Debate Now Maybe We Need More CO2 and Not Less?

[Foxfyre]

Patrick Moore, PhD, co-founder of Greenpeace and one of the more outspoken critics of the IPPC concentration on CO2 as the catalyst of climate change rather than looking at all the causes of climate change, has become one of the more controversial authorities on the subject. His reasons for being a climate change skeptic include his belief that we have too little CO2 in the atmophere rather than too much.

He even suggests that humankind pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere may be extremely beneficial.

Excerpted from his Heartland essay published this week:

. . .By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.

The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled. . .

. . .Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising. . .

. . .Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?. . .
Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic Heartlander Magazine​

The OP presumes no endorsement or criticism of Dr. Moore's argument. Certainly he has substantial critics, but almost everybody does who swims against the popular tide. The purpose of this discussion is to explore whether his argument has merit.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic and relate opinions and observations as much as possible to the stated thread topic.

2. No ad hominem re persons, political parties, ideologies, or other members. Criticize or comment on the argument made and not the character or intent of those making it.

3. Links are not required to express your own opinion. If you post excerpts from or links to other sources, you must in your own words give a brief summary of what the content is and what you expect others to learn from the source.

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:

Does Dr. Moore's argument have merit as expressed in #1 and #2 below?

1. The IPPC should be required to investigate all possible causes of climate change instead of concentrating on anthropogenic CO2 emissions or it should be disbanded.

2. CO2 is essential to life on Earth as we know it and we would benefit from more, not less, of it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Patrick Moore, PhD, co-founder of Greenpeace

Patrick Moore background information Greenpeace International

Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace
Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace's response are available here (PDF).​

The OP begins with a canard that was easily disproved by the very organization that he lies about "co-founding". Fact checking credentials is how a structured discussion determines credibility.

 

[Derideo_Te]

His reasons for being a climate change skeptic

His reasons are because he is paid lobbyist for the Energy special interests who are attempting to deceive the populace just as the Tobacco special interests did in the past. The evidence to substantiate this can be found at this website with fully researched references.

Patrick Moore background information Greenpeace International

Patrick Moore is a Paid Spokesperson for the Nuclear Industry
In April 2006, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the principal lobby for the nuclear industry, launched the Clean And Safe Energy Coalition and installed former Bush Administration EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and Mr. Moore as its co-chairs. The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition was part of a public relations project spearheaded by the public relations giant Hill & Knowlton as part of its estimated $8 million contract with the nuclear industry.(1)

Patrick Moore Has Provided Inaccurate Information on Nuclear Power
In 2004, Mr. Moore published an article in the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) journal entitled "Nuclear Re-think." According to Mr. Moore, "Three Mile Island was a success story. The concrete containment structure did as it was designed to do: it prevented radiation from escaping into the environment."(2)

Contrary to Mr. Moore's claim, the damaged reactor spewed radiation into the environment for days. It appears that Mr. Moore didn't even bother to check his facts. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's fact sheet on Three Mile Island (TMI) acknowledges that the meltdown resulted in "a significant release of radiation…"(3)
​

 

[Derideo_Te]

Does Dr. Moore's argument have merit as expressed in #1 and #2 below?

1. The IPPC should be required to investigate all possible causes of climate change instead of concentrating on anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

2. CO2 is essential to life on Earth as we know it and we would benefit from more, not less, of it.

Having established that Dr Moore lacks credibility let's take the two OP questions next.

Dr Moore testified before Congress on the subject of CO2 and he lied to them which is a felony.

Quark Soup by David Appell Dr. Patrick Moore Just Misled Congress

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2014
Dr. Patrick Moore Just Misled Congress

He said, among other misleading statements:
Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.' How do I know Moore purposely misled Congress? Because I corrected him on exactly this point on Twitter a few months ago. And he simply ignored all that science.

It is true that an ice age occurred about 450 million years ago -- the Ordovician–Silurian ice age.

But little is known about CO2 levels at that time -- as I pointed out to Moore on Twitter -- and what's even more significant is that the Sun was weaker than by about 4%. And the continents were in different places, meaning the planet's albedo was very different from today.

Moore ignored all this in order to pretend that the O-S ice age means CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas.

