SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bill who wrote (120087)4/7/2008 10:36:10 AM
From: TideGlider  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 173976
 
Carbon Dioxide Warming Is Good for the Planet

Published: May 7, 1990
To the Editor:

Senator Al Gore Jr. tells us in an Earth Day article (''To Skeptics on Global Warming,'' Op-Ed, April 22) that the most compelling evidence for carbon dioxide-induced global warming is the close correlation in Antarctic ice-core data between carbon dioxide and temperature over the last 160,000 years. Scrutiny of the data, however, makes it clear that the scientific evidence does not support his contention.

We need first to realize the chicken-and-egg nature of the ice-core data. Which comes first: changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration or changes in temperature?

The scientists who performed the original analyses on the ice core noted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide cannot be demonstrated to precede changes in air temperature when going from glacial to interglacial conditions. But in going from interglacial to glacial conditions, changes in air temperature always occur first, followed by changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Hence, changes in carbon dioxide concentration cannot be claimed to be the cause of changes in air temperature because the appropriate sequence of events (temperature changes following carbon dioxide change) is not only never present in the data, but it is actually violated in half of the record.

How is it that Senator Gore's ''most compelling evidence'' is so readily refuted? The only reasonable answer is that his basic premise is wrong: the earth just doesn't respond to carbon dioxide as the computer models say it does. And that should surprise no one. To make a valid prediction about the real world, for example, it is necessary to account for every real-world process of significance to earth's climate system; even the models' creators do not claim such knowledge or expertise. Consequently, to base sweeping social changes on imperfect predictive tools is unwise and contrary to mainstream scientific thinking.

I would agree, however, that as we debate and formulate policy in this area, we must bear in mind that our actions will affect not only our generation, but also generations to come. We owe it to our children and our children's children to investigate all aspects of carbon dioxide and global change. And when we do so, we find a wealth of beneficial effects from atmospheric carbon dioxide enrichment.

First, more carbon dioxide in the air increases the productivity of nearly all plants. It also reduces the rate at which water is lost to the atmosphere through individual plant leaves, greatly increasing the efficiency with which plants use water in producing organic matter. Plants of the future will be able to grow in areas that have been too dry for them.

Greater vegetative cover will mean less soil erosion. Greater plant productivity will also return more organic matter to the soil, increasing its fertility. With more organic matter in the soil, earthworm populations should be greatly augmented, further improving the fertility, structure, aeration and drainage of natural and agricultural soils. Larger and more vigorous populations of other soil organisms will also accelerate weathering and the creation of new soil, as well as increase the rate at which plants extract nitrogen from the atmosphere and use it as a fertilizer.

All of these good things will happen because there has generally been more carbon dioxide in the air than there is now, except for the geologically brief period of the ice ages. Consequently, plants are much better adapted to living under such conditions; that's why botanists and other plant scientists refer to the rising carbon dioxide content of earth's atmosphere as atmospheric carbon dioxide enrichment and aerial carbon dioxide fertilization. It's one of the best things that could happen to the planet.

So let's tell both sides. The facts demand it. Reason dictates it. Earth deserves it.

SHERWOOD B. IDSO
Research Physicist, Dept. of Agriculture
Water Conservation Laboratory
Phoenix, April 24, 1990



To: Bill who wrote (120087)4/7/2008 10:40:30 AM
From: TideGlider  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
Glaciers Dont Show Global Warming; CO2 Is Good For the Planet; Global Warming Guru Urges Caution
April 7, 1999
Source:
Cooler Heads Coalition

Glaciers Dont Show Global Warming

One of the most powerful images used by the global warming activists to frighten the public is that of melting glaciers and precipitous sea level rise. The Greens also claim that glaciers are one of the most important leading indicators of manmade global warming. A recent survey of the science, however, shows that "glaciers are poor barometers of global climate change," and "Far from providing scientific proof of global warming, the behavior of glaciers represents yet another powerful indictment of the already controversial global warming theory."

According to John Carlisle of the National Center for Public Policy Research, glaciers are subject to many influences which scientists dont fully grasp. Mountain glaciers are especially tricky due to the "complex topography of mountain areas." Carlisle quotes Alaska Geophysical Insitute glaciologist Keith Echelmeyer as saying, "to make a case that glaciers are retreating, and that the problem is global warming, is very hard to do . . . The physics are very complex. There is much more involved than just the climate response."

Many Alaskan glaciers, for example, are advancing in the same areas that others are retreating. Switzerland has experienced mild winters, warmer summers, and less precipitation over the last decade, yet many of its glaciers have advanced during this time.

