Posted on 09/23/2014 7:19:42 AM PDT by Kaslin
resident Obama will attend a United Nations climate summit in New York this week where he will try to gather support for an international agreement to curb emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), which he labels as carbon pollution. This could not be further from the truth. Talk with most any biologist or botanist and you will find an opposite perspective, one in which CO2 is the elixir of life.
We all learned in primary school that atmospheric CO2 is the building block of plant life, the primary raw material that they utilize during the process of photosynthesis. As demonstrated in literally thousands of laboratory and field studies, the more of that food there is, the better they grow.
In general, rising atmospheric CO2 endows plants with three major benefits, the most recognized of which is enhanced plant productivity. Typically, a 300 parts per million (ppm) increase in the air’s CO2 content (such an increase over pre-industrial values is expected to occur by the end of this century) will raise the productivity of most herbaceous plants by about one-third and most woody plants by about one-half. This is manifested by more branches, leaves, roots, flowers and fruit.
A second major benefit is increased water use efficiency. Plants exposed to elevated levels of CO2 need less water to produce the same, or an even greater mass, than they do at lower concentrations. Finally, higher levels of CO2 reduce detrimental growth effects of certain environmental stresses and resource limitations, including high and low air temperature, ozone pollution, low levels of soil fertility, and pest attacks.
These three features of rising atmospheric CO2 greatly benefit the biosphere and show that the world’s vegetation will reap a tremendous advantage in the years and decades to come. And based on a multitude of observations, the future is now! Data unequivocally show that the biosphere is experiencing a great surge in growth, likely due in large measure to the approximate 40 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 that has occurred since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Observations from satellites demonstrate an increase in plant mass of 6–13 percent since the 1980s. Annual carbon uptake by plants has doubled from about 2.4 billion tons in 1960 to 5.0 billion tons in 2010. This planetary greening occurred in spite of the many assaults by both man and nature on planetary vegetation over this time period, including fires, disease, pest outbreaks, deforestation, and variability in temperature and precipitation. That the biosphere experienced any productivity improvement, let alone a doubling, is truly amazing, and it demonstrates in part the powerful impact rising CO2 is exerting on global vegetation.
Perhaps most important are the benefits of the historical and still-ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content on past, present, and future crop yields. According to one recent study, rising CO2 concentrations enhanced the value of global crop production over the past 50 years with a staggering value of $3.2 trillion. In the future, an additional $9.8 trillion in monetary gains are likely to accrue in response to the projected upward rise in atmospheric CO2 between now and 2050.
Sadly, too little attention is paid to the proven benefits of enhanced atmospheric CO2 in lieu of too much attention focused on the rather murky matter of CO2-induced climate change. Despite climate model projections leading to popular claims of rapid warming, over the past 18 years there has been no net increase in global temperature even as the air’s CO2 content has risen by 8 percent. Coupled with slower-than-expected warming are less-than-expected negative impacts. All things considered together, it is not inconceivable, that, in net, the benefits of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide may outweigh the costs for years to come.
Contrary to misguided assertions, political correctness, and government edicts, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It’s a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas essential to nearly all life on earth. Our president would do well to consider this at the UN’s climate summit.
The Carbon Cycle used to taught in high school biology. Perhaps the new Common Core curriculum leaves that out.
Anyone who paid attention in 4th grade should know that.
I’ve heard the justification for the Global Warming hoax as
“if we admit that there is no global warming, people will pollute”.
Sarcasm tag added with extreme prejudice!!!
OK look. I’m not at all taking a “there is horrible global warming and we’re going to die” position here, but this is perhaps the most ignorant article I’ve ever read. Of COURSE there are benefits to CO2. Pretzels are made with lye. There is cyanide in apple seeds. But it doesn’t mean any are harmless.
But CO2 in high concentrations is toxic and WILL KILL YOU. Making it sound like cool tea on a hot Southern day is stupid and dangerous.
Townhall, or whatever it is, needs a thorough review of who writes for it as I see a large raft of ignorance emanating from it. That is not a political position but a factual one.
Unbelievable.
The problem with this article is that SCOTUS ruled that CO2 is a pollutant.
The original pollution (hundreds of millions of years ago) was oxygen. It was caused by the explosive, world-wide plant and algae reproduction and growth because of the CO2 rich atmosphere. Everything was fine for millions of years until the plants put out so much oxygen it poisoned their own environment. Then all those oxygen breathing life forms developed.
What I find unbelievable are people who think CO2 is rising to harmful levels.
But CO2 in high concentrations is toxic and WILL KILL YOU.
So much for your not taking the "we're all going to die" position. If that was your intent, you failed in the 2nd paragraph.
Heck, water in high concentrations WILL KILL YOU. So will most other things.
Yep. We were taught carbon-DI-oxide was good and carbon- MON-oxide was bad.
Read the 1971 letter from Hillary to Alinsky and you’ll see just how stupid these liberals are. They cannot think for themselves. They must be TOLD what to think, what is true, etc. They can’t look it up and learn it on their own. And not only the voters, but the ones the voters vote for, too.
Plant more trees.
I love the fact that “carbon pollution” is neither “carbon” nor “pollution”
I'm doing my part. I have a nice, big, CO2-spewing compost pile. So many of us Greenies do!
They are not content with murdering only animal life forms, now they want to kill plants!
I used that in a discussion with a liberal young teacher, who my daughter was dating. He was horrified to hear I did not recycle, I told him I am balancing my no recycling and driving an suv by tending to 160 acres of trees that are sucking up all my CO2 emissions and yours and hundreds of others, do I get any credit for that?
“Heck, water in high concentrations WILL KILL YOU.”
Is that the same thing as dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO)?
Knew a man who died from drinking that stuff. It was a case of internal drowning.
Normal background levels are 250-350 ppm.
A normal room with adequate ventilation is usually between 350-1000 ppm.
Workplace requirements limit someone to 5,000 ppm in an 8 hr period.
Environuts are screaming about 400 ppm.
Yes, too much CO2 is deadly. But to get to those levels in an open atmosphere would be near impossible.
Most things in "high concentrations is toxic" will kill you. The war against CO2 is BS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.