The Sun's irradiance increases by about 1% every 110 million years. (See the top equation on page 4 here, orPierrehumbert's textbook pg 12 equation 1.1.) So 450 million years ago there was about 54 W/m2 less sunlight impinging on the top of Earth's atmosphere.​

From that article is readily apparent that Dr Moore lacks credibility on the subject of CO2 and should not be taken as an expert on anything except what it means to be a paid shill for the Energy special interests.

So no, we don't need more CO2 based upon the lone opinion of someone who is known to lie about his credentials and to lie to Congress.

Next!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Patrick Moore, PhD, co-founder of Greenpeace and one of the more outspoken critics of the IPPC concentration on CO2 as the catalyst of climate change rather than looking at all the causes of climate change, has become one of the more controversial authorities on the subject. His reasons for being a climate change skeptic include his belief that we have too little CO2 in the atmophere rather than too much.

He even suggests that humankind pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere may be extremely beneficial.

Excerpted from his Heartland essay published this week:

. . .By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.

The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled. . .

. . .Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising. . .

. . .Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?. . .
Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic Heartlander Magazine​

The OP presumes no endorsement or criticism of Dr. Moore's argument. Certainly he has substantial critics, but almost everybody does who swims against the popular tide. The purpose of this discussion is to explore whether his argument has merit.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic and relate opinions and observations as much as possible to the stated thread topic.

2. No ad hominem re persons, political parties, ideologies, or other members. Criticize or comment on the argument made and not the character of intent of those making it.

3. Links are not required to express your own opinion. If you post excerpts from or links to other sources, you must in your own words give a brief summary of what the content is and what you expect others to learn from the source.

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:

Does Dr. Moore's argument have merit as expressed in #1 and #2 below?

1. The IPPC should be required to investigate all possible causes of climate change instead of concentrating on anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

2. CO2 is essential to life on Earth as we know it and we would benefit from more, not less, of it.

Does the OP believe that the argument has merit?

 

[Decus]

The article in question refers to the uptake of carbon dioxide and its impact on plant growth. Here there seems to be little doubt that carbon dioxide enhances growth in both agriculture and forestry. One example of the tracking of accelerated forest growth published in 2010:

"Using a unique dataset of tree biomass collected over the past 22 years from 55 temperate forest plots with known land-use histories and stand ages ranging from 5 to 250 years, we found that recent biomass accumulation greatly exceeded the expected growth caused by natural recovery. We have also collected over 100 years of local weather measurements and 17 years of on-site atmospheric CO2 measurements that show consistent increases in line with globally observed climate-change patterns."

Evidence for a recent increase in forest growth

This one was published in 2014:

"Our results provide, to our knowledge, the first ground-based evidence that global environmental changes can increase C sequestration in forests on a broad geographic scale and imply that both the traits and age of trees regulate the responses of forest growth to environmental changes."

Evidence for environmentally enhanced forest growth

It is reasonable to assume that the increased uptake of CO2 by plants and trees will have an impact on atmospheric levels of CO2. Quantifying that impact is what researchers have yet to determine.

Rather than assailing the reputation of the author, it may be wise to examine the arguments offered.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The article in question refers to the uptake of carbon dioxide and its impact on plant growth. Here there seems to be little doubt that carbon dioxide enhances growth in both agriculture and forestry. One example of the tracking of accelerated forest growth published in 2010:

"Using a unique dataset of tree biomass collected over the past 22 years from 55 temperate forest plots with known land-use histories and stand ages ranging from 5 to 250 years, we found that recent biomass accumulation greatly exceeded the expected growth caused by natural recovery. We have also collected over 100 years of local weather measurements and 17 years of on-site atmospheric CO2 measurements that show consistent increases in line with globally observed climate-change patterns."

Evidence for a recent increase in forest growth

This one was published in 2014:

"Our results provide, to our knowledge, the first ground-based evidence that global environmental changes can increase C sequestration in forests on a broad geographic scale and imply that both the traits and age of trees regulate the responses of forest growth to environmental changes."

Evidence for environmentally enhanced forest growth

It is reasonable to assume that the increased uptake of CO2 by plants and trees will have an impact on atmospheric levels of CO2. Quantifying that impact is what researchers have yet to determine.

Rather than assailing the reputation of the author, it may be wise to examine the arguments offered.

.