An important determinant of how glaciers react to temperature change is size. A polar ice sheets response time to temperature change ranges from 10,000 to 100,000 years, for example. Large mountain glaciers respond on time scales ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 years and small mountain glaciers take 100 to 1,000 years to respond. "One explanation for some glaciers retreating today," says Carlisle, "is that they are responding to natural warming that occurred either during the Medieval Warm Period in the 11th century or to an even warmer period that occurred 6,000 years ago."

Mountain glaciers only account for about 6 percent of the earths total ice mass. The real danger of precipitous sea level rise would come from the melting of the polar ice sheets. Again Carlisle finds little evidence to support these claims. If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which is deemed to be the most vulnerable to global warming, were to melt the earths seas would rise by 17 feet. It has been estimated, however, that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would take about 50,000 years to respond to any warming that may occur now, due to its great size. A recent study of the ice sheet found that it has been stable for the last 100 years.

The Greenland ice sheets have also failed to recede. In fact, Greenland is in the midst of cooling period, contrary to global warming predictions. One study has found that the West Greenland Ice Sheet has thickened up to seven feet since 1980.

CO2 Is Good For the Planet

The Cooler Heads Coalition hosted a science briefing for congressional staff and media that featured Dr. Keith Idso. Dr. Idso argued that even though it is a trace gas, carbon dioxide, a necessary component of plant photosythesis, supports all life on earth. Idso explained to the audience that CO2 is not a pollutant, but is an odorless and invisible gas that is not toxic to animals, even at very high levels.

Thousands of scientific experiments have confirmed that a CO2 rich environment is more healthy, one in which plants thrive. One of the most important scientific discoveries about CO2 is that under a variety of stressful situations plants do better when there is more CO2 in the air. In fact plants that are stressed due to lack of water, high soil salinity, low light conditions or the presence of pollutants in the air, have a relatively higher response rate to CO2 than do plants in optimal environmental conditions.

Plants are now starving for CO2, according to Idso. About 95 percent of earths plant life evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 3,000 to 4,000 parts per million. Now with CO2 making up only about 360 parts per million, plants are struggling to survive. Any increase in CO2 can only benefit plants and the animals that depend on them.

Global Warming Guru Urges Caution

Recently several scientists who traditionally supported the apocalyptic global warming theory have made statements that downplay the certainty of the science behind the global warming scare. Most recently Stephen Schneider, a Stanford University biologist and one of the stalwarts of the global warming scene, told an audience at a March 23 conference in St. Louis University, that there is no reliable way to determine the impact of global warming on the earth, and that scientists dont really know what should be done about it.

He also argued that there is a "large degree of uncertainty among the experts over what might happen," according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (March 24, 1999). Schneider also made the case that "so many variables exist that estimates on the timing vary from the years 2030 to 2100, and the estimates on temperature rise vary from a manageable 1 degree Fahrenheit or less to as much as 4 degrees," the Post-Dispatch reported. "Its not so much a scientific question as it is a question of human values," said Sncheider.

Another scientist who is favorable to the global warming theory, Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University, said that it will be at least 10 years or more before scientists can separate the human effects on climate from natural variation. "The uncertainties concerning the responses of clouds, water vapor, ice, ocean currents and specific regions to increased greenhouse gases remain formidable," he said.

Announcements

The Cooler Heads Coalition is sponsoring two briefings for congressional staff and media in April. On April 9 Ben Leiberman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute will discuss the Montreal Protocol: A Success Story or Cautionary Tale. On April 16 Jeremy Rabkin will discuss the sovereignty implications of the Kyoto Protocol. Both briefings will be held at the Rayburn HOB room 2200 at 12:00 noon. Lunch will be provided.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced the release of the draft inventory for U.S. emissions for the years 1990 to 1997 as required by the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Comments from the public will be accepted until April 9, 1999. Comments received after that date will be considered for the next edition of the report. The draft is available at www.epa.gov/globalwarming/inventory.

The transcripts from the Cooler Heads science briefings for congressional staff and media and CEIs Costs of Kyoto lectures are available on CEIs website at www.cei.org. Transcripts currently available include, Climate Change: Insights from Oceanography, by Dr. Roger Pocklington; Global Warming: Evidence from the Satellite Record, by Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer; Global Warming and Vector-Borne Disease: Is Warmer Sicker? by Dr. Paul Reiter; Kyoto & Our Collective Economic Future: Economic & Energy Underpinnings, by Mark P. Mills; Emissions Credits: The Supply and Demand Gap, by Robert Reinstein; and Hot Times or Hot Air: The Sun in the Science of Global Warming, by Sallie Baliunas.
globalwarming.org



To: Bill who wrote (120087)4/7/2008 10:46:24 AM
From: TideGlider  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
Carbon Dioxide is Good for the Environment

by John Carlisle



Carbon dioxide is good for the environment.

