Impact Warming Good

NU ZAREFSKY JUNIORS GLOBAL WARMING GOOD
GLOBAL WARMING GOOD INDEX

Global Warming - Product of the Media......................................................................................................................................................3
No Global Warming - Oceans......................................................................................................................................................................4
No Global Warming - Natural......................................................................................................................................................................6
No Global Warming - Ozone ......................................................................................................................................................................7
No Global Warming - Cooling.....................................................................................................................................................................8
No Global Warming - Negative Feedback ..................................................................................................................................................9
No Global Warming - Negative Feedback.................................................................................................................................................10
Weather Stations Bad - Urban Heat Island................................................................................................................................................11
GCMs Bad - Satellites ..............................................................................................................................................................................12
GCMs Bad - Accuracy...............................................................................................................................................................................13
GCMs Bad - Predictions............................................................................................................................................................................14
Warming Irreversible - Emissions Cut ......................................................................................................................................................15
Warming Irreversible - Emissions Cut......................................................................................................................................................16
Warming Irreversible - Feedback Loop.....................................................................................................................................................17
Warming Irreversible - Other Countries....................................................................................................................................................18
Alt Cause - Solar Forcing - Intensity.........................................................................................................................................................19
Alt Cause - Solar Forcing - Cycle..............................................................................................................................................................20
Alt Cause - Solar Forcing - Mars...............................................................................................................................................................21
Alt Cause - Galactic Rays..........................................................................................................................................................................22
Alt Cause - Natural Cycle - Water Vapor...................................................................................................................................................23
Alt Cause - Natural Cycle - Disproves CO2..............................................................................................................................................24
Alt Cause - Natural Cycle - Disproves CO2..............................................................................................................................................25
Alt Cause - Natural Cycle - Past Warming................................................................................................................................................26
Alt Cause - Natural Cycle - Past Warming................................................................................................................................................27
Alt Cause - Natural Cycle - No Impact
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................28
Alt Cause - Outgassing..............................................................................................................................................................................29
Alt Cause - Outgassing..............................................................................................................................................................................30
No Greenhouse - Satellite Data..................................................................................................................................................................31
No Greenhouse - Satellite Data .................................................................................................................................................................32
No Greenhouse - Satellite Data .................................................................................................................................................................33
No Greenhouse - CO2 Concentration........................................................................................................................................................34
No Greenhouse - Not Man-Made..............................................................................................................................................................35
A2 - Climate Variability ............................................................................................................................................................................36
A2 - Sea Level Rise - Antarctica Turn.......................................................................................................................................................37
A2 - Sea Level Rise - Insignificant............................................................................................................................................................38
A2 - Sea Level Rise - Slow........................................................................................................................................................................39
A2 - Sea Level Rise - Alt Cause................................................................................................................................................................40
A2 - Glaciers Melt - Disprove...................................................................................................................................................................41
A2 - Greenland Ice Sheet - Models Flawed...............................................................................................................................................42
A2 - Resource Wars - Failed Governance..................................................................................................................................................43
A2 - Resource Wars - Won’t Happen.........................................................................................................................................................44
A2 - Malaria - Models Flawed...................................................................................................................................................................45
A2 - Malaria - Alt Causes..........................................................................................................................................................................46
A2 - Malaria - Government Response.......................................................................................................................................................47
A2 - Ice Age - Refuted...............................................................................................................................................................................48
A2 - Ice Age - Models Flawed...................................................................................................................................................................49
A2 - Economy - Poverty............................................................................................................................................................................50
A2 - Biodiversity - Coral Adapts...............................................................................................................................................................51
A2 - Biodiversity - Warming Good............................................................................................................................................................54
A2 - Biodiversity - Warming Good............................................................................................................................................................55
A2 - Species Extinction - Models Flawed.................................................................................................................................................56
1
Insert pithy quote here
A2 - Permafrost - Snow Cover...................................................................................................................................................................57
A2 - Methane Feedback - Declining..........................................................................................................................................................58
A2 - Acidifying Oceans - Resistant ..........................................................................................................................................................59
A2 - Wildfires - Empirically Denied..........................................................................................................................................................60
A2 - Droughts - Double Bind.....................................................................................................................................................................61
A2 - Drought - Less Now...........................................................................................................................................................................62
A2 - Tropical Cyclones - Natural ..............................................................................................................................................................63
A2 - Tropical Cyclones - Won’t Happen....................................................................................................................................................64
A2 - Tropical Cyclones - Won’t Happen....................................................................................................................................................65
Warming Good - Peace.............................................................................................................................................................................66
Warming Good - Agriculture.....................................................................................................................................................................67
Warming Good - Biosphere.......................................................................................................................................................................68
Warming Good - Cooling Bad...................................................................................................................................................................69
Warming Good - Food and Health.............................................................................................................................................................70
CO2 Good - Biodiversity...........................................................................................................................................................................71
CO2 Good - Biodiversity...........................................................................................................................................................................72
CO2 Good - Biodiversity - Land Dev........................................................................................................................................................73
CO2 Good - Biosphere - Tropical Forests.................................................................................................................................................74
CO2 Good - Biosphere - Trees...................................................................................................................................................................75
CO2 Good - Biosphere - Plants.................................................................................................................................................................76
CO2 Good - Plants - Save Forests.............................................................................................................................................................77
CO2 Good - Species...................................................................................................................................................................................78
CO2 Good - Phytoplankton - Negative Feedback.....................................................................................................................................79
CO2 Good - Phytoplankton - Biodiversity................................................................................................................................................80
CO2 Good - Birds......................................................................................................................................................................................81
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................81
CO2 Good - Agriculture - Pests.................................................................................................................................................................82
CO2 Good - Agriculture - Food.................................................................................................................................................................83
CO2 Good - Prevent Famine......................................................................................................................................................................84
CO2 Good - Support Population Growth...................................................................................................................................................85
CO2 Good - Carbon Sequestration ...........................................................................................................................................................86
CO2 Good - Carbon Sequestration - Fungus.............................................................................................................................................87
CO2 Good - Peace.....................................................................................................................................................................................88
CO2 Good - Peace.....................................................................................................................................................................................89
CO2 Good - Peace - Agriculture................................................................................................................................................................90
Carbon Fertilization - Experiments Right..................................................................................................................................................91
Carbon Fertilization...................................................................................................................................................................................92
Carbon Fertilization...................................................................................................................................................................................93
Carbon Fertilization .................................................................................................................................................................................94
Carbon Fertilization ..................................................................................................................................................................................95
Carbon Fertilization - Population...............................................................................................................................................................96
Carbon Fertilization - Night Warming.......................................................................................................................................................97
Carbon Fertilization - Digestibility............................................................................................................................................................98
Carbon Fertilization - Weeds.....................................................................................................................................................................99
Carbon Fertilization - Parasites................................................................................................................................................................100
Carbon Fertilization - Famine..................................................................................................................................................................101
Carbon Fertilization - Famine..................................................................................................................................................................102
Carbon Fertilization - Prevents Famine...................................................................................................................................................103
Carbon Fertilization - Green Revolution.................................................................................................................................................104
Carbon Fertilization - Fruit......................................................................................................................................................................107
Carbon Fertilization - Offsets Warming...................................................................................................................................................108
Carbon Fertilization - Offsets Warming...................................................................................................................................................109
Carbon Fertilization - Resist Warming.....................................................................................................................................................110
Carbon Fertilization - Benefit > Bad Weather..........................................................................................................................................111
Carbon Fertilization - Rice.......................................................................................................................................................................112
2
Carbon Fertilization - Rice ......................................................................................................................................................................113
Carbon Fertilization - Rice - Biodiversity................................................................................................................................................114
Carbon Fertilization - Rice - China .........................................................................................................................................................115
Carbon Fertilization - C3 Grass...............................................................................................................................................................116
Carbon Fertilization - Biodiversity.........................................................................................................................................................117
Carbon Fertilization - Equality................................................................................................................................................................118
GLOBAL WARMING - PRODUCT OF THE MEDIA

Global Warming science is perpetuated by second class scientists that pander to a media storm that ignores facts in
favor of sensationalist stories.
David Deming is an associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma in Norman. He graduated from Indiana University in 1983 with a BS
degree in geology, and received a Ph.D in geophysics from the University of Utah in 1988.
Human Events Online, “How to Cut the Knot of Global Warming,” June 22, 2006. l/n.
At one time, scientists were dedicated solely to the pursuit of truth, not the advocacy of social and political issues. In 1676, Robert
Hooke wrote to Isaac Newton, stating "I have a mind very desirous of and very ready to embrace any truth that shall be discovered
though it may much thwart and contradict any opinions or notions I have formerly embraced." But the ethic of a disinterested search
for truth is foreign to many scientists working today. Too often scientists receive no education or training in philosophy or the history
of science. They tend to be specialized technical workers who do not understand that when one searches only for confirming evidence
it will always be found. In a word, they are ignorant; ignorant of science, ignorant of history, and ignorant of their own ignorance. For
more than a decade, both the mass media and editorial staff of major scientific journals have repressed contrarian and skeptical views
regarding climate change. In 1995, a reporter for National Public Radio began his interview with me by asking if I believed that
warming was due to human activities. When I told him the evidence was inconclusive, he snorted "no one is interested in that point of
view," and hung up on me. The public has no appreciation for how distorted the information is they receive. We are told that recent
years are the "warmest on record," but are left ignorant of the fact that the beginning of the instrumental record coincides with the end
3
of the Little Ice Age, or that temperatures for much of human history were warmer. We are informed that a computer model predicts
drastic warming in the future. But we are not told that the model which predicts this warming is the most extreme of thirty such
models, or that it is impossible to verify any computer model, all of which contain significant uncertainties and none of which actually
portray past or present temperatures accurately. We are warned that global warming will result in sea level rises, but not that warmer
temperatures will have many beneficial effects, such as longer growing seasons at high latitudes. Every natural disaster that occurs,
even tsunamis caused by earthquakes, is blamed on global warming. The litany of doom mongering is endless, but it is all based on
either outright fraud or a dishonest and selective presentation of the facts. So, like Montaigne, I choose to cut the knot of global
warming. This rash of ignorant conceit, hysterical nonsense, and rabid demagoguery is a fanatical assault on knowledge, civilization,
and human enlightenment.
NO GLOBAL WARMING - OCEANS

Oceans prove that global warming won’t hit the brink—natural regulators will stop the warming.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 7/16/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “New Evidence for a Planetary Temperature Regulator”
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N29/C1.php Accessed 7/15/08)
What was done

The authors looked for evidence of an "ocean thermostat" by analyzing patterns of sea surface temperature (SST) increases in the
tropics over the past five decades, focusing their attention on the western Pacific warm pool (WPWP), because, in their words, "this is
a region where maximum SSTs are thought to be limited by negative feedbacks," as described in the writings of Reginald Newell
(1979) -- who they cite -- and who in collaboration with Thomas Dopplick employed what he had learned of the subject to
demonstrate -- nearly three decades ago -- that the degree of CO2-induced global warming predicted by the climate models of that day
was far greater (and is greater still today) than what is allowed by the real world (Newell and Dopplick, 1979), as is further described
in the historical narrative of Idso (1982).
What was learned
Kleypas et al. say their analysis indicates that "the warmest parts of the WPWP have warmed less than elsewhere in the tropical
oceans," which fact "supports the existence of thermostat mechanisms that act to depress warming beyond certain temperature
thresholds." In addition, they report that "coral reefs within or near the WPWP have had fewer reported bleaching events relative to
reefs in other regions," which is also indicative of the existence of an upper-limiting temperature above which SSTs typically do not
rise, presumably because of the "kicking-in" of the oceanic thermostat when they approach 30°C in the region the three researchers
4
describe as "the center of coral reef biodiversity," which likely merits that description because of the effectiveness of the hypothesized
thermostat.
What it means
These recent findings tend to support the thesis put forward years ago by both Newell and Dopplick (1979) and Idso (1980, 1982,
1989), i.e., that rather than the earth possessing some thermal "tipping point" above which global warming dramatically accelerates,
the planet's climatic system is organized so as to do just the opposite and greatly attenuate warming above a certain level.
5
NO GLOBAL WARMING - NATURAL

All their evidence on the extent of global warming is exaggerated—over half of it occurs naturally.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 10/31/07 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “The ABCs of Global Warming”
What was done

In an observational program that studied this phenomenon as it has never been studied before, Ramanathan et al. employed "three
lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles that were vertically stacked between 0.5 and 3 km over the polluted Indian Ocean," which
"deployed miniaturized instruments measuring aerosol concentrations, soot amount and solar fluxes" within the infamous atmospheric
brown clouds (ABCs) that have been demonstrated to envelop "most of Asia and the adjacent oceans" during "the six-month-long
tropical dry season," when "convective coupling between the surface and the troposphere is weak [and] aerosol solar heating can
amplify the effect of greenhouse gases in warming the atmosphere while simultaneously cooling the surface."
What was learned
The seven scientists found that "atmospheric brown clouds enhanced lower atmospheric solar heating by about 50 per cent" during the
period of their study; and they say that general circulation model simulations suggest that, over the Indian Ocean and Asia during the
long tropical dry season, "atmospheric brown clouds contribute as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to
regional lower atmospheric warming trends."
What it means
For a huge and important part of the world - where the situation could well get worse before it gets better - only half of the observed
lower atmospheric warming trend of the past few decades has been either natural or greenhouse-gas-induced (take your pick), while
the other half appears to have come courtesy of the region's infamous ABCs. One can only wonder, therefore, what the case may be
over other polluted parts of the planet. Perhaps aerosols there may also be adding to global warming instead of subtracting from it,
which would appear to be a real possibility considering the enormous fourfold uncertainty Ramanathan et al. associate with the net
aerosol forcing effect.
6
NO GLOBAL WARMING - OZONE

New discoveries over the erosion of the ozone layer calls into question the entire theory of global warming.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 10/17/07 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Can the Huge Claimed Consensus on CO2 and Global
Warming Possibly Be Wrong?” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N42/EDIT.php Accessed 7/16/08)
A case in point concerns the claimed destruction of stratospheric ozone by long-lived chloride compounds derived from mass-
produced chlorofluorocarbons, a theory that served as, and still remains, the basis for the international action plan of the Montreal
Protocol. In March of this year, however, Pope et al. (2007), writing in The Journal of Physical Chemistry, described new
measurements of the photolysis of chlorine peroxide, which comprises a key step in the destruction of polar stratospheric ozone. The
new data indicated that photolysis rates may well be a factor of six lower than what had previously been believed to be the case,
leading them to state that the large discrepancy "calls into question the completeness of present atmospheric models of polar ozone
depletion."
In commenting on the findings of Pope et al., Markus Rex of the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam,
Germany, is quoted by Schiermeier (2007) as saying that if they are correct, " By incorporating the new photolysis rate into a chemical
model of ozone depletion, for example, he we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being." found
that "at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism."
So how are other ozone researchers reacting to these astounding observations?
Schiermeier quotes John Crowley of the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany, as saying "our understanding of
chloride chemistry has really been blown apart." Likewise, Neil Harris, who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at
the University of Cambridge is quoted as saying that "until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely," but that now "it's like a
plank has been pulled out of a bridge," while John Pyle, also of the University of Cambridge, is quoted by Schiermeier as saying that
he finds it "extremely hard to believe" that an unknown mechanism may be responsible for the bulk of observed ozone losses; but he
does not deny that possibility.
Clearly, many people in the field are not dismissing out-of-hand the suggestion that the reigning polar stratospheric ozone depletion
paradigm of the past two decades may be more wrong than right, which is a revealing reaction in light of all that has been done in the
name of the theory. This is healthy and the way science should work. In addition, it suggests that some of that same open-mindedness
should play a role in the debate over carbon dioxide and global warming. In fact, it should play an even greater role within the latter
context, as earth's climate system is composed of many more phenomena than those that define polar stratospheric ozone
concentrations.
On a closely related note, Markus Rex suggests, again quoting Schiermeier, that "even if the basic chemical model of ozone
destruction is upheld, the temperature dependency of key reactions in the process could be very different -- or even opposite -- from
thought." Likewise, even if the basic greenhouse effect of CO2 is correct, there are many feedback phenomena that could greatly alter
its ultimate expression, both quantitatively and even qualitatively, as some pertinent processes are not true feedback phenomena
dependent on an initial increase in temperature, but primary phenomena of a biological origin that (1) are directly driven by increasing
atmospheric CO2 concentrations and that (2) have their own independent impact on climate, which often is to cool the planet.
7
NO GLOBAL WARMING - COOLING

No global warming—the Earth is actually cooling.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 11/14/07 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “A Warning Sign of Cooler Times to Come?”
What was done

Working with a sediment core from the continental slope east of Virginia (37°N, 75°W, 1049 m depth), a second core from the margin
east of Nova Scotia (44°N, 63°W, 250 m depth), and a third core from abyssal depths of the Laurentian Fan (43°N, 55°W, 3975 m
depth), with age control derived from radiocarbon dates of planktonic foraminifera, the author derived three Holocene sea surface
temperature (SST) histories by means of alkenone paleothermometry employing the temperature calibration of Prahl et al. (1988).
What was learned
Cooling in the range of 4-10°C occurred at each of the three locations "more or less continuously throughout the Holocene," in the
words of Sachs, who reports that "warmest SSTs of 19°C off Virginia, 18°C on the Laurentian Fan, and 15°C on the Scotian Margin
occurred at the beginning of the Holocene," while "coldest SSTs of 14.5°C, 8.5°C, and 8°C, respectively, occurred within the last few
centuries."
What it means
In providing some context for his findings, Sachs states that "a decline in summer and mean annual insolation at middle and high
northern latitudes during the last 11,000 years (e.g., by 48, 40 & 36 W/m2 at 65°, 45°, & 20°N, respectively, during summer, and by 9,
8 & 7% in the annual mean (Berger, 1978)) to levels last reached during the Last Glacial Maximum [our italics] provides a direct
radiative mechanism for cooling North Atlantic surface waters (Renssen et al., 2005)." Consequently, Sachs concludes his analysis by
stating that "perhaps cooling of the northwest Atlantic slope waters is a harbinger of climate deterioration preceding the next glacial
period," which should give everyone pause to wonder whether it is such a good idea to attempt to stop what climate alarmists claim is
a strong impetus for warming, i.e., the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content, when (if they are correct on this latter point) it may be
needed to forestall an imminent descent into a full-fledged ice age. Surely, such a possibility should not be dismissed out of hand
without a careful consideration of what Sachs' findings might imply.
History proves we are due for a rapid cooling, based of previous interglacial data.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 3/16/05 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Overdue Cooling?”
What was done

In a study of a continuous high-resolution Western Mediterranean sea surface temperature (SST) alkenone record spanning the past
250,000 years, Martrat et al. uncovered evidence that could be interpreted to suggest much the same thing.
What was learned
Throughout marine isotope stages 5 and 7 encompassing the prior two interglacial periods, the pattern has been for rapid warmings to
occur, followed by gradual and then more rapid coolings, which are abruptly terminated by rapid warmings that set the stage for the
cycle to be repeated.
What it means
The fact that Martrat et al. discovered that the entire Holocene to date "shows a stable SST trend similar to those in previous
interstadial stages, tending toward progressively cooler climate conditions," suggests, in their words, that "the next bifurcation of the
climate system may appear as an extremely intense cooling if the future natural climate is going to develop as an analog of some of the
preceding warm periods." Since this has indeed been the pattern in the past, there is no reason not to expect it to recur in the future,
unless the overdue-glaciation hypothesis of Ruddiman et al. is correct, which suggests that even if the world's climate alarmists are
correct in imputing great strength to the greenhouse effect of CO2, we ought not interfere with that phenomenon, as it may be what is
keeping us from experiencing a far worse fate than anything the world's climate alarmists have yet imagined.
8
NO GLOBAL WARMING - NEGATIVE FEEDBACK

Increased CO2 forms a negative feedback loop—stems the effects of global warming
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 1/16/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Elevated CO2 Primes the Ocean's Biological Carbon
Pump” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N3/B1.php Accessed 7/16/08)
What was done

Between 15 May and 9 June of 2005 at the Espegrend Marine Biological Station of the University of Bergen, located on a fjord in
southern Norway, the authors maintained nine cylindrical mesocosms -- which extended from the water surface to a depth of 9-10
meters -- in equilibrium with air of either ambient CO2 concentration (350 ppm), doubled CO2 (700 ppm) or tripled CO2 (1050 ppm),
while they measured several phytoplanktonic physiological parameters.
What was learned
During the period of their study, Riebesell et al. report that "net community carbon consumption under increased CO2 exceeded
present rates by 27% (2 x CO2) and 39% (3 x CO2)," and they state that continuous oxygen measurements in the mesocosms indicated
"enhanced net photosynthesis to be the source of the observed CO2 effect."
What it means
Noting that "the phytoplankton groups dominating in the mesocosm studies -- diatoms and coccolithophores -- are also the main
primary producers in high productivity areas and are the principal drivers of biologically induced carbon export to the deep sea," the
eleven researchers say their findings "underscore the importance of biologically driven feedbacks in the ocean to global change."
Further noting that "increased CO2 has been shown to enhance fixation of free nitrogen, thereby relaxing nutrient limitation by
nitrogen availability and increasing CO2 uptake (Barcelos e Ramos et al., 2007)," Arrigo (2007) states in a News & Views discussion
of Riebesell et al.'s paper that "neither these, nor other possible non-steady-state biological feedbacks, are currently accounted for in
models of global climate -- a potentially serious omission, given that the biological pump is responsible for much of the vertical CO2
gradient in the ocean." And in this regard they additionally indicate that the phytoplankton growth-promoting effect of CO2 described
and measured by Riebesell et al. has probably been responsible for limiting the rise in atmospheric CO2 experienced since the dawn of
the Industrial Revolution to approximately 90% of what it likely would have been in its absence.
9
NO GLOBAL WARMING - NEGATIVE FEEDBACK

A negative feedback loop ensures that global warming actually cools the planet.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 1/9/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Feedback Factors (Diffuse Light) -- Summary”
http://www.co2science.org/subject/f/summaries/feedbackdiffuse.php Accessed 7/16/08)
The first of the linkages in this negative feedback loop is the proven propensity for higher levels of atmospheric CO2 to enhance
vegetative productivity (see Plant Growth in our Data Center and Water Use Efficiency in our Subject Index for verification), which phenomena are
themselves powerful negative feedback mechanisms of the type we envision. Greater CO2-enhanced photosynthetic rates, for
example, enable plants to remove considerably more CO2 from the air than they do under current conditions; while CO2-induced
increases in plant water use efficiency allow plants to grow where it was previously too dry for them. This latter consequence of
atmospheric CO2 enrichment establishes a potential for more CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere by increasing the abundance of
earth's plants, whereas the former phenomenon does so by increasing their robustness.
The second of the linkages of the new feedback loop is the ability of plants to emit gases to the atmosphere that are ultimately
converted into "biosols," i.e., aerosols that owe their existence to the biological activities of earth's vegetation, many of which function as cloud
condensation nuclei. It takes little imagination to realize that since the existence of these atmospheric particles is dependent upon the
physiological activities of plants and their associated soil biota, the CO2-induced presence of more and more-highly-productive plants
will lead to the production of more of these cloud-mediating particles, which can then act to cool the planet. But this two-linkage-long
negative feedback effect, like the one-linkage-long dual cooling mechanism described in the previous paragraph, is still not the endpoint of the new feedback loop we
are describing.
The third linkage of the new scenario is the observed propensity for increases in aerosols and cloud particles to enhance the amount of
diffuse solar radiation reaching the earth's surface. The fourth linkage is the ability of enhanced diffuse lighting to reduce the volume
of shade within vegetative canopies. The fifth linkage is the tendency for less internal canopy shading to enhance whole-canopy
photosynthesis, which finally produces the end result: a greater biological extraction of CO2 from the air and the subsequent
sequestration of its carbon, compliments of the intensified diffuse-light-driven increase in total canopy photosynthesis and subsequent
transfers of the extra fixed carbon to plant and soil storage reservoirs.
How significant is this multi-link process? Roderick et al. (2001) provide a good estimate based on the utilization of a unique "natural experiment," a
technique that has been used extensively by Idso (1998) to evaluate the climatic sensitivity of the entire planet. Specifically, Roderick
and his colleagues considered the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in June of 1991, which ejected enough gases and fine materials
into the atmosphere to produce sufficient aerosol particles to greatly increase the diffuse component of the solar radiation reaching the
surface of the earth from that point in time through much of 1993, while only slightly reducing the receipt of total solar radiation.
Based on a set of lengthy calculations, they concluded that the Mt. Pinatubo eruption may well have resulted in the removal of an extra 2.5 Gt of
carbon from the atmosphere due to its diffuse-light-enhancing stimulation of terrestrial vegetation in the year following the eruption, which would have reduced
the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration that year by about 1.2 ppm.
Interestingly, this reduction is about the magnitude of the real-world perturbation that was actually observed (Sarmiento, 1993).
What makes this observation even more impressive is the fact that the CO2 reduction was coincident with an El Niño event; because, in the words of Roderick et al.,
"previous and subsequent such events have been associated with increases in atmospheric CO2." In addition, the observed reduction in total solar radiation received at
the earth's surface during this period would have had a tendency to reduce the amount of photosynthetically active radiation incident upon earth's plants, which would
also have had a tendency to cause the air's CO2 content to rise, as it would tend to lessen global photosynthetic activity.
Significant support for the new negative feedback phenomenon was swift in coming, as the very next year a team of 33 researchers
published the results of a comprehensive study (Law et al., 2002) that compared seasonal and annual values of CO2 and water vapor exchange across
sites in forests, grasslands, crops and tundra -- which are part of an international network called FLUXNET -- investigating the responses of these exchanges to
variations in a number of environmental factors, including direct and diffuse solar radiation. As for their findings, the huge group of researchers reported that "net
carbon uptake (net ecosystem exchange, the net of photosynthesis and respiration) was greater under diffuse than under direct radiation conditions,"
and in discussing this finding, which is the centerpiece of the negative feedback phenomenon we describe, they noted that "cloud-
cover results in a greater proportion of diffuse radiation and constitutes a higher fraction of light penetrating to lower depths of the
canopy (Oechel and Lawrence, 1985)." More importantly, they also reported that "Goulden et al. (1997), Fitzjarrald et al. (1995), and Sakai et al. (1996)
showed that net carbon uptake was consistently higher during cloudy periods in a boreal coniferous forest than during sunny periods with the same PPFD
[photosynthetic photon flux density]." In fact, they wrote that "Hollinger et al. (1994) found that daily net CO2 uptake was greater on cloudy days, even though total
PPFD was 21-45% lower on cloudy days than on clear days [our italics]."
One year later, Gu et al. (2003) reported that they "used two independent and direct methods to examine the photosynthetic response of a
northern hardwood forest (Harvard Forest, 42.5°N, 72.2°W) to changes in diffuse radiation caused by Mount Pinatubo's volcanic
aerosols," finding that in the eruption year of 1991, "around noontime in the mid-growing season, the gross photosynthetic rate under the
perturbed cloudless [our italics] solar radiation regime was 23, 8, and 4% higher than that under the normal cloudless [our italics] solar
radiation regime in 1992, 1993, and 1994, respectively," and that "integrated over a day, the enhancement for canopy gross photosynthesis by
the volcanic aerosols [our italics] was 21% in 1992, 6% in 1993 and 3% in 1994." Commenting on the significance of these observations, Gu et al. noted that
"because of substantial increases in diffuse radiation world-wide after the eruption and strong positive effects of diffuse radiation for a
variety of vegetation types, it is likely that our findings at Harvard Forest represent a global [our italics] phenomenon."
10
WEATHER STATIONS BAD - URBAN HEAT ISLAND