Mankind wasn't around the last time CO2 levels were this high and ocean levels for 100' higher than today. If you want to regress to another age of the dinosaurs that is certainly your choice. However if mankind is going to adapt to that kind of a world he will have to learn to feed himself on a great deal less surface area than he currently enjoys.

The Last Time CO2 Was This High Humans Didn t Exist Climate Central

 

[Foxfyre]

Patrick Moore, PhD, co-founder of Greenpeace

Patrick Moore background information Greenpeace International

Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace
Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace's response are available here (PDF).​

The OP begins with a canard that was easily disproved by the very organization that he lies about "co-founding". Fact checking credentials is how a structured discussion determines credibility.

I will concede that Patrick Moore was not a co-founder of Greenpeace. If you will concede that whether or not he was ever a member of Greenpeace is not the subject of this thread.

Please address and relate your remarks to the thread topic. The topic is not his credentials, motives, or anything else about him personally. The topic is about the argument he puts forth re CO2 as a factor in climate change and what we should demand the focus of the IPPC to be.

 

[Foxfyre]

The article in question refers to the uptake of carbon dioxide and its impact on plant growth. Here there seems to be little doubt that carbon dioxide enhances growth in both agriculture and forestry. One example of the tracking of accelerated forest growth published in 2010:

"Using a unique dataset of tree biomass collected over the past 22 years from 55 temperate forest plots with known land-use histories and stand ages ranging from 5 to 250 years, we found that recent biomass accumulation greatly exceeded the expected growth caused by natural recovery. We have also collected over 100 years of local weather measurements and 17 years of on-site atmospheric CO2 measurements that show consistent increases in line with globally observed climate-change patterns."

Evidence for a recent increase in forest growth

This one was published in 2014:

"Our results provide, to our knowledge, the first ground-based evidence that global environmental changes can increase C sequestration in forests on a broad geographic scale and imply that both the traits and age of trees regulate the responses of forest growth to environmental changes."

Evidence for environmentally enhanced forest growth

It is reasonable to assume that the increased uptake of CO2 by plants and trees will have an impact on atmospheric levels of CO2. Quantifying that impact is what researchers have yet to determine.

Rather than assailing the reputation of the author, it may be wise to examine the arguments offered.

.

Mankind wasn't around the last time CO2 levels were this high and ocean levels for 100' higher than today. If you want to regress to another age of the dinosaurs that is certainly your choice. However if mankind is going to adapt to that kind of a world he will have to learn to feed himself on a great deal less surface area than he currently enjoys.

The Last Time CO2 Was This High Humans Didn t Exist Climate Central

How much of the surface area of the Earth does humankind now occupy?

 

[Foxfyre]

Patrick Moore, PhD, co-founder of Greenpeace and one of the more outspoken critics of the IPPC concentration on CO2 as the catalyst of climate change rather than looking at all the causes of climate change, has become one of the more controversial authorities on the subject. His reasons for being a climate change skeptic include his belief that we have too little CO2 in the atmophere rather than too much.

He even suggests that humankind pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere may be extremely beneficial.

Excerpted from his Heartland essay published this week:

. . .By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.

The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled. . .

. . .Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising. . .

. . .Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?. . .
Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic Heartlander Magazine​

The OP presumes no endorsement or criticism of Dr. Moore's argument. Certainly he has substantial critics, but almost everybody does who swims against the popular tide. The purpose of this discussion is to explore whether his argument has merit.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic and relate opinions and observations as much as possible to the stated thread topic.

2. No ad hominem re persons, political parties, ideologies, or other members. Criticize or comment on the argument made and not the character of intent of those making it.

3. Links are not required to express your own opinion. If you post excerpts from or links to other sources, you must in your own words give a brief summary of what the content is and what you expect others to learn from the source.

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:

Does Dr. Moore's argument have merit as expressed in #1 and #2 below?

1. The IPPC should be required to investigate all possible causes of climate change instead of concentrating on anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

2. CO2 is essential to life on Earth as we know it and we would benefit from more, not less, of it.

Does the OP believe that the argument has merit?

What the OP does or not believe is not the topic. Please address the topic of the discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

His reasons for being a climate change skeptic

His reasons are because he is paid lobbyist for the Energy special interests who are attempting to deceive the populace just as the Tobacco special interests did in the past. The evidence to substantiate this can be found at this website with fully researched references.