That simple fact must be restated to counter environmentalists' baseless allegations that the accumulation of man-made carbon dioxide, produced by cars, power plants and other human activities, is causing dangerous global warming.

Indeed, far from being a poisonous gas that will wreak havoc on the planet's ecosystem, carbon dioxide is arguably the Earth's best friend in that trees, wheat, peanuts, flowers, cotton and numerous other plants significantly benefit from increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Dr. Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, one of the nation's leading carbon dioxide research centers, examined records of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and air temperature over the last 250,000 years. There were three dramatic episodes of global warming that occurred at the end of the last three ice ages. Interestingly, temperatures started to rise during those warming periods well before the atmospheric carbon dioxide started to increase. In fact, the carbon dioxide levels did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Concludes Dr. Idso, "Clearly, there is no way that these real-world observations can be construed to even hint at the possibility that a significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will necessarily lead to any global warming."1

On the other hand, scientists have lots of evidence demonstrating that increased carbon dioxide levels leads to healthier plants. A team of scientists in Nevada conducted a five-year experiment in which they grew one group of ponderosa pine trees at the current carbon dioxide atmospheric level of about 360 parts per million (ppm) and another group of pines at 700 ppm. The doubled carbon dioxide level increased tree height by 43 percent and diameter by 24 percent. Similarly, a team of scientists from Virginia Tech University reported that growing loblolly pine trees in a greenhouse with a carbon dioxide concentration of 700 ppm increased average tree height 9 percent, diameter by 7 percent, needle biomass by 16 percent and root biomass by 33 percent.2

Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide doesn't just make a plant bigger. Carbon dioxide also makes plants more resistant to extreme weather conditions. In a study discussed in the journal Plant Ecology, a team of scientists subjected the Mojave Desert evergreen shrub to three different concentrations of carbon dioxide - the current level of 360 ppm and at 550 ppm and 700 ppm. The plants, which were being grown in simulated drought conditions, responded more favorably in the carbon dioxide-rich environments. Photosynthetic activity doubled in the 550 ppm environment and tripled at 700 ppm. Increased photosynthetic activity enables plants to withstand drought better.3

Likewise, a team of biologists grew seedlings of three yucca plants in cooler greenhouse environments at the 360 ppm and 700 ppm concentrations. The yucca plants exposed to the enhanced carbon dioxide concentration showed a greater resistance to the colder temperatures. Dr. Robert Balling, a climatologist at Arizona State University, notes that by making plants healthier and more resistant to extreme weather conditions, higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide expands the habitat of many plants, improves rangeland in semi-arid areas and enhances agricultural productivity in arid areas.4

Another benefit of enhanced atmospheric carbon dioxide is that it helps the tropical rainforests. Scientists from Venezuela and the United Kingdom grew several species of tropical trees and other plants in greenhouse conditions at carbon dioxide concentrations double the current level. The plants responded favorably, showing an increase in photosynthetic activity. The scientists concluded that, "In a future atmosphere with a higher carbon dioxide concentration, these species should be able to show a higher productivity than today."5

Another team of British and New Zealand researchers grew tropical trees for 119 days at elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. They found that the enriched carbon dioxide environment stimulated the trees' root growth by 23 percent. Expanded root systems help tropical trees by increasing their ability to absorb water and nutrients.6

Bigger trees, increased resistance to bad weather, improved agricultural productivity and a boon to rainforests are just some of the many benefits that carbon dioxide bestows on the environment. With little evidence that carbon dioxide triggers dangerous global warming but lots of evidence showing how carbon dioxide helps the environment, environmentalists should be extolling the virtues of this benign greenhouse gas.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:

1 Dr. Craig Idso, "CO2 and Temperature: The Great Geophysical Waltz," Editorial Review, Vol. 2, No. 7, April 1, 1999.

2 Dr. Robert Balling, "Pine v. Weeds," World Climate Report, Vol. 6, No. 7, December 26, 2000.

3 Dr. Robert Balling, "Evergreener," World Climate Report, Vol. 6, No. 6, December 12, 2000.

4 Dr. Robert Balling, "CO2 as Antifreeze," World Climate Report, Vol. 6, No. 4, November 6, 2000.

5 Dr. Robert Balling, "CO2 Packs Tropical Punch," World Climate Report, Vol. 6, No. 5, November 20, 2000.

6 Ibid.

# # #

John K. Carlisle is director of The National Center for Public Policy Research's Environmental Policy Task Force. He can be reached at JCarlisle@nationalcenter.org.