The purveyors of climate doom will not tolerate the good news of our planet thriving because of modest warming and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). [emphasis, links added]
However, a recent scientific paper concludes that an optimistic vision for Earth and its inhabitants is nonetheless justified.
Widely accepted data show an overall greening of Earth resulting from a cycle of natural warming that began more than 300 years ago and from industrialization’s additions of CO2 that started in the 19th century and accelerated with vigorous economic activity following World War II.
Also attributed to these and other factors is record crop production, which now sustains eight billion people—ten times the population before the Industrial Revolution.
The boost in atmospheric CO2 since 1940 alone is linked to yield increases for corn, soybeans, and wheat of 10%, 30% and 40%, respectively.
The positive contribution of carbon dioxide to the human condition should be cause for celebration, but this is more than demonizers of the gas can abide.
Right on cue, narrators of a planet supposedly overheating from carbon dioxide began sensationalizing research findings that increased plant volume results in lower concentrations of nutrients in food.
“The potential health consequences are large, given that there are already billions of people around the world who don’t get enough protein, vitamins or other nutrients in their daily diet,” concluded The New York Times, a reliable promoter of apocalypse forever.
Among others chiming in have been The Lancet, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and the National Institutes of Health.
Of course, such yellow journalism lacks context and countervailing facts —elements provided in “Nutritive Value of Plants Growing in Enhanced CO2Concentrations,” published by the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia.
Any deficiency of nutrients from the enhancement of plant growth by elevated carbon dioxide is “small, compared to the nutrient shortages that agriculture and livestock routinely face because of natural phenomena, such as severe soil fertility differences, nutrient dilution in plants due to rainfall or irrigation and even aging of crops,” says the paper.
And while there is evidence of marginal decreases in some nutrients, data also show that higher levels of CO2 “may enhance certain groups of health-promoting phytochemicals in food crops” that serve as antioxidants and anti-inflammatory compounds, says the paper, which lists seven authors and more than 100 references.
The lead author is Albrecht Glatzle, a member of the Rural Association of Paraguay and a former international researcher of plant and animal nutrition.
Among other points made by the paper are the following:
Throughout the majority of geological history, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been several times higher than today’s, which are less than optimum for most plants; atmospheric warming from even a quadrupling of CO2 concentrations would be small compared to natural temperature fluctuations since the last glacial advance more than 10,000 years ago.
Having virtually no scientific basis, the “green” movement’s hostility to carbon dioxide seemingly ignores the gas’s critical role as a plant food.
As the paper notes, “CO2 is the only source of the chemical element carbon for all life on Earth, be it for plants, animals or fungi and bacteria — through photosynthesis and food chains.”
The so-called greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide — perversely exaggerated to support climate fearmongering — is a life-saving temperature moderator that keeps Earth from freezing over.
The obvious benefits of CO2 are “an embarrassment to the large and profitable movement to ‘save the planet’ from ‘carbon pollution,’ ” write the authors. “If CO2 greatly benefits agriculture and forestry and has a small, benign effect on climate, it is not a pollutant at all.”
More CO2 is good news. It’s not that complicated.
Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist; executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va.; author of “Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know” and “A Very Convenient Warming: How Modest Warming and More CO2 Are Benefiting Humanity” and a co-author of “Nutritive Value of Plants Growing in Enhanced CO2 Concentrations.”
Read more at Daily Caller
Frankly leftists rags like the New York Slimes(Times)should be sold with the Tabloids or the Fiction since this leftists rag chooses to print fake news all the time
Excellent article! CO2 was higher in geological history. During these times increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations acted to promote growth of earth’s forests, grass, etc. this in turn contributed to an increase of land animals. In past atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were at 1200 parts per million. Also there were variations in CO2 concentrations during short time periods. This is true for many types of earths parameters . Including CO 2. This why you always see graphs of climate change parameters drawn as a straight line. Short time variations of any natural. So saying that our climate has anomalously changed in the last 100 years is not valid.
What is there that makes this so hard to understand? One only needs to do a little personal research to find that the contents of this article are correct.
Looking at “global warming” from a different angle, there is a simple fact facing humanity and it is this. As Earth ages, it cools. For all we know, we many be experiencing the best time to be alive. We have no idea what it will be like on Earth in say the year 2100? I hope for the sake of my decendents it’s as good as today.
There is another problem. We are at the peak (in timing) of a warm cycle and the only direction now is for a gradual cooling. In the cyclic calendar, this cooling is due sometime in the next 30 – 50 years.
There are unknowns of course. Meteor impact or a super volcano eruption, neither of which we want because there will be billions of people killed, mainly due to starvation. Either of these events would be catastrophic.
In all of the bad possible outcomes for us, the wisest thing we could be doing is preparing to survive and to adapt. Fighting each other (Russia’s invasion of Ukraine) or trying to take over all of humanity (China’s CCP behaviour) will be futile should a huge meteor crash into us.