Patrick Moore background information Greenpeace International

Patrick Moore is a Paid Spokesperson for the Nuclear Industry
In April 2006, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the principal lobby for the nuclear industry, launched the Clean And Safe Energy Coalition and installed former Bush Administration EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and Mr. Moore as its co-chairs. The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition was part of a public relations project spearheaded by the public relations giant Hill & Knowlton as part of its estimated $8 million contract with the nuclear industry.(1)

Patrick Moore Has Provided Inaccurate Information on Nuclear Power
In 2004, Mr. Moore published an article in the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) journal entitled "Nuclear Re-think." According to Mr. Moore, "Three Mile Island was a success story. The concrete containment structure did as it was designed to do: it prevented radiation from escaping into the environment."(2)

Contrary to Mr. Moore's claim, the damaged reactor spewed radiation into the environment for days. It appears that Mr. Moore didn't even bother to check his facts. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's fact sheet on Three Mile Island (TMI) acknowledges that the meltdown resulted in "a significant release of radiation…"(3)
​

Strike two. Dr. Moore's credential, motives, experience, or anything else about him personally is not the topic of this thread. The topic of the thread is clearly stated and the topic is discussion of his argument re CO2 and the role of the IPPC.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Patrick Moore, PhD, co-founder of Greenpeace

Patrick Moore background information Greenpeace International

Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace
Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace's response are available here (PDF).​

The OP begins with a canard that was easily disproved by the very organization that he lies about "co-founding". Fact checking credentials is how a structured discussion determines credibility.

I will concede that Patrick Moore was not a co-founder of Greenpeace. If you will concede that whether or not he was ever a member of Greenpeace is not the subject of this thread.

Please address and relate your remarks to the thread topic. The topic is not his credentials, motives, or anything else about him personally. The topic is about the argument he puts forth re CO2 as a factor in climate change and what we should demand the focus of the IPPC to be.

Given that the critic of the IPPC has zero credibility the onus is now on the OP to prove that the focus of the IPPC needs to be changed, assuming that there is even any validity to the claim that the IPPC focus is as alleged in the OP. Fact checking that would be a good place to start for a structured discussion IMO.

 

[Foxfyre]

Does Dr. Moore's argument have merit as expressed in #1 and #2 below?

1. The IPPC should be required to investigate all possible causes of climate change instead of concentrating on anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

2. CO2 is essential to life on Earth as we know it and we would benefit from more, not less, of it.

Having established that Dr Moore lacks credibility let's take the two OP questions next.

Dr Moore testified before Congress on the subject of CO2 and he lied to them which is a felony.

Quark Soup by David Appell Dr. Patrick Moore Just Misled Congress

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2014
Dr. Patrick Moore Just Misled Congress

He said, among other misleading statements:
Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.' How do I know Moore purposely misled Congress? Because I corrected him on exactly this point on Twitter a few months ago. And he simply ignored all that science.

It is true that an ice age occurred about 450 million years ago -- the Ordovician–Silurian ice age.

But little is known about CO2 levels at that time -- as I pointed out to Moore on Twitter -- and what's even more significant is that the Sun was weaker than by about 4%. And the continents were in different places, meaning the planet's albedo was very different from today.

Moore ignored all this in order to pretend that the O-S ice age means CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas.

The Sun's irradiance increases by about 1% every 110 million years. (See the top equation on page 4 here, orPierrehumbert's textbook pg 12 equation 1.1.) So 450 million years ago there was about 54 W/m2 less sunlight impinging on the top of Earth's atmosphere.​

From that article is readily apparent that Dr Moore lacks credibility on the subject of CO2 and should not be taken as an expert on anything except what it means to be a paid shill for the Energy special interests.

So no, we don't need more CO2 based upon the lone opinion of someone who is known to lie about his credentials and to lie to Congress.

Next!

Strike Three: The topic is not criticism of Dr. Moore's opinion and you provided zero evidence that David Appell has the credentials to critique it much less that his opinion carries more weight than Dr. Moore's.

The topic is not whether Dr. Moore is credible. I clearly stated in the OP that he definitely has his critics. But he is not the topic.

The topic is clearly stated in the OP and it has nothing to do with whether Dr. Moore is credible.

