Debate Now Maybe We Need More CO2 and Not Less?

[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.

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

Reducing deforestation is not enough. It needs to be reversed if you expect nature to be able to absorb the excess atmospheric CO2.

Note that it is primarily governments working to deal with this problem. Yes, there are a few corporations trying to gain free advertising out of "supporting" this referendum but it has no legal status at all. It depends upon the willingness of those nations to actually put those programs into practice.

In this nation we have activists trying to eliminate the EPA and privatize the Parks service so that they can cut down the forests and drill for more oil.

It isn't as though the USA is a role model for the rest of the world to follow.

 

[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.

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.

Well....then argue your case, please. What do you think? Does Moore's argument have merit? If so.....can you find someone else with some credentials who agrees with him? I can't. Everywhere I look.......disagreement.

I say it has no merit. That's what the scientific consensus says. I am not a scientist. I will go with the experts. The 97%, if you will.

 

[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.

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.

SS is a activist blog. That being said, they sometimes actually post useful information. This however, is not.

Here is actual observed effect of increased CO2 on plants.

 

[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

.

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?

I came at the question you posed from my belief that the planet is self-regulating and that the history of the earth has shown dramatic shifts in the climate which have been redressed over time.

I believe that CO2 is important to the life cycle and as such a good thing.

.

 

[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

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.”​

Increased CO2 is increasing plant growth in unexpected areas however. The Sahara Desert for instance.
Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change

 

[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.

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.

And all of those are based on computer model claims. There is no ACTUAL data supporting their assertions.

 

[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

Reducing deforestation is not enough. It needs to be reversed if you expect nature to be able to absorb the excess atmospheric CO2.

Note that it is primarily governments working to deal with this problem. Yes, there are a few corporations trying to gain free advertising out of "supporting" this referendum but it has no legal status at all. It depends upon the willingness of those nations to actually put those programs into practice.

In this nation we have activists trying to eliminate the EPA and privatize the Parks service so that they can cut down the forests and drill for more oil.

It isn't as though the USA is a role model for the rest of the world to follow.

The research I posted earlier and a number of similar studies point to the fact that trees are increasing the rate at which they absorb CO2, which in turn has increased their growth rates. Will fewer trees absorbing more CO2 have an effect over time?

.

 

[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.

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

Nope. Making an observation is not the same thing as taking a position. I have not and probably will not take a position on the discussion topic because I frankly don't know whether Moore is right.

All I know is I am willing to at least look at the merits or lack thereof of arguments made on the subject, and I am not willing to swallow hook, line, and sinker anybody else's opinion on the subject either without very good reason to do so.

 

[Coyote]

First...Dr. Moore's argument is an opinion...and not necessarily founded on good science and that influences it's merit.

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.

The scientific consensus thus far is overwhelmingly in support of anthropogenic induced climate change. If substantial evidence came out that other factors are the main contributors, then that IPPC's mandate should be expanded. As of now, non-anthropogenic climate change is a fringe group with strong ties to the traditional energy sector and industry.

To demand that it should investigate, with equal fervor, ALL possible causes seems a really wasteful demand. When trying to find a cause for something - you quickly rule out the least likely or least supported causes, and concentrate on those that have the most evidence supporting them or that seem the most likely to produce an answer.

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

There are a lot of things essential to life and they are all interconnected. When one elements is out of balance it has a ripple effect through out ecosystems. Just because something is "good" doesn't mean that more of it is "better".

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

Reducing deforestation is not enough. It needs to be reversed if you expect nature to be able to absorb the excess atmospheric CO2.

Note that it is primarily governments working to deal with this problem. Yes, there are a few corporations trying to gain free advertising out of "supporting" this referendum but it has no legal status at all. It depends upon the willingness of those nations to actually put those programs into practice.

In this nation we have activists trying to eliminate the EPA and privatize the Parks service so that they can cut down the forests and drill for more oil.

It isn't as though the USA is a role model for the rest of the world to follow.

The research I posted earlier and a number of similar studies point to the fact that trees are increasing the rate at which they absorb CO2, which in turn has increased their growth rates. Will fewer trees absorbing more CO2 have an effect over time?

.

The research I posted earlier showed that increased CO2 has a detrimental impact on other plants, specifically major food crops. The laboratory studies on the impact of higher CO2 levels on plant growth don't translate into the real world. In fact many of the same plants actually do worse because they enable greater insect growth rates and diseases.

Basically we are heading into uncharted waters and our predictions are only as good as our current data. Plankton blooms sound like a boon to sea life but they can have the opposite effect by lowering the oxygen content of the water. Rising temperatures mean greater evaporation rates which means that aquifers are being exhausted at a rate greater than they can be replenished.

