Debate Now Maybe We Need More CO2 and Not Less?

[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

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.

.

Deforestation is the 2nd largest contributor to anthropogenic CO2.

Deforestation Facts Causes Effects

Deforestation and climate change
Deforestation is considered to be one of the contributing factors to global climate change. According to Michael Daley, associate professor of environmental science at Lasell College in Newton, Massachusetts, the No. 1 problem caused by deforestation is the impact on the global carbon cycle. Gas molecules that absorb thermal infrared radiation are called greenhouse gases. If greenhouse gases are in large enough quantity, they can force climate change, according to Daley. While oxygen (O2) is the second most abundant gas in our atmosphere, it does not absorb thermal infrared radiation, as greenhouse gases do. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most prevalent greenhouse gas. In 2012, CO2accounted for about 82 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Trees can help, though. 300 billion tons of carbon, 40 times the annual greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, is stored in trees, according to Greenpeace.

The deforestation of trees not only lessens the amount of carbon stored, it also releases carbon dioxide into the air. This is because when trees die, they release the stored carbon. According to the 2010 Global Forest Resources Assessment, deforestation releases nearly a billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere per year, though the numbers are not as high as the ones recorded in the previous decade. Deforestation is the second largest anthropogenic (human-caused) source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, ranging between 6 percent and 17 percent. (Van Der Werf, G. R. et al., 2009)​

 

[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.

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?

.

The author has no credibility ergo his argument lacks merit.

Regarding your question we have hard evidence that mankind is destroying nature's mechanism to balance CO2 levels so the answer is obvious. How can nature "balance" CO2 levels without forests?

 

[westwall]

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.

Yes, Dr. Moore's argument has significant merit. When we look back at the paleontological record we see across the board that when it has been warmer, it has been better. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 has ANY effect on global temperatures.

Once again, when we go back and look at ice core data it is patently obvious that global temps have been high when CO2 levels were both high, AND low. And....more to the point.... the global temps have likewise been high or low when there was LOW CO2 levels. In other words the meme that CO2 is the control knob that drives global temperatures is just that...a meme.

As far as the second question, I suggest you ask greenhouse operators. They pump huge concentrations of CO2 into their greenhouses to encourage plant growth. That is an empirical observation. The "studies" that claim increased CO2 levels inhibit plant growth are derived from computer models. Which, based on actual OBSERVED evidence, are less than worthless.

 

[westwall]

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

Why? You ignore the effects of warming that allows man to spread out into areas that he used to be able to farm, but now can't. Why do you insist on looking at only one side of the equation and not both?

 

[westwall]

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?

.

The author has no credibility ergo his argument lacks merit.

Regarding your question we have hard evidence that mankind is destroying nature's mechanism to balance CO2 levels so the answer is obvious. How can nature "balance" CO2 levels without forests?

Demonstrate that evidence please. Remember, computer models don't count. Only empirical observations count as data.

 

[Foxfyre]

In his book Twilight of Abundance. . . published about this time last year, David Archibald seems to agree with Dr. Moore's opinions on this:

Human Events has a piece excerpted from the book:

". . .". . .The fact of the matter is the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere remains dangerously low at four hundred parts per million. In fact the more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the better for all forms of life on planet Earth. . . ."
The carbon dioxide level is dangerously low

 

[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.

.

Deforestation is the 2nd largest contributor to anthropogenic CO2.

Deforestation Facts Causes Effects

Deforestation and climate change
Deforestation is considered to be one of the contributing factors to global climate change. According to Michael Daley, associate professor of environmental science at Lasell College in Newton, Massachusetts, the No. 1 problem caused by deforestation is the impact on the global carbon cycle. Gas molecules that absorb thermal infrared radiation are called greenhouse gases. If greenhouse gases are in large enough quantity, they can force climate change, according to Daley. While oxygen (O2) is the second most abundant gas in our atmosphere, it does not absorb thermal infrared radiation, as greenhouse gases do. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most prevalent greenhouse gas. In 2012, CO2accounted for about 82 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Trees can help, though. 300 billion tons of carbon, 40 times the annual greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, is stored in trees, according to Greenpeace.