Either address the topic on the merit of the topic provided for discussion or you will probably find another thread of greater interest than this one.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The article in question refers to the uptake of carbon dioxide and its impact on plant growth. Here there seems to be little doubt that carbon dioxide enhances growth in both agriculture and forestry. One example of the tracking of accelerated forest growth published in 2010:

"Using a unique dataset of tree biomass collected over the past 22 years from 55 temperate forest plots with known land-use histories and stand ages ranging from 5 to 250 years, we found that recent biomass accumulation greatly exceeded the expected growth caused by natural recovery. We have also collected over 100 years of local weather measurements and 17 years of on-site atmospheric CO2 measurements that show consistent increases in line with globally observed climate-change patterns."

Evidence for a recent increase in forest growth

This one was published in 2014:

"Our results provide, to our knowledge, the first ground-based evidence that global environmental changes can increase C sequestration in forests on a broad geographic scale and imply that both the traits and age of trees regulate the responses of forest growth to environmental changes."

Evidence for environmentally enhanced forest growth

It is reasonable to assume that the increased uptake of CO2 by plants and trees will have an impact on atmospheric levels of CO2. Quantifying that impact is what researchers have yet to determine.

Rather than assailing the reputation of the author, it may be wise to examine the arguments offered.

.

Mankind wasn't around the last time CO2 levels were this high and ocean levels for 100' higher than today. If you want to regress to another age of the dinosaurs that is certainly your choice. However if mankind is going to adapt to that kind of a world he will have to learn to feed himself on a great deal less surface area than he currently enjoys.

The Last Time CO2 Was This High Humans Didn t Exist Climate Central

How much of the surface area of the Earth does humankind now occupy?

Mankind occupies the 10% of the surface area that contains arable land. Rising sea levels would reduce that area. Higher temperatures would eliminate glaciers that feed the rivers necessary to farm that land.

Surface Area of the Earth

 

[Foxfyre]

The article in question refers to the uptake of carbon dioxide and its impact on plant growth. Here there seems to be little doubt that carbon dioxide enhances growth in both agriculture and forestry. One example of the tracking of accelerated forest growth published in 2010:

"Using a unique dataset of tree biomass collected over the past 22 years from 55 temperate forest plots with known land-use histories and stand ages ranging from 5 to 250 years, we found that recent biomass accumulation greatly exceeded the expected growth caused by natural recovery. We have also collected over 100 years of local weather measurements and 17 years of on-site atmospheric CO2 measurements that show consistent increases in line with globally observed climate-change patterns."

Evidence for a recent increase in forest growth

This one was published in 2014:

"Our results provide, to our knowledge, the first ground-based evidence that global environmental changes can increase C sequestration in forests on a broad geographic scale and imply that both the traits and age of trees regulate the responses of forest growth to environmental changes."

Evidence for environmentally enhanced forest growth

It is reasonable to assume that the increased uptake of CO2 by plants and trees will have an impact on atmospheric levels of CO2. Quantifying that impact is what researchers have yet to determine.

Rather than assailing the reputation of the author, it may be wise to examine the arguments offered.

.

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for addressing the topic. I don't know you and don't recall seeing any of your posts elsewhere, but I think I'm in love.

So maybe there is possibly some merit in the argument--I'm dealing in juxtaposition here as Moore didn't actually say this--that a planet overgrown with plant life with nothing to add CO2 it displaces back into the atmosphere could actually kill itself?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Strike Three: The topic is not criticism of Dr. Moore's opinio

The questions in the OP are prefixed with this question;

"Does Dr. Moore's argument have merit...?"

That is exactly what my posts have been addressing all along.

Dr Moore's argument doesn't have merit as demonstrated in the posts that expose him as nothing but a shill for the Energy special interests and as a liar.

Every single post that I have made directly addresses the OP and Dr Moore's specious "argument".

This structured discussion is establishing that there is no merit to Dr Moore's argument.

Feel free to rebut the credible sources provided.

 

[Decus]

The article in question refers to the uptake of carbon dioxide and its impact on plant growth. Here there seems to be little doubt that carbon dioxide enhances growth in both agriculture and forestry. One example of the tracking of accelerated forest growth published in 2010:

"Using a unique dataset of tree biomass collected over the past 22 years from 55 temperate forest plots with known land-use histories and stand ages ranging from 5 to 250 years, we found that recent biomass accumulation greatly exceeded the expected growth caused by natural recovery. We have also collected over 100 years of local weather measurements and 17 years of on-site atmospheric CO2 measurements that show consistent increases in line with globally observed climate-change patterns."