Surface temperature measurements that are relied upon by the IPCC to prove increases in the global annual mean
temperature are flawed because of the “urban heat island” effect. Weather stations located near urban centers and
even small towns are influenced by localized warming, while rural stations only account for 7% of the Earth’s
surface.
C. R. DE FREITAS, is an Associate Professor in the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand.
“Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?,” School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland, PB 92019, Auckland New Zealand. BULLETIN OF CANADIAN PETROLEUM GEOLOGY
VOL. 50, NO. 2 (JUNE, 2002), P. 297-327.<http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/science/defreitas.pdf>
The IPCC rely on air temperatures measured at the Earth’s surface to reconstruct variations in the Earth’s annual mean temperature
over the past century. The three authorities that have taken responsibility for the combined surface record are the Climate Research
Unit (CRU) of The University of East Anglia (UEA), NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and The Global Historical
Climate Network (GHCN) run by the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The data
come from weather stations unevenly distributed over the Earth’s surface, mainly on land, close to towns and cities (Fig. 6). These
data show a warming in the range 0.3–0.6 °C over the past century (Fig. 5). The question is whether all or part of this warming can be
linked to increases in greenhouse gases or to other factors linked to climate variability and change. For example, the warming may
simply reflect the additional heat associated with the growth of towns and cities, or from solar variability or changes in atmospheric
transmissivity from volcanic dust or other sources of atmospheric aerosols, natural or anthropogenic. The science of climate change
depends entirely on reliable data, quality controlled and homogenized rigorously, to validate numerical simulation models and to
identify fluctuations and trends. Until recently, measurements of global air temperature change were based entirely on measurements
taken on the ground. Modification of the surface by human activity can have a significant effect on climate near the ground. The best-
documented example is the “urban heat island” effect, in which data from urban stations can be influenced by localized warming due
to asphalt and concrete replacing grass and trees (Fig. 7). This can account for an urban area being as much as 14 °C warmer than its
rural surroundings. The trends in Figure 8 for Phoenix, Arizona, also illustrate the close correlation of city population size with urban
heating influence on air temperature. The IPCC claim that the land-based, surface temperature record it uses is a “de-urbanised”
record, but it has been discovered that there is more contamination of the surface temperature record than many climatologists realised
(Hansen et al., 1999; Hansen et al., 2001). Hansen et al. (2001, p. 23, 962) comment on NASA’s official GISS data: “We find evidence
of local human effects (urban warming) even in suburban and small town surface air temperature records.” Moreover, rural stations
account for only 7% of the Earth’s area (Peterson et al.,
1999). Balling and Idso (1989) have demonstrated that only very small changes in population are enough to induce a statistically
significant local warming. Changnon (1999) used high quality data from central Illinois to evaluate the magnitude of unsuspected heat
island effects that may be present in small towns that are typically assumed by the IPCC to be free of urban-induced warming.
According to Changnon (1999, p. 535), “both sets of surface air temperature data for Illinois [i.e. small towns with populations less
than 2,000 and 6,000, respectively] believed to have the best data quality with little or no urban effects may contain urban influences
causing increases of 0.2°C from 1901 to 1950.” He warns “this could be significant because the IPCC (1995) indicated that the global
mean temperature increased 0.3 °C from 1890 to 1950.”
11
GCMS BAD - SATELLITES

Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature changes contradict GCMs based on surface temperature
readings. The importance of satellite readings cannot be overestimated and provide direct evidence against the
global warming hypothesis.
In order to validate numerical models that attempt to simulate global climate, the science of climate change depends on the availability of a reliable
dataset, quality controlled and spatially representative of the globe. The IPCC temperature record for the globe is based on thermometers on the
ground, usually on the land and in growing urban areas; a system which is not accurate enough to detect changes as small as 0.1 °C.
Since 1979 temperature measurements of the lower troposphere have been made by Tiros-N satellites using microwave radiometry (Microwave
Sounding Units - MSU). These are the only precision measurements of global temperature available for direct comparison with temperature
predictions from GCMs. The satellites cover the whole earth, measuring and averaging the temperature of the lower troposphere. This is the same
region modelled by the GCMs. The accuracy of the radiometer measurements is 0.1 °C, which is considerably better than the accuracy of
thermometer measurements made on the surface of the earth.
The satellite (MSU) temperature data set is the only one that is truly global, highly accurate, and uses a completely homogeneous measurement over
the entire planet (Spencer and Christy, 1992; Christy and Goodridge, 1995). It also measures the part of the lower atmosphere that, according to the
climate models, should be experiencing the greatest warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Bengtsson et al., 1999). But satellite data since
1979 show no significant warming trend (Fig. 10). The IPCC play down the importance of these data because they do not show the recent warming
trend suggested by the surface temperature record. Clearly, output from GCMs does not apply to surface temperature changes, and can only be
checked by data from the troposphere. The IPCC has been testing its models on the wrong temperature record.
GCMs suffer from an inability to correctly capture the observed behaviour of the lower atmosphere and its relationship to the surface. When run with
an increase in greenhouse gases, GCMs predict that the lower atmosphere can be expected to warm at about the same or slightly greater rate than the
surface. However, satellite observations reveal just the opposite has happened for at least the last 23 years, which is the time of the greatest
greenhouse gas build-up in the atmosphere.
The importance of the satellite data cannot be overestimated. Theory suggests that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions cause warming of the
lower atmosphere, and this extra warmth is redistributed towards the Earth’s surface. Greenhouse gases cannot warm the surface directly; they warm
the atmosphere first. If there is no prior warming of the lower atmosphere, there can be no consequent enhanced greenhouse effect attributable to
greenhouse gas emissions. Global climate models estimate temperatures in the lower layer of the atmosphere (rather than the surface itself), which is
the area tracked by satellites. In fact, if climate models were correct, the satellite temperatures currently should be higher than surface temperatures.
Instead, IPCC claim surface temperatures are going up and lower troposphere temperatures are roughly stable. Thus, the satellite data is direct
evidence against the IPCC global warming hypothesis.
The surface temperature record is not global and has not been independently validated. The satellite data covers the entire Earth and has been
independently validated by balloon radiosonde data. Moreover, the reliability of the satellite data has been thoroughly critiqued and adjusted for
influences such as orbital decay of the satellite, yet the results show that the overall temperature trend is essentially zero (Spencer and Christy, 1992;
Christy and Goodridge, 1995; Christy et al., 1998; Christy et al., 2000). It is noteworthy that no mention is made of the satellite data in IPCC’s 1995
Summary for Policymakers. The most recent IPCC report (IPCC, 2001a) recognizes and accepts the discrepancy between satellite and the ground
station records, but it still relies entirely on the spatially unrepresentative ground stations rather than on the most accurate record based on modern
satellite-based instruments. For example, the Summary for Policymakers (IPCC, 2001b) highlights trends in surface temperature records and these
data are used exclusively in diagrams to show recent warming.
The natural variability of the satellite record matches changes in the surface record, but no trend is obvious such as the globally averaged surface
record shows (Fig. 11). These fluctuations are from ‘normal’ influences such as El Niño episodes and atmospheric dust from volcanic eruptions, and
the temperature returns to ‘normal’ after each fluctuation. Prior to 1979, when satellite temperature measurements began, the surface record shows no
temperature increase since 1940. This indicates that global temperatures have not increased significantly for 60 years.
12
GCMS BAD - ACCURACY

GCMs fail to provide accurate reproductions of well-documented climate changes around the world.
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., and Willie Soon, Ph.D., are colleagues at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. “Global
Warming,” Progress in Physical Geography 27,3 (2003) pp. 448–455.
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/%7Ewsoon/myownPapers-d/Aug27-PIPGreview2003.pdf>
Climate models are now being used extensively to diagnose the causative, especially anthropogenic, factors of observed climatic
changes of the past few decades (Palmer, 2001; Stott et al., 2001; Thorne et al., 2002). These models are also used to make long-term
climate projections and climate risk assessments based on future anthropogenic forcing scenarios (Saunders, 1999; Palmer, 2001;
Houghton et al., 2001; Pittock, 2002; Schneider, S.H., 2002). Many such exercises help to shape public policy recommendations
concerning future energy use and various ‘climate protection’ measures in order to prevent ‘dangerous climate impacts’ (e.g.,
Schneider, S.H., 2002; O’Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002). But meaningful and credible scientific confidence, resting either on the
traditional deterministic method of quantification or the probabilistic mode of measuring change (as favoured by, for example,
Washington, 2000; Räisänen and Palmer, 2001; Schneider, S.H., 2002) cannot yet be made to such computer experiments because
climate models do not yield sufficiently reliable, quantitative results in reproducing well-documented climatic changes around the
world.
Govindan et al. (2002) highlighted, by performing the detrended fluctuation analysis on daily maximum temperature records for six
sites spread across the globe, that seven leading coupled GCMs systematically underestimated the observed long-range persistence of
the atmosphere (roughly after timescales longer than 2 years or so) and overestimated the daily maximum temperature trend. From
that failure of computer models to emulate the observed behaviour in the real atmosphere, Govindan et al., deduced that ‘the
anticipated global warming is also [likely] overestimated’ by those leading GCMs.
Another key uncertainty in climate modelling concerns the true sensitivity of the Earth’s climate system to a given radiative forcing.
Andronova and Schlesinger (2001) deduced a large range of values for the climate sensitivity parameter, DT2x (i.e., the equlibrium
global-mean surface temperature warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration) owing to limited
understanding of natural variability and uncertainty in climate radiative forcing. That sensitivity parameter, so necessary for an
accurate prediction of CO2 radiative forcing, has a 90% confidence interval of 1.0ºC to 9.3ºC. Using a different model and tuning
scenarios, Forest et al. (2002) similarly obtained 1.4°C to 7.7ºC as the 5% to 95% confidence interval for DT2x.
Current circulation models have glaring flaws, making their predictions inaccurate.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 3/26/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Agricultural Crops, the Herbivorous Pests that Feed on
Them, and the Bigger Omnivorous Bugs that Eat the Pests” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N13/B1.php Accessed 7/15/08)
What was done

The authors compared tropospheric temperature trends over the period 1979-1999 that were derived from 67 runs of 22 general
circulation models of the atmosphere that had been developed by researchers working at a number of institutions located in ten
different countries with concurrent measurements obtained from various surface, radiosonde and satellite data sets.
What was learned
In the words of Douglas et al., this work revealed that "model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of
the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean," and that "in layers near 5 km, the
modeled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modeled and observed trends have opposite signs."
What it means
The four researchers conclude that "if these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as
depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high," and they suggest, therefore, that "projections of future climate
based on these models be viewed with much caution."
13
GCMS BAD - PREDICTIONS

Large discrepancies between climate model predictions and real world results make basing any sort of policy
option off these unreliable models a terrifying idea.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 8/15/07 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Trouble in Climate Model Paradise”
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N33/EDIT.php Accessed 7/20/08)
In an intriguing Climate Change report in Science, Wentz et al. (2007) note that the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, as well
as various climate modeling analyses, predict an increase in precipitation on the order of 1 to 3% per °C of surface global warming.
Hence, they decided to see what has happened in the real world in this regard over the last 19 years (1987-2006) of supposedly
unprecedented global warming, when data from the Global Historical Climatology Network and satellite measurements of the lower
troposphere have indicated a global temperature rise on the order of 0.20°C per decade.
Using satellite observations obtained from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I), the four Remote Sensing Systems scientists
derived precipitation trends for the world's oceans over this period; and using data obtained from the Global Precipitation Climatology
Project that were acquired from both satellite and rain gauge measurements, they derived precipitation trends for the earth's continents.
Appropriately combining the results of these two endeavors, they then derived a real-world increase in precipitation on the order of
7% per °C of surface global warming, which is somewhere between 2.3 and 7 times larger than what is predicted by state-of-the-art
climate models.
How was this horrendous discrepancy to be resolved?
Based on theoretical considerations, Wentz et al. concluded that the only way to bring the two results into harmony with each other
was for there to have been a 19-year decline in global wind speeds. But when looking at the past 19 years of SSM/I wind retrievals,
they found just the opposite, i.e., an increase in global wind speeds. In quantitative terms, in fact, the two results were about as
opposite as they could possibly be, as they report that "when averaged over the tropics from 30°S to 30°N, the winds increased by 0.04
m s-1 (0.6%) decade-1, and over all oceans the increase was 0.08 m s-1 (1.0%) decade-1," while global coupled ocean-atmosphere
models or GCMs, in their words, "predict that the 1987-to-2006 warming should have been accompanied by a decrease in winds on
the order of 0.8% decade-1."
In discussing these embarrassing results, Wentz et al. correctly state that "the reason for the discrepancy between the observational
data and the GCMs is not clear." They also rightly state that this dramatic difference between the real world of nature and the virtual
world of climate modeling "has enormous impact," concluding that the questions raised by the discrepancy "are far from being
settled." We agree. And until these "enormous impact questions" are settled, we wonder how anyone could conceivably think of acting
upon the global energy policy prescriptions of the likes of Al Gore and James Hansen, who speak and write as if there was little more
to do in the realm of climate-change prediction than a bit of fine-tuning.
14
WARMING IRREVERSIBLE - EMISSIONS CUT

CO2 emissions contribute to warming for future generations—even if emissions were cut to zero, temperatures
would still rise.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Pierre Simon Laplace, Laboratory of Climate and Environment Sciences, and Susan Solomon, senior
scientist, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration‘s Chemical Sciences Division, 2005 (“Contributions of past and
present human generations to committed warming caused by carbon dioxide” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
102:31 08/02/05 pp. 10832-10836)
We developed a highly simplified approach to estimate the contributions of the past and present human generations to the increase of
atmospheric CO2 and associated global average temperature increases. For each human generation of adopted 25-year length, we use
simplified emission test cases to estimate the committed warming passed to successive children, grandchildren, and later generations.
We estimate that the last and the current generation contributed approximately two thirds of the present-day CO2-induced warming.
Because of the long time scale required for removal of CO2 from the atmosphere as well as the time delays characteristic of physical
responses of the climate system, global mean temperatures are expected to increase by several tenths of a degree for at least the next
20 years even if CO2 emissions were immediately cut to zero; that is, there is a commitment to additional CO2-induced warming even
in the absence of emissions. If the rate of increase of CO2 emissions were to continue up to 2025 and then were cut to zero, a
temperature increase of ≈1.3°C compared to preindustrial conditions would still occur in 2100, whereas a constant-CO2-emissions
scenario after 2025 would more than double the 2100 warming. These calculations illustrate the manner in which each generation
inherits substantial climate change caused by CO2 emissions that occurred previously, particularly those of their parents, and shows
that current CO2 emissions will contribute significantly to the climate change of future generations.
CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a long time—even without any emissions it would take a century to reverse the
last 25 years of accumulation.
102:31 08/02/05 pp. 10832-10836)
Fig. 3 shows the evolution of atmospheric CO2 calculated for each generation, showing that even a zero-emissions strategy leads to
limited near-term reductions in atmospheric CO2; that is, Fig. 3 shows that there is prompt removal of a portion of the added CO2, but
only a portion. As an example, if emissions were set to zero in 2000, atmospheric CO2 would be reduced by 20 ppm in the next 25
years and by 40 ppm by the end of the century. By 2100, the CO2 concentration would be about the same as that in 1975. That is to
say, it would take approximately a century to remove the bulk of the anthropogenic CO2 injected in the atmosphere over the past 25
years. For the example shown above, extending this calculation beyond 2100 shows that the atmospheric CO2 would only drop by
another 20 ppm over the 22nd century and by another 10 ppm over the 2200–2500 period. The long time-scale retention of CO2 in the
atmosphere even after many centuries represents a commitment to future climate change that could include some very slow and
uncertain aspects of the climate system, such as changes in the polar ice sheets that could affect sea level.
15
WARMING IRREVERSIBLE - EMISSIONS CUT

Cutting CO2 emissions is not enough—CO2 levels will still rise if emissions remain constant and will not decrease
rapidly even if emissions are stopped completely.
102:31 08/02/05 pp. 10832-10836)
We use 25 years as the approximate time scale for a human generation, noting that this may be somewhat lower than the time scale
sometimes used to refer to certain types of generations of infrastructure (e.g., power plants, factories, etc.) and technologies. Our goal
is to explore physical responses rather than to discuss the plausibility of possible future emissions scenarios. It should be noted that
changes in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are well established for the 20th century, whereas the connections of
concentrations to emissions are subject to greater uncertainties relating to sources and the details of processes that remove carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere (e.g., see ref. 15). To probe the warming commitments undertaken by several past generations as well as
the present one, we examine highly simplified test cases per generation by using (i) zero emissions, (ii) constant emissions, and (iii)
increasing emissions derived from observations. Because of the long lifetime of carbon dioxide and its slow removal rate compared to
current input emissions, the concentration of CO2 will continue to increase even for constant emissions. Similarly, CO2
concentrations do not decrease rapidly even in the complete absence of emissions. We will first show the implications of these
different emission cases on the future evolution of atmospheric CO2. Then, we will show that these cases illustrate how present and
past changes in carbon dioxide concentrations affect the climate experienced by each generation, their children, their grandchildren,
and later generations.
Warming is irreversible—it will persist for thousands of years regardless of whether we decrease CO2 emissions
now.
Dr. James S. Risbey, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research and School of Mathematical Sciences, Monash University, 2008
(“The new climate discourse: Alarmist or alarming?” Global Environmental Change 18:1 February 2008 pp. 26-37)
The answer to this question depends on the phenomenon we are looking at and the timescale over which we look. Some of the most
salient features of the problem are the warming and sea level rise. The global-scale warming will persist for thousands of years,
depending on how much CO2 is ultimately emitted and on assumptions about the carbon cycle (Kasting, 1998). The sea level rise
associated with the warming will persist even longer (Houghton et al., 2001). Compared to the normal timescales on which our
societies plan and conceive events and reproduce, this timescale is effectively irreversible.
16
WARMING IRREVERSIBLE - FEEDBACK LOOP

Current warming is decreasing the CO2 absorbed by oceans, creating a positive feedback loop—necessary
emission reduction estimates must be revised.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Pierre Simon Laplace, Laboratory of Climate and Environment Sciences, 2008 (“A steep road to climate
stabilization” Nature Volume 451 01/17/08 pp. 297-298)
In fact, climate stabilization might be even more complex. Recent observations and simulations indicate that the current uptake of
atmospheric CO2 might be adversely affected by climate change. Careful measurements of the airborne proportion of anthropogenic
emissions (that is, the proportion that remains in the atmosphere) show a small increasing trend in the past 50 years3. Therefore, the
proportion of anthropogenic CO2 absorbed by the ocean and the land is becoming smaller. The Southern Ocean might be responsible
for this reduction, because changes in ocean-surface winds seem to have decreased the amount of CO2 taken up by surface waters in
this region in recent years4.
Furthermore, simulations carried out with coupled climate and carbon-cycle models indicate that changes in climate will result in even
greater reductions in the ability of land and the ocean to absorb anthropogenic CO2 by the end of the twenty-first century5. These
simulations suggest that the combination of warming and drying will limit photosynthesis by plants and stimulate the decomposition
of organic matter in soil, reducing the capacity of land-based ecosystems to store carbon (see page 289). In addition, it is widely
thought that global warming will result in slower ocean circulation, leading to a decrease in the amount of carbon that is exported from
the surface to the deep ocean and thereby reducing the flux of carbon from the air to the ocean. So it seems that future warming will
reduce carbon sinks, leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere and leading, in turn, to greater warming.
This positive-feedback loop has implications for the pathway to stabilizing the concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases. If
land-based and ocean ecosystems store less carbon than is expected in the future, then a greater effort will be needed, in terms of
reducing anthropogenic emissions, to achieve a given concentration of atmospheric CO2. The potential importance of this effect is
illustrated by simulations carried out for the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
These simulations indicate that to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations at 450 parts per million (generally accepted as 'safe') by
2100, cumulative emissions in the twenty-first century need to be reduced by a further 30% when this feedback is taken into account
(Fig. 1).
17
WARMING IRREVERSIBLE - OTHER COUNTRIES

Policies against warming in China and India are critical—even if the US stopped all emissions, CO2 would still
reach dangerous levels soon.
Ravi Jain, Dean and Professor of the School of Engineering and Computer Science, University of the Pacific, 2008 (“Global climate
change: impacts and policy options” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 10:1 February 2008 pp. 1-5)
Clearly, since industrialized and developing countries share the same environmental commons (atmosphere, oceans, water resources,
forests, and other natural resources) overuse of resources by any group is likely to affect the rest. Consequently, impacts on developing
countries, representing a large segment of the world population, can be significant as well. As reported in the New York Times
(December 16, 2007), if the established industrial countries turn off every power plant and car right now, the concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere, unless there are changes in policy in developing countries, could still reach 450 ppm by 2070: a level
deemed unacceptably dangerous by many scientists. Thus, active involvement of emerging economies like China and India is crucial.
18
ALT CAUSE - SOLAR FORCING - INTENSITY

That global warming may not be predominantly man-made, but instead a result of a more intense Sun.
Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah for Telegraph.co.uk. “The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame,” 07/17/2004.
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1467310/The-truth-about-global-warming---it%27s-the-Sun-that%27s-
to-blame.html>
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time
during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.
A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate
changes.
Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the
research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the
last 100 to 150 years."
Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change
in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.
Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg Celsius over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible
for new extremes in weather patterns. After pressure from environmentalists, politicians agreed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, promising
to limit greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012. Britain ratified the protocol in 2002 and said it would cut emissions by
12.5 per cent from 1990 levels.
Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since worldwide weather records were first collated in 1860.
Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but
have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.
To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as
sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output.
The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which
could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The
scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples
contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that
decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels
back 1,150 years.
Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last.
He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but
believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the
sunlight itself.
Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the
established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this
study is certainly significant," he said.
"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to
correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."
19
ALT CAUSE - SOLAR FORCING - CYCLE

The natural solar cycle has caused an increase in Total Solar Irradiance and could contribute significantly to future
global warming regardless of regulation for greenhouse gasses.
NASA Press RELEASE: 03-106, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. on March 20, 2003
<http://www.nasa.gov/lb/home/hqnews/2003/mar/HP_news_03106.html>
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05
percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a
researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the
lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable
to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global
warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
NASA's Earth Science Enterprise funded this research as part of its mission to understand and protect our home planet by studying the
primary causes of climate variability, including trends in solar radiation that may be a factor in global climate change.
The solar cycle occurs approximately every 11 years when the sun undergoes a period of increased magnetic and sunspot activity
called the "solar maximum," followed by a quiet period called the "solar minimum."
Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the
trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long
enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the radiant energy received by the Earth from the sun, over all wavelengths, outside the atmosphere.
TSI interaction with the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and landmasses is the biggest factor determining our climate. To put it into
perspective, decreases in TSI of 0.2 percent occur during the weeklong passage of large sunspot groups across our side of the sun.
These changes are relatively insignificant compared to the sun's total output of energy, yet equivalent to all the energy that mankind
uses in a year. According to Willson, small variations, like the one found in this study, if sustained over many decades, could have
significant climate effects.
20
ALT CAUSE - SOLAR FORCING - MARS