We are gambling on an unknown outcome without any viable alternative if it fails. Is that a prudent thing to do if you expect your children and grandchildren to survive and prosper?

 

[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.

Nope. Making an observation is not the same thing as taking a position. I have not and probably will not take a position on the discussion topic because I frankly don't know whether Moore is right.

All I know is I am willing to at least look at the merits or lack thereof of arguments made on the subject, and I am not willing to swallow hook, line, and sinker anybody else's opinion on the subject either without very good reason to do so.

You insult my intelligence. I gave you a good reason. You think the overwhelming majority of climate scientists the world over are going to suddenly say "Oops! Our bad! More CO2 is good for the environment. Drill baby, drill!"

I'm not asking you to accept any one persons opinion. That is what YOU are asking of me. I'm going with thousands of scientists here.

 

[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?

I came at the question you posed from my belief that the planet is self-regulating and that the history of the earth has shown dramatic shifts in the climate which have been redressed over time.

I believe that CO2 is important to the life cycle and as such a good thing.

.

That doesn't get said much in the debate from the AGW proponent side though does it? The arguments there all seem to think that if we reduce CO2 dramatically, we save the Earth from catastrophic consequences. And it is almost never discussed how much CO2 we actually need or is beneficial.

Others posted the recent study that could show that higher CO2 levels decrease the nutrient value in some food crops. And if you Google for that, you find dozens if not hundreds of sites--all supporting the apparent conclusions--restating or reprinting information about that study. Such things go really viral very quickly. Among those, only the National Geographic seems to take a really scientific view about it that it is one study involving two fields of crops, it is not conclusive, and while it is important, it only provides speculation about what might be happening.

And it did not include tests of crops grown in hundreds and thousands of greenhouses in which CO2 is kept at levels much higher than occurs in nature. I find that rather odd.

So for me, that is something to file back as something to pay attention to. But not something that I see as conclusive because of my natural skepticism of possibly self-serving kinds of things in these debates. Who funded the study? I haven't been able to find out. And is it the next 'we're all doomed' scenario to keep the funding pouring in since they all seem to be running out of steam on the global warming thing that just isn't happening as the computer models predicted?

So if it is a problem, we should know soon enough. And until then I will file it away with all the other opinions that make up the whole of the debate.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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

Reducing deforestation is not enough. It needs to be reversed if you expect nature to be able to absorb the excess atmospheric CO2.

Note that it is primarily governments working to deal with this problem. Yes, there are a few corporations trying to gain free advertising out of "supporting" this referendum but it has no legal status at all. It depends upon the willingness of those nations to actually put those programs into practice.

In this nation we have activists trying to eliminate the EPA and privatize the Parks service so that they can cut down the forests and drill for more oil.

It isn't as though the USA is a role model for the rest of the world to follow.

The research I posted earlier and a number of similar studies point to the fact that trees are increasing the rate at which they absorb CO2, which in turn has increased their growth rates. Will fewer trees absorbing more CO2 have an effect over time?

.

The research I posted earlier showed that increased CO2 has a detrimental impact on other plants, specifically major food crops. The laboratory studies on the impact of higher CO2 levels on plant growth don't translate into the real world. In fact many of the same plants actually do worse because they enable greater insect growth rates and diseases.

Basically we are heading into uncharted waters and our predictions are only as good as our current data. Plankton blooms sound like a boon to sea life but they can have the opposite effect by lowering the oxygen content of the water. Rising temperatures mean greater evaporation rates which means that aquifers are being exhausted at a rate greater than they can be replenished.

We are gambling on an unknown outcome without any viable alternative if it fails. Is that a prudent thing to do if you expect your children and grandchildren to survive and prosper?

Sure! We all live in a controlled environment. Like a greenhouse.

 

[westwall]

First...Dr. Moore's argument is an opinion...and not necessarily founded on good science and that influences it's merit.

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.

The scientific consensus thus far is overwhelmingly in support of anthropogenic induced climate change. If substantial evidence came out that other factors are the main contributors, then that IPPC's mandate should be expanded. As of now, non-anthropogenic climate change is a fringe group with strong ties to the traditional energy sector and industry.

To demand that it should investigate, with equal fervor, ALL possible causes seems a really wasteful demand. When trying to find a cause for something - you quickly rule out the least likely or least supported causes, and concentrate on those that have the most evidence supporting them or that seem the most likely to produce an answer.

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

There are a lot of things essential to life and they are all interconnected. When one elements is out of balance it has a ripple effect through out ecosystems. Just because something is "good" doesn't mean that more of it is "better".