Evidence for a recent increase in forest growth

This one was published in 2014:

"Our results provide, to our knowledge, the first ground-based evidence that global environmental changes can increase C sequestration in forests on a broad geographic scale and imply that both the traits and age of trees regulate the responses of forest growth to environmental changes."

Evidence for environmentally enhanced forest growth

It is reasonable to assume that the increased uptake of CO2 by plants and trees will have an impact on atmospheric levels of CO2. Quantifying that impact is what researchers have yet to determine.

Rather than assailing the reputation of the author, it may be wise to examine the arguments offered.

.

Mankind wasn't around the last time CO2 levels were this high and ocean levels for 100' higher than today. If you want to regress to another age of the dinosaurs that is certainly your choice. However if mankind is going to adapt to that kind of a world he will have to learn to feed himself on a great deal less surface area than he currently enjoys.

The Last Time CO2 Was This High Humans Didn t Exist Climate Central

I never offered an opinion as to the source of CO2, so your reply does not address my post. The research indicates that there is a dynamic at work which points to increased levels of CO2 being absorbed by plants, resulting in greater levels of growth.

It is clear that this dynamic exists. What is still to be determined is what effect this will have on atmospheric CO2.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Patrick Moore, PhD, co-founder of Greenpeace and one of the more outspoken critics of the IPPC concentration on CO2 as the catalyst of climate change rather than looking at all the causes of climate change, has become one of the more controversial authorities on the subject. His reasons for being a climate change skeptic include his belief that we have too little CO2 in the atmophere rather than too much.

He even suggests that humankind pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere may be extremely beneficial.

Excerpted from his Heartland essay published this week:

. . .By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.

The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled. . .

. . .Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising. . .

. . .Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?. . .
Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic Heartlander Magazine​

The OP presumes no endorsement or criticism of Dr. Moore's argument. Certainly he has substantial critics, but almost everybody does who swims against the popular tide. The purpose of this discussion is to explore whether his argument has merit.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic and relate opinions and observations as much as possible to the stated thread topic.

2. No ad hominem re persons, political parties, ideologies, or other members. Criticize or comment on the argument made and not the character of intent of those making it.

3. Links are not required to express your own opinion. If you post excerpts from or links to other sources, you must in your own words give a brief summary of what the content is and what you expect others to learn from the source.

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:

Does Dr. Moore's argument have merit as expressed in #1 and #2 below?

1. The IPPC should be required to investigate all possible causes of climate change instead of concentrating on anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

2. CO2 is essential to life on Earth as we know it and we would benefit from more, not less, of it.

Does the OP believe that the argument has merit?

What the OP does or not believe is not the topic. Please address the topic of the discussion.

Mod Edit - please review rules.

 

[Derideo_Te]

you provided zero evidence that David Appell has the credentials to critique it much less that his opinion carries more weight than Dr. Moore's.

Easily enough remedied, just look at his resume.

David Appell

EDUCATION

• Ph.D. in Physics, State University of New York (SUNY) at Stony Brook. Thesis research consisted of computational analysis of high-energy subnuclear structure. (Graduate advisor: George Sterman)
• M.A. in Physics, State University of New York (SUNY) at Stony Brook.
• B.S. in Physics and Mathematics, University of New Mexico.
• Graduate Program in Creative Writing (15 hours completed), Arizona State University.

AWARDS, ETC.

• Ocean Sciences Journalism Fellowship, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, September 2012.
• NCAR Science Journalism Fellowship, National Center for Atmospheric Research, July 2014.

 

[Decus]

Strike Three: The topic is not criticism of Dr. Moore's opinio

The questions in the OP are prefixed with this question;

"Does Dr. Moore's argument have merit...?"

That is exactly what my posts have been addressing all along.

Dr Moore's argument doesn't have merit as demonstrated in the posts that expose him as nothing but a shill for the Energy special interests and as a liar.

Every single post that I have made directly addresses the OP and Dr Moore's specious "argument".

This structured discussion is establishing that there is no merit to Dr Moore's argument.

Feel free to rebut the credible sources provided.

Your response is directed solely at the author but the question raised by the OP was the merit of the argument ie: CO2 is not to be feared and is dealt with by nature. Can nature ultimately balance CO2 levels?

.