Paralleled heating of Mars proves that increased solar intensity is the main contributor to the Earth’s warming.
Kate Ravilious for National Geographic News, “Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says.”
February 28, 2007. <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/55741367.html>
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced
—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge
amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south
pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data
is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
Solar Cycles
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete
with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.
By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in
climate we see on Earth and Mars.
21
ALT CAUSE - GALACTIC RAYS

Galactic rays are a much more probable source of global warming than CO2 emissions.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 6/20/07 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Solar Activity, Earth's Magnetic Field and Galactic Cosmic
Rays” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N25/C1.php Accessed 7/16/08)
What was done

The authors review what they deem to be the salient features of the interacting effects of variations in solar activity and earth's
magnetic field on the flux of galactic cosmic rays, together with the likelihood of their potential impact on earth's climate, based on
"direct and indirect data on variations in cosmic rays, solar activity, geomagnetic dipole moment, and climate from the present to 10-
12 thousand years ago, [as] registered in different natural archives (tree rings, ice layers, etc.)."
What was learned
Dergachev et al. find that "galactic cosmic ray levels in the earth's atmosphere are inversely related to the strength of the helio- and
geomagnetic fields," and they conclude that "cosmic ray flux variations are apparently the most effective natural factor of climate
changes on a large time scale." More specifically, they note that "changes in cloud processes under the action of cosmic rays, which
are of importance for abundance of condensation nuclei and for ice formation in cyclones, can act as a connecting link between solar
variability and changes in weather and climate," and they cite numerous scientific studies that indicate that "cosmic rays are a
substantial factor affecting weather and climate on time scales of hundreds to thousands of years."
What it means
Carbon dioxide may not be the all-important dominating factor climate alarmists make it out to be when discussing earth's climatic
history. Within the context of the Holocene, for example, the only time CO2 moves in concert with air temperature is over the period
of earth's recovery from the global chill of the Little Ice Age (the past century or so), and it only does so then quite imperfectly. The
flux of galactic cosmic rays, on the other hand, appears to have influenced ups and downs in both temperature and precipitation over
the entire 10-12 thousand years of the Holocene, making it the prime candidate for "prime determinant" of earth's climatic state
22
ALT CAUSE - NATURAL CYCLE - WATER VAPOR

Recent climate change is part of a natural cycle. Water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas and is entirely
natural; removing CO2 from the cycle would result in a negligible slowdown of warming.
Daily Mail (London), 2004. [David Bellamy, “Global Warming? What a load of poppycock!,” July 9, 2004. l/n.]
Ah, ice ages. . . those absolutely massive changes in global climate that environmentalists don't like to talk about because they provide
such strong evidence that climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon.
It was round about the end of the last ice age, some 13,000 years ago, that a global warming process did undoubtedly begin.
Not because of all those Stone Age folk roasting mammoth meat on fossil fuel camp fires but because of something called the
'Milankovitch Cycles', an entirely natural fact of planetary life that depends on the tilt of the Earth's axis and its orbit around the sun.
The glaciers melted, the ice cap retreated and Stone Age man could resume hunting again. But a couple of millennia later, it got very
cold again and everyone headed south. Then it warmed up so much that water from melted ice filled the English Channel and we
became an island.
The truth is that the climate has been yo-yo-ing up and down ever since.
Whereas it was warm enough for the Romans to produce good wine in York, on the other hand, King Canute had to dig up peat to
warm his people. And then it started getting warm again.
Up and down, up and down - that is how temperature and climate have always gone in the past and there is no proof that they are not
still doing exactly the same now. In other words, climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon, nothing to do with the burning of
fossil fuels.
In fact, a recent scientific paper, rather unenticingly titled 'Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over The Last Glacial
Termination', proved it.
It showed that increases in temperature are responsible for increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.
But this sort of evidence is ignored, either by those who believe the Kyoto Protocol is environmental gospel or by those who know 25
years of hard work went into securing the agreement and simply can't admit that the science it is based on is wrong.
The real truth is that the main greenhouse gas - the one that has the most direct effect on land temperatures - is water vapour, 99 per
cent of which is entirely natural.
If all the water vapour was removed from the atmosphere, the temperature of the planet would fall by 33 degrees Celsius.
But remove all the carbon dioxide and the temperature might fall by just 0.3 percent.
Although we wouldn't be around, because without it there would be no green plants, no herbivorous farm animals and no food for us
to eat.
It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be Pounds 76trillion. Little
wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.
If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist -
money that could be used in umpteen better ways: fighting world hunger, providing clean drinking water, developing alternative
energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.
The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth.
It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact.
23
ALT CAUSE - NATURAL CYCLE - DISPROVES CO2

Data collected from Antarctic and Greenland ice cores indicate that current climate change is part of natural
variability. Records of increases in CO2 levels post-warming in the past proves that climate change was not driven
by greenhouse gasses.
Petr Chylek is a researcher for Space and Remote Sensing Sciences at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Prior to becoming a
government researcher in 2001, Chylek was Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science in the graduate program at Dalhousie
University in Halifax, Canada where he continues as an Adjunct Professor. “A Long-term Perspective on Climate Change,” April 1,
2002
24
Continued on next page…
ALT CAUSE - NATURAL CYCLE - DISPROVES CO2
25
ALT CAUSE - NATURAL CYCLE - PAST WARMING

Heightened temperatures are not uncommon; in fact, the warmest period in history, a 500 year period between
4000 and 5000 years ago, did not result in melting of Antarctic glaciers according to ice core data.
2002
26
ALT CAUSE - NATURAL CYCLE - PAST WARMING

Recent warming is not historically unique, empirical examples and multiple sources of evidence show that the
climate has varied as such in the past.
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., and Willie Soon, Ph.D., are colleagues at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. “Recent
Warming is Not Historically Unique,” April 17, 2001.
<http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=478>
According to the reconstructed records, people in many parts of the world experienced a relative warmth early in the millennium,
called the Little Optimum (LO), and a cool period a few centuries later, labeled the Little Ice Age (LIA).
Examples are geographically widespread and numerous. In central Argentina during the LO, glaciers retreated and the plains regions
turned warm and humid. During the LIA, glaciers advanced and the plains became cooler and semi-arid.
Study of the cultivation of subtropical citrus trees and herbs shows Northeast China had a temperature about 1C higher than today
between 1100 and 1200 A.D. That same region felt the chill of the LIA between 1550 and 1750 A.D., and that period was the coldest
of the last 2000 years, according to oxygen isotope measurements in peat cellulose.
The temperature in the interior of South Africa was higher by 3C during the LO and lower by 1C during the LIA compared with today,
based on measurements of carbon and oxygen isotopes in stalagmites.
The surface temperature of the Sargasso Sea in the North Atlantic exhibited a 1C rise 1,000 years ago and 1C decrease about 400 years
ago, as shown by the level of the oxygen isotope in seafloor sediments.
Borehole measurements into the Greenland ice sheet indicate a temperature 1C higher around 1000 A.D. and 1C cooler between 1500
and 1850 A.D. Other borehole measurements made worldwide confirm a warmth during the LO as high as 0.5 C above present
temperatures and as low as 0.7C below current values during the LIA.
In western Europe, documentary evidence describes the moderation of harsh winters from 900 to 1300 A.D. relative to those from
1300 to 1900. During the LO, atypical subtropical plants such as olive trees grew in the Po valley of Northern Italy, and fig trees near
Cologne, Germany.
More information gathered around the world confirms anomalous climate conditions during the Little Ice Age and Little Optimum.
For example, in northwestern Minnesota, lake sediments reveal dustier, and therefore probably much windier, conditions during the
LIA than today. Other studies examine such evidence as tree growth ranging from the near Arctic, Siberia, and Alaska to Chile, New
Zealand, and Tasmania; documentary and glacier evidence worldwide; pollen and phenological indicators in China; and lake fossils in
Africa and the U.S. Great Plains.
The concordance of those diverse climate indicators over the world says that the twentieth century was not unusually warm compared
with earlier times. Cambridge University researchers write that the medieval warming "was a global event occurring between about
900 and 1250 A.D., possibly interrupted by a minor re-advance of ice between about 1050 and 1150 A.D."
Other researchers state, "Extreme [climate] events in the [South African] record show distinct teleconnections with similar events in
other parts of the world, in both the northern and southern hemispheres."
A scientist from Stockholm University concludes, "The pattern of frequent and rapid changes in climate throughout the Holocene
indicates that the warming of the last 100 years is not a unique event and is thus not an indication of human impact on the climate, as
is frequently claimed."
The facts are simple. The Little Optimum and Little Ice Age were real. They were also widespread over the globe. The twentieth
century is not the least bit climatically unusual. So why the recent media hysteria that the twentieth century is the warmest of the last
1,000 years?
27
ALT CAUSE - NATURAL CYCLE - NO IMPACT
Current warming is part of a natural cycle which will not result in such impacts as sea level rise and extreme
weather.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 3/7/07 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Sustainable Well-Being and Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment”
We wish Pachauri had mentioned what those already-experienced "most serious consequences" were. Has the earth warmed by a
frightening amount? Absolutely not. The increase in temperature over the last century or more is only on the order of 1°C. Has it taken
us to an unusual level of warmth? Absolutely not, as evidenced by the fact that the baseline from which modern warming commenced
was the uncharacteristic cold of the Little Ice Age, which is judged to have been the coldest interval of the current interglacial, which
has itself been deemed to have been colder than all four of the interglacials that immediately preceded it (Petit et al., 1999). Clearly,
therefore, we are in the process of emerging from perhaps the coldest interglacial period of the past half-million years; and we may
yet have a ways to go before we return to what would be considered a more "normal" interglacial climate.
Have Greenland and Antarctica been losing ice mass at an accelerating rate that has been causing global sea level to rise at an
accelerating rate? Absolutely not. In fact, we have recently reviewed two sea level studies that indicate the rate-of-rise of global sea
level over the last half of the 20th century was actually less than the rate-of-rise over the first half of the century (Jevrejeva et al.,
2006; Holgate, 2007), which is suggestive of a decelerating rate of global sea level rise.
Have droughts, floods and storms of various types been growing more severe over the past century? Or have they been occurring more
frequently? Absolutely not, as one can readily verify by perusing the many items we have archived under the corresponding headings
in our Subject Index.
28
ALT CAUSE - OUTGASSING

Greenhouse gas emissions are more likely due to outgassing, a natural process by which tectonic movements
release gasses from the surface into the atmosphere. Taking this into consideration, human (anthropogenic)
emissions are calculated at only .00022% of total CO2 released by outgassing into the atmosphere.
L. F. Khilyuk1 and G. V. Chilingar, Geologists from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Southern California. “On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?,” Environmental Geology, Volume
50, Number 6, August, 2006. <http://www.springerlink.com/content/t341350850360302/fulltext.html>
Most of atmospheric gases are generated in the inner layers of the Earth (mostly in the mantle) over geologic history and are
transferred to the upper systems (atmosphere and hydrosphere) by outgassing. Outgassing is a process of upward migration of various
gases generated in the mantle and the Earth’s crust and seeping through the Earth’s surface into the atmosphere and the World Ocean
(Khilyuk et al. 2000). Most of the gasses (methane, carbon dioxide, water vapor, hydrogen, helium, and others) formed in the process
of chemical reactions under different physicochemical conditions are continuously migrating upward and forming the atmosphere
throughout the geologic history. The Earth’s atmosphere and hydrosphere were formed about 4 billion years (BY) ago by outgassing
(Vinogradov 1967; Holland 1984; Sorokhtin and Sorokhtin 2002). This process is going on at the present time.
The rate of outgassing is determined by the rate of tectonic activity. As a universal measure of the rate of global tectonic activity one
can use the rate of heat flux through the Earth’s surface, because its level indicates the magnitude of total energy generated in the
mantle. If, for some reason, it is not possible to estimate the value of the heat flux, then the rate of oceanic floor spreading (in the
spreading zones) can be substituted for it. The rate of spreading is directly translated into the rate of displacement of the tectonic plates
that presently averages 4.5–5 cm/year (Sorokhtin and Ushakov 2002).
Main gasses generated in the mantle and on the ocean floor are: carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrogen. Carbon dioxide (CO2)
dissolves mostly in the oceanic water and transforms to abiogenic methane (CH4) and carbonate (2MgCO3) (Sorokhtin and Sorokhtin
2002) through the following chemical reactions:
These reactions are accompanied by a very large amount of heat release. This heat contributes considerably to the heat flux through
the Earth’s surface. Thus, the rate of abiogenic CH4 generation on the ocean floor in the spreading zones can be used as a measure of
global tectonic activity. In turn, the rate of the Earth’s tectonic activity can be used as a measure of the Earth’s outgassing rate.
CH4 gas enters the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect and depleting ozone concentration through the following
reaction:
Due to a high level of current tectonic activity, there is a pronounced increase in the current methane gas generation at the oceanic
floor (Yasamanov 2003). Yasamanov estimates that about 5×1015 g/year of CH4 are currently released to oceanic water at the
spreading zones of mid-ocean ridges only. He believes that the increasing concentration of methane leads to significant increase in the
atmospheric carbon dioxide content that considerably amplifies the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Gases accumulating in the atmosphere and the rate of outgassing determine the properties of gaseous atmospheric mixture, in
particular, changing the density and thermal capacity of the air. One can assume that: the greater the rate of outgassing, the higher the
atmospheric pressure. According to the adiabatic theory of heat transfer in the atmosphere (Khilyuk and Chilingar 2003), the latter
leads to increase in the atmospheric global temperature.
Studying the origin and evolution of the Earth’s atmosphere, one needs to take into account that the primordial Earth’s matter
contained only traces of volatile elements (H2, He) and compounds. All other volatile compounds
(H2O, CO2, O2, HCl, HF), except possibly N2, were mostly degassed out of the Earth mantle throughout geologic history (Sorokhtin
and Sorokhtin 2002).
Continues on next page…
29
ALT CAUSE - OUTGASSING

Outgassing could start only after fusion of the upper layers of the Earth’s matter and beginning of the Earth’s tectonic activity (about 4
billion years ago). Under plausible assumption that the rate of Earth’s degassing is proportional to its tectonic activity and realistic
estimates of the original amounts of volatile components in gaseous primordial atmosphere and solid matter of the Earth, Sorokhtin
and Sorokhtin (2002) modeled degassing of N2, CO2, H2O, and O2, out of the mantle and their accumulation in atmosphere and
hydrosphere. The results of their modeling demonstrated, for example, that the nitrogen of contemporary atmosphere contains 55% of
the relic gas and 45% of the gas of magmatic origin. Geologic evolution of the relative content of nitrogen in the atmosphere (under
three different hypotheses of the origin of the dominant amount of N2) is shown in Fig. 3. The most probable “intermediate” evolution
of the nitrogen partial pressure in the atmosphere is presented by the curve 2.
To estimate the amount of total anthropogenic CO2 emission, one can use an excellent compendium of data on estimates of
anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN,
USA (Marland et al. 2002). The estimates in this compendium are expressed in million metric tons of carbon. The data set comprises
the annual releases of CO2 from 1751 to 2002. They can be roughly sorted out into two groups: before the year of 1900 and after the
year of 1900. The data of the first group exhibit linear growth of the emission in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, whereas the data
from the second group show exponential growth of the anthropogenic CO2 emission in twentieth century. This observation allows one
to use a piece-wise approximation for the data of compendium: a linear function for the first group and an exponential function for the
second group.
Using the endpoints of the domain intervals for evaluation of the coefficients of the approximating equations, the writers obtained the
following piece-wise function (considering that CO2 emission prior to the year of 1800 is negligible in comparison with later data):
where t is time, in years, and C is the annual carbon dioxide emission rate in 106 metric tons of carbon/year.
The writers used this approximating function (Eq. 7) for computing a rough estimate of the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide
emission throughout human history.
Integrating the first function over the interval [0, 100], one obtains 27,100×106=2.71×1010 ton. Integration of the second function
over the interval [100, 202] results in 253,543×106=2.53543×1011 ton. The latter number indicates that the total anthropogenic CO2
emission in the twentieth century is about one order of magnitude higher than that in nineteenth century. Adding these two numbers
together, the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission throughout the human history is estimated at about 2.81×1011 metric tons of
carbon. Recalculating this amount into the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission in grams of CO2, one obtains the estimate
1.003×1018 g, which constitutes less than 0.00022% of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle during geologic
history. Comparing these figures, one can conclude that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is negligible (indistinguishable) in any
energy-matter transformation processes changing the Earth’s climate.
30
NO GREENHOUSE - SATELLITE DATA

The difference in the temperature readings of surface measurements and satellite measurements is irreconcilable.
Surface readings show a higher rate of warming than that of satellite readings in the atmosphere. This suggests
that global warming is not a product of greenhouse gasses which would heat both at an equal rate.
2002
31
32
33
NO GREENHOUSE - CO2 CONCENTRATION

Increased warming trends do not coincide with high atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Recent trends in global air temperature are not well correlated with changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. According to the
IPCC, air temperature measurements taken at the surface of the Earth show that the average temperature of the globe has increased by
about 0.6 °C over the past century. Most of this rise occurred before 1940 (Fig. 5), but over 80% of the CO2 entered the atmosphere
after 1940. In fact, from the late 1930s to the late 1970s the Earth’s atmosphere cooled despite increasing levels of CO2. A close
association between paleo-temperatures and past CO2 concentrations has long been used to support global warming predictions. But
recent research has challenged this as, for example, in the work of Pearson and Palmer (1999, 2000) and Rothman (2002). CO2 levels
were about five times greater some 200 million years ago than present values. Pearson and Palmer (1999) show that the global cooling
since the Eocene was not primarily due to decreases in CO2 levels, but to changes of ocean circulation resulting from the tectonic
opening and closing of oceanic gateways as continents move around.
34
NO GREENHOUSE - NOT MAN-MADE

Human caused CO2 emissions only comprise 3% of the total carbon cycle; the source of the recent rise in
atmospheric CO2 is unclear.
Carbon dioxide emissions caused by human use of fossil fuels are small compared to the natural carbon exchange between the
atmosphere on the one hand and the terrestrial system and oceans on the other. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only about 3% of
the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon of 750 Gt. The vast majority of CO2 fluxes are
natural. The magnitude of the natural reservoirs of carbon between ocean, atmosphere and land and the rates of exchange between
them are so large that the role of humans in the natural carbon budget is unclear. So great are the difficulties quantifying the natural
carbon budget and the uncertainties with which the numbers are estimated that the source of recent rise in atmospheric CO2 has not
been determined with certainty (Keeling et al., 1996; Tans et al., 1990; Adger and Brown, 1995). The fact is that there are no reliable
models relating CO2 emissions to atmospheric concentrations because it is not clear how the two are related.
35
A2 - CLIMATE VARIABILITY
Global warming does not increase climate variability- studies prove.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 8/22/07 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Global warming and Climate Variability”
What was done

Noting that 20th-century warming in the alpine area of Europe "is 2-3 times greater than the global average (Jungo and Beniston,
2001) and provides an observational framework that allows to address the issue of links between mean temperature and its variance,"
the researchers focused on one Swiss site representative of low elevation (Basel, 369 m above sea level) and another Swiss site
representative of high elevation (Saentis, 2500 m above sea level), both of which sites, in their words, "have proven their quality in a
number of previous studies (Jungo and Beniston, 2001; Beniston and Jungo, 2002; Benisteon and Stephenson, 2004; Beniston and
Diaz, 2004)," where they say it was determined that conclusions based on data from these sites "also apply to most of the other Swiss
sites."
What was learned
Beniston and Goyette report that based upon observational data since 1900 at both the low and high elevation sites, "the inter-annual
and decadal variability of both maximum and minimum daily temperatures has in fact decreased [authors' italics] over the course of
the 20th century despite the strong warming that has been observed in the intervening period [our italics]."
What it means
The Swiss researchers say their observations show that "contrary to what is commonly hypothesized, climate variability does not
necessarily increase as climate warms." In fact, they emphasize that "the variance of temperature has actually decreased [our italics] in
Switzerland since the 1960s and 1970s at a time when mean temperatures have risen considerably [our italics]." What is more, they
state that their findings "are consistent with the temperature analysis carried out by Michaels et al. (1998)," noting that the latter
investigators' results "also do not support the hypothesis that temperatures have become more variable as global temperatures have
increased over the 20th century."
36
A2 - SEA LEVEL RISE - ANTARCTICA TURN

Turn - Global warming can actually lower sea level by promoting growth of the Antarctic ice sheet.
It is important to keep in mind that greenhouse gas induced climate change can also act to substantially lower sea level. There is now a
substantive body of research reported in the peer reviewed scientific journal literature that suggests that sea levels, which have been
rising since the end of the last ice age (long before industrialization), are likely to stabilize or fall in a greenhouse-warmed world. This
is because empirical evidence indicates that a modest warming of the Earth could lower sea level by increasing evaporation from the
oceans. The result is increased deposition and accumulation of snow on the polar ice caps, principally in the Antarctic, thereby
transferring large amounts of water from the oceans to the ice sheets (Oerlemans, 1982; Zwally, 1989; Bromwich, 1995; Thompson
and Pollard, 1995; Ohmura et al., 1996; Ye and Mather, 1997; Meese et al., 1994; Hogan and Gow, 1997). The reasoning is that if the
Antarctic air were to warm, it would still be below freezing, but its water holding capacity would increase as it warms. With more
moisture in the atmosphere over the Antarctic, snowfall would increase and ice sheets would grow, locking up water that would
otherwise be in the sea. The result would be thicker ice caps, especially in Antarctica. In this context, it is significant that during the
strong warming episode of 1920-40, sea level rise did not accelerate but actually stopped (Singer, 1997). According to Singer (1997,
p.19): “All these findings point to the conclusion that future warming will slow down rather than accelerate the ongoing rise in sea
levels.”
37
A2 - SEA LEVEL RISE - INSIGNIFICANT

Sea level rising only amounts to .35 mm per year—no chance of global flooding.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 7/9/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Separating Scientific
Fact from Personal Opinion” http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php Accessed 7/14/08)
A good perspective on this issue is provided in the 16 March 2007 issue of Science by Shepherd and Wingham (2007), who review
what is known about sea-level contributions arising from wastage of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets, focusing on the results of
14 different satellite-based estimates of the imbalances of the polar ice sheets that have been derived since 1998. These studies have
been of three major types - standard mass budget analyses, altimetry measurements of ice-sheet volume changes, and measurements of
the ice sheets' changing gravitational attraction - and they have yielded a diversity of values, ranging from an implied sea-level rise of
1.0 mm/year to a sea-level fall of 0.15 mm/year. Based on their evaluation of these diverse findings, the two researchers come to the
conclusion that the current "best estimate" of the contribution of polar ice wastage to global sea level change is a rise of 0.35
millimeters per year, which over a century amounts to only 35 millimeters, or less than an inch and a half.
Yet even this small sea level rise may be unrealistically large, for although two of Greenland's biggest outlet glaciers doubled their
mass-loss rates in 2004, causing many to claim that the Greenland Ice Sheet was responding more rapidly to global warming than
expected, Howat et al. (2007) report that the glaciers' mass-loss rates "decreased in 2006 to near the previous rates." And these
observations, in their words, "suggest that special care must be taken in how mass-balance estimates are evaluated, particularly when
extrapolating into the future, because short-term spikes could yield erroneous long-term trends."
38
A2 - SEA LEVEL RISE - SLOW

The sea is rising slower than expected.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 8/8/07 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Global Positioning System Adjustments to Tide Gauge
Estimates of Global Sea Level Trend” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N32/C1.php Accessed 7/20/08)
What was done