The problem with consensus science is it really isn't science. Consensus is the language of politics Coyote. If I ask a scientist what the speed of light is, or what the formula for Kinetic Energy is there is no referral to "well the consensus says". No, he will tell you the speed of light is 186,282.396 miles per second. They will tell you the formula for kinetic energy is 0.5 times the mass times the velocity squared.

Those are facts. Whenever you resort to consensus you are no longer dealing with facts, you are dealing with opinion. Science is not interested in opinion. It is ONLY interested in facts.

That's the problem with scientists who rely on the "consensus" method of support for their argument. It is an appeal to authority which itself is a logic fail. Add to that the fact that the "scientific consensus" is itself not really factual, and you have a very large problem with AGW "science".

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

I came at the question you posed from my belief that the planet is self-regulating and that the history of the earth has shown dramatic shifts in the climate which have been redressed over time.

I believe that CO2 is important to the life cycle and as such a good thing.

.

That doesn't get said much in the debate from the AGW proponent side though does it? The arguments there all seem to think that if we reduce CO2 dramatically, we save the Earth from catastrophic consequences. And it is almost never discussed how much CO2 we actually need or is beneficial.

Others posted the recent study that could show that higher CO2 levels decrease the nutrient value in some food crops. And if you Google for that, you find dozens if not hundreds of sites--all supporting IPPC conclusions--restating or reprinting information about that study. Such things go really viral very quickly. Among those, only the National Geographic seems to take a really scientific view about it that it is one study involving two fields of crops, it is not conclusive, and while it is important, it only provides speculation about what might be happening.

And it did not include tests of crops grown in hundreds and thousands of greenhouses in which CO2 is kept at levels much higher than occurs in nature. I find that rather odd.

So for me, that is something to file back as something to pay attention to. But not something that I see as conclusive because of my natural skepticism of possibly self-serving kinds of things in these debates. Who funded the study? I haven't been able to find out. And is it the next 'we're all doomed' scenario to keep the funding pouring in since they all seem to be running out of steam on the global warming thing that just isn't happening as the computer models predicted.

So if it is a problem, we should know soon enough. And

........and you have never heard me say that we are doomed. MOST of the world gets it. We'll find a way. My way.......listening to scientists....just costs less.

 

[Decus]

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

Reducing deforestation is not enough. It needs to be reversed if you expect nature to be able to absorb the excess atmospheric CO2.

Note that it is primarily governments working to deal with this problem. Yes, there are a few corporations trying to gain free advertising out of "supporting" this referendum but it has no legal status at all. It depends upon the willingness of those nations to actually put those programs into practice.

In this nation we have activists trying to eliminate the EPA and privatize the Parks service so that they can cut down the forests and drill for more oil.

It isn't as though the USA is a role model for the rest of the world to follow.

The research I posted earlier and a number of similar studies point to the fact that trees are increasing the rate at which they absorb CO2, which in turn has increased their growth rates. Will fewer trees absorbing more CO2 have an effect over time?

.

The research I posted earlier showed that increased CO2 has a detrimental impact on other plants, specifically major food crops. The laboratory studies on the impact of higher CO2 levels on plant growth don't translate into the real world. In fact many of the same plants actually do worse because they enable greater insect growth rates and diseases.

Basically we are heading into uncharted waters and our predictions are only as good as our current data. Plankton blooms sound like a boon to sea life but they can have the opposite effect by lowering the oxygen content of the water. Rising temperatures mean greater evaporation rates which means that aquifers are being exhausted at a rate greater than they can be replenished.

We are gambling on an unknown outcome without any viable alternative if it fails. Is that a prudent thing to do if you expect your children and grandchildren to survive and prosper?

You haven't mentioned what your solution is. Personally I'm planting more trees. May I ask what your solution is?

To be honest I plant trees because I like them. Nothing to do with CO2 concerns.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Nope. Making an observation is not the same thing as taking a position. I have not and probably will not take a position on the discussion topic because I frankly don't know whether Moore is right.

All I know is I am willing to at least look at the merits or lack thereof of arguments made on the subject, and I am not willing to swallow hook, line, and sinker anybody else's opinion on the subject either without very good reason to do so.

You insult my intelligence. I gave you a good reason. You think the overwhelming majority of climate scientists the world over are going to suddenly say "Oops! Our bad! More CO2 is good for the environment. Drill baby, drill!"

I'm not asking you to accept any one persons opinion. That is what YOU are asking of me. I'm going with thousands of scientists here.

Take the ad hominem out of that and I will respond to it. I have asked nothing of you nor have I insulted your intelligence or anything else about you. And I believe true scientists ask questions and try to find answers for them and I believe thousands of scientists fall into that category.