It’s not the CO2 that’s causing any temperature rise… the climatologists have flipped thermodynamics on its head via their misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation. They use the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon real-world graybody objects. This assumes emission to 0 K, which has the effect of isolating each calculated-upon object into its own system so objects cannot interact via the ambient EM field, via field radiation pressure, a manifestation of each object’s energy density. It also has the effect of conjuring “backradiation” out of thin air.
The climatologists claim CO2 causes global warming via the “greenhouse effect”. The claimed “greenhouse effect” is predicated upon the existence of “backradiation” as its cause. Disprove “backradiation” and the entire house-of-cards collapses. That mathematical disproof is below.
The CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2) hypothesis has been disproved… it does not reflect reality.
CAGW Is Nothing More Than A Complex Mathematical Scam… The Proof
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
The takeaways:
1) The climatologists have conflated their purported “greenhouse effect” with the Kelvin-Helmholtz Gravitational Auto-Compression Effect (aka the lapse rate).
2) The climatologists claim the causative agent for their purported “greenhouse effect” to be “backradiation”.
3) The Kelvin-Helmholtz Gravitational Auto-Compression Effect’s causative agent is, of course, gravity.
4) “Backradiation” is physically impossible because energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.
5) The climatologists misuse the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation, using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon graybody objects, which manufactures out of thin air their purported “backradiation”. It is only a mathematical artifact due to that aforementioned misuse of the S-B equation. It does not and cannot actually exist. Its existence would imply rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws.
6) Polyatomic molecules are net atmospheric radiative coolants, not “global warming” gases. Far from the ‘global warming gas’ claimed by the climatologists, water acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle‘ sense) below the tropopause. CO2 is the most prevalent atmospheric radiative coolant above the tropopause and the second-most prevalent (behind water vapor) below the tropopause.
There are two forms of the S-B equation:
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
[1] Idealized Blackbody Object form (assumes emission to 0 K and ε = 1 by definition):
q_bb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
= 1 σ (T_h^4 – 0 K)
= σ T^4
[2] Graybody Object form (assumes emission to > 0 K and ε < 1):
q_gb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
Temperature is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant (ie: the radiation constant), per Stefan’s Law.
e = T^4 a
a = 4σ/c
e = T^4 4σ/c
T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
T = 4^√(e/(4σ/c))
T = 4^√(e/a)
where:
a = 4σ/c = 7.5657332500339284719430800357226e-16 J m-3 K-4
where:
σ = (2 π^5 k_B^4) / (15 h^3 c^2) = 5.6703744191844294539709967318892308758401229702913e-8 W m-2 K-4
where:
σ = Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
k_B = Boltzmann Constant (1.380649e−23 J K−1)
h = Planck Constant (6.62607015e−34 J Hz−1)
c = light speed (299792458 m sec-1)
σ / a = 74948114.502437694376419756266673 W J-1 m (W m-2 / J m-3)
The traditional Stefan-Boltzmann equation for graybody objects:
q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
[1] ∴ q = ε_h σ ((e_h / (4σ / c)) – (e_c / (4σ / c)))
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (Δ(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1)))
[2] ∴ q = (ε_h c (e_h – e_c)) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4
One can see from the immediately-above equation that the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation for graybody objects is all about subtracting the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object.
[3] ∴ q = (ε_h * (σ / a) * Δe)
Canceling units, we get W m-2.
W m-2 = ((W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3)
You will note that σ = (a * c) / 4… the S-B Constant equals Stefan’s Constant multiplied by the speed of light in vacua divided by 4.
[4] ∴ q = (ε_h * ((a * c) / a) * Δe) / 4 = (ε_h * c * Δe) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 * ΔJ m-3) / 4
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation in energy density form ([3] above):
σ / a * Δe * ε_h = W m-2
σ / a = 5.6703744191844294539709967318892308758401229702913e-8 W m-2 K-4 / 7.5657332500339284719430800357226e-16 J m-3 K-4 = 74948114.502437694376419756266673 W m-2 / J m-3.
Well, what do you know… that’s the conversion factor for radiant exitance (W m-2) and energy density (J m-3)!
It’s almost as if the radiant exitance of graybody objects is determined by the energy density gradient, right?
Energy can’t even spontaneously flow when there is zero energy density gradient:
σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * Δe [J m-3] * ε_h = [W m-2]
σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * 0 [J m-3] * ε_h = 0 [W m-2]
… it is certainly not going to spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.
Do remember that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/qPJ94.png
… so there is no physical way possible by which energy can spontaneously flow from cooler (lower energy density) to warmer (higher energy density). ‘Backradiation’ is nothing more than a mathematical artifact due to the climatologists misusing the S-B equation.
The above completely destroys AGW and CAGW, because they are predicated upon the existence of “backradiation” (radiation spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient) as the causative agent for the climatologists’ claimed “greenhouse effect”.