The authors describe a technique they developed for utilizing Global Positioning System (GPS) data, which they obtained from
numerous GPS stations situated in close proximity to various tide gauges around the world, to correct the tide gauge records and thus
obtain what they call a "set of 'absolute' or geocentric sea-level trends." Based on a number of criteria that had to be met by both the
tide gauge and GPS stations, they ultimately used paired data sets from 28 locations that covered a time span of 5.9 years (1999.0-
2005.7) to derive their final mean global result, after which they compared it with what they call the "most quoted" tide-gauge results
of Douglas (1991, 1997, 2001), which had been corrected for the most common form of vertical land motion by means of theoretical
models of Glacial-Isostatic Adjustment (GIA).
What was learned
Whereas the data of Douglas yielded a mean global sea-level rate-of-rise of 1.84 ± 0.35 mm/year after correction for the GIA effect
(Peltier, 2001), Woppelmann et al. obtained a much lower mean value of 1.35 ± 0.34 mm/year when employing their correction for
measured GPS vertical velocities. The sizable difference between these two results raises the question of how they compare with
results obtained from other ways of estimating global sea level trends. In this regard, the four researchers note that Mitrovica et al.
(2006) recently indicated there is a 1 mm/year contribution to sea-level rise from the melting of global land ice reservoirs, as well as a
0.4 mm/year contribution from thermal expansion of the global ocean (Antonov et al., 2005). Together, these two numbers yield a
value of 1.40 mm/year for the global ocean's total sea-level mean rate-of-rise, which is much closer to the 1.35 mm/year result of
Woppelmann et al. than to the Douglas-Peltier result of 1.84 mm/year.
What it means
The mean global sea-level rate-of-rise calculated by Woppelmann et al. appears to resolve the "sea-level enigma" noted by Munk
(2002), who called attention to the sizable discrepancy that existed at the time of his writing between estimates of climate-related
contributions to sea-level change and what the observed value was thought to be. Now, there is no longer any discrepancy between
these two numbers. What is more, the global ocean's mean rate-of-rise is now seen to be much slower than what was previously
believed to be the case.
39
A2 - SEA LEVEL RISE - ALT CAUSE
Alt Cause of sea level rise - Sea-ice melting caused by changes in wind patterns
Julia Slingo, Prof. of Meteorology at the University of Reading and Director of Centre for Global Atmospheric Modelling, and Rowan Sutton, a Royal
Society Research Fellow in the Climate Division of the UK National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS), based in the Department of Meteorology at the
University of Reading. “Sea-ice decline due to more than warming alone,” National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Walker Institute for
Climate System Research, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6BB, UK, November 2007.
<http://www.ped.fas.harvard.edu/news/Nature_letter.pdf>
SIR — The dramatic loss of sea-ice cover over the Arctic this summer was widely reported, for example in your News story ‘Arctic
melt opens Northwest passage’ (Nature 449, 267; 2007), and frequently attributed to global warming. Although the gradual decline in
sea-ice extent during the past four decades is in line with that expected from global warming, it is very unlikely that the loss of sea-ice
cover this year is explicable solely in terms of temperature change. Changing wind patterns are an important influence on the
distribution of sea ice. Throughout summer 2007, exceptional pressure and wind patterns persisted over the Arctic Ocean. The
observed migration of ice cover, from the Siberian and Beaufort seas northwards and eastwards into the Arctic Basin, was in line with
the expected response to the anomalous winds. These Arctic wind anomalies were part of a global-scale pattern of highly unusual
circulation this summer, the causes of which are as yet unclear. The growing La Niña in the East Pacific undoubtedly had a major
influence globally, and there is some evidence from past events that La Niña predisposes the circulation towards the type of
exceptional patterns seen this summer.
40
A2 - GLACIERS MELT - DISPROVE

Glaciers won’t melt and slip into the sea or cause a positive feedback, two studies prove.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 5/7/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Accelerated Disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet”
In his book An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore states that if Greenland melted or broke up and slipped into the sea, "sea levels worldwide
would increase by between 18 and 20 feet," and he presents a host of speculative maps of how many of the world's coastlines would
have to be redrawn if such were to occur (p. 196-209). Likewise, in his testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives' Select
Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming on 26 April 2007, NASA's James Hansen stated "there is increasing
realization that sea level rise this century may be measured in meters if we follow business-as-usual fossil fuel emissions."
What is the source of these dire contentions?
A phenomenon that both Al Gore and James Hansen promote involves the thousands of meltwater pools or supraglacial lakes that
form on the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet each summer, and the conduits or moulins that can form in fractures beneath them and
rapidly drain their water to the bedrock at the bottom of the ice sheet, enhance the ice sheet's basal lubrication, and thereby cause
portions of it to flow faster towards the sea. Two papers published in Sciencexpress on 17 April 2008 bring a much needed dose of
reality to the discussion of the role that is likely to be played by this phenomenon in Greenland's potential contribution to future sea
level rise; and their findings are radically different from what Gore and Hansen contend.
In the first study, Das et al. (2008) established observation sites at two large supraglacial lakes on the Greenland Ice Sheet's western
margin atop approximately 1000-meter-thick sub-freezing ice. One of the lakes rapidly drained on 29 July 2006 in a dramatic event
that was monitored by local GPS, seismic and water-level sensors. These data indicated the entire lake drained in approximately 1.4
hours, with a mean drainage rate exceeding the average rate of water flow over Niagara Falls. One consequence of this event was a
westward surface displacement of 0.5 meter in excess of the average daily displacement of 0.25 meter. However, pre- and post-
drainage lateral speeds did not differ appreciably, leading the researchers to conclude that "the opening of a new moulin draining a
large daily melt volume (24 m3/sec) had little apparent lasting effect on the local ice-sheet velocity."
But what might be the effect of multiple lake drainages?
In the second study, which addresses this question, Joughin et al. (2008) assembled a comprehensive set of interferometric synthetic
aperture radar (InSAR) and GPS observations over the period September 2004 to August 2007. These data allowed the construction of
71 InSAR velocity maps along two partially overlapping RADARSAT tracks that included Jakobshavn Isbrae (western Greenland's
largest outlet glacier), several smaller marine-terminating outlet glaciers, and a several-hundred-kilometer-long stretch of the
surrounding ice sheet. These data indicated summer ice-sheet speedups of 50+% in some places. However, the researchers note that
"the melt-induced speedup averaged over a mix of several tidewater outlet glaciers is relatively small (< 10 to 15%)." And when
factoring in the short melt-season duration, they say that "the total additional annual displacement attributable to surface melt amounts
to a few percent on glaciers moving at several hundred meters per year." In addition, they report that "the limited seasonal
observations elsewhere in Greenland suggest a low sensitivity to summer melt similar to that which we observe."
In concluding, Joughin et al. write that "surface-melt-enhanced basal lubrication has been invoked previously as a feedback that would
hasten the Greenland Ice Sheet's demise in a warming climate," specifically citing, in this regard, Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
However, their real-world observations of this phenomenon show that "several fast-flowing outlet glaciers, including Jakobshavn
Isbrae, are relatively insensitive to this process."
To the south of Jakobshavn Isbrae, however, Joughin et al. note that the ice sheet's western flank is relatively free of outlet glaciers
and that ice loss there is primarily due to melt; and they say that "numerical models appropriate to this type of sheet flow and that
include a parameterization of surface-melt-induced speedup predict 10-to-25% more ice loss in the 21st Century than models without
this feedback." This estimate, of course, is based on a model parameterization of surface-melt-induced speedup that may or may not be
an adequate representation of reality. Nevertheless, we can probably safely conclude, as Joughin et al. do, that the phenomenon of
surface-melt-enhanced basal lubrication likely will not have a "catastrophic" effect on the Greenland Ice Sheet's future evolution, the
strident claims of Al Gore and James Hansen not withstanding.
41
A2 - GREENLAND ICE SHEET - MODELS FLAWED

The models used to predict the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet fail to take into account multiple variables
including refreezing, skewing the results.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 1/23/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Climate Model Problems: IV. Ice Sheet Mass Balance”
In the introduction to their study of the surface mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS), Bougamont et al. (2007) write that
"for the 21st century, the predicted sea level contribution from the GrIS is +0.5 ± 0.4 mm/year, for all climate scenarios and a range of
climate models," but they say that "these predictions use a Positive Degree Day Model (PDDM) to determine the surface mass balance
(SMB), which determines the amount of melt using a temperature threshold only," while "a more physically-based approach is to use
an energy balance and snowpack model (EBSM), which takes into account all the fluxes of heat at the surface but requires
considerably more inputs to drive it." Hence, to investigate the importance of these differences, the eight researchers compared "a
PDDM [Reeh, 1991] and an EBSM [Bougamont et al., 2005] to calculate the SMB of the GrIS in a warming climate as prescribed by
a transient run of the Hadley Centre Climate Model version 3 (HadCM3)," with each model "first tuned to produce annual runoff rates
close to estimates by Hanna et al. (2005)."
When all was said and done, Bougamont et al. (2007) found that "the PDDM has a larger response to the simulated climate warming
than the EBSM (concurring with van de Wal, 1996), translating into more than a factor 2 difference [our italics] in the cumulative net
surface mass," and "generating annual runoff rates almost twice as large [our italics]." Why? Because (1) the PDDM does not include
parameterizations for changes in "lapse rates, specific humidity, winds and cloud cover associated with climate change," because (2)
"important albedo feedbacks are not explicitly incorporated into a PDDM," and because of (3) the larger EBSM refreezing rates
compared to those of the PDDM, which represents "an important component of the SMB (concurring, for example, with Janssens and
Huybrechts, 2000)." With respect to this latter point, in fact, the research team writes that roughly half the difference in annual runoff
rates generated by the two models "was due to differences in refreezing rates in the snowpack."
What are the implications of these findings?
Bougamont et al. (2007) write that, in view of their results, "large uncertainties in estimates of the future surface mass balance
response of the ice sheet remain," and that "our ability to predict the future behavior of the GrIS is constrained not only by
uncertainties in modeling ice dynamics but equally by our ability to adequately model the surface mass balance." In this regard, they
further state that "assessing which model performs 'best'," was "not the purpose of this study." Nevertheless, their comments about the
differences between the PDDM and EBSM models leave little doubt that the former (which predict greater meltwater runoff into the
sea) are significantly inferior to the latter, which conclusion suggests that even the paltry 0.5 ± 0.4 mm/year of sea level rise predicted
for the 21st-century by today's climate models (5 ± 4 cm, or about 2 ± 1.6 inches over the full hundred years) may be much greater
than what might actually occur.
42
A2 - RESOURCE WARS - FAILED GOVERNANCE

Claiming that global warming is the primary cause of instability and human rights abuses is irresponsible, shifting
liability from oppressive governments and directing attention away from real solutions.
Idean Salehyan is assistant professor of political science at the University of North Texas and coauthor of “Climate Change and
Conflict: The Migration Link,” published by the International Peace Academy in New York. “The New Myth About Climate Change.”
August, 2007. <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3922&print=1>
The number of failed states, meanwhile, will increase as governments collapse in the face of resource wars and weakened state
capabilities, and transnational terrorists and criminal networks will move in. International wars over depleted water and energy
supplies will also intensify. The basic need for survival will supplant nationalism, religion, or ideology as the fundamental root of
conflict.
Dire scenarios like these may sound convincing, but they are misleading. Even worse, they are irresponsible, for they shift liability for
wars and human rights abuses away from oppressive, corrupt governments. Additionally, focusing on climate change as a security
threat that requires a military response diverts attention away from prudent adaptation mechanisms and new technologies that can
prevent the worst catastrophes.
Alt Cause - The lack of democratic governments is more directly responsible for violence.
Second, arguing that climate change is a root cause of conflict lets tyrannical governments off the hook. If the environment drives
conflict, then governments bear little responsibility for bad outcomes. That’s why Ban Ki-moon’s case about Darfur was music to
Khartoum’s ears. The Sudanese government would love to blame the West for creating the climate change problem in the first place.
True, desertification is a serious concern, but it’s preposterous to suggest that poor rainfall—rather than deliberate actions taken by the
Sudanese government and the various combatant factions—ultimately caused the genocidal violence in Sudan. Yet by Moon’s
perverse logic, consumers in Chicago and Paris are at least as culpable for Darfur as the regime in Khartoum.
Resource wars unlikely and symptomatic of failures in government, not climate change.
David G. Victor is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and the director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development. He is also a senior fellow at
the Council on Foreign Relations, where he directed a task force on energy security. A frequent writer on natural resources policy, he is the author of The Collapse of the
Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming (Princeton University Press, 2001) and the co-editor of Natural Gas and Geopolitics. ; “What resource
wars?(From Arabia to Zion)(Essay),” The National Interest, 01-NOV-07.
While there are many reasons to fear global warming, the risk that such dangers could cause violent conflict ranks extremely low on
the list because it is highly unlikely to materialize. Despite decades of warnings about water wars, what is striking is that water wars
don't happen--usually because countries that share water resources have a lot more at stake and armed conflict rarely fixes the
problem. Some analysts have pointed to conflicts over resources, including water and valuable land, as a cause in the Rwandan
genocide, for example. Recently, the UN secretary-general suggested that climate change was already exacerbating the conflicts in
Sudan. But none of these supposed causal chains stay linked under close scrutiny--the conflicts over resources are usually
symptomatic of deeper failures in governance and other primal forces for conflicts, such as ethnic tensions, income inequalities and
other unsettled grievances. Climate is just one of many factors that contribute to tension. The same is true for scenarios of climate
refugees, where the moniker "climate" conveniently obscures the deeper causal forces.
43
A2 - RESOURCE WARS - WON’T HAPPEN

Resource scarcity caused by global warming doesn’t cause significant instability or conflict, empirically denied.
First, aside from a few anecdotes, there is little systematic empirical evidence that resource scarcity and changing environmental
conditions lead to conflict. In fact, several studies have shown that an abundance of natural resources is more likely to contribute to
conflict. Moreover, even as the planet has warmed, the number of civil wars and insurgencies has decreased dramatically. Data
collected by researchers at Uppsala University and the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo shows a steep decline in the
number of armed conflicts around the world. Between 1989 and 2002, some 100 armed conflicts came to an end, including the wars in
Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Cambodia. If global warming causes conflict, we should not be witnessing this downward trend.
Furthermore, if famine and drought led to the crisis in Darfur, why have scores of environmental catastrophes failed to set off armed
conflict elsewhere? For instance, the U.N. World Food Programme warns that 5 million people in Malawi have been experiencing
chronic food shortages for several years. But famine-wracked Malawi has yet to experience a major civil war. Similarly, the Asian
tsunami in 2004 killed hundreds of thousands of people, generated millions of environmental refugees, and led to severe shortages of
shelter, food, clean water, and electricity. Yet the tsunami, one of the most extreme catastrophes in recent history, did not lead to an
outbreak of resource wars. Clearly then, there is much more to armed conflict than resource scarcity and natural disasters.
44
A2 - MALARIA - MODELS FLAWED

Models used to project the spread of malaria due to global warming in recent studies are insufficient. They are
poor predictors despite inherent bias towards success, and they result in flawed measurements due to unsuitable
units for transmission and outdated population data.
Paul Reiter et al. is a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France. He is a member of the World Health Organization Expert
Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control. He was an employee of the Center for Disease Control (Dengue Branch) for 22 years. He is a Fellow of the Royal
Entomological Society. He is a specialist in mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever; Christopher J Thomas is senior lecturer in spatial ecology
and Wolfson Institute fellow in health and environment, School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, University of
Durham, UK; Peter M Atkinson is professor of geography, University of Southampton, UK; Simon I Hay is a Wellcome Trust research fellow; Sarah E
Randolph is professor of parasite ecology University of Oxford, UK; David J Rogers is professor of ecology, Department of Zoology, UK; G Dennis Shanks is
at the US Army Centre for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, MD, USA; Robert W Snow is professor of tropical public health, University of Oxford and
Andrew Spielman is professor of tropical public health, immunology, and infectious diseases, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. SIH and RWS
are also at the KEMRI Wellcome Trust collaborative programme, Kenya. “Reflection and Reaction Global warming and malaria: a call for accuracy,” The
Lancet Infectious Diseases Volume 4, Issue 6, June 2004, Pages 323-324.
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W8X 4CG913M-
H&_user=1458830&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000052790&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1458830&md5=85a549fa43a9b46
49e332d5cc481caf1>
The relation between climate and malaria transmission is complex and varies according to location,2 yet
Tanser et al base their projections on thresholds derived from a mere 15 African locations. Slight
adjustments of values assigned to such thresholds and rules can influence spatial predictions strongly.8
The authors invest considerable effort in assessing the sensitivity of their model to climate change
scenarios but do not report the internal sensitivities to thresholds and rules. The predictive skill of their
model is low (63% sensitivity, 95% CI 61–65%) but they consider projections acceptable if prevalence is
projected “to within a month” (presumably +/- 1 month?), thereby biasing their model towards success. A
model covering an entire year in a parasite-positive site would always be correct, although in such areas it
would be relatively insensitive to climate. By contrast, sites in which transmission is seasonal would
provide a more reliable test of accuracy, but estimation is more difficult because climate sensitivity is
greater. Furthermore, because parasite clearance in communities is not instantaneous,9 spot samples of
parasitaemia on survey dates are not a suitable indicator of the duration of the transmission season.
Lastly, “person/months” are unsuitable as a measure of transmission: an extension of season from 1 to 4
months will have more impact than from 10 to 12 months. According to their model, an extension of
transmission from 11 to 12 months results in 106 more person/months in a population of 106 people,
whereas an extension from 1 to 5 months gives the same increase in a population of 250·000.
What Tanser and colleagues have modelled is merely the duration of the transmission season, which they
interpret as “heightened transmission” and increased incidence. A greater failing is their reliance on
“parasite-ratio studies”. The relations between transmission season and parasite prevalence, and parasite
prevalence and clinical disease, are unclear but unlikely to be linear. Moreover, they use 1995 data for
human populations, although these are projected to double by 2030. In addition, the proportion living in
urban areas—with a specific climate10 and orders of magnitude less malaria transmission11 and 12—is
projected to rise from 37% to 53%.13 For all these reasons, we do not accept the model as a “baseline
against which interventions can be planned”.
45
A2 - MALARIA - ALT CAUSES
The ability of malaria to spread varies greatly between regions, breeding times, rainfalls, and immunity of local
populations, determining the impact of an epidemic. Attributing spread to elongated seasons as a result of global
warming ignores these complexities.
Paul Reiter et al. is a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France. He is a member of the World Health Organization Expert
Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control. He was an employee of the Center for Disease Control (Dengue Branch) for 22 years. He is a Fellow of the Royal
Entomological Society. He is a specialist in mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever; Christopher J Thomas is senior lecturer in spatial ecology
and Wolfson Institute fellow in health and environment, School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, University of
Durham, UK; Peter M Atkinson is professor of geography, University of Southampton, UK; Simon I Hay is a Wellcome Trust research fellow; Sarah E
Randolph is professor of parasite ecology University of Oxford, UK; David J Rogers is professor of ecology, Department of Zoology, UK; G Dennis Shanks is
at the US Army Centre for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, MD, USA; Robert W Snow is professor of tropical public health, University of Oxford and
Andrew Spielman is professor of tropical public health, immunology, and infectious diseases, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. SIH and RWS
are also at the KEMRI Wellcome Trust collaborative programme, Kenya. “Reflection and Reaction Global warming and malaria: a call for accuracy,” The
Lancet Infectious Diseases Volume 4, Issue 6, June 2004, Pages 323-324.
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W8X 4CG913M-
H&_user=1458830&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000052790&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1458830&md5=85a549fa43a9b46
49e332d5cc481caf1>
Again, “On the fringes of endemic zones, where transmission is limited by rainfall…there are strong seasonal patterns, and occasional
major epidemics” is also wrong. In many regions, far from any “fringes”, malaria is endemic, stable, but highly seasonal. For example,
in semi-arid regions of Mali, transmission is restricted to the rainy season, from July to September. The same 3 months constituted the
transmission season for Plasmodium falciparum in Italy before it was eliminated.16 Paradoxically, in parts of the Sudan, rainfall is
restricted to a month at most, but malaria is transmitted throughout the year. Female Anopheles gambiae survive drought and heat by
resting in dwellings and other sheltered places.17 Blood feeding and transmission continue, but the mosquitoes do not develop eggs
until the rains return. This phenomenon, termed gonotrophic dissociation, is remarkably similar to the winter survival strategy of
Anopheles atroparvus, the principal vector of malaria in Holland until the mid 20th century.16
By contrast, malaria is unstable in many regions that normally have abundant rainfall, and epidemics occur during periods of drought.
An illustrative example is the catastrophic 1934–35 epidemic in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), estimated to have killed 100·000 people.18
Worst hit was the south-western quadrant of the country, where average annual rainfall is greater than 250 cm, and malaria was
endemic, but unstable and relatively infrequent. The dominant vector, Anopheles culicifacies, breeds along the banks of rivers and
tends to be scarce in normal years. In the years 1928–33 there was abundant rainfall, river flow was high, A culicifacies was rare, and
the human population was exceptionally malaria-free. However, after failure of two successive monsoons, the drying rivers produced
colossal numbers of A culicifacies, and the resulting epidemic was exacerbated by the low collective immunity. In the drier parts of
the island, where A culicifacies was dominant but transmission was more stable, immunity protected the population from the worst
ravages of the disease.
Hales and Woodward state that “the underlying problem” of the future “extension of seasonality” of malaria is “pollution of the
atmosphere”, and call for rich countries to “recognise their obligations to the poorest by substantially reducing fossil-fuel
consumption”. We understand public anxiety about climate change, but are concerned that many of these much-publicised predictions
are ill informed and misleading. We urge those involved to pay closer attention to the complexities of this challenging subject.
46
A2 - MALARIA - GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Range of climate-sensitive diseases is affected more by the capacity of governments to address them than higher
temperatures.
David G. Victor is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and the director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development. He is also a senior fellow at
the Council on Foreign Relations, where he directed a task force on energy security. A frequent writer on natural resources policy, he is the author of The Collapse of the
Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming (Princeton University Press, 2001) and the co-editor of Natural Gas and Geopolitics. ; “What resource
wars?(From Arabia to Zion)(Essay),” The National Interest, 01-NOV-07.
The dangers of disease have caused particular alarm in the advanced industrialized world, partly because microbial threats are good
fodder for the imagination. But none of these scenarios hold up because the scope of all climate-sensitive diseases is mainly
determined by the prevalence of institutions to prevent and contain them rather than the raw climatic factors that determine where a
disease might theoretically exist. For example, the threat industry has flagged the idea that a growing fraction of the United States will
be malarial with the higher temperatures and increased moisture that are likely to come with global climate change. Yet much of the
American South is already climatically inviting for malaria, and malaria was a serious problem as far north as Chicago until treatment
and eradication programs started in the 19th century licked the disease. Today, malaria is rare in the industrialized world, regardless of
climate, and whether it spreads again will hinge on whether governments stay vigilant, not so much on patterns in climate. If Western
countries really cared about the spread of tropical diseases and the stresses they put on already fragile societies in the developing
world, they would redouble their efforts to tame the diseases directly (as some are now doing) rather than imagining that efforts to
lessen global warming will do the job. Eradication usually depends mainly on strong and responsive governments, not the bugs and
their physical climate.
47
A2 - ICE AGE - REFUTED

Scientists have refuted and rescinded claims that global warming may spark an ice age, new comprehensive data
sheds light on previous error.
The Heartland Institute, 2007 [by James M. Taylor, “Gulf Stream Will Not Shut Down, Science Magazines Admit.” Environment &
Climate News, February 1, 2007.]
<http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20505>
Long History of Alarmism

Since 1998, global warming alarmists have claimed rapid melting of Greenland's ice sheet could shut down the Atlantic Conveyor
Belt, dominated by the Gulf Stream, and thus shut off the supply of warm water and air that keeps northern Europe extremely mild for
its high latitude.
The resulting advance of ice sheets across Europe, alarmists argued, would quickly spread throughout the entire Northern Hemisphere
and plunge the Earth into an already overdue ice age.
Vast Media Coverage
The alarmist predictions were given tremendous media coverage in November 2005, when British oceanographer Harry Bryden
reported a 30 percent reduction in the Gulf Stream since measurements were first taken in 1957. Moreover, Bryden reported, the
greatest part of that slowdown appeared to have occurred since 1992.
Based upon those claims, alarmists characterized reports of record cold spells in various parts of the globe as predicted effects of
global warming, not evidence against the warming theory. While alarmists had always tied heat waves to global warming, the
"weakening Gulf Stream theory" allowed them to dismiss the apparently contradictory evidence of recurring cold spells as yet more
evidence of global warming.
As Al Gore explained in a speech in New York City in January 2004, one of the coldest days in New York City history, "The extreme
conditions are actually the end result of the planet warming. The Bush policies are leading to weather extremes."
Data Debunk Fears
New data from an array of 19 measuring stations attached to buoys throughout the Atlantic Ocean show no slowing of the Gulf
Stream.
Scientists examining the data concluded Bryden's assertions were based on a single "snapshot" measurement of the Gulf Stream,
which has always been subject to wide, temporary variances.
Looking at comprehensive data taken from a much larger sampling area over a much longer period of time, scientists concluded, in the
words of the November 17 issue of Science magazine, "the lag reported late last year was a mere flicker in a system prone to natural
slowdowns and speedups."
Reporting from an October conference of scientists that examined the new data, German oceanographer Martin Visbeck told Science,
"more than 95 percent of the scientists at the workshop concluded that we have not seen any significant change of the Atlantic
circulation to date."
Johan Jungclaus, a German scientist who models ice sheets, reported in the November 7 New Scientist, "Abrupt climate change
initiated by the ice sheet melting is not a realistic scenario for the 21st century."
Climate Realists Ignored
Climate realists have long argued that alarmist predictions of a demise of the Gulf Stream were scientifically unsubstantiated.
Robert Bradley, president of the Institute for Energy Research, pointed out the speculative nature of such claims in the September
2000 issue of Environment & Climate News. "Climate-oceanic interactions are clearly a complicated subject that the science
community is still trying to understand," reported Bradley.
Other climate realists were even more critical, though news stories rarely reported the possibility they might be correct.
Benny Peiser, a research scientist at John Moores University in Liverpool, England, pointed out in December 2005 that the Gulf
Stream shutdown theory was a "silly ice age scare" that was "swallowed hook, line, and sinker" by media allies of global warming
alarmists.
"Cooling prophecies are simply not corroborated by some of the most advanced climate research," noted Peiser in a letter to Nature.
"At best, they are speculative and as such should be handled with extreme caution. What is more, the conjectures you are promoting
fly in the face of all previous long-term climate predictions on which UK government policies have been based for years."
48
A2 - ICE AGE - MODELS FLAWED

