Dear Charlie and Lee;
At the risk of being "politically incorrect" I think we should look at our C02 policy that is emerging:
Here is an article from
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming060607.htm
on C02;
"As a refresher for politicians who apparently need it - not all do; some recognize that much of today's CO2 climate change rhetoric is nonsense but are either muzzled by their parties from saying so or find it to their political advantage to repeat alarmist propaganda - here is what science actually says about this benign gas.
As we have written often in the Canada Free Press, CO2 is not currently a major climate driver. Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint. Computer climate models get around this by assuming that a highly questionable hypothesis is correct, namely that small increases in temperature due to large CO2 rises cause more evaporation and the subsequently higher concentration of water vapor (the major greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere will cause further temperature rise. More likely, the resultant increased cloud cover will drive temperatures down.
Although it is improbable that humanity can greatly alter atmospheric CO2 levels, MPs must understand that CO2 is not a pollutant and threatens neither us nor the environment. CO2 is essential to life on Earth as plants ‘breathe in' CO2 and ‘breath out' oxygen while animals inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Research shows plants function best with CO2 levels between 1,000 and 1,200 parts per million (ppm). Greenhouses inject CO2 to reach these levels and achieve significantly higher yields as a result. This suggests that plants evolved to suit levels around 1,000 ppm and are CO2 starved at today's 385 ppm. In fact, at 200 ppm plants begin to suffer and at 120 ppm they start to die.
Based on experiments by Mayeux et al. (1997), U. S. Department of Agriculture research scientist Sherwood Idso calculated that the approximately 100 ppm increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the past century and a half would have resulted in an increase in average wheat yield throughout the world of about 60%. That's because higher CO2 makes plants grow faster.
The National Centre for Public Policy Research asserts, "Based on 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average 32% across species. Controlled experiments have shown that:
• Tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuce average between 20% and 50% higher yields under elevated CO2 conditions.
• Cereal grains including rice, wheat, barley, oats and rye average between 25% and 64% higher yields under elevated CO2 levels.
• Food crops such as corn, sorghum, millet and sugar cane average yield increases from 10% to 55% at elevated CO2 levels.
• Root crops including potatoes, yams and cassava show average yield increases of 18% to 75% under elevated CO2 conditions.
• Legumes, including peas, beans and soybeans, post greater yields of between 28% and 46% when CO2 levels are increased."
It has also been found that higher CO2 levels enhance the health-promoting properties of food and increase the effectiveness of plant constituents that protect against various cancers and cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.
Finally, elevated levels of CO2 cause decreased water loss in plants as the stomata (pores) on leaves shrink and exhale less water. This makes plants more efficient users of water at higher CO2 levels, a characteristic especially important in drought stricken regions."
My question is simple;
If we expect a population of 30% more... plus a better food balance and distribution to give people equal access to food:
Won't higher C02 levels be the simple and least costly alternative to feed our world in the future?
I think it is actually quite an interesting part of the design our intelligent creator built into our planet; that the more active humanity becomes...
C02 IS AN OUTCOME OF Human ACTIVITY:
the better our world is able to feed our selves; the more efficient our systems become!
I am not talking about smog here... but C02.
At the risk of being "politically incorrect" I think we should look at our C02 policy that is emerging:
Here is an article from
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming060607.htm
on C02;
"As a refresher for politicians who apparently need it - not all do; some recognize that much of today's CO2 climate change rhetoric is nonsense but are either muzzled by their parties from saying so or find it to their political advantage to repeat alarmist propaganda - here is what science actually says about this benign gas.
As we have written often in the Canada Free Press, CO2 is not currently a major climate driver. Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint. Computer climate models get around this by assuming that a highly questionable hypothesis is correct, namely that small increases in temperature due to large CO2 rises cause more evaporation and the subsequently higher concentration of water vapor (the major greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere will cause further temperature rise. More likely, the resultant increased cloud cover will drive temperatures down.
Although it is improbable that humanity can greatly alter atmospheric CO2 levels, MPs must understand that CO2 is not a pollutant and threatens neither us nor the environment. CO2 is essential to life on Earth as plants ‘breathe in' CO2 and ‘breath out' oxygen while animals inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Research shows plants function best with CO2 levels between 1,000 and 1,200 parts per million (ppm). Greenhouses inject CO2 to reach these levels and achieve significantly higher yields as a result. This suggests that plants evolved to suit levels around 1,000 ppm and are CO2 starved at today's 385 ppm. In fact, at 200 ppm plants begin to suffer and at 120 ppm they start to die.
Based on experiments by Mayeux et al. (1997), U. S. Department of Agriculture research scientist Sherwood Idso calculated that the approximately 100 ppm increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the past century and a half would have resulted in an increase in average wheat yield throughout the world of about 60%. That's because higher CO2 makes plants grow faster.
The National Centre for Public Policy Research asserts, "Based on 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average 32% across species. Controlled experiments have shown that:
• Tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuce average between 20% and 50% higher yields under elevated CO2 conditions.
• Cereal grains including rice, wheat, barley, oats and rye average between 25% and 64% higher yields under elevated CO2 levels.
• Food crops such as corn, sorghum, millet and sugar cane average yield increases from 10% to 55% at elevated CO2 levels.
• Root crops including potatoes, yams and cassava show average yield increases of 18% to 75% under elevated CO2 conditions.
• Legumes, including peas, beans and soybeans, post greater yields of between 28% and 46% when CO2 levels are increased."
It has also been found that higher CO2 levels enhance the health-promoting properties of food and increase the effectiveness of plant constituents that protect against various cancers and cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.
Finally, elevated levels of CO2 cause decreased water loss in plants as the stomata (pores) on leaves shrink and exhale less water. This makes plants more efficient users of water at higher CO2 levels, a characteristic especially important in drought stricken regions."
My question is simple;
If we expect a population of 30% more... plus a better food balance and distribution to give people equal access to food:
Won't higher C02 levels be the simple and least costly alternative to feed our world in the future?
I think it is actually quite an interesting part of the design our intelligent creator built into our planet; that the more active humanity becomes...
C02 IS AN OUTCOME OF Human ACTIVITY:
the better our world is able to feed our selves; the more efficient our systems become!
I am not talking about smog here... but C02.
Comment