fools!

So, who is this Pachauri guy, anyway, besides being the head of the IPCC and the man who would save us from carbon dioxide? Why, he’s also the Great and Powerful Oz trusted scientist who assures us there is no problem with research at CRU. None at all. Nothing to see here. Move along:

“The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report,” he told The Guardian.

(…)

“So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening.”

(via The Jawa Report)

Transparent, eh? No possibility, says he? Oh, really?

Anyway, back to Dr. Lizardo’s Pachauri’s suggestions, perhaps he needs to review the literature on plants and the oceans as carbon sinks, since the balance between airborne and absorbed CO2 has hardly changed since 1850. If there is no excess of carbon in the atmosphere, then there is no need for great, big devices to scrub the atmosphere, or huge government programs to build them – or aging Indian scientists anxious to get their hands on research grants to design those devices, grants that would be funded by the taxes those governments would have to impose.

Lord, save me from the people who would save me.

(via Heliogenic Climate Change)


Lying or just ignorant?

September 23, 2009

President Obama read from his teleprompter before the United Nations General Assembly today. As you’d expect from the head of state of a powerful country, his speech contained many important and interesting statements. Some of them may even have dealt with reality. Among those that didn’t, however, was this whopper:

“I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history.”

It wouldn’t be an Obama speech without some attempt to make himself look good by misrepresenting the record of his predecessor. The plain fact is that the President’s statement is a lie. Whether born of ignorance or intent, I don’t know, but a lie it is. The truth is the United States in 2005 and 2006, working through the private sector and in ad-hoc partnerships with other nations and under the eeeevvviiillll, Gaea-murdering BushChimpHitler and Darth Cheney regime reduced carbon dioxide emissions without relying on the liberal internationalist statism beloved by the watermelon crowd and their dupes. That is, through pro-growth policies that didn’t require degrading lifestyles or crippling economies, but instead emphasized new technologies and the intelligent exploitation of natural resources.

The Anchoress has the full scoop. Be sure to read her post.

And if I may recommend a good book….

Perhaps I should buy the President a copy.

ADDENDUM: No, I’m not endorsing the idea that CO2 results in global warming climate change. My opinion is unchanged: the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is incorrect, verging on scientific fraud. My concern here was with the cock-and-bull story the President told.