Climate models that predict a shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning that drives the Gulf Stream are
adjusted to be too sensitive to freshwater perturbations. Thus it is highly unlikely that global warming will lead to
a widespread collapse of the AMO.
A. J. Weaver is at the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia and Claude Hillaire-Marcel is at GEOTOP,
Université du Québec à Montréal. “Perspectives OCEAN SCIENCE: Global Warming and the Next Ice Age” Science 16 April 2004: Vol. 304. no. 5669, pp. 400 - 402
DOI: 10.1126/science.1096503 <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/304/5669/400>
It is certainly true that if the AMO [Atlantic Meridional Overturning] were to become inactive, substantial short-term cooling would
result in western Europe, especially during the winter. However, it is important to emphasize that not a single coupled model assessed
by the 2001 IPCC Working Group I on Climate Change Science (4) predicted a collapse in the AMO during the 21st century. Even in
those models where the AMO was found to weaken during the 21st century, there would still be warming over Europe due to the
radiative forcing associated with increased levels of greenhouse gases.
Models that eventually lead to a collapse of the AMO under global warming conditions typically fall into two categories: (i) flux-
adjusted coupled general circulation models, and (ii) intermediate-complexity models with zonally averaged ocean components. Both
suites of models are known to be more sensitive to freshwater perturbations. In the first class of models, a small perturbation away
from the present climate leads to large systematic errors in the salinity fields (as large flux adjustments are applied) that then build up
to cause dramatic AMO transitions. In the second class of models, the convection and sinking of water masses are coupled (there is no
horizontal structure). In contrast, newer non-flux-adjusted models find a more stable AMO under future conditions of climate change
(11, 13, 14).
Even the recent observations of freshening in the North Atlantic (15) (a reduction of salinity due to the addition of freshwater) appear
to be consistent with the projections of perhaps the most sophisticated non-flux-adjusted model (11). Ironically, this model suggests
that such freshening is associated with an increased AMO (16). This same model proposes that it is only Labrador Sea Water
formation that is susceptible to collapse in response to global warming.
In light of the paleoclimate record and our understanding of the contemporary climate system, it is safe to say that global warming will
not lead to the onset of a new ice age. These same records suggest that it is highly unlikely that global warming will lead to a
widespread collapse of the AMO--despite the appealing possibility raised in two recent studies (18, 19)--although it is possible that
deep convection in the Labrador Sea will cease. Such an event would have much more minor consequences on the climate
downstream over Europe.
49
A2 - ECONOMY - POVERTY
Direct costs associated with emissions reduction represent a tax on the poor for the benefit of the rich. Such
policies perpetuate poverty by making electricity more expensive in developing countries where people are already
dying without it.
CATO Institute, 2006 [by Jerry Taylor and Dr. Peter Van Doren, senior fellows. “Global Warming Insurance is a Bad Buy,”
November 20, 2006.]
<http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6780>
Does global warming threaten to permanently cripple the global economy? According to a new report from the British Treasury
prepared by economist Nicholas Stern, that's exactly what will happen unless we cut greenhouse gas emissions to 25 percent below
current levels by 2050. Should we do it? A close reading of the report reveals that the answer is "not necessarily."
Not to be flip about it, but why should the relatively poor (us) sacrifice for the relatively rich (our children and grandchildren)? The
Stern Report argues that the emissions cuts necessary to stave off disaster will likely cost about 1 percent of global GDP every single
year, or about $1,154 in current dollars per household in the United States. A small price to pay, we're told, when GDP losses will
likely total 5-10 percent of global GDP every year if we do absolutely nothing.
But even with a 10% reduction in GDP relative to what it would have been, 100 years from now, people will still be extraordinarily
well off by current standards. For example, since 1950 real U.S. GDP per capita has increased by about 2% a year. Given that growth
rate, real GDP per capita one hundred years hence would be $321,684, or more than 7 times higher than it is at present ($44,403). If
global warming cuts GDP by 10% a year beginning about 50 years from now, then GDP per capita will be $289,515 in 2106 rather
than $321,684.
Would anyone, let alone liberals, ever propose a 1% tax on those who make $44,000 to create benefits for those who make $289,000?
In short, paying now to head off warming is a regressive intergenerational tax that takes from the poor and gives to the rich.
The direct costs associated with greenhouse gas emission controls include avoidable deaths in the developing world. The United
Nations, for example, reports that about 2 million people on this planet die every year because they don't have electricity and must
burn biomass for heating and cooking. This results in greatly elevated levels of indoor air pollutants and premature deaths. Increasing
the cost of electricity – an unavoidable consequence of ridding the global economy of the fossil fuels that generate greenhouse gases –
will slow our ability to conquer this problem.
Higher fossil fuel costs will also slow the general march out of poverty. Not only is poverty the number one killer on the planet, it is
also the number one cause of environmental ruin. Deforestation, habitat loss, and air and water pollution are all strongly correlated
with per capita income.
50
A2 - BIODIVERSITY - CORAL ADAPTS

Coral reefs can adapt to climate change - algae that are thermally tolerant over-time become dominant in areas
that have experienced severe warming.
Andrew C. Baker et al., Ph.D University of Miami Coral Scientist; Craig J. Starger, PhD candidate, Dept. of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology
(E3B), Columbia University; Tim R. McClanahan Ph.D, Senior Conservation Zoologist at the Wildlife Conservation Society, & Peter W. Glynn Ph.D,
Thomas W. Ford Professor in the School of Engineering at Stanford; “Coral reefs: Corals' adaptive response to climate change.” Nature 430, 741 (12 August 2004) |
doi:10.1038/430741a; Published online 11 August 2004.
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n7001/full/430741a.html>
The long-term response of coral reefs to climate change depends on the ability of reef-building coral symbioses to adapt or acclimatize
to warmer temperatures, but there has been no direct evidence that such a response can occur. Here we show that corals containing
unusual algal symbionts that are thermally tolerant and commonly associated with high-temperature environments are much more
abundant on reefs that have been severely affected by recent climate change. This adaptive shift in symbiont communities indicates
that these devastated reefs could be more resistant to future thermal stress, resulting in significantly longer extinction times for
surviving corals than had been previously assumed.
Reef-building scleractinian (stony) corals obligately host dinoflagellate algal symbionts (genus Symbiodinium), whose loss during
mass coral-reef 'bleaching' as a result of increased seawater temperatures is a significant threat to coral reef ecosystems worldwide1.
Although acclimatization and/or adaptation of reef coral hosts and/or their algal symbionts are recognized as potentially mitigating the
frequency and severity of these bleaching events1, 2, 3, no studies have been undertaken to test whether such responses actually occur
on affected reefs.
The genus Symbiodinium is diverse, and many corals are relatively flexible in the type(s) of algal symbiont they contain, although one
type is usually dominant in any given species and environment4, 5, 6, 7. Because corals containing different symbionts can vary in
their sensitivity to bleaching4, 8 and can modify their symbiont communities in response to environmental change4, 7, 9, 10, we
investigated whether severe bleaching and mortality can select for stable host–symbiont combinations that are more thermally tolerant,
raising the overall bleaching resistance of the reef as a result.
We undertook molecular surveys of Symbiodinium in shallow (less than 7 m depth) scleractinian corals from five locations in the
Indo-Pacific that had been differently affected by the 1997–98 El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) bleaching event (Fig. 1; for
sample details, see supplementary information). For these large-scale comparisons, restriction-fragment length polymorphisms in the
symbionts' large-subunit ribosomal DNA were used to distinguish Symbiodinium in clades A, C or D5, 9.
In Panama, we surveyed ecologically dominant corals in the genus Pocillopora before, during and after ENSO bleaching. Colonies
containing Symbiodinium in clade D were already common (43%) in 1995 and were unaffected by bleaching in 1997, while colonies
containing clade C bleached severely8. By 2001, colonies containing clade D had become dominant (63%) on these reefs.
We also surveyed corals from the Persian (Arabian) Gulf that experience extremely high seasonal temperatures (>33 °C). Even these
reefs were severely bleached in 1998 (ref. 11), when temperatures in some locations exceeded 38 °C. We compared these with corals
from the Red Sea that do not experience such seasonal temperature highs (typically 29 °C) and which were relatively unaffected in
1998 (ref. 11). We found that, in 2000–01, Gulf reefs were dominated by the same clade-D symbionts as were found in Panama (62%
of scleractinian colonies), whereas Red Sea reefs only rarely contained these symbionts (1.5% of colonies).
This comparison was repeated in the western Indian Ocean in 2000–02: corals from reefs in Kenya that were severely bleached by the
combined effects of ENSO and the Indian Ocean Dipole in 1998 were compared with corals from Mauritius that had fortuitously
escaped significant bleaching during the same event11. The findings were similar: in Kenya, 15–65% of colonies contained clade D,
depending on site, compared with only 3% of colonies in Mauritius.
Taken together, these results indicate that corals containing thermally tolerant Symbiodinium in clade D are more abundant on reefs
after episodes of severe bleaching and mortality, and that surviving coral symbioses on these reefs more closely resemble those found
in high-temperature environments.
51

Study shows coral reefs that adapt host certain symbiotic algae can resist temperature increase.
Rob Rowan, Associate Professor of Marine Biology at University of Guam, BSc College of Wooster, PhD University of Utah;
“Coral bleaching: Thermal adaptation in reef coral symbionts,” Nature 430, 742 (12 August 2004) | doi:10.1038/430742a; Published online 11 August 2004
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n7001/full/430742a.html
Many corals bleach as a result of increased seawater temperature, which causes them to lose their vital symbiotic algae
(Symbiodinium spp.) — unless these symbioses are able to adapt to global warming, bleaching threatens coral reefs worldwide1, 2, 3.
Here I show that some corals have adapted to higher temperatures, at least in part, by hosting specifically adapted Symbiodinium. If
other coral species can host these or similar Symbiodinium taxa, they might adapt to warmer habitats relatively easily.
Around Guam, species of the coral genus Pocillopora each associate with at least two Symbiodinium taxa, one of which, according to
ecological data4, seems to be more tolerant of high temperature. I tested whether this could be the case by comparing photosynthetic
responses of the taxa, labelled according to their genotype, Symbiodinium C and Symbiodinium D (ref. 4) (for methods, see
supplementary information). I measured the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II (PSII) as the ratio of variable chlorophyll
fluorescence to maximum chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm)5 in P. verrucosa. In P. damicornis, I measured photosynthesis from
oxygen flux.
Symbiodinium C and D respond in opposite ways to temperature, as indicated by their differing Fv/Fm (Fig. 1a). Compared with a
control temperature of 28.5 °C, a temperature of 31.3 °C did not affect Symbiodinium C, but it increased Fv/Fm in Symbiodinium D; a
temperature of 32.0 °C decreased Fv/Fm in Symbiodinium C, whereas Symbiodinium D maintained an increased Fv/Fm. Although
Fv/Fm was similar in Symbiodinium C and D at 28.5 °C, at 32.0 °C Symbiodinium C could be identified by its lower Fv/Fm. After the
temperature treatments, corals were kept at 28.5 °C; after three and four days, Fv/Fm in treated Symbiodinium C remained lower than
in controls (P = 0.02) and unchanged from the value recorded at 32.0 °C (P>0.2), whereas Fv/Fm in control and treated Symbiodinium
D had become similar (P>0.2; Wilcoxon paired-sample tests)
A long-lasting decrease in Fv/Fm, as observed in Symbiodinium C, indicates that chronic photoinhibition resulted from damage to
PSII (refs 5–7). Repeated measures (Wilcoxon paired-sample tests) show that the decrease in Fv/Fm in Symbiodinium C at 32.0 °C
compared with 31.3 °C (P = 0.02) was accompanied by a 20% increase (P = 0.02) in the minimum chlorophyll fluorescence in the
dark-acclimated state (Fo) and no change (P>0.5) in Fm, confirming chronic photoinhibition5. Over the same time, both Fo and Fm
decreased by 13% (P = 0.02) in control Symbiodinium C , suggesting an increase in photoprotection7. Fo and Fm did not change in
Symbiodinium D under control or treatment conditions (P greater than or equal to 0.2).
Whereas chronic photoinhibition of Symbiodinium C indicates temperature sensitivity and predicts coral bleaching1, 6, 7, the
increased Fv/Fm in treated Symbiodinium D indicates photoprotection. For Symbiodinium D, the relationship between Fv/Fm and
irradiance exposure, which quantifies dynamic photoinhibition (reversible and protective) of PSII (refs 8, 9; Fig. 1b), shows that
increased temperature mimicked a 30% decrease in habitat irradiance at 28.5 °C. Photoprotection by increased temperature reflects the
temperature dependence of photosynthetic pathways10. Thus, I conclude that Symbiodinium D is a high-temperature specialist. Plant
models9 indicate that photoinhibition similar to that relieved by warmer temperatures in Symbiodinium D reduces daily carbon gain
by 6–10%.
52

Coral reefs actually have a greater ability to adapt than previously exhibited.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 7/11/07 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “The Adaptability of Corals to Global Warming”
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N28/B1.php Accessed 7/20/08)
What was done

Working with samples of the widely distributed massive corals Porites lobata and Porites lutea - which they collected from Kaneohe
Bay, Hawaii - the authors compared the identity and diversity of Symbiodinium symbiont types obtained using cloning and sequencing
of internal transcribed spacer region 2 (ITS2) with that obtained using the more commonly applied downstream analytical techniques
of denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE).
What was learned
Apprill and Gates report that "sequence analysis of PCR [polymerase chain reaction] -amplified ITS2 clone libraries identified a total
of 11 ITS2 types in Porites lobata and 17 in Porites lutea with individual colonies hosting from one to six and three to eight ITS2
types for P. lobata and P. lutea, respectively." In addition, they report that "of the clones examined, 93% of the P. lobata and 83% of
the P. lutea sequences are not listed in GenBank," noting that they resolved "sixfold to eightfold greater diversity per coral species
than previously reported."
What it means
In a "perspective" that accompanies Apprill and Gates' important new paper, van Oppen (2007) writes that "the current perception of
coral-inhabiting symbiont diversity at nuclear ribosomal DNA is shown [by Apprill and Gates] to be a significant underestimate of the
wide diversity that in fact exists." These findings, in her words, "have potentially far-reaching consequences in terms of our
understanding of Symbiodinium diversity, host-symbiont specificity and the potential of corals to acclimatize to environmental
perturbations through changes in the composition of their algal endosymbiont community," which assessment, it is almost unnecessary
to say, suggests a far greater-than-previously-believed ability to do just that in response to any further global warming that might
occur.
Coral reefs adapt to rising temperatures.

Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 7/9/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Evidence of Symbiont Shuffling in Great Barrier Reef Corals
in Response to Warming-Induced Bleaching” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N28/B1.php Accessed 7/15/08)
What was done

On a reef flat adjacent to Miall Island of the Keppel Island group located in the southern inshore Great Barrier Reef, the authors
tagged 460 colonies of the stony coral Acropora millepora between September 2004 and March 2005, after which they assessed their
Symbiodinium (algal endosymbiont) composition via a combination of single-stranded conformation polymorphism (SSCP) analysis,
cloning, and DNA sequencing. Then, three and six months after a severe warming-induced bleaching event that occurred in January
and February of 2006 (when 89% of the corals bleached), they assessed the Symbiodinium composition of a 79-member subset of the
coral colonies that survived the bleaching.
What was learned
"Before the bleaching in 2006," in the words of Jones et al., "A. millepora at Miall reef associated predominantly with Symbiodinium
type C2 (93.5%) and to a much lesser extent with Symbiodinium clade D (3.5%) or mixtures of C2 and D (3.0%)." When bleaching
was at its most intense, they report that the corals hosting predominantly C2 endosymbionts were "bleaching white," while those
predominantly hosting type D were "normally pigmented." Then, six months after the bleaching event, they observed that "colonies
that were originally C2 predominant suffered high mortality (37%) compared with D-predominant colonies (8%)," while "71% of the
surviving tagged colonies that were initially C2 predominant changed to D or C1 predominance."
What it means
The five marine biologists say that "as a direct result of the shift in symbiont community, the Miall Island A. millepora population is
likely to have become more thermo-tolerant," based on the findings of Berkelmans and Van Oppen (2006), whose work in the same
region suggested that "a shift from bleaching-sensitive type C2 to clade D increased the thermal tolerance of this species by 1-1.5°C."
As a result, they say their results "strongly support the reinterpreted adaptive bleaching hypothesis of Buddemeier et al. (2004), which
postulates that a continuum of changing environmental states stimulates the loss of bleaching-sensitive symbionts in favor of
symbionts that make the new holobiont more thermally tolerant." In fact, they state that their observations "provide the first extensive
53
colony-specific documentation and quantification of temporal symbiont community change in the field in response to temperature
stress, suggesting a population-wide acclimatization to increased water temperature," a finding that bodes especially well for earth's
corals in a warming climate.
A2 - BIODIVERSITY - WARMING GOOD

Turn- increased global temperatures actually increases biodiversity.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 7/4/07 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Regional Warming and Mountaintop Biodiversity”
What was done

The author analyzed the changing behavior of alpine and subalpine plants, together with shifts in their geographical patterns, during
the past century, when air temperatures rose by about 1°C in the Scandes of west-central Sweden. The "methodical approach," in his
words, "also included repeat photography, individual age determinations and analyses of permanent plots."
What was learned
"At all levels, from trees to tiny herbs, and from high to low altitudes," according to Kullman, "the results converge to indicate a
causal association between temperature rise and biotic evolution," indicating that "this appears to be an ecosystem on the brink of
profound and imminent transformation." More specifically, he reports that "treeline advance since the early 20th century varies
between 75 and 130 m, depending on species and site," and that "subalpine/alpine plant species have shifted upslope by [an] average
[of] 200 m." In addition, he states that "present-day repetitions of floristic inventories on two alpine mountain summits reveal
increases of plant species richness by 58 and 67%, respectively, since the early 1950s," adding, however, that "no species have yet
become extinct from the highest elevations." Last of all, Kullman notes that his results "converge with observations in other high-
mountain regions worldwide," citing the studies of Grabherr et al. (1994), Keller et al. (2000), Kullman (2002), Virtanen et al. (2003),
Klanderud and Birks (2003), Walther et al. (2005) and Lacoul and Freedman (2006).
What it means
Kullman notes that the rapidity with which the observed ecosystem transformations have occurred "contrasts with earlier assumptions
and theoretical generalizations, stressing significant time-lags or inertial adaptations to changed climatic conditions." Indeed, his
results demonstrate the tremendous capacity for earth's vegetation to rapidly respond to climate change in dramatic ways that need not
result in species extinctions, but that can lead to huge increases in ecosystem species richness, which is typically considered to be a
desirable property of vegetative assemblages.
54
A2 - BIODIVERSITY - WARMING GOOD

Turn - Increased temperatures are conducive to species survival.
Idso, Craig and Keith (Ex-Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, and Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona
State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “CO2, Temperature and Biodiversity”
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N39/EDIT.php) 9/25/2002
But, one might argue, CO2 does not come without unwanted baggage; for it is claimed by many that elevated concentrations of
atmospheric CO2 have the capacity to significantly elevate earth's surface air temperature. To this assertion we have two replies.
First, there is no compelling reason to believe that such is so. Second, even if this claim were true, warmer temperatures are known to
be conducive to supporting greater ecosystem species richness. In a recent paper in Science, for example, Allen et al. (2002) report
that "the latitudinal gradient of increasing biodiversity from poles to equator is one of the most prominent but least understood features
of life on earth." They then proceed to advance our understanding of this phenomenon by describing how they derived a model -
"based on first principles of biochemical kinetics" - that "quantitatively predicts how species diversity increases with environmental
temperature," after which they demonstrate that the predictions of their model "are supported by data for terrestrial, freshwater, and
marine taxa along latitudinal and elevational gradients." And those taxa include both plants and animals, as well as both endotherms
and ectotherms.As important as it is, of course, temperature is not the only variable that affects ecosystem biodiversity; ranking high
on the list of secondary and third-order influences is ecosystem productivity, as is reaffirmed by the work of Jetz and Rahbek (2002)
in the very same issue of Science in which Allen et al.'s paper was published. And we hardly need to remind anyone that the most
dramatic biological impact of atmospheric CO2 enrichment is provided by its aerial fertilization effect that enhances plant biomass
production. In conclusion, there are just a host of reasons why our best ally in the fight to preserve the planet's biodiversity is
atmospheric CO2 and more of it. If we are truly concerned about this greatest of threats ever to be faced by the biosphere, i.e.,
mankind's usurpation of the lion's share of the planet's natural resources, we will not allow the world's anti-CO2 fanatics to ignore
these facts. They must be shouted from the rooftops.
Global Warming causes species to rapidly evolve and adapt to climate change.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 2/20/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Global Warming Begets Species-Saving Rapid
Evolutionary Changes in Many Plants and Animals” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N8/EDIT.php Accessed 7/16/08)
The group of seven scientists from the United States, Canada and Australia critiques the common technique of using the "climate-
envelope approach" to predict extinctions, citing as their primary reason for doing so the fact that this approach "implicitly assumes
that species cannot evolve in response to changing climate," when in numerous cases they can do so very effectively. Stating that
"many examples of contemporary evolution in response to climate change exist," they report that "in less than 40 years, populations of
the frog Rana sylvatica have undergone localized evolution in thermal tolerance (Skelly and Freidenburg, 2000), temperature-specific
development rate (Skelly, 2004), and thermal preference (Freidenburg and Skelly, 2004)," while noting that "laboratory studies of
insects show that thermal tolerance can change markedly after as few as 10 generations (Good, 1993)." Adding that "studies of
microevolution in plants show substantial trait evolution in response to climate manipulations (Bone and Farres, 2001)," they go on to
say that "collectively, these findings show that genetic variation for traits related to thermal performance is common and evolutionary
response to changing climate has been the typical finding in experimental and observational studies (Hendry and Kinnison, 1999;
Kinnison and Hendry, 2001)."
Although evolution will obviously be slower in the cases of long-lived trees and large mammals, where long generation times are the
norm, Skelly et al. say that the case for rapid evolutionary responses among many other species "has grown much stronger (e.g.,
Stockwell et al., 2003; Berteaux et al., 2004; Hariston et al., 2005; Bradshaw and Holzapfel, 2006; Schwartz et al., 2006; Urban et al.,
2007)." As a result, they write that "on the basis of the present knowledge of genetic variation in performance traits and species'
capacity for evolutionary response, it can be concluded that evolutionary change will often occur concomitantly with changes in
climate [our italics and bold] as well as [with] other environmental changes (e.g., Grant and Grant, 2002; Stockwell et al., 2003;
Balanya et al., 2006; Jump et al., 2006; Pelletier et al., 2007)."
Consequently, and in summing up the implications of the many studies cited by Skelly et al., it can now be confidently concluded, as
stated in the title of our editorial, that "global warming begets species-saving rapid evolutionary changes in many plants and animals."
55
A2 - SPECIES EXTINCTION - MODELS FLAWED

Current projects and models used to predict species distinctions are horribly flawed and unreliable.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 2/6/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Predicting Species Extinctions in Response to Global
Warming” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N6/B1.php Accessed 7/16/08)
What was done

In light of the great publicity and discussion generated by Thomas et al.'s paper, the author felt it important to "review the main
shortcomings of species distribution models and species distribution projections," such as those employed (the models) and derived
(the projections) by Thomas et al., and in doing so, he analyzed three aspects of what he calls "problems associated with species
distribution models." The first of these aspects is general species distribution model issues, under which he lists four major problems.
The second is extrapolation issues, under which he lists five major problems; and the third is statistical issues, under which he lists six
major problems.
What was learned
When all was said and done, Dormann concluded that "the problems associated with the analysis of [the] present distribution[s] of
species are so numerous and fundamental that common ecological sense should caution us against putting much faith in relying on
their findings for further extrapolations," in contrast to what is routinely done in studies such as that of Thomas et al., the latter of
whose methods and findings, according to Dormann, "have been challenged for conceptual and statistical reasons" by many other
researchers.
What it means
Dormann notes that "projections of species distributions are not merely generating hypotheses to be tested by later data," as is typical
of the scientific enterprise. Instead, as he correctly indicates, "they are presented as predictions of tomorrow's diversity, and policy
makers and the public will interpret them as forecasts, similar to forecasts about tomorrow's weather," which he clearly feels is both
unwarranted and unwise.
56
A2 - PERMAFROST - SNOW COVER

Snow cover is a much bigger cause of permafrost warming-studies disprove your arg
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 2/6/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Late 20th-Century Thawing of Alaskan Permafrost”
What was done

The author "reviews the warming of permafrost in Alaska during the twentieth century," concentrating on the role played by snow
cover, particularly over the last two decades.
What was learned
Osterkamp reports that for Barrow, for the period 1977-1998, "about one half of the permafrost warming for that period was a result of
increased air temperatures while the other half [was] attributable to increased snow cover thicknesses (Stieglitz et al., 2003)." In
addition, for Healy in interior Alaska, he notes that "the 1990s was a period of increased snow depths, and that snow cover effects
during this period "were almost entirely responsible for warming and thawing permafrost at Healy," while noting that similar snow
conditions during this period were observed "throughout Alaska."
What it means
The University of Alaska researcher says "there is a perception that climatic warming was the cause of the twentieth-century global
warming and thawing of permafrost and associated terrain instability," citing Gore (2006). However, he notes that "published results
do not support this viewpoint," citing Zhang et al. (2001) and Osterkamp (2007). Consequently, after presenting the new data from
Healy described in his EOS report, which appear to be characteristic of much of the state, Osterkamp concludes that, in reality, "snow
cover has played a significant role in it," ranging from being responsible for "about one half" of the recent permafrost thawing to being
"almost entirely responsible" for it.
57
A2 - METHANE FEEDBACK - DECLINING