The OP asks a question about CO2 levels and whether it is wrong for the IPPC to focus on CO2 and not on all causes of climate change. Let's focus on that and not me, okay?

 

[LoneLaugher]

First...Dr. Moore's argument is an opinion...and not necessarily founded on good science and that influences it's merit.

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.

The scientific consensus thus far is overwhelmingly in support of anthropogenic induced climate change. If substantial evidence came out that other factors are the main contributors, then that IPPC's mandate should be expanded. As of now, non-anthropogenic climate change is a fringe group with strong ties to the traditional energy sector and industry.

To demand that it should investigate, with equal fervor, ALL possible causes seems a really wasteful demand. When trying to find a cause for something - you quickly rule out the least likely or least supported causes, and concentrate on those that have the most evidence supporting them or that seem the most likely to produce an answer.

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

There are a lot of things essential to life and they are all interconnected. When one elements is out of balance it has a ripple effect through out ecosystems. Just because something is "good" doesn't mean that more of it is "better".

The problem with consensus science is it really isn't science. Consensus is the language of politics Coyote. If I ask a scientist what the speed of light is, or what the formula for Kinetic Energy is there is no referral to "well the consensus says". No, he will tell you the speed of light is 186,282.396 miles per second. They will tell you the formula for kinetic energy is 0.5 times the mass times the velocity squared.

Those are facts. Whenever you resort to consensus you are no longer dealing with facts, you are dealing with opinion. Science is not interested in opinion. It is ONLY interested in facts.

That's the problem with scientists who rely on the "consensus" method of support for their argument. It is an appeal to authority which itself is a logic fail. Add to that the fact that the "scientific consensus" is itself not really factual, and you have a very large problem with AGW "science".

No. That is BS. All of the scientists who have concluded that the earth is warming.....that we are the reason....and that it is bad......are USING FACTS to make that conclusion.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Nope. Making an observation is not the same thing as taking a position. I have not and probably will not take a position on the discussion topic because I frankly don't know whether Moore is right.

All I know is I am willing to at least look at the merits or lack thereof of arguments made on the subject, and I am not willing to swallow hook, line, and sinker anybody else's opinion on the subject either without very good reason to do so.

You insult my intelligence. I gave you a good reason. You think the overwhelming majority of climate scientists the world over are going to suddenly say "Oops! Our bad! More CO2 is good for the environment. Drill baby, drill!"

I'm not asking you to accept any one persons opinion. That is what YOU are asking of me. I'm going with thousands of scientists here.

Take the ad hominem out of that and I will respond to it. I have asked nothing of you nor have I insulted your intelligence or anything else about you. And I believe true scientists ask questions and try to find answers for them and I believe thousands of scientists fall into that category.

The OP asks a question about CO2 levels and whether it is wrong for the IPPC to focus on CO2 and not on all causes of climate change. Let's focus on that and not me, okay?

You insulted my intelligence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

I came at the question you posed from my belief that the planet is self-regulating and that the history of the earth has shown dramatic shifts in the climate which have been redressed over time.

I believe that CO2 is important to the life cycle and as such a good thing.

.

That doesn't get said much in the debate from the AGW proponent side though does it? The arguments there all seem to think that if we reduce CO2 dramatically, we save the Earth from catastrophic consequences. And it is almost never discussed how much CO2 we actually need or is beneficial.

Others posted the recent study that could show that higher CO2 levels decrease the nutrient value in some food crops. And if you Google for that, you find dozens if not hundreds of sites--all supporting IPPC conclusions--restating or reprinting information about that study. Such things go really viral very quickly. Among those, only the National Geographic seems to take a really scientific view about it that it is one study involving two fields of crops, it is not conclusive, and while it is important, it only provides speculation about what might be happening.

And it did not include tests of crops grown in hundreds and thousands of greenhouses in which CO2 is kept at levels much higher than occurs in nature. I find that rather odd.

So for me, that is something to file back as something to pay attention to. But not something that I see as conclusive because of my natural skepticism of possibly self-serving kinds of things in these debates. Who funded the study? I haven't been able to find out. And is it the next 'we're all doomed' scenario to keep the funding pouring in since they all seem to be running out of steam on the global warming thing that just isn't happening as the computer models predicted.

So if it is a problem, we should know soon enough. And

........and you have never heard me say that we are doomed. MOST of the world gets it. We'll find a way. My way.......listening to scientists....just costs less.

Once upon a time the US Congress listened to genuine scientists too.

Then the Tobacco special interests produced scientists willing to lie for money.

Ever since then the scientific community has been treated with disdain which is unfortunate because they are the resource that provides us with the knowledge we need to survive.