In April 2017,
Carl Zimmer wrote a
New York Times article titled:
“Antarctic Ice Reveals
Earth’s Accelerating
Plant Growth”
based on research performed by
Dr. J. E. Campbell
of the Sierra Nevada
of the Sierra Nevada
Research Institute,
University of California
University of California
in Merced, California
(and others…) called
“Large historical growth
(and others…) called
“Large historical growth
in global terrestrial
gross primary production”
published 5 April 2017
in the journal Nature.
“Analyzing the ice,
Dr. Campbell
and his colleagues
have discovered
that in the last century,
plants have been growing
at a rate far faster
than at any other time
in the last 54,000 years."
The increase
is because of
the carbon dioxide
that humans are putting
into the atmosphere,
which fertilizes the plants,
Dr. Campbell said.
“The pace of change
in photosynthesis
is unprecedented
in the 54,000-year record,”
Dr. Campbell said.
While photosynthesis
increased at the end
of the ice age, he said,
the current rate is
136 times as fast.
This surprised many leftists,
but skeptics were not surprised.
Seed germination percentages
increase with increasing CO2, too.
It not just faster plant growth,
with smaller water requirements
with smaller water requirements
-- it's more plants too.
There is overwhelming literature
-- thousands of scientific studies --
on growth under CO2 enhancement.
Here's a summary:
https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf
Here's a summary:
https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf
It was predictable
that, eventually,
someone would speculate
that, eventually,
someone would speculate
that 'greening' the Earth
was bad news !
Climate cult members
believe any beneficial effect
of carbon dioxide emissions
must be claimed
to be ultimately harmful.
Real science doesn’t matter.
What is important
is getting the media
to parrot your speculations,
and they will publish anything
that claims CO2 is harmful.
But ... who here on this planet
would not want a slightly
warmer, greener world?
A world where food grows faster
and larger than today, with smaller
fresh water requirements?
Only leftists, it appears !
John Henry Poynting
coined the term
“greenhouse effect”
in 1909.
Before it was seized
by the climate change cult,
“Greenhouse Effect”
by the climate change cult,
“Greenhouse Effect”
referred to the effect of
elevated carbon dioxide
inside greenhouses
on crop chemistry.
The important features
of soil chemistry
are the availability
are the availability
of water, nitrates,
phosphates, minerals,
phosphates, minerals,
and oxygen.
Plants need carbon dioxide (CO2)
for photosynthesis, while giving off
oxygen (O2), and also give off CO2
in respiration, while taking in O2.
The vast majority of Earth's history
had temperatures of far higher than
today, and far higher levels of CO2.
And it was under these conditions
that plants evolved.
Greenhouse owners
have been growing flowers
and other crops
have been growing flowers
and other crops
using CO2 enrichment
for many decades.
Different plants
have different
CO2 saturation points
CO2 saturation points
(at which increasing CO2
does not increase
photosynthesis).
A general CO2 range
for optimization
for optimization
of plant growth
is 800 to 2,000 ppm,
is 800 to 2,000 ppm,
far above
the current level
outdoors
the current level
outdoors
of about 410 ppm
(ppm = parts per million).
(ppm = parts per million).
Carl Zimmer
of the NY Times
of the NY Times
has now claimed:
"‘Global Greening’
Sounds Good.
Sounds Good.
In the Long Run,
It’s Terrible.”.
It’s Terrible.”.
In collaboration
with Dr. J. E. Campbell
with Dr. J. E. Campbell
of the Sierra Nevada
Research Institute,
Research Institute,
Zimmer now claims
these Bad Things
these Bad Things
About Global Greening:
1. “More Photosynthesis
Doesn’t Mean More Food“
(NOT TRUE).
2. “Extra Carbon Dioxide
Can Make Plants
Less Nutritious”
(THE PLANTS WOULD BE BIGGER
and CONTAIN MORE WATER --
SO PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO EAT
A SLIGHTLY HEAVIER PORTION,
TO GET THE SAME NUTRITIONAL
VALUE)
3. “More Plants
Won’t Prevent
Climate Change”
(NO ONE CLAIMED THEY WOULD)
4. “Global Greening
Won’t Last Forever”
(GREENING WOULD LAST
UNTIL EVERY PLANT
REACHED ITS CO2
SATURATION POINT)
Zimmer admits
that the subject
of Global Greening
is young and
full of unknowns --
it's very unusual
for any claim
for any claim
by the climate cult
to be stated
WITHOUT high
WITHOUT high
(imaginary) confidence.
The 21st Century
average annual increase
in atmospheric CO2
is around 2.5 ppm per year.
So it would take
hundreds of years
hundreds of years
to go from 410 ppm CO2 today,
to the 1,000 ppm CO2
that most plants prefer.
Zimmer and Campbell fear
runaway global warming
that will kill plants, and
breakdown of plant debris
will release even more
CO2 into the air -- the usual
leftist scaremongering.
Zimmer and Campbell think
the “end of Global Greening”
would then result
in a sudden spill of carbon
back into the atmosphere ?
in a sudden spill of carbon
back into the atmosphere ?
They don't seem to realize
CO2 has been already
been transformed
through photosynthesis
into vegetation, soil,
organic matter in the soil,
some is locked up
in the ocean surface waters,
and much has sunk
to the deep ocean
-- sediments
on the ocean floor
on the ocean floor
are carbonaceous,
and eventually become
sedimentary rock.
and eventually become
sedimentary rock.
Other carbon
became deposits
became deposits
of oil and coal and gas,
and some is
and some is
locked up in the bodies
of the planet’s
of the planet’s
animal life,
including 8 billion humans.
including 8 billion humans.
Once sequestered,
carbon will not return
to the atmosphere
as carbon dioxide
for a very long time !