No methane positive feedback—declining trends prove.
One of the major "slow" feedback processes that Hansen identifies is "the effect of warming on emissions of long-lived greenhouse
gases," such as he claims is being caused by the "melting of tundra in North America and Eurasia," which he states "is observed to be
causing increased ebullition of methane from methane hydrates." The real world of nature, however, seems little impressed by these
contentions; for after rising rapidly since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the air's methane concentration has been rising ever
more slowly, especially during the "unprecedented" warming of the last few decades. In fact, since the beginning of the 21st century,
the atmosphere's methane concentration has actually stabilized - ceasing to rise any further - as indicated by the data provided by
Dlugokencky et al. (2003), which we have plotted in the figure below, and to which we have fit two linear regressions and an
intervening second-order polynomial.
Why are these observations so important? They are important because, as Dulgokencky et al. report, "atmospheric methane's
contribution to anthropogenic climate forcing is about half that from CO2 [our italics] when direct and indirect components to its
forcing are summed (Hansen and Sato, 2001)." In addition, they note that "all methane emission scenarios considered by the IPCC
Special Report on Emission Scenarios (Nakicenovic et al., 2000) resulted in increasing [our italics] atmospheric methane for at least
the next 3 decades, and many of the scenarios projected large increases through the 21st century (Prather et al., 2001)." In reality,
however, it now appears that a large portion of the anticipated global warming problem may have simply disappeared, rather than
gotten much worse, as Hansen claims.
Another - and slightly expanded - perspective of the atmosphere's methane history has been presented by Khalil et al. (2007), which
we have reproduced in the figure below and to which we have added the smooth green line.
This graph suggests that the trend in atmospheric methane concentration, as Khalil et al. describe it, "has been decreasing for the last
two decades until the present when it has reached near zero," and they say that "it is questionable whether human activities can cause
methane concentrations to increase greatly in the future." In fact, there is reason to believe the global methane concentration may
actually begin to decline ... and soon!
To explain the rational behind this surprising scenario, we turn to the study of Simpson et al. (2002), who presented annual global
tropospheric methane growth rates for the period 1983-2000, based on measurements made by the Department of Chemistry at the
University of California in Irvine, as depicted in the figure below.
With respect to the data of this figure, and particularly the data from the 1990s, Simpson et al. said they "caution against viewing each
year of high methane growth as an anomaly against a trend of declining methane growth." Yet that is precisely what the data suggest,
i.e., a declining baseline upon which are superimposed periodic anomalous increases; and in this interpretation, we are not alone. The
first of the large methane spikes depicted in the above figure is widely recognized as having been caused by the sudden eruption of
Mt. Pinatubo in June of 1991 (Bekki et al., 1994; Dlugokencky et al., 1996; Lowe et al., 1997); while the last and most dramatic of the
spikes has been associated with the strong El Niño of 1997-98 (Dlugokencky et al., 2001). In addition, Dlugokencky et al. (1998),
Francey et al. (1999) and Lassey et al. (2000) have all felt confident in concluding the data suggest that the annual rate-of-rise of the
atmosphere's methane concentration has indeed declined and led to a cessation of methane concentration growth.
Projecting ahead, if anomalous methane spikes similar to those that occurred in the 1990s continue to occur at similar intervals in the
future, the atmosphere's methane concentration should continue to rise - but only very slowly - for just a few more years, after which
the declining background methane growth rate, which has already turned negative, will have dropped low enough to overwhelm any
short-term impacts of periodic methane spikes. At that point in time we may thus be able to see an actual decline in the air's methane
concentration, which should gradually accelerate if subsequent methane spikes fail to penetrate into positive territory. Consequently, if
this scenario proves to be correct, the decreasing trend in atmospheric methane concentration may soon provide a negative-greenhouse
force that could counter a good deal of the positive-greenhouse force created by the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.
58
A2 - ACIDIFYING OCEANS - RESISTANT

Oceans resistant to acidification.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 7/16/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Marine Ecosystem Response to "Ocean Acidification" Due
to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N29/B2.php Accessed 7/15/08)
What was done

Effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on various marine microorganisms and DMS production were studied in nine marine
mesocosms maintained within 2-meter-diameter polyethylene bags submerged to a depth of ten meters in a fjord adjacent to the Large-
Scale Facilities of the Biological Station of the University of Bergen in Espegrend, Norway. Three of the mesocosms were maintained
at ambient levels of CO2 (~375 ppm), three were maintained at levels expected to prevail at the end of the current century (760 ppm
or 2x CO2), and three were maintained at levels predicted for the middle of the next century (1150 ppm or 3x CO2), while
measurements of numerous ecosystem parameters were made over a period of 24 days.
What was learned
Vogt et al. report that they detected no significant phytoplankton species shifts between treatments, and that "the ecosystem
composition, bacterial and phytoplankton abundances and productivity, grazing rates and total grazer abundance and reproduction
were not significantly affected by CO2 induced effects," citing in support of this statement the work of Riebesell et al. (2007),
Riebesell et al. (2008), Egge et al. (2007), Paulino et al. (2007), Larsen et al. (2007), Suffrian et al. (2008) and Carotenuto et al.
(2007). In addition, they say that "while DMS stayed elevated in the treatments with elevated CO2, we observed a steep decline in
DMS concentration in the treatment with low CO2," i.e., the ambient CO2 treatment.
What it means
With respect to their many findings, the eight researchers say their observations suggest that "the system under study was surprisingly
resilient to abrupt and large pH changes," which is just the opposite of what the world's climate alarmists characteristically predict
about CO2-induced "ocean acidification." And that may be why Vogt et al. described the marine ecosystem they studied as
"surprisingly resilient" to such change: it may have been a little unexpected.
59
A2 - WILDFIRES - EMPIRICALLY DENIED

Global warming actually decreases the frequency and intensity of wildfires, and is empirically proven not to be a
catalyst in other areas.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 9/12/07 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Fire (Relationship to Global Warming) -- Summary”
http://www.co2science.org/subject/f/summaries/firegw.php Accessed 7/20/08)
The first one - that there has been "a steady increase in major wildfires in North and South America over the last five decades" - can
readily be shown to be false from Gore's own graph (p. 229), where the decade of the 1960s is seen to have experienced the same
number of wildfires as the decade of the 1950s. There is then an increase from the 1960s to the 1970s (over one decade), from the
1970s to the 1980s (over a second decade), and from the 1980s to the 1990s (over a third decade). Hence, there was an increase in
major North and South American wildfires over only the last three decades of the 20th century, not the last five decades, as Gore
contends.
So what about the rest of the world? Is the same pattern really found on every other continent? For starters, we can assure everyone
that whether we're talking five decades or three decades, Antarctica has not been an imitator of North and South America in this
regard! As for the remainder of the world, and for various sub-regions of North America, we briefly review below the results of
several analyses that have investigated the subject in detail, concluding with a recent satellite study that evaluated the globe as a
whole.
Carcaillet et al. (2001) developed high-resolution charcoal records from laminated sediment cores extracted from three small kettle
lakes located within the mixed-boreal and coniferous-boreal forest region of eastern Canada, after which they determined whether
vegetation change or climate change was the primary determinant of changes in fire frequency, comparing their fire history with
hydro-climatic reconstructions derived from δ18O and lake-level data. Throughout the Climatic Optimum of the mid-Holocene,
between about 7000 and 3000 years ago, when it was significantly warmer than it is today, they report that "fire intervals were double
those in the last 2000 years," meaning fires were only half as frequent throughout the earlier warmer period as they were during the
subsequent cooler period. They also determined that "vegetation does not control the long-term fire regime in the boreal forest," but
that "climate appears to be the main process triggering fire." In addition, they report that "dendroecological studies show that both
frequency and size of fire decreased during the 20th century in both west (e.g. Van Wagner, 1978; Johnson et al., 1990; Larsen, 1997;
Weir et al., 2000) and east Canadian coniferous forests (e.g. Cwynar, 1997; Foster, 1983; Bergeron, 1991; Bergeron et al., 2001),
possibly due to a drop in drought frequency and an increase in long-term annual precipitation (Bergeron and Archambault, 1993)."
These several findings thus led them to conclude that a "future warmer climate is likely to be less favorable for fire ignition and spread
in the east Canadian boreal forest than over the last 2 millennia," which is good news for Canada and similar parts of the world.
Pitkanen et al. (2003) constructed a Holocene fire history of dry heath forests in eastern Finland on the basis of charcoal layer data
obtained from two small mire basins and fire scars on living and dead pine trees. This work revealed a "decrease in fires during
climatic warming in the Atlantic chronozone (about 9000-6000 cal. yr. BP)," prompting them to conclude that "the very low fire
frequency during the Atlantic chronozone despite climatic warming with higher summer temperatures [our italics], is contrary to
assumptions about possible implications of the present climatic warming due to greenhouse gasses."
Thereafter, the researchers observed an increase in fire frequency at the transition between the Atlantic and Subboreal chronozones
around 6000 cal. yr. BP, noting that "the climatic change that triggered the increase in fire frequency was cooling and a shift to a more
continental climate." In addition, they report that the data of Bergeron and Archambault (1993) and Carcaillet et al. (2001) from
Canada suggest much the same thing, i.e., less boreal forest fires during periods of greater warmth. Consequently, "as regards the
concern that fire frequency will increase in [the] near future owing to global warming," the researchers say their data "suggest that
fires from 'natural' causes (lightening) are not likely to increase significantly in eastern Finland and in geographically and climatically
related areas."
60
A2 - DROUGHTS - DOUBLE BIND

Double bind- either global warming doesn’t cause more severe droughts OR current global temperatures are
cooler than the Medieval period and their warming impacts are empirically denied.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 9/12/07 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Droughts, Megadroughts and No-Analogue Megadroughts”
What was done

The authors used "an expanded grid of tree-ring reconstructions of the summer Palmer drought severity indices (PDSI; Cook et al.,
2004) covering the United States, southern Canada, and most of Mexico to examine the timing, intensity, and spatial distribution of
decadal to multidecadal moisture regimes over North America."
What was learned
To date, during the Current Warm Period, Stahle et al. state that "the Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s and the Southwestern drought of
the 1950s were the two most intense and prolonged droughts to impact North America," citing the studies of Worster (1979), Diaz
(1983) and Fye et al. (2003). During the Little Ice Age, on the other hand, they report the occurrence of three megadroughts, which
they define as "very large-scale drought[s] more severe and sustained than any witnessed during the period of instrumental weather
observations (e.g., Stahle et al., 2000)." However, they report that "much stronger and more persistent droughts have been
reconstructed with tree rings and other proxies over North America during the Medieval era (e.g., Stine, 1994; Laird et al., 2003; Cook
et al., 2004)." In fact, these latter megadroughts were so phenomenal that they refer to them as "no-analog Medieval megadroughts."
What it means
Climate alarmists typically claim that CO2-induced global warming will result in more severe droughts. However, the much more
severe and sustained megadroughts of the Little Ice Age appear to render their claim somewhat dubious. On the other hand, the still
more severe and sustained no-analogue megadroughts of the Medieval Warm Period would appear to bolster their contention.
However, the incredibly more severe droughts of that period - if they were indeed related to high global air temperatures (which we
believe they were) - would suggest that it is not nearly as warm currently as it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when there was
far less CO2 in the air than there is today; and these observations undercut the climate alarmists' more fundamental claim that the
historical rise in the air's CO2 content has been responsible for what they describe as unprecedented 20th-century global warming that
has taken earth's mean air temperature to a height that is unprecedented over the past two millennia.
Clearly, Al Gore and his ilk can't have it both ways. If global warming does indeed lead to more severe droughts, it must not yet be
nearly as warm as it was back in the core centuries of the Middle Ages, which really takes the wind out of the sails of those who claim
that today's warmth is both unprecedented and primarily CO2-induced.
61
A2 - DROUGHT - LESS NOW

Drought-induced famines in Mexico have caused mass famine and death—a study finds that the twentieth century has seen
fewer, less severe droughts than previous centuries
Sherwood B. Idso et al, PhD, Soil Science, 2006 [Keith E. Idso, Craig D. Idso, and Julene M. Idso] (“Five Centuries of Drought and
Famine in Central Mexico” CO2 Science 10/25/06) [http://www.co2science.org/articles/V9/N43/C3.php accessed 7/21/08]
What was done
The authors "developed a continuous, exactly dated, tree-ring reconstruction of maize yield variability in central Mexico from 1474 to
2001 that provides new insight into the history of climate and food availability in the heartland of the Mesoamerican cultural
province." This work was made possible by latewood-width data they derived from what they describe as "the second-most southerly
native stand of Douglas-fir (Pseudtosuga menziesii) trees known in the Americas." In addition, they compared their reconstruction to
"historical records of crop failure and famine in order to cross-validate the tree-ring and historical records."
What was learned
Therrell et al.'s plot of reconstructed drought-induced maize-yield anomalies reveals a total of seven major decadal-scale yield
shortfalls over the past 500 years, with a mean rate of occurrence of 1.5 per century over the 400-year period AD 1500-1900. Over the
20th century, however, there was only one such multi-year famine, and its magnitude pales in comparison to that of the average such
event of the preceding four centuries.
Many of the more deadly earlier droughts also brought pestilence to central Mexico, one of which included the 1786 "Year of
Hunger," which is described by Gibson (1964) as "the most disastrous single event in the whole history of colonial maize agriculture,"
wherein an associated outbreak of epidemic disease killed as many as 300,000 people (Florescano, 1986). So extraordinary was this
event, Therrell et al. say Florescano hypothesized it "contributed to lasting civil unrest that may ultimately have influenced the
Hidalgo Rebellion in 1810 and independence from Spain."
What it means
With respect to the threat of drought-induced crop yield reductions that are predicted by climate alarmists to accompany rising
temperatures, it is clear that what they describe as the unprecedented warming of the 20th century did not produce the predicted effect
in central Mexico. In fact, the threat of major drought-induced famines in this part of the world appears to have lessened with
increased warming.
62
A2 - TROPICAL CYCLONES - NATURAL

Tropical cyclones change with natural climate variations rather than global warming.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 2/13/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Global Warming and Tropical Cyclones”
What was done

In attempt to discern the ultimate consequence of these two aspects of the issue, Vecchi and Soden used both climate models and
observational reconstructions "to explore the relationship between changes in sea surface temperature and tropical cyclone 'potential
intensity' -- a measure that provides an upper bound on cyclone intensity and can also reflect the likelihood of cyclone development."
What was learned
The two U.S. researchers find, as they describe it, that "changes in local sea surface temperature are inadequate for characterizing even
the sign [our italics] of changes in potential intensity." Instead, they report that "long-term changes in potential intensity are closely
related to the regional structure of warming," such that "regions that warm more than the tropical average are characterized by
increased potential intensity, and vice versa." Using this relationship to reconstruct changes in potential intensity over the 20th century
based on observational reconstructions of sea surface temperature, they further find that "even though tropical Atlantic sea surface
temperatures are currently at a historical high, Atlantic potential intensity probably peaked in the 1930s and 1950s," noting that "recent
values are near the historical average."
What it means
The ultimate conclusion of the two scientists is that the response of tropical cyclone activity to natural climate variations "may be
larger than the response to the more uniform patterns of greenhouse-gas-induced warming," which further suggests, in our estimation,
that climate-alarmist attempts to blame any recent imagined increases -- or any near-future real increases -- in either cyclone numbers
or intensities on CO2-induced global warming would be wholly unjustified, based on our present state of knowledge.
63
A2 - TROPICAL CYCLONES - WON’T HAPPEN

Studies prove there is no relation between global warming and strong tropical cyclones.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 10/31/07 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Hurricanes (Pacific Ocean) – Summary”
http://www.co2science.org/subject/h/summaries/hurricanepacific.php Accessed 7/16/08)
Although climate alarmists may claim these findings support their model-based contentions, i.e., that CO2-induced global warming
leads to more frequent and stronger hurricanes, Chu and Clark say that the observed increase in tropical cyclone activity cannot be due
to CO2-induced global warming, because, in their words, "global warming is a gradual processes" and "it cannot explain why there is a
steplike change in the tropical cyclone incidences in the early 1980s."
Clearly, a much longer record of tropical cyclone activity is needed to better understand the nature of the variations documented by
Chu and Clark, as well as their relationship to mean global air temperature; and the beginnings of such a history were presented by Liu
et al. (2001), who meticulously waded through a wealth of weather records from Guangdong Province in southern China, extracting
data pertaining to the landfall of typhoons there since AD 975. Calibrating the historical data against instrumental observations over
the period 1884-1909, they found the trends of the two data sets to be significantly correlated (r = 0.71). This observation led them to
conclude that "the time series reconstructed from historical documentary evidence contains a reliable record of variability in typhoon
landfalls." Hence, they proceeded to conduct a spectral analysis of the Guangdong time series and discovered an approximate 50-year
cycle in the frequency of typhoon landfall that "suggests an external forcing mechanism, which remains to be identified." Also, and
very importantly, they found that "the two periods of most frequent typhoon strikes in Guangdong (AD 1660-1680, 1850-1880)
coincide with two of the coldest and driest periods in northern and central China during the Little Ice Age."
Looking even further back in time into the Southern Hemisphere, Hayne and Chappell (2001) studied a series of storm ridges at
Curacoa Island, which were deposited over the past 5,000 years on the central Queensland shelf (18°40'S; 146°33'E), in an attempt to
create a long-term history of major cyclonic events that have impacted that area, with one of their stated reasons for doing so being to
test the climate-model-based hypothesis that "global warming leads to an increase of cyclone frequency or intensity." The primary
finding of this endeavor, as they describe it, was that "cyclone frequency was statistically constant over the last 5,000 years." In
addition, they could find "no indication that cyclones have changed in intensity," leaving one little to conclude but that the climate-
model-based hypothesis is inconsistent with their findings.
In a similar study, Nott and Hayne (2001) produced a 5000-year record of tropical cyclone frequency and intensity along a 1500-km
stretch of coastline in northeast Australia located between latitudes 13 and 24°S by geologically dating and tropographically surveying
landform features left by historic hurricanes, and running numerical models to estimate storm surge and wave heights necessary to
reach the landform locations. These efforts revealed that several "super-cyclones" with central pressures less than 920 hPa and wind
speeds in excess of 182 kilometers per hour had occurred over the past 5000 years at intervals of roughly 200 to 300 years in all parts
of the region of their study. They also report that the Great Barrier Reef "experienced at least five such storms over the past 200 years,
with the area now occupied by Cairns experiencing two super-cyclones between 1800 and 1870." The 20th century, however, which is
claimed by climate alarmists to have experienced temperatures that were unprecedented over the past two millennia, was totally
devoid of such storms, "with only one such event (1899) since European settlement in the mid-nineteenth century."
Also noting that "many researchers have suggested that the buildup of greenhouse gases (Watson et al., 2001) will likely result in a
rise in sea surface temperature (SST), subsequently increasing both the number and maximum intensity of tropical cyclones (TCs),"
Chan and Liu (2004) explored the validity of this assertion via an examination of pertinent real-world data because, as they put it, "if
the frequency of TC occurrence were to increase with increasing global air temperature, one would expect to see an increase in the
number of TCs during the past few decades." Their efforts, which focused on the last four decades of the 20th century, resulted in their
finding that a number of parameters related to SST and TC activity in the Western North Pacific (WNP) "have gone through large
interannual as well as interdecadal variations," and that "they also show a slight decreasing [our italics] trend." In addition, they say
that "no significant correlation was found between the typhoon activity parameters and local SST," or "in other words," as they say to
drive home their point, "an increase in local SST does not lead to a significant change of the number of intense TCs in the WNP, which
is contrary to the results produced by many of the numerical climate models." Instead, they found that "the interannual variation of
annual typhoon activity is mainly constrained by the ENSO phenomenon through the alteration of the large-scale circulation induced
by the ENSO event."
In discussing their results, Chan and Liu write that the reason for the discrepancies between their real-world results and those of many
of the numerical climate models likely lies in the fact that the models assume TCs are generated primarily from energy from the
oceans and that a higher SST therefore would lead to more energy being transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere, or "in other
words," as they once again say in striving to make their point as clear as possible, "the typhoon activity predicted in these models is
almost solely determined by thermodynamic processes, as advocated by Emanuel (1999)," whereas "in the real atmosphere, dynamic
factors, such as the vertical variation of the atmospheric flow (vertical wind shear) and the juxtaposition of various flow patterns that
64
A2 - TROPICAL CYCLONES - WON’T HAPPEN

lead to different angular momentum transports, often outweigh the thermodynamic control in limiting the intensification process."
Their final conclusion, therefore, is that "at least for the western North Pacific, observational evidence does not support the notion that
increased typhoon activity will occur with higher local SSTs."
Much the same thing was found by Free et al. (2004), who looked, not for increases in actual hurricane intensity, but for increases in
potential hurricane intensity, because, as they put it, "changes in potential intensity (PI) can be estimated from thermodynamic
principles as shown in Emanuel (1986, 1995) given a record of SSTs and profiles of atmospheric temperature and humidity." This they
did using radiosonde and SST data from 14 island radiosonde stations in both the tropical Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, after which
they compared their results with those of Bister and Emanuel (2002) at grid points near the selected stations. In doing so, they report
that their results showed "no significant trend in potential intensity from 1980 to 1995 and no consistent trend from 1975 to 1995."
What is more, they report that between 1975 and 1980, "while SSTs rose, PI decreased, illustrating the hazards of predicting changes
in hurricane intensity from projected SST changes alone."
Hall (2004) reviewed the characteristics of cyclones occurring south of the equator and eastward from longitude 90°E to 120°W in the
South Pacific and southeast Indian Oceans, concentrating on the 2001-2002 cyclone season and comparing the results with those of
the preceding four years and the 36 years before that. This analysis indicated that "the 2001-2002 tropical cyclone season in the South
Pacific and southeast Indian Ocean was one of the quietest on record, in terms of both the number of cyclones that formed, and the
impact of those systems on human affairs." In the southeast Indian Ocean, for example, he writes that "the overall number of
depressions and tropical cyclones was below the long-term mean," while further east he found that broad-scale convection was near or
slightly above normal, but that "the proportion of tropical depressions and weak cyclones developing into severe cyclones was well
below average," which result represented "a continuation of the trend of the previous few seasons." More specifically, Hall writes that
"in the eastern Australian region, the four-year period up to 2001-2002 was by far [our italics] the quietest recorded in the past 41
years." Consequently, and in stark contrast to the climate-alarmist claim that tropical cyclone numbers and strength tend to increase
with global warming, these real-world observations suggest that, if anything, just the opposite appears to be occurring.
65
WARMING GOOD - PEACE

Warmer is better- history proves it facilitates peace.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 11/16/05 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “War and Social Unrest- Summary”
http://www.co2science.org/subject/w/summaries/war.php 7/20/08)
What is the connection between rising air temperatures and CO2 concentrations and social stability?
Zhang et al. (2005) note that historians typically identify political, economic, cultural and ethnic unrest as the chief causes of war and
civil strife. However, the five Chinese scientists argue that climate plays a key role as well; and to examine their thesis, they
compared proxy climate records with historical data on wars, social unrest and dynastic transitions in China from the late Tang to Qing
Dynasties (mid-9th century to early 20th century). This work revealed that war frequencies, peak war clusters, nationwide periods of
social unrest and dynastic transitions were all significantly associated with cold phases of China's oscillating climate. More
specifically, all three distinctive peak war clusters (defined as more than 50 wars in a 10-year period) occurred during cold climatic
phases, as did all seven periods of nationwide social unrest and nearly 90 percent of all dynastic changes that decimated this largely
agrarian society. As a result, they concluded that climate change was "one of the most important factors in determining the dynastic
cycle and alternation of war and peace in ancient China," with warmer climates having been immensely more effective than cooler
climates in terms of helping to "keep the peace."
Cleaveland et al. (2003) developed a history of winter-spring (November-March) precipitation for the period 1386-1993 for the area
around Durango, Mexico, based on earlywood width chronologies of Douglas-fir tree rings collected at two sites in the Sierra Madre
Occidental. This reconstruction, in their words, "shows droughts of greater magnitude and longer duration than the worst historical
drought," and none of them occurred during a period of unusual warmth, as climate alarmists are fond of saying they should; instead,
they occurred during the Little Ice Age. They also note that "Florescano et al. (1995) make a connection between drought, food
scarcity, social upheaval and political instability, especially in the revolutions of 1810 and 1910," and they state that the great
megadrought that lasted from 1540 to 1579 "may be related to the Chicimeca war (Stahle et al., 2000), the most protracted and bitterly
fought of the many conflicts of natives with the Spanish settlers." Consequently, if these concurrent events were indeed related, they
also suggest that warmer is far better than cooler when it comes to maintaining social stability.
An analogous relationship was found to prevail in East Africa by Nicholson and Yin (2001), who analyzed climatic and hydrologic
conditions from the late 1700s to close to the present, based on (1) histories of the levels of ten major African lakes and (2) a water
balance model they used to infer changes in rainfall associated with the different conditions, concentrating most heavily on Lake
Victoria. The results they obtained were indicative of "two starkly contrasting climatic episodes." The first, which began sometime
prior to 1800 during the Little Ice Age, was one of "drought and desiccation throughout Africa." This arid episode, which was most
intense during the 1820s and 30s, was accompanied by extremely low lake levels. As the two researchers describe it, "Lake Naivash
was reduced to a puddle ... Lake Chad was desiccated ... Lake Malawi was so low that local inhabitants traversed dry land where a
deep lake now resides ... Lake Rukwa [was] completely desiccated ... Lake Chilwa, at its southern end, was very low and nearby Lake
Chiuta almost dried up."
Throughout this unfortunate period, Nicholson and Yin say that "intense droughts were ubiquitous." Some, in fact, were "long and
severe enough to force the migration of peoples and create warfare among various tribes [our italics]." As the Little Ice Age's grip on
the world began to loosen in the mid to latter part of the 1800s, however, things began to change for the better. The two researchers
report that "semi-arid regions of Mauritania and Mali experienced agricultural prosperity and abundant harvests; floods of the Niger
and Senegal Rivers were continually high; and wheat was grown in and exported from the Niger Bend region." Then, as the
nineteenth century came to an end and the twentieth began, there was a slight lowering of lake levels, but nothing like what had
occurred a century earlier; and in the latter half of the twentieth century, things once again improved, with the levels of some lakes
actually rivaling high-stands characteristic of the years of transition to the Modern Warm Period.
66
WARMING GOOD - AGRICULTURE

A study shows that from 1972 to 2001, the net primary production increased in the central U.S. due to a “favorable
climate.”
Idso et al., 2005 (Sherwood, PhD soil science; “Central U.S. Agricultural Productivity: 1972-2001;”
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V8/N7/B1.php)
What was done The authors calculated cropland net primary production (NPP) in the central United States (South
Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois) using USDA information together with crop-
specific parameters that convert agronomic data into carbon fluxes for the period 1972-2001. What was learned
Total cropland area exhibited no temporal trend over the study period. In contrast, in the words of Hicke and Lobell, "both NPP (flux
per unit area) and P (spatially aggregated flux) increased during the study period (46 and 51%, respectively)." What it means In spite
of the "twin evils" of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature that climate alarmists decry so
mightily, agricultural productivity in the central U.S. increased dramatically over the three-decade study period.
Possible drivers of the long-term increase in NPP, according to the authors, include "improved cultivars, better
fertilizer and pest management, more favorable climate, shifts to productive crop types, and economic
influences (Duvick and Cassman, 1999; Evans, 1997; Lobell and Asner, 2003)." Consequently, it would appear that if either
of the twin evils of the climate-alarmist crowd had a negative impact on crop productivity - which is highly
unlikely, considering Hicke and Lobell attribute some of the increase in NPP to a "more favorable climate" and
that carbon dioxide is an effective aerial fertilizer that also increases plant water use efficiency - that negative
impact was miniscule compared to the positive impacts of all of the other factors cited by Hicke and Lobell.
Based on this experience, therefore, we may expect to see more of the same in the future, i.e., increased crop
yields, even in the face of (and likely partly because of) continued increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations
and air temperatures.
67
WARMING GOOD - BIOSPHERE

Rising temperatures and levels of CO2 benefit the entire biosphere.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 3/7/07 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Sustainable Well-Being and Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment”
So what has been happening?

For one thing, rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been helping plants almost everywhere grow more
vigorously and profusely, as may be verified by reviewing the many items archived under the several continental subdivisions of the
Greening of the Earth heading in our Subject Index, plus the voluminous plant growth databases archived in the Data section of our
website. This phenomenon has been a great boon to humanity, and especially to "the sustainable well-being of rural communities" that
ranks so high on Pachauri's list of important causes he says he supports, and for whom crop growth and vitality are of critical
importance. Interestingly, however - and tellingly - he recoils against one of the most powerful forces at work in the world today that
is helping to bring about that to which he pays such fervent lip service, and which has a proven track record of impressive
accomplishment.
And what is that record? In our editorial of 11 Jul 2001, we describe how the Industrial Revolution's flooding of the air with CO2 has
likely already resulted in mean yield increases of 70% for C3 cereals, 28% for C4 cereals, 33% for fruits and melons, 62% for
legumes, 67% for root and tuber crops, and 51% for vegetables, all due to the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2
enrichment and its concurrent anti-transpiration effect, which together greatly enhance plant water use efficiency.
Not only do these phenomena benefit people everywhere, they are also of great benefit to the planet's terrestrial animals, and not only
because they enhance the vegetative food base that ultimately sustains all of them, but because without the boost atmospheric CO2
enrichment gives to human agricultural production, in just a few short decades it has been estimated that humanity will have to usurp
nearly all remaining cultivatable land and freshwater resources on the face of the planet just to produce the food needed to sustain our
own species, leaving next to nothing for what we could call wild nature. See, in this regard, our reviews of Wallace (2000), Tilman et
al. (2001) and Foley et al. (2005).
In conclusion, it would appear that Pachauri and the rest of the IPCC political crowd are their own worst enemies - and ours and
nature's - when it comes to meeting the true and most pressing needs of the biosphere.
68
WARMING GOOD - COOLING BAD

Throughout Chinese history, the relationship between cooling and human misery has been fundamental
Sherwood B. Idso et al, PhD, Soil Science, 2008 [Keith E. Idso, Craig D. Idso, and Julene M. Idso] (“Climate and Population Change
in China” CO2 Science 06/18/08) [http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N25/B1.php accessed 7/21/08]
As revealed by historical statistics, Lee et al. report that "war peaks, population collapses, and dynastic changes matched closely with
cooling (Zhang et al., 2005, 2006)." Noting that their work "further verified the synchronistic relationship between population and
climate cycles," they state that this relationship appears to have been "fundamental, not incidental, in causing human misery and the
resultant historical downturns in Chinese history," citing two additional corroborative studies of the subject (Hinsch, 1988; Li 1999),
although they add that the "temperature-population relationship was mediated by geographic factors, the aridity threshold, and social
factors."
Historically during cool periods, The Indian Summer Monsoon has been weakest leading to increased famine,
while it has been strongest during warmer eras
Sherwood B. Idso et al, PhD, Soil Science, 2008 [Keith E. Idso, Craig D. Idso, and Julene M. Idso] (“The Indian Summer Monsoon”
CO2 Science 04/16/08) [http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N16/C2.php accessed 7/21/08]
What was learned

Sinha et al. report that "the short instrumental record of ISM underestimates the magnitude of monsoon rainfall variability," and they
state that "nearly every major famine in India [over the period of their study] coincided with a period of reduced monsoon rainfall as
reflected in the Dandak δ18O record," noting two particularly devastating famines that "occurred at the beginning of the Little Ice Age
during the longest duration and most severe ISM weakening of [their] reconstruction." In addition, they state that "ISM
reconstructions from Arabian Sea marine sediments (Agnihotri et al., 2002; Gupta et al., 2003; von Rad et al., 1999), stalagmite δ18O
records from Oman and Yemen (Burns et al., 2002; Fleitmann et al., 2007) and a pollen record from the western Himalaya (Phadtare
and Pant, 2006) also indicate a weaker monsoon during the Little Ice Age and a relatively stronger monsoon during the Medieval
Warm Period."
What it means
The eight researchers note that "since the end of the Little Ice Age, ca 1850 AD, the human population in the Indian monsoon region
has increased from about 200 million to over 1 billion," and that "a recurrence of weaker intervals of ISM comparable to those inferred
in our record would have serious implications to human health and economic sustainability in the region," which suggests that the
Current Warm Period the earth is experiencing is something for which a sizable fraction of the planet's population should be very
thankful.
In the Yellow River basin, the most severe droughts, floods, and unstable weather have occurred during the colder
periods of the Holocene
Sherwood B. Idso et al, PhD, Soil Science, 2008 [Keith E. Idso, Craig D. Idso, and Julene M. Idso] (“Catastrophic Hydrologic Events
of the Holocene in the Middle Reaches of China's Yellow River” CO2 Science 04/16/08)
[http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N16/C1.php accessed 7/21/08]
What was learned

There were six major episodes of overbank flooding. The first occurred at the onset of the Holocene, the second immediately before
the mid-Holocene Climatic Optimum, and the third in the late stage of the mid-Holocene Climatic Optimum, while the last three
episodes coincided with "the cold-dry stages during the late Holocene," according to the six researchers. They also note that "during
these three episodes there were not only catastrophic floods, but also extreme droughts over the middle and lower reaches of the
Yellow River drainage basin."
Speaking of the last of the overbank flooding episodes, they note that it "corresponds with the well documented 'Little Ice Age,' during
which there were frequent natural disasters including catastrophic floods, droughts, dust storms, heat waves, migratory locusts and
frequent famines and plagues in the middle-lower reaches of the Yellow River drainage basin," when "climate departed from its long-
term average conditions and was unstable, irregular, and disastrous," which is pretty much like the Little Ice Age has been described in
many other parts of the world as well.
What it means
Once again, scientists have uncovered a situation where some -- if not most -- of the most disastrous periods of the Holocene occurred
during colder as opposed to warmer times.
69
WARMING GOOD - FOOD AND HEALTH

Study finds that warmer temperatures produce plants higher in natural antioxidants proven to reduce ROS-health
problems like cancer and Parkinson’s disease
Sherwood B. Idso et al, PhD, Soil Science, 2004 [Keith E. Idso, Craig D. Idso, and Julene M. Idso] (“Free Radical Scavenging
Capacities of Winter Wheat” CO2 Science 05/19/04) [http://www.co2science.org/articles/V7/N20/B3.php accessed 7/21/08]
Background
Reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated during cellular metabolism or peroxidation of lipids and proteins play a causative role in the
pathogenesis of cancer and coronary heart disease (CHD), as demonstrated by Slaga et al. (1987), Frenkel (1992), Marnett (2000) and
Zhao et al. (2000). However, and fortunately so, as noted by Yu et al., "antioxidant treatments may terminate ROS attacks and reduce
the risks of CHD and cancer, as well as other ROS-related diseases such as Parkinson's disease (Neff, 1997; Chung et al., 1999; Wong
et al., 1999; Espin et al., 2000; Merken and Beecher, 2000)." As a result, the four Colorado State University scientists from Fort
Collins (CO, USA) say that "developing functional foods rich in natural antioxidants may improve human nutrition and reduce the
risks of ROS-associated health problems."
In light of these observations, it is only natural to wonder how global warming might affect crop ROS scavenging activities and
chelating capacities, the latter of which may inhibit radical mediated oxidative chain reactions by stabilizing transition metals that are
required to catalyze the formation of the first few radicals needed to initiate the radical reactions (Nawar, 1996). In one of the few
studies to broach this subject, Wang and Zheng (2001) examined the effects of a group of day/night temperature combinations on the
antioxidant activities of the juice of two strawberry varieties, finding, in the words of Yu et al., that "the highest day/night temperature
resulted in fruits with the greatest phenolic content as well as antioxidant activities." Encouraged by this finding, the Fort Collins
scientists decided to explore the subject further in a study of winter wheat.
70
CO2 GOOD - BIODIVERSITY

Increased CO2 and Nitrogen help forests, which are key to biodiversity.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 9/27/07 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Trees and Their Roots in a Changing World”
What was done

The authors write that among terrestrial ecosystems, "forests are considered as the most important terrestrial reservoirs of biological
diversity, containing as much as two thirds of all plant and animal species," noting that they cover four billion hectares or 30% of the
earth's land surface, and that 20-40% of forest biomass is made up of roots. Hence, in a Special Feature Invited Review, they briefly
discuss the status of our knowledge of trees and their roots in our globally-changing environment.
What was learned
Starting with the bad, Brunner and Godbold report that soils of forest ecosystems "have been affected by high atmospheric inputs of
acidifying pollutants (S and N compounds) originating from the combustion of fossil fuels in power generation, industry, and
transportation," and that "these inputs have led to an acceleration of soil acidification, loss of basic cations, and release of Al ions into
soil solution," noting that "besides its effect on soil acidification, excessive inputs of atmospheric N result in nitrate leaching and
relative shortage of other nutritional elements for plants." Nevertheless, as they continue, "a trend of increasing aboveground growth
of trees in European forests over a long term can be observed (Spiecker, 1999)," and they say that "these positive trends are attributed
mainly to the increased contents of CO2 in the atmosphere and to enhanced N depositions," noting that "both elevated CO2
concentrations and N depositions lead to increased plant biomass, including that of roots." More specifically, they report that "recent
analysis in experiments with elevated CO2 concentrations have shown increases of the forest net primary productivity by about 23%
(Norby et al., 2005), and, in the case of poplars, an increase of the standing root biomass between 47%-76% (Lukac et al., 2003) and
113% (King et al., 2002)." In addition, they state that "the turnover of fine roots is also positively influenced by elevated CO2
concentrations and can be increased in poplars by 25%-45% (Lukac et al., 2003)."
What it means
In spite of all of the negative aspects attributed to increasing fossil fuel combustion over the past several decades, earth's trees and
their roots are generally doing better than ever, thanks, it would appear, to the dual factors of increasing atmospheric CO2
concentrations and N depositions that come from the very same source.
Biodiversity studies are flawed—CO2 maintains global biodiversity and even encourages growth of near-extinction
species.
State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “Species Range Responses to CO2-Induced Global Warming”
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V8/N28/B2.php) 7/13/2005
A second important conclusion of Hampe and Petit relates to model studies of species responses to climate change, which often
predict complete disappearance of populations at the rear edges of their ranges. Such predictions, they assert, are "hazardous,"
because they make "a number of unrealistic assumptions" and leave "little long-term prospects for rear edge populations, despite
observations of the importance and historical continuity of many rear edge populations." What it means It is clear from Hampe and
Petit's review that the climate-alarmist vision of vast and manifold species extinctions as a result of CO2-induced global warming is
unsupported by the existing scientific literature and unlikely to ever occur, especially when one considers the rear edge of their ranges,
which is where species would be most negatively affected in a warming world. In our own review of the subject posted two years ago
on our website - The Specter of Species Extinction: Will Global Warming Decimate Earth's Biosphere? - we came to the same
conclusion, based on the fact that under CO2-enriched conditions, plants generally prefer warmer temperatures
71
CO2 GOOD - BIODIVERSITY

Increased CO2 maintains global biodiversity and prevents extinction
State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “CO2, Temperature and Biodiversity”
So what can be done to prevent the impending species holocaust? Our suggestion is to allow the atmosphere's CO2 concentration to
take its natural course as the Age of Fossil Fuels takes its natural course and first peaks, then declines and eventually gives way to the
next generation of power-producing technologies. We proffer this prescription for species protection in all sincerity and with supreme
confidence. Why? Because we know - we absolutely know - that elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 enable natural vegetation to
produce more biomass with less water at the same time that they help agriculturists produce more food on less land. And with greater
efficiencies of resource utilization on both sides of the not-so-delicately-balanced biospheric teeter-totter on which we sit, man and
nature have at least a fighting chance of living together in some modicum of harmony in the years ahead. With the help of additional
atmospheric CO2, we need not usurp the planet's entire stock of resources in order to survive.
72
CO2 GOOD - BIODIVERSITY - LAND DEV

Turn- Increased CO2 levels are the only way to stop species extinction by agricultural land development.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 9/4/02 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Feeding Humanity to Help Save Natural Ecosystems: The
Role of the Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentration” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N36/EDIT.php Accessed 7/21/08)
the
How much land can ten billion people spare for nature? This provocative question was posed by Waggoner (1995) in the title of an essay designed to illuminate
dynamic tension that exists between the need for land to support the agricultural enterprises that sustain mankind and the need for land
to support the natural ecosystems that sustain all other creatures. As noted by Huang et al. (2002), human populations "have
encroached on almost all of the world's frontiers, leaving little new land that is cultivatable." And in consequence of humanity's
ongoing usurpation of this most basic of natural resources, Raven (2002) notes that "species-area relationships, taken worldwide in
relation to habitat destruction, lead to projections of the loss of fully two-thirds of all species on earth by the end of this century."
If one were to pick the most significant problem currently facing the biosphere, this would probably be it: a single species of life,
Homo sapiens, is on course to completely annihilate fully two-thirds of the ten million or so other species with which we share the
planet within a mere hundred years, simply by taking their land. Global warming, by comparison, pales in significance. Its impact is
nowhere near as severe, being possibly nil or even positive. In addition, its root cause is highly debated; and actions to thwart it are
much more difficult, if not impossible, to both define and implement. Furthermore, what many people believe to be the cause of
global warming, i.e., anthropogenic CO2 emissions, may actually be a powerful force for preserving land for nature.
What parts of the world are likely to be hardest hit by this human land-eating machine? Tilman et al. (2001) note that developed
countries are expected to actually withdraw large areas of land from farming over the next fifty years, leaving developing countries to
shoulder essentially all of the growing burden of feeding our expanding species. In addition, they calculate that the loss of these
countries' natural ecosystems to cropland and pasture will amount to about half of all potentially suitable remaining land, which "could
lead to the loss of about a third of remaining tropical and temperate forests, savannas, and grasslands," along with the many unique
species they support.
What can be done to alleviate this bleak situation? In a new analysis of the problem, Tilman et al. (2002) introduce a few more facts before suggesting some solutions.
They note, for example, that by 2050 the human population of the globe is projected to be 50% larger than it is today and that global grain demand could well double,
due to expected increases in per capita real income and dietary shifts toward a higher proportion of meat. Hence, they but state the obvious when they conclude that
"raising yields on existing farmland is essential for 'saving land for nature'."
So how is it to be done? Tilman et al. (2002) suggest a strategy that is built around three essential tasks: (1) increasing crop yield per
unit of land area, (2) increasing crop yield per unit of nutrients applied, and (3) increasing crop yield per unit of water used.
With respect to the first of these requirements, Tilman et al. note that in many parts of the world the historical rate of increase in crop yields is declining, as the genetic ceiling for maximal yield
potential is being approached. This observation, they say, "highlights the need for efforts to steadily increase the yield potential ceiling." With respect to the second requirement, they note that
"without the use of synthetic fertilizers, world food production could not have increased at the rate it did [in the past] and more natural ecosystems would have been converted to agriculture."
Hence, they say the ultimate solution "will require significant increases in nutrient use efficiency, that is, in cereal production per unit of added nitrogen, phosphorus," and so forth. Finally,
with respect to the third requirement, Tilman et al. note that "water is regionally scarce," and that "many countries in a band from China through India and Pakistan, and the Middle East to
North Africa either currently or will soon fail to have adequate water to maintain per capita food production from irrigated land." Increasing crop water use efficiency, therefore, is also a must.
Although the impending biological crisis and several important elements of its potential solution are thus well defined, Tilman et al. (2001) report that "even the best available
technologies, fully deployed, cannot prevent many of the forecasted problems." This is also the conclusion of the study of Idso and Idso (2000),
who - although acknowledging that "expected advances in agricultural technology and expertise will significantly increase the food production potential of many
countries and regions" - note that these advances "will not increase production fast enough to meet the demands of the even faster-growing human population of the
planet."
Fortunately, we have a powerful ally in the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content that can provide what we can't. Since atmospheric CO2 is the
basic "food" of essentially all terrestrial plants, the more of it there is in the air, the bigger and better they grow. For a nominal
doubling of the air's CO2 concentration, for example, the productivity of earth's herbaceous plants rises by 30 to 50% (Kimball, 1983;
Idso and Idso, 1994), while the productivity of its woody plants rises by 50 to 80% or more (Saxe et al. 1998; Idso and Kimball,
2001). Hence, as the air's CO2 content continues to rise, so too will the land use efficiency of the planet rise right along with it (see
also Plant Growth Data on our website). In addition, atmospheric CO2 enrichment typically increases plant nutrient use efficiency and
plant water use efficiency (see Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Water Use Efficiency in our Subject Index). Thus, with respect to all three
of the major needs noted by Tilman et al. (2002), increases in the air's CO2 content pay huge dividends, helping to increase
agricultural output without the taking of new lands from nature.
73
CO2 GOOD - BIOSPHERE - TROPICAL FORESTS

CO2 increases tropical forestation and photosynthesis—empirical proof from the Amazon.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 5/7/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Tropical Forest Productivity in a CO2-Enriched and Warmer
World of the Future” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N19/B2.php Accessed 7/15/08)
What was done

As part of an international workshop held at Oriel College, Oxford, UK, in March of 2007, the authors prepared a review of the effects
of rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations on the productivity of tropical forest trees.
What was learned
Based on their examination of the pertinent scientific literature, and using a mixture of observations and climate model outputs
together with a simple parameterization of leaf-level photosynthesis incorporating known temperature sensitivities, Lloyd and
Farquhar say they could find "no evidence for tropical forests currently existing 'dangerously close' to their optimum temperature
range," as is often suggested by climate alarmists. Quite to the contrary, in fact, they say they found that increases in photosynthetic
rates associated with increases in ambient CO2 over forthcoming decades should "more than offset" any decline in photosynthetic
productivity due to higher leaf temperatures, leaf-to-air vapor pressure deficits or autotrophic respiration rates. In addition, they argue
that "the magnitude and pattern of increases in forest dynamics across Amazonia observed over the last few decades are consistent
with a CO2-induced stimulation of tree growth."
What it means
Not only have past increases in the atmosphere's CO2 content and temperature been a boon to the productivity of Amazonia's tropical
forests -- as well as all of the world's other tropical forests ( see Trees (Types - Tropical) in our Subject Index) -- it would appear from
the materials reviewed by these two highly-regarded scientists, as well as their own original research, that the productivity of earth's
tropical forests will likely rise even higher in response to predicted future increases in the air's temperature and CO2 concentration.
74
CO2 GOOD - BIOSPHERE - TREES

Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide good—stimulates ecosystem through tree growth
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 7/9/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “The Long-Term Response of Forests to Atmospheric CO2
Enrichment,” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N28/EDIT.php Accessed 7/14/08)
The leading hypothesis has been that atmospheric CO2 enrichment leads to greater fine-root production and increased allocation of
carbon to ectomycorrhizal or ECM fungi that live in symbiotic association with the plant roots, which dual phenomenon leads to (1)
the exploration of a greater volume of soil by plants in search of much needed nitrogen, as well as (2) a more thorough search of each
unit volume of soil. Consequently, Pritchard et al. focused their attention on the role played by ECM fungi over a period of five years
in the Duke Forest FACE study of loblolly pines based on minirhizotron observations of fungal dynamics. And what did they learn?
Summed across all years of the study, the five researchers found that the extra 200 ppm of CO2 enjoyed by the trees in the high-CO2
treatment did not influence mycorrhizal production in the top 15 cm of the forest soil, but that it increased mycorrhizal root-tip
production by a whopping 194% throughout the 15-30 cm depth interval. In addition, they report that production of soil rhizomorph
length was 27% greater in CO2-enriched plots than it was in the ambient-air plots.
In discussing their findings, Pritchard et al. say the CO2-induced "stimulation of carbon flow into soil has increased the intensity of
root and fungal foraging for nutrients," and that "the shift in distribution of mycorrhizal fungi to deeper soils may enable perennial
plant systems to acquire additional soil nitrogen to balance the increased availability of ecosystem carbohydrates in CO2-enriched
atmospheres," which additional acquisition of nitrogen (N) in the CO2-enriched plots of the Duke Forest study has been determined to
be approximately 12 g N per m2 per year.
In further commenting on the results of their work, Pritchard et al. write that "the notion that CO2 enrichment expands the volume of
soil effectively explored by roots and fungi, and that foraging in a given volume of soil also seems to intensify, provides compelling
evidence to indicate that CO2 enrichment has the potential to stimulate productivity (and carbon sequestration) in N-limited
ecosystems more than previously expected." On the other hand, they also say "it is unlikely that ecosystem productivity will be
stimulated by CO2 enrichment indefinitely." Be that as it may, nature has so far proved such negative hunches wrong nearly every step
of the way, as scientists have probed ever deeper into this particular subject; and the five researchers thus rightly acknowledge that
"only by prolonging ongoing ecosystem scale experiments will we know for sure." We whole-heartedly agree with them on this point.
The long-term studies to which they refer are much too valuable to terminate before they have yielded the "final answer" to this most
important question.
75
CO2 GOOD - BIOSPHERE - PLANTS

Increasing CO2 is good for plants—increased aerial fertilization helps the biosphere.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 7/9/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Methane Emissions From Rice Paddy Soil,”
What was done

The authors studied well watered (flooded) and fertilized rice (Oryza sativa L.) plants that they fumigated with air containing either
380 or 680 ppm CO2 from the panicle formation stage at 59 days after transplanting (DAT, from seedling trays into pots) within
controlled-environment chambers maintained at either high (32°C) or low (22°C) night temperatures, with day temperature held
constant at 32°C, until either 107 or 114 DAT. During this latter period, they measured the flux of methane (CH4) between the pots
and the atmosphere each day at 10:00 and 22:00 hours; and at the conclusion of the experiment they determined the dry weight of each
organ of all of the plants employed in the study.
What was learned
Cheng et al. report that the extra 300 ppm of CO2 increased CH4 emissions by 32.2% in the low night temperature treatment, but by
only 3.5% in the high night temperature treatment. Likewise, they found that the elevated CO2 increased the dry weight gained by the
plants in the low night temperature treatment by 38.4%, but by a smaller 12.7% in the high night temperature treatment.
What it means
An interesting metric that can be derived from these data is the ratio of the percent increase in CO2-induced biomass production (a
positive effect) to the percent increase in CO2-induced CH4 emissions (a negative effect) as the air's CO2 concentration rose from 380
to 680 ppm. This benefit/cost ratio was 1.19 in Cheng et al.'s low-night-temperature treatment and 3.63 in their high-night-temperature
treatment, which indicates that in transiting from the low-night-temperature to the high-night-temperature environment in their
experiment as the air's CO2 concentration rose by 300 ppm, the benefit/cost ratio rose by a little over 200%. Consequently, because
night temperatures rose significantly faster than day temperatures throughout most of the world over the last several decades, this
phenomenon may well have had a net two-pronged positive effect on the biosphere, as appears to be the case from the many materials
we have archived under the headings of Greening of the Earth and Methane (Atmospheric Concentrations) in our Subject Index; and it
could well have a similar positive effect in the future, increasing the magnitude of the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2
enrichment at a considerably faster relative rate than it increases the relative rate of CO2-induced methane emissions to the
atmosphere.
76
CO2 GOOD - PLANTS - SAVE FORESTS

Liana study proves that human fragmentation of forests, not CO2 abundance, leads to the outcompetition and extinction of
plants—the only way to avoid destroying our remaining forests for cropland is to let rising CO2 levels augment crop yields
Sherwood B. Idso et al, PhD, Soil Science, 2007 [Keith E. Idso, Craig D. Idso, and Julene M. Idso] (“Growth Histories of Temperate
Forest Lianas” CO2 Science 07/04/07) [http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N27/EDIT.php accessed 7/21/08]
"Around the world," in the words of Londre and Schnitzer (2006), woody vines or lianas are "competing intensely with trees and
reducing tree growth, establishment, fecundity, and survivorship." Consequently, because (1) "increasing levels of CO2 may enhance
growth and proliferation of temperate lianas more than of competing growth forms (e.g., trees)," and because (2) "warmer winter
temperatures may also increase the abundance and distribution of temperate lianas, which are limited in their distribution by their
vulnerability to freezing-induced xylem embolism in cold climates," the two researchers decided to see if these phenomena had
impacted liana abundance and distribution over the prior 45 years in 14 temperate deciduous forests of southern Wisconsin, USA,
during which time (1959-1960 to 2004-2005) the air's CO2 concentration rose by some 65 ppm, mean annual temperature in the study
region rose by 0.94°C, mean winter temperature rose by 2.40°C, but mean annual precipitation (another important growth-altering
factor) did not change.
So what did the Wisconsin scientists find? As they describe it, and contrary to their initial hypothesis, "liana abundance and diameter
did not [our italics] increase in the interiors of Wisconsin (USA) forests over the last 45 years." In fact, they report that Toxicodendron
radicans - a liana popularly known as poison ivy that they say "grew markedly better under experimentally elevated CO2 conditions
than did competing trees (Mohan et al., 2006)" - actually decreased in abundance over this period, and did so significantly.
How did it happen that what seemed to be so logical turned out to be so wrong? Londre and Schnitzer say that "the lack of change in overall liana abundance and
diameter distribution in [their] study suggests that lianas are limited in the interiors of deciduous forests of Wisconsin by factors other than increased levels of CO2."
Paradoxically, it is likely that the interior-forest lianas were limited by the historical increase in atmospheric CO2 via the enhanced tree growth provided by the CO2
increase, which likely resulted in the trees becoming more competitive with the vines because of CO2-induced increases in tree leaf numbers, area and thickness, all of
which factors would have led to less light being transmitted to the lianas growing beneath the forest canopy, which phenomenon likely
negated the enhanced propensity for growth that likely was provided the vines by the historical increase in the atmosphere's CO2
concentration.
Support for this net-zero competing effects hypothesis is provided by Londre and Schnitzer's finding that "compared to the forest
interior, lianas were >4 times more abundant within 15 m of the forest edge and >6 times more abundant within 5 m of the forest
edge," which "strong gradient in liana abundance from forest edge to interior," in the words of the two researchers, "was probably due
to light availability." In addition, they say their results "are similar to findings in tropical forests, where liana abundance is
significantly higher along fragmented forest edges and within tree fall gaps," and, we might add, where the interior tropical trees have
also not suffered what some have claimed would be the negative consequences of CO2-induced increases in liana growth, as we
describe in our review of the study of Phillips et al. (2002).
In commenting on the significance of their findings, Londre and Schnitzer write that because "forest fragmentation (and thus edge
creation) has increased significantly over the last half-century, particularly in the northeastern and midwestern United States (e.g.,
Ritters and Wickham, 2003; Radeloff et al., 2005), liana abundance has likely increased in temperate forests due to forest
fragmentation." Consequently, they say that "as forest fragmentation continues, liana abundance will also likely continue to increase, and the effects of lianas on
temperate forests, such as intense competition with trees (Schnitzer et al., 2005), reduced tree growth rates and biomass sequestration (Laurance et al., 2001), and the
incidence of arrested gap-phase regeneration (Schnitzer et al., 2000) may become even more pronounced."
In light of these latter observations, it is clear that it is not rising CO2 concentrations that are to be feared in this regard, it is the
encroachment of man upon the world of nature (Waggoner, 1995; Tilman et al., 2001, 2002; Raven, 2002); for it is this phenomenon
that is destined to desecrate the globe's forests and drive innumerable species of both plants and animals to extinction, unless we can
dramatically increase the water use efficiency of our crop plants, so we are not forced to encroach further upon the forests of the world
to obtain the additional land and water resources (Wallace, 2000) we will otherwise need to grow the greater quantities of food that
will be required to sustain our larger projected population at the midpoint of the current century. Clearly, the most effective means of
ensuring that the needed increase in plant water use efficiency actually comes to pass (in contrast to the grandiose schemes of men that
promise much but produce little, especially where it is really needed) is to allow the atmosphere's CO2 concentration to continue its
natural upward course, which will truly give crops throughout the world the productivity boost they will need to supply us with the
food we will require but a few short decades from now without usurping further land and water resources from "wild nature," enabling
us to thereby preserve for future generations - and for their own sakes - what yet remains of the world's forests and the great profusion
of lifeforms they contain (Idso and Idso, 2000).
77
CO2 GOOD - SPECIES

CO2 promotes species - important Indian grass species was found to double in size in an elevated CO2
environment.
Sherwood B. Idso et al, PhD, Soil Science, 2007 [Keith E. Idso, Craig D. Idso, and Julene M. Idso] (“The Most Important Fodder
Crop of the Arid and Semi-Arid Tropics” CO2 Science 08/08/07) [http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N32/B1.php accessed
7/21/08]
Background
Cenchrus ciliaris, to quote Bhatt et al., is a "perennial multi-cut, highly palatable, and nutritious grass species that can be utilized
under cut-and-carry as well as under [the] grazing system of production," which characteristics are some of the reasons they report it is
"the most important fodder grass species grown in arid and semi-arid tropics."
What was done
At the experimental facilities of the Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute of Jhansi, India, 30-day-old seedlings of C. ciliaris
were transplanted to open-top chambers - maintained at either the ambient atmospheric CO2 concentration (360 ppm) or at an elevated
CO2 concentration (600 ppm) - within which the plants were grown for an additional 120 days, "using recommended agronomical
practices" and with irrigation "given as and when required." During this time of outdoor field growth, numerous plant properties and
physiological processes were periodically measured; and at the end of the experiment the plants were harvested and other pertinent
measurements made.
What was learned
Among other things, Bhatt et al. report that the extra 240 ppm of CO2 employed in their experiment increased the following plant
parameters by the following percentages: plant height (44%), number of tillers (33%), leaf length (23%), leaf width (51%), leaf area
index (234%), net photosynthetic rate per unit leaf area (25%), net photosynthetic rate per unit ground area (316%), total fresh weight
(134%), total dry weight (193%), and whole-crop photosynthetic water use efficiency (34%).
What it means
The three Indian researchers conclude that "C. ciliaris grown in elevated CO2 throughout the crop season may produce more fodder in
terms of green biomass," which is a colossal understatement, to say the least; especially when a 240-ppm increase in the air's CO2
concentration leads to a 193% increase in dry matter production (which translates into a 242% increase in dry matter productivity for
the more standard 300-ppm increase in CO2 by which we index worldwide study results in our Plant Growth Databases. Surely, such a
response will be an enormous boon to the many people living in the arid and semi-arid tropics in the years and decades to come, as the
air's CO2 content continues its upward climb.
78
CO2 GOOD - PHYTOPLANKTON - NEGATIVE FEEDBACK

Increased carbon dioxide levels enables growth of phytoplankton, creating a negative feedback loop.
State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “Elevated CO2 Primes the Ocean's Biological Carbon Pump”
What it means Noting that "the phytoplankton groups dominating in the mesocosm studies -- diatoms and coccolithophores -- are also
the main primary producers in high productivity areas and are the principal drivers of biologically induced carbon export to the deep
sea," the eleven researchers say their findings "underscore the importance of biologically driven feedbacks in the ocean to global
change." Further noting that "increased CO2 has been shown to enhance fixation of free nitrogen, thereby relaxing nutrient limitation
by nitrogen availability and increasing CO2 uptake (Barcelos e Ramos et al., 2007)," Arrigo (2007) states in a News & Views
discussion of Riebesell et al.'s paper that "neither these, nor other possible non-steady-state biological feedbacks, are currently
accounted for in models of global climate -- a potentially serious omission, given that the biological pump is responsible for much of
the vertical CO2 gradient in the ocean." And in this regard they additionally indicate that the phytoplankton growth-promoting effect
of CO2 described and measured by Riebesell et al. has probably been responsible for limiting the rise in atmospheric CO2 experienced
since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to approximately 90% of what it likely would have been in its absence.
79
CO2 GOOD - PHYTOPLANKTON - BIODIVERSITY

Prior studies are flawed—carbon dioxide increases production of phytoplankton ensuring global biodiversity and
food security.
State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “Effects of Elevated CO2 on Phytoplankton Productivity”
Background The authors say "it is usually thought that unlike terrestrial plants, phytoplankton will not show a significant response to
an increase of atmospheric CO2," but they note, in this regard, that "most analyses have not examined the full dynamic interaction
between phytoplankton production and assimilation, carbon-chemistry and the air-water flux of CO2," and that "the effect of
photosynthesis on pH and the dissociation of carbon (C) species have been neglected in most studies." Hence, they proceed to rectify
this situation. What was done Schippers et al. developed "an integrated model of phytoplankton growth, air-water exchange and C
chemistry to analyze the potential increase of phytoplankton productivity due to an atmospheric CO2 elevation." To test the
predictions of their model, they let the freshwater alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii grow in 300-ml bottles filled with 150 ml of a
nutrient-rich medium at enclosed atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 350 and 700 ppm that they maintained at two air-water exchange
rates characterized by CO2 exchange coefficients of 2.1 and 5.1 m day-1, as described by Shippers et al. (2004b), while periodically
measuring the biovolume of the solutions by means of an electronic particle counter. What was learned The authors report that their
experimental results "confirm the theoretical prediction that if algal effects on C chemistry are strong, increased phytoplankton
productivity because of atmospheric CO2 elevation should become proportional to the increased atmospheric CO2," which means, in
their words, that "productivity would double at the predicted increase of atmospheric CO2 to 700 ppm." Although they note that
"strong algal effects (resulting in high pH levels) at which this occurs are rare under natural conditions," they still predict "a potential
productivity increase of up to 40%, at observed pH levels for marine species with low affinity for HCO3-," and that effects on algal
production in freshwater systems could potentially be larger, such that a "doubling of atmospheric CO2 may result in an increase of
the productivity of more than 50%." What it means With respect to the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content, Schippers et al. say their
results suggest that "the aquatic C sink may increase more than expected," which would help to slow the rate-of-rise of the air's CO2
concentration and provide a greater food base for higher marine and freshwater organisms. On the negative side, they note that it
could possibly aggravate nuisance phytoplankton blooms. Clearly, much more research should be directed to addressing these
important matters.
Carbon dioxide increases phytoplankton and creates a natural negative feedback.

State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “Rising CO2 Affects Ocean Carbon Pumps”
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V2/N20/C5.php) 10/15/1999
What was done The authors review the status of our knowledge relative to the direct effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on the
marine biota and the consequences of these phenomena for the three major "carbon pumps" of the world's oceans. What was learned
The authors' study of the subject led them to conclude that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations may lead to (1) significant
increases in phytoplanktonic growth rates, (2) significant increases in carbon:phosphorus ratios in marine phytoplankton, and (3)
decreases in biogenic calcification. What it means The three effects noted above all tend to increase the ocean's capacity to take up
and store atmospheric CO2 and, in the words of the authors, "serve as negative feedbacks to anthropogenic CO2 increase," providing
thereby another example of the tendency of earth's climatic system to self-regulate itself and prohibit the development of runaway
CO2-induced global warming.
80
CO2 GOOD - BIRDS

Increased CO2 helps bird population and mitigates the “harmful” effects of global warming.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 5/7/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “European Birds Refuse to Respond to Warming as Climate
Alarmists Say They Should” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N16/EDIT.php Accessed 7/15/08)
In discussing their findings, Seoane and Carrascal state that "the coherent pattern in population trends we found disagrees [our italics]
with the proposed detrimental effect of global warming on bird populations of western Europe." And they are not the only ones to
have come to this conclusion. They note, for example, that "one-half of terrestrial passerine birds in the United Kingdom exhibited
increasing recent trends in a very similar time period (1994-2004)," citing Raven et al. (2005); and they note that "there is also a
marked consistency between the observed increasing trends for forest and open woodland species in the Iberian Peninsula and at more
northern European latitudes in the same recent years," citing Gregory et al. (2005). Likewise, they write that "Julliard et al. (2004a),
working with 77 common bird species in France, found that species with large ecological breadth showed a tendency to increase their
numbers throughout the analyzed period."
In further commenting on their findings, Seoane and Carrascal say that in their study, "bird species that inhabit dense wooded habitats
show striking patterns of population increase throughout time." Noting that "this is also the case with those bird species mainly
distributed across central and northern Europe that reach their southern boundary limits in the north of the Iberian Peninsula," they
speculate that "these short- to medium-term population increases may be due to concomitant increases in productivity," citing the
thinking of Julliard et al. (2004b) and the empirical observations of Myneni et al. (1997), Tucker et al. (2001), Zhou et al. (2001),
Fang et al. (2003) and Slayback et al. (2003), whose work figures prominently in establishing the reality of the late 20th-century
warming- and CO2-induced greening of the earth phenomenon, which has produced, in the words of the Spanish scientists, "an
increase in plant growth or terrestrial net primary production in middle latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere since the 1980s,
particularly in forest environments."
It should be clear from these several observations that the supposedly unprecedented warmth of the last two decades has not led to
what Seoane and Carrascal call "the proposed detrimental effect of global warming on bird populations of western Europe." In fact, it
appears to have done just the opposite, with a little help, we might add, from one of man's and nature's very best friends: the
contemporary rise in the air's CO2 content.
81
CO2 GOOD - AGRICULTURE - PESTS

Elevated CO2 levels make agricultural pests more susceptible to predators, increasing crop yields.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 3/26/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Agricultural Crops, the Herbivorous Pests that Feed on
Them, and the Bigger Omnivorous Bugs that Eat the Pests” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N13/B1.php Accessed 7/15/08)
What was done

In what they describe as "the first study that measured the effect of global atmospheric change on an omnivorous consumer," the
authors explored the impacts of elevated atmospheric CO2 on the behavior and performance of an omnivorous bug (Oechalia
schellenbergii, Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) and its prey, a polyphagous chewing herbivorous pest (Helicoverpa armigera;
Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), feeding on pea (Pisum sativum) foliage grown in controlled-environment cabinets maintained at atmospheric
CO2 concentrations of either 360 or 700 ppm.
What was learned
Coll and Hughes report that the H. armigera pests that fed on the elevated CO2-grown pea plants were significantly smaller than those
that fed on the ambient CO2-grown pea plants, and that the bigger O. schellenbergii bugs that fed on them "performed best when fed
larvae from the elevated-CO2 treatment," because the prey of that treatment "were smaller and thus easier to subdue." In fact, only
13.3% of the predation attempts made on the larvae that were fed ambient-CO2-grown foliage were successful, as compared to 78.2%
for the larvae that were fed elevated-CO2-grown foliage.
What it means
In light of their findings, the two researchers concluded that "elevated CO2 may benefit generalist predators through increased prey
vulnerability, which would put pest species under higher risk of predation." Consequently, and "since omnivory is widespread in
agroecosystems," they argue that "yield loss to most pest species will be lower under elevated atmospheric CO2 levels, compared to
the current condition," which is good news for agriculture and great news for the people who depend upon it for their survival, which
is nearly all of us.
Increased atmospheric CO2 increases agricultural yields, while eliminating the threat of pests.
State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “Effects of Elevated CO2 on Plant-Herbivore Interactions”
What was learned With respect to the first subject of their review, Stiling and Cornelissen report that "the densities of all leaf miner
species (6) on all host species (3) were lower in every year in elevated CO2 than they were in ambient CO2." With respect to the
second subject, they say that "elevated CO2 significantly decreased herbivore abundance (-21.6%), increased relative consumption
rates (+16.5%), development time (+3.87%) and total consumption (+9.2%), and significantly decreased relative growth rate (-8.3%),
conversion efficiency (-19.9%) and pupal weight (-5.03%)," while noting that "host plants growing under enriched CO2 environments
exhibited significantly larger biomass (+38.4%), increased C/N ratio (+26.57%), and decreased nitrogen concentration (-16.4%), as
well as increased concentrations of tannins (+29.9%)." What it means With plant biomass increasing and herbivorous pest abundance
decreasing (by +38.4% and -21.6%, respectively, in response to an approximate doubling of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration), it
would appear that in the eternal struggle to produce the food that sustains all of humanity, either directly or indirectly, man's crops will
fare ever better as the air's CO2 content continues its upward climb. Likewise, it would appear there will be a concomitant expansion
of the vegetative food base that sustains all of the biosphere.
82
CO2 GOOD - AGRICULTURE - FOOD

Turn- Increased CO2 helps agriculture and is the only way to solve the upcoming shortfall in global food
production without causing other species to go extinct.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 4/13/05 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Will Farming Destroy Wild Nature?”
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V8/N15/EDIT.php 7/20/08)
In an article in Science entitled "Farming and the Fate of Wild Nature," Green et al. (2005) address a looming problem of incredible
proportions and significance: how to meet the two- to three-fold increase in food demand that will exist by 2050 (Tilman et al., 2002;
Bongaarts, 1996) without usurping for agriculture all the land that is currently available to what they call "wild nature."
The four scientists demonstrate the immediacy of the problem by discussing the relationship between farming and birds. They begin
by noting that "farming (including conversion to farmland and its intensifying use) is the single biggest source of threat to bird species
listed as Threatened (accounting for 37% of threats) and is already substantially more important for species in developing countries
than those in developed countries (40% and 24% of threats, respectively)," and by reporting that "for developing and developed
countries alike, the scale of the threat posed by agriculture is even greater for Near-Threatened species (57% and 33% of threats,
respectively)."
Clearly, a little more taking of land by agriculture will likely be devastating to several species of birds; and a lot more usurpation
(using words employed by climate alarmists the world over) will likely be catastrophically deadly to many of them, and numerous
other animals as well. So how does one solve the problem and keep from driving innumerable species to extinction (using more words
that climate alarmists relish) and still feed the masses of humanity that will inhabit the planet a mere 45 years hence?
The answer is simple: one has to raise more food without appreciably increasing the amounts of land and water used to do it. The
problem is that it is getting more and more difficult to do so. Already, in fact, Green et al. report that annual growth in yield is now
higher in the developing world than it is in the developed world, which suggests we may be approaching the upper limits of the
benefits to be derived from the types of technology that served us so well over the last four decades of the 20th century, when global
food production outstripped population growth and kept us largely ahead of the hunger curve, at least where political unrest did not
keep food from reaching the tables of those who needed it.
This is also the conclusion of Green et al., who report that "evidence from a range of taxa in developing countries suggests that high-
yield farming may allow more species to persist." But will the high-yield farming we are capable of developing in the coming years
be high enough to keep the loss of wild nature's land at an acceptable minimum?
This question was addressed by Idso and Idso (2000), who developed a supply-and-demand scenario for food in the year 2050.
Specifically, they identified the plants that currently supply 95% of the world's food needs and projected historical trends in the
productivities of these crops 50 years into the future. They also evaluated the growth-enhancing effects of atmospheric CO2
enrichment on these plants and made similar yield projections based on the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration likely to occur
by that future date. This work indicated that world population would be 51% greater in the year 2050 than it was in 1998, but that
world food production would be only 37% greater, if its enhanced productivity were solely a consequence of anticipated
improvements in agricultural technology and expertise. However, they determined that the consequent shortfall in farm production
could be overcome - but just barely - by the additional benefits anticipated to accrue from the aerial fertilization effect of the expected
rise in the air's CO2 content, assuming no Kyoto-style cutbacks in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Clearly, there are two sides to the story of what anthropogenic CO2 emissions may do to and/or for wild nature. Climate alarmists
speak only of the former of these alternatives, decrying the possibility of CO2-induced global warming and its claimed potential to
drive numerous species of plants and animals to extinction (see our Major Report The Specter of Species Extinction: Will Global
Warming Decimate Earth's Biosphere?). We at CO2 Science, on the other hand, address both of these issues, recognizing the fact that
the precautionary principle is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways. We cannot create informed energy policy by closing our eyes to
the devastating war that will be waged by humanity upon wild nature if we deny ourselves (and nature) the biological benefits that
come from atmospheric CO2 enrichment.
83
CO2 GOOD - PREVENT FAMINE

Biofuels production straining world’s food supply—only increased CO2 will prevent famine.
State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “Biofuels as religious fodder”
Borlaug notes, for example, that "for the foreseeable future, plants - especially the cereals - will continue to supply much of our
increased food demand, both for direct human consumption and as livestock feed to satisfy the rapidly growing demand for meat in
the newly industrializing countries." In fact, he states that "the demand for cereals will probably grow by 50% over the next 20 years
[our italics], and even larger harvests will be needed if more grain is diverted to produce biofuels." Noting that most food increases of
the future "will have to come from lands already in production [our italics]," and that "70% of global water withdrawals are for
irrigating agricultural lands," Borlaug's facts suggest that crop water use efficiency (biomass produced per unit of water used) will
have to be increased dramatically if we are to meet humanity's food needs of the future without creating the disastrous consequences
he outlines above; and it should be evident to all but those most blinded to the truth that this requirement can only be met if biofuels
are not a part of the picture, while the aerial fertilization and anti-transpiration effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment are. Although
Borlaug notes that conventional plant breeding, improvements in crop management, tillage, fertilization, and weed and pest control, as
well as genetic engineering, will help significantly in this regard, we will in all likelihood need the beneficial biological byproducts of
concomitant increases in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration in addition. Without them, to borrow a chilling phrase from Borlaug,
"efforts to halt global poverty will grind to a halt," and much of the world of nature will be no longer.
84
CO2 GOOD - SUPPORT POPULATION GROWTH

Increasing levels of CO2 are the only thing that will enable us to sustain the world’s growing population.
State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “The Debt We Owe to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment?”
In light of these several findings, it can be appreciated that the civilizations of the past, which could not have existed without
agriculture, were largely made possible by the increase in the air's CO2 content that accompanied deglaciation, and that the peoples of
the earth today are likewise indebted to this phenomenon, as well as the additional 100 ppm of CO2 the atmosphere has subsequently
acquired. With an eye to the future, we have long contended that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content will similarly play a pivotal
role in enabling us to grow the food we will need to sustain our still-expanding global population in the year 2050 without usurping all
of the planet's remaining freshwater resources and much of its untapped arable land, which latter actions would likely lead to our
driving most of what yet remains of "wild nature" to extinction. Rising CO2 has served both us and the rest of the biosphere well in
the past; and it will do the same in the future ... unless we turn and fight against it.
85
CO2 GOOD - CARBON SEQUESTRATION

Increased CO2 enhance carbon sequestration.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 3/12/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “On the Potential for Carbon Sequestration in Wheat Fields”
What was done

Working with undisturbed soil cores with and without visible wheat residues that were extracted at the conclusion of the third year of a
mini-FACE (free-air CO2 enrichment) experiment conducted in a field planted annually to spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) near
Hohenheim, Germany, the authors studied the effect of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration (an extra 160 ppm) on the
decomposition of the wheat residues present in the soil by measuring CO2 evolution from the cores, as well as the leaching of
inorganic and organic carbon from them, during 191 days of core incubations in the laboratory.
What was learned
Marhan et al. report that cumulative residue decomposition was not affected by elevated CO2 when no wheat residues were visible in
the cores. When such residues were visible, however, decomposition was found to be "significantly lower" (by 19%) in the elevated
compared to the ambient CO2 treatment, which for the more common 300-ppm degree of atmospheric CO2 enrichment roughly
translates to a decomposition reduction of 36%. In addition, they found that more dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) was leached from
the elevated CