The Positive Impact of HUman CO2 Emissions on the Survival of Life on Earth

[Leto]

Dr Patrick Moore was a co founder of Greenpeace, however he is an honest results oriented person. This ebook has 20 pages of content. Great Read.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/moore-positive-impact-of-human-co2-emissions.pdf


The conclusion:

CO2 is essential for life, and twice in the history of modern
life there have been periods of steep decline in the
concentration of CO2 in the global atmosphere. If this decline
were to have continued at the same rate into the future, CO2
would eventually fall to levels insufficient to support plant
life, possibly in less than two million years. More worrisome
is the possibility in the nearer future that during a future
glaciation, CO2 may fall to 180 ppm or lower, thus greatly
reducing the growth of food crops and other plants. Human
CO2 emissions have staved off this possibility so that at least
during a period of glaciation, CO2 would be high enough to
maintain a productive agricultural industry.

A 140 million year decline in CO2 to levels that came close
to threatening the survival of life on Earth can hardly be
described as “the balance of nature”. To that extent human
emissions are restoring a balance to the global carbon cycle
by returning some of the CO2 back to the atmosphere that
was drawn down by photosynthesis and CaCO3 production
and subsequently lost to deep sediments. This extremely
positive aspect of human CO2 emissions must surely be
weighed against the unproven hypothesis that human CO2
emissions are mainly responsible for the slight warming
of the climate in recent years and will cause catastrophic
warming over the coming decades. The fact that the current
warming began about 300 years ago during the Little Ice
Age indicates that it may at least in part be the continuation
of the same natural forces that have caused the climate to
change through the ages.

Despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary, much
of Western society has been convinced that a global
warming and a climate change crisis is upon us. The idea
of catastrophic climate change is a powerful one, as it
encompasses everything and everywhere on Earth. There
is nowhere to hide from “carbon pollution.” There is also the
combination of fear and guilt: we are fearful that driving our
cars will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing so.
A powerful convergence of interests among key elites
supports and drives the climate catastrophe narrative.
Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations;
politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the
media has a field day with sensation and conflict; scientists
and science institutions raise billions in public grants, create
whole new institutions, and engage in a feeding frenzy of
scary scenarios; businesses want to look green and receive
huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be
economic losers, such as large wind farms and solar arrays.
Even the Pope of the Catholic Church has weighed in with
a religious angle.

Lost in all these machinations is the indisputable fact that
the most important thing about CO2 is that it is essential
for all life on Earth and that before humans began to burn
fossil fuels, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was
heading in a very dangerous direction for a very long time.
Surely, the most “dangerous” change in climate in the short
term would be to one that would not support sufficient food
production to feed our own population. The current “pause”
in global warming recorded by two satellites and thousands
of weather balloons, now nearly two decades on, does give
pause to the hypothesis that higher CO2 will inevitably lead
to higher temperatures.46 During this period of no significant
warming, about one-third of all human CO2 emissions since
the beginning of the Industrial Age has been emitted into
the atmosphere. The best outcome would be that CO2 does
cause some measure of warming, but somewhat lower than
that suggested by extreme predictions.

We should ask those who predict catastrophic climate
change, including the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, some pressing questions regarding the
outcome if humans had not intervened in the carbon cycle.

• What evidence or argument is there that the global
climate would not revert to another glacial period in
keeping with the Milankovitch cycles as it has done
repeatedly during at least the past 800,000 years?

• What evidence is there that we are not already
past the maximum global temperature during this
Holocene interglacial period?

• How can we be certain that in the absence of
human emissions the next cooling period would
not be more severe than the recent Little Ice Age?

• Given that the optimum CO2 level for plant growth
is above 1,000 ppm and that CO2 has been above
that level for most of the history of life, what sense
does it make to call for a reduction in the level of
CO2 in the absence of evidence of catastrophic
climate change?

• Is there any plausible scenario, in the absence
of human emissions, that would end the gradual
depletion of CO2 in the atmosphere until it reaches
the starvation level for plants, hence for life on earth?
These and many other questions about CO2, climate and
plant growth require our serious consideration if we are to
avoid making some very costly mistakes.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I read that the increase in CO2 was actually helping plants grow.

[Leto]

The biomass of the planet has increased by ~10% in the last 30 years due to increased CO2.

See pg 15 of link above for map

[MajorClay]

Composition of the atmosphere:  Nitrogen N2  78%
                                                Oxygen   O2  21%
                                                Argon              9%
                                        Carbon DioxideCO2  .03%


I really have difficulty seeing how CO2 has much to do with anything but plant food.