The deforestation of trees not only lessens the amount of carbon stored, it also releases carbon dioxide into the air. This is because when trees die, they release the stored carbon. According to the 2010 Global Forest Resources Assessment, deforestation releases nearly a billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere per year, though the numbers are not as high as the ones recorded in the previous decade. Deforestation is the second largest anthropogenic (human-caused) source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, ranging between 6 percent and 17 percent. (Van Der Werf, G. R. et al., 2009)​

According to your article trees "can help". As your article states, trees absorb 40 times (forty times - impressive), "the annual greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels". So planting more trees may be the solution or the increased uptake of CO2, as has been discussed in the research I posted, may independently of planting new trees also have a similar effect over time.

It would seem that trees do one heck of a job.

.

 

[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

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.

.

Deforestation is the 2nd largest contributor to anthropogenic CO2.

Deforestation Facts Causes Effects

Deforestation and climate change
Deforestation is considered to be one of the contributing factors to global climate change. According to Michael Daley, associate professor of environmental science at Lasell College in Newton, Massachusetts, the No. 1 problem caused by deforestation is the impact on the global carbon cycle. Gas molecules that absorb thermal infrared radiation are called greenhouse gases. If greenhouse gases are in large enough quantity, they can force climate change, according to Daley. While oxygen (O2) is the second most abundant gas in our atmosphere, it does not absorb thermal infrared radiation, as greenhouse gases do. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most prevalent greenhouse gas. In 2012, CO2accounted for about 82 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Trees can help, though. 300 billion tons of carbon, 40 times the annual greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, is stored in trees, according to Greenpeace.

The deforestation of trees not only lessens the amount of carbon stored, it also releases carbon dioxide into the air. This is because when trees die, they release the stored carbon. According to the 2010 Global Forest Resources Assessment, deforestation releases nearly a billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere per year, though the numbers are not as high as the ones recorded in the previous decade. Deforestation is the second largest anthropogenic (human-caused) source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, ranging between 6 percent and 17 percent. (Van Der Werf, G. R. et al., 2009)​

Moore agrees with you. Deforestation is a contributor to anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. The question is, is that a good thing? Or a bad thing?

If we need more CO2, then could it possibly be a good thing?

 

[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.

Yes, Dr. Moore's argument has significant merit. When we look back at the paleontological record we see across the board that when it has been warmer, it has been better. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 has ANY effect on global temperatures.

Once again, when we go back and look at ice core data it is patently obvious that global temps have been high when CO2 levels were both high, AND low. And....more to the point.... the global temps have likewise been high or low when there was LOW CO2 levels. In other words the meme that CO2 is the control knob that drives global temperatures is just that...a meme.

As far as the second question, I suggest you ask greenhouse operators. They pump huge concentrations of CO2 into their greenhouses to encourage plant growth. That is an empirical observation. The "studies" that claim increased CO2 levels inhibit plant growth are derived from computer models. Which, based on actual OBSERVED evidence, are less than worthless.

Check this out, please. It explains what takes place in greenhouses and debunks the idea that increased CO2 levels are a good thing.

CO2 is plant food

Skeptical Science is a very popular blog whose objective is to debunk myths regarding climate change. It's a good place to start if you want some information based on the science.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So planting more trees may be the solution or the increased uptake of CO2, as has been discussed in the research I posted, may independently of planting new trees also have a similar effect over time.

It would seem that trees do one heck of a job.

Yes, they do!

And if you read the article you would already know that we destroying the forests at a record rate.

Deforestation is the permanent destruction of forests in order to make the land available for other uses. An estimated 18 million acres (7.3 million hectares) of forest, which is roughly the size of the country of Panama, are lost each year, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Some other statistics:​

• • About half of the world's tropical forests have been cleared (FAO)
  • Forests currently cover about 30 percent of the world’s land mass (National Geographic)
  • Forest loss contributes between 6 percent and 12 percent of annual global
  • carbon dioxide emissions (Nature Geoscience)
  • About 36 football fields worth of trees lost every minute (World Wildlife Fund (WWF))

So if the solution is forests then what are we going to do to stop deforestation?

 

[Foxfyre]

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?
.

That is one aspect. The other is that rather than human generated CO2 being a problem, it could actually be a really good thing.

 

[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

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.

.

Deforestation is the 2nd largest contributor to anthropogenic CO2.

Deforestation Facts Causes Effects

Deforestation and climate change
Deforestation is considered to be one of the contributing factors to global climate change. According to Michael Daley, associate professor of environmental science at Lasell College in Newton, Massachusetts, the No. 1 problem caused by deforestation is the impact on the global carbon cycle. Gas molecules that absorb thermal infrared radiation are called greenhouse gases. If greenhouse gases are in large enough quantity, they can force climate change, according to Daley. While oxygen (O2) is the second most abundant gas in our atmosphere, it does not absorb thermal infrared radiation, as greenhouse gases do. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most prevalent greenhouse gas. In 2012, CO2accounted for about 82 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Trees can help, though. 300 billion tons of carbon, 40 times the annual greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, is stored in trees, according to Greenpeace.

The deforestation of trees not only lessens the amount of carbon stored, it also releases carbon dioxide into the air. This is because when trees die, they release the stored carbon. According to the 2010 Global Forest Resources Assessment, deforestation releases nearly a billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere per year, though the numbers are not as high as the ones recorded in the previous decade. Deforestation is the second largest anthropogenic (human-caused) source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, ranging between 6 percent and 17 percent. (Van Der Werf, G. R. et al., 2009)​

Moore agrees with you. Deforestation is a contributor to anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. The question is, is that a good thing? Or a bad thing?

If we need more CO2, then could it possibly be a good thing?

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is not resulting in bigger and better crop yields which is what you would expect if Dr Moore's claims were correct. The facts prove otherwise.

More Carbon Dioxide in the Air Makes Some Crops Less Nutritious Science Smithsonian

More Carbon Dioxide in the Air Makes Some Crops Less Nutritious
Crops such as rice and wheat have lower concentrations of some nutrients when they’re grown under an atmosphere with higher levels of the greenhouse gas

: New research shows that the nutrition of those crops may decline. Several crop species grown in an environment that had atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations like those expected in 2050 had lower levels of two important nutrients, zinc and iron,researchers report today in Nature.

Around two billion people worldwide already suffer from deficiencies in these nutrients, and the research shows that climate change will exacerbate this global public health problem. The scientists didn’t dance around the issue, bluntly titling their paper “Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition.”​

 

[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.

Yes, Dr. Moore's argument has significant merit. When we look back at the paleontological record we see across the board that when it has been warmer, it has been better. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 has ANY effect on global temperatures.

Once again, when we go back and look at ice core data it is patently obvious that global temps have been high when CO2 levels were both high, AND low. And....more to the point.... the global temps have likewise been high or low when there was LOW CO2 levels. In other words the meme that CO2 is the control knob that drives global temperatures is just that...a meme.

As far as the second question, I suggest you ask greenhouse operators. They pump huge concentrations of CO2 into their greenhouses to encourage plant growth. That is an empirical observation. The "studies" that claim increased CO2 levels inhibit plant growth are derived from computer models. Which, based on actual OBSERVED evidence, are less than worthless.

Check this out, please. It explains what takes place in greenhouses and debunks the idea that increased CO2 levels are a good thing.

CO2 is plant food

Skeptical Science is a very popular blog whose objective is to debunk myths regarding climate change. It's a good place to start if you want some information based on the science.

It is a proven fact that very high concentrations of CO2 will kill both plant life and animal life. It has been demonstrated numerous times in areas of high volcanic activity. So I have no quarrel with the article there.

