Stop demonizing Carbon Dioxide! It's good for us and good for the planet

[cali]

Of all of the world's chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That's simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.

The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a "pollutant" in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.

Using energy from sunlight—together with the catalytic action of an ancient enzyme called rubisco, the most abundant protein on earth—plants convert carbon dioxide from the air into carbohydrates and other useful molecules. Rubisco catalyzes the attachment of a carbon-dioxide molecule to another five-carbon molecule to make two three-carbon molecules, which are subsequently converted into carbohydrates. (Since the useful product from the carbon dioxide capture consists of three-carbon molecules, plants that use this simple process are called C3 plants.) C3 plants, such as wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton and many forage crops, evolved when there was much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than today. So these agricultural staples are actually undernourished in carbon dioxide relative to their original design.

<snip>

Crop yields in recent dry years were less affected by drought than crops of the dust-bowl droughts of the 1930s, when there was less carbon dioxide. Nowadays, in an age of rising population and scarcities of food and water in some regions, it's a wonder that humanitarians aren't clamoring for more atmospheric carbon dioxide. Instead, some are denouncing it.

We know that carbon dioxide has been a much larger fraction of the earth's atmosphere than it is today, and the geological record shows that life flourished on land and in the oceans during those times. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.

<snip>

and some good responses to this unbelievable piece:

Cherry picking short-term temperature data over the past 15 years proves nothing, but the fact that those who cite this data do NOT understand the physics of the phenomenon; the long-term trends are what counts. The observed long-term trend of exponentially increasing levels of CO2 in the upper atmosphere, up from 320 to 400 ppmv, in the past 65 years is what counts, not irrelevant facts about plant evolution or debates about which greenhouse gas exerts the most powerful forcing. The observed decrease in ocean pH of 0.1 units, observed changes in ocean temperature, and the increases in ocean energy content is what counts, not to mention measured changes in alpine glacier melt rates and ice behavior at the poles. The sensitivity of industrial agricultural systems, our economy and ecosystems to small changes in rainfall patterns and temperature is what counts, not fantasies about higher plant productivity when dinosauers walked the Earth.
<snip>

These writers are not climatologists and show their ignorance. They are Heartland and Cato Institute affiliated writers who have displayed their ideological disdain for scientific facts. A few years ago, Schmitt said that climate change is “a stalking horse for National Socialism.” Regarding his silly opinion, there is a kernel of truth to plants liking CO2, but that is besides the point. Millions of years ago the earth was much hotter and saw higher CO2 levels, and at times there were no ice caps, and water levels were very high. If we returned to that condition today, all our coastal areas would be underwater. In the Pliocene period, about three million years ago, CO2 was at about 400 ppm (same as today), and sea level is estimated to have been somewhere between 15 and 130 feet higher than today (80' is the commonly cited figure). If things get a lot worse, and all the ice caps melt, the sea will rise about 220 feet. So, the earth will survive anything, but the world as we built and know it (mostly in coastal areas during a relatively stable period in climate), has everything to lose with the current fossil fuel induced warming. Skepticalscience.com is a great source for the science and addresses the the misleading, false, or cherry-picked arguments of deniers or obfuscators such as these authors.
Finally, I'll have to remember the type of argument methodology these authors are using if I am ever in a pinch - I think it goes like this: Dogs in war grow feral and happy, much like they were before man; therefore, war is good for dogs.

<snip>

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323528404578452483656067190.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle

[Gregorian]

1. War is good for dogs. In some weird way that gives me comfort. However

With intelligence comes a difficult responsibility to avoid being depressed.

I don't know if this is appropriate, as it caused me some distress when I listened the first few times. However, I feel there is some real wisdom in what George has to say.

[pansypoo53219]

2. i think my cousin the atmospheric Ph.d did his dissertation on the GREENHOUSE EFFECT.

more CO2, yes. more growth, but it added MORE DECOMPOSITION w/ leads to MORE CO2. MORE WARMING.

yeah. we are doomed.