But the author of the article you linked does not say how high is too high when it comes to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. And it does not dispute the numbers Moore used or that Archibald uses in his book. And it does not provide evidence that their opinion that CO2 levels are currently too low is not correct.

 

[Decus]

So planting more trees may be the solution or the increased uptake of CO2, as has been discussed in the research I posted, may independently of planting new trees also have a similar effect over time.

It would seem that trees do one heck of a job.

Yes, they do!

And if you read the article you would already know that we destroying the forests at a record rate.

Deforestation is the permanent destruction of forests in order to make the land available for other uses. An estimated 18 million acres (7.3 million hectares) of forest, which is roughly the size of the country of Panama, are lost each year, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Some other statistics:​

• • About half of the world's tropical forests have been cleared (FAO)
  • Forests currently cover about 30 percent of the world’s land mass (National Geographic)
  • Forest loss contributes between 6 percent and 12 percent of annual global
  • carbon dioxide emissions (Nature Geoscience)
  • About 36 football fields worth of trees lost every minute (World Wildlife Fund (WWF))

So if the solution is forests then what are we going to do to stop deforestation?

According to some very positive results in slowing deforestation a carbon tax was not the solution. In the case of Brazil - Amazon - tropical forest - the solution looked like this:

"The recent 70% decline in deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon suggests that it is possible to manage the advance of a vast agricultural frontier. Enforcement of laws, interventions in soy and beef supply chains, restrictions on access to credit, and expansion of protected areas appear to have contributed to this decline, as did a decline in the demand for new deforestation."

Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So planting more trees may be the solution or the increased uptake of CO2, as has been discussed in the research I posted, may independently of planting new trees also have a similar effect over time.

It would seem that trees do one heck of a job.

Yes, they do!

And if you read the article you would already know that we destroying the forests at a record rate.

Deforestation is the permanent destruction of forests in order to make the land available for other uses. An estimated 18 million acres (7.3 million hectares) of forest, which is roughly the size of the country of Panama, are lost each year, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Some other statistics:​

• • About half of the world's tropical forests have been cleared (FAO)
  • Forests currently cover about 30 percent of the world’s land mass (National Geographic)
  • Forest loss contributes between 6 percent and 12 percent of annual global
  • carbon dioxide emissions (Nature Geoscience)
  • About 36 football fields worth of trees lost every minute (World Wildlife Fund (WWF))

So if the solution is forests then what are we going to do to stop deforestation?

According to some very positive results in slowing deforestation a carbon tax was not the solution. In the case of Brazil - Amazon - tropical forest - the solution looked like this:

"The recent 70% decline in deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon suggests that it is possible to manage the advance of a vast agricultural frontier. Enforcement of laws, interventions in soy and beef supply chains, restrictions on access to credit, and expansion of protected areas appear to have contributed to this decline, as did a decline in the demand for new deforestation."

Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains

.

Isn't a carbon tax just another public policy similar to protecting forested areas and enforcing laws?

Either way it was government intervention that was the incentive to reduce the rate of deforestation in just one nation. Only another 180 or so to go.

 

[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.

Yes, Dr. Moore's argument has significant merit. When we look back at the paleontological record we see across the board that when it has been warmer, it has been better. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 has ANY effect on global temperatures.

Once again, when we go back and look at ice core data it is patently obvious that global temps have been high when CO2 levels were both high, AND low. And....more to the point.... the global temps have likewise been high or low when there was LOW CO2 levels. In other words the meme that CO2 is the control knob that drives global temperatures is just that...a meme.

As far as the second question, I suggest you ask greenhouse operators. They pump huge concentrations of CO2 into their greenhouses to encourage plant growth. That is an empirical observation. The "studies" that claim increased CO2 levels inhibit plant growth are derived from computer models. Which, based on actual OBSERVED evidence, are less than worthless.

Check this out, please. It explains what takes place in greenhouses and debunks the idea that increased CO2 levels are a good thing.

CO2 is plant food

Skeptical Science is a very popular blog whose objective is to debunk myths regarding climate change. It's a good place to start if you want some information based on the science.

It is a proven fact that very high concentrations of CO2 will kill both plant life and animal life. It has been demonstrated numerous times in areas of high volcanic activity. So I have no quarrel with the article there.

But the author of the article you linked does not say how high is too high when it comes to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. And it does not dispute the numbers Moore used or that Archibald uses in his book. And it does not provide evidence that their opinion that CO2 levels are currently too low is not correct.

Now I'm confused. You have, it seems, taken a position on whether or not Moore's argument has merit.

 

[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.

Yes, Dr. Moore's argument has significant merit. When we look back at the paleontological record we see across the board that when it has been warmer, it has been better. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 has ANY effect on global temperatures.

Once again, when we go back and look at ice core data it is patently obvious that global temps have been high when CO2 levels were both high, AND low. And....more to the point.... the global temps have likewise been high or low when there was LOW CO2 levels. In other words the meme that CO2 is the control knob that drives global temperatures is just that...a meme.

As far as the second question, I suggest you ask greenhouse operators. They pump huge concentrations of CO2 into their greenhouses to encourage plant growth. That is an empirical observation. The "studies" that claim increased CO2 levels inhibit plant growth are derived from computer models. Which, based on actual OBSERVED evidence, are less than worthless.

Check this out, please. It explains what takes place in greenhouses and debunks the idea that increased CO2 levels are a good thing.

CO2 is plant food

Skeptical Science is a very popular blog whose objective is to debunk myths regarding climate change. It's a good place to start if you want some information based on the science.

It is a proven fact that very high concentrations of CO2 will kill both plant life and animal life. It has been demonstrated numerous times in areas of high volcanic activity. So I have no quarrel with the article there.

But the author of the article you linked does not say how high is too high when it comes to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. And it does not dispute the numbers Moore used or that Archibald uses in his book. And it does not provide evidence that their opinion that CO2 levels are currently too low is not correct.

Here is the info you seek. These tell you how much is too much.

One trillion metric tons by 2050 is too much.
How Much Is Too Much Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Scientific American

and.....

450 ppm for a prolonged period is too much.
RealClimate How much CO2 emission is too much

Based on what these sources say....Moore's suggestion that 1500 ppm will yield positive results is a bit dopey.

No merit.

 

[Decus]

So planting more trees may be the solution or the increased uptake of CO2, as has been discussed in the research I posted, may independently of planting new trees also have a similar effect over time.

It would seem that trees do one heck of a job.

Yes, they do!

And if you read the article you would already know that we destroying the forests at a record rate.

Deforestation is the permanent destruction of forests in order to make the land available for other uses. An estimated 18 million acres (7.3 million hectares) of forest, which is roughly the size of the country of Panama, are lost each year, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Some other statistics:​

• • About half of the world's tropical forests have been cleared (FAO)
  • Forests currently cover about 30 percent of the world’s land mass (National Geographic)
  • Forest loss contributes between 6 percent and 12 percent of annual global
  • carbon dioxide emissions (Nature Geoscience)
  • About 36 football fields worth of trees lost every minute (World Wildlife Fund (WWF))

So if the solution is forests then what are we going to do to stop deforestation?

According to some very positive results in slowing deforestation a carbon tax was not the solution. In the case of Brazil - Amazon - tropical forest - the solution looked like this:

"The recent 70% decline in deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon suggests that it is possible to manage the advance of a vast agricultural frontier. Enforcement of laws, interventions in soy and beef supply chains, restrictions on access to credit, and expansion of protected areas appear to have contributed to this decline, as did a decline in the demand for new deforestation."

Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains

.

Isn't a carbon tax just another public policy similar to protecting forested areas and enforcing laws?

Either way it was government intervention that was the incentive to reduce the rate of deforestation in just one nation. Only another 180 or so to go.

Brazil successfully reduced deforestation through enforcement of laws prohibiting illegal logging (a law that exists in many countries and that had been on their books for many years) and working with the agricultural sector, but carbon taxes did not play a role.

The effort to end deforestation is gaining momentum:

"Dozens of Governments, businesses, civil society and indigenous peoples participating in the United Nations Climate Summit in New York today pledged to halve deforestation by 2020 and to end within the following decade."

United Nations News Centre - Governments corporations pledge at UN summit to eliminate deforestation by 2030

 

[Foxfyre]

So planting more trees may be the solution or the increased uptake of CO2, as has been discussed in the research I posted, may independently of planting new trees also have a similar effect over time.

It would seem that trees do one heck of a job.

Yes, they do!

And if you read the article you would already know that we destroying the forests at a record rate.

Deforestation is the permanent destruction of forests in order to make the land available for other uses. An estimated 18 million acres (7.3 million hectares) of forest, which is roughly the size of the country of Panama, are lost each year, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Some other statistics:​

• • About half of the world's tropical forests have been cleared (FAO)
  • Forests currently cover about 30 percent of the world’s land mass (National Geographic)
  • Forest loss contributes between 6 percent and 12 percent of annual global
  • carbon dioxide emissions (Nature Geoscience)
  • About 36 football fields worth of trees lost every minute (World Wildlife Fund (WWF))

So if the solution is forests then what are we going to do to stop deforestation?

According to some very positive results in slowing deforestation a carbon tax was not the solution. In the case of Brazil - Amazon - tropical forest - the solution looked like this:

"The recent 70% decline in deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon suggests that it is possible to manage the advance of a vast agricultural frontier. Enforcement of laws, interventions in soy and beef supply chains, restrictions on access to credit, and expansion of protected areas appear to have contributed to this decline, as did a decline in the demand for new deforestation."

Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains

.

I read recently that here in the United States we are planting 30% more trees than we are cutting down. Some speculate there are more trees in the USA than there were when Columbus arrived here in the 15th Century.

Sadly that is not true elsewhere in the world, but your source suggests that we might be getting a handle on that too. Certainly that is where the focus needs to be and not in places that are already doing a good job of forest management. There is certainly a balance that needs to be achieved, but trees are a renewable resource so it would seem that if there is a will, that balance is manageable.

And the question again remains--are the higher CO2 levels a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[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.

Yes, Dr. Moore's argument has significant merit. When we look back at the paleontological record we see across the board that when it has been warmer, it has been better. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 has ANY effect on global temperatures.

Once again, when we go back and look at ice core data it is patently obvious that global temps have been high when CO2 levels were both high, AND low. And....more to the point.... the global temps have likewise been high or low when there was LOW CO2 levels. In other words the meme that CO2 is the control knob that drives global temperatures is just that...a meme.

As far as the second question, I suggest you ask greenhouse operators. They pump huge concentrations of CO2 into their greenhouses to encourage plant growth. That is an empirical observation. The "studies" that claim increased CO2 levels inhibit plant growth are derived from computer models. Which, based on actual OBSERVED evidence, are less than worthless.

Check this out, please. It explains what takes place in greenhouses and debunks the idea that increased CO2 levels are a good thing.

CO2 is plant food

Skeptical Science is a very popular blog whose objective is to debunk myths regarding climate change. It's a good place to start if you want some information based on the science.

It is a proven fact that very high concentrations of CO2 will kill both plant life and animal life. It has been demonstrated numerous times in areas of high volcanic activity. So I have no quarrel with the article there.

But the author of the article you linked does not say how high is too high when it comes to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. And it does not dispute the numbers Moore used or that Archibald uses in his book. And it does not provide evidence that their opinion that CO2 levels are currently too low is not correct.

Here is the info you seek. These tell you how much is too much.

One trillion metric tons by 2050 is too much.
How Much Is Too Much Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Scientific American

and.....

450 ppm for a prolonged period is too much.
RealClimate How much CO2 emission is too much

Based on what these sources say....Moore's suggestion that 1500 ppm will yield positive results is a bit dopey.

No merit.

According to your sources no merit. But are your sources more or less right than Moore is? I don't see that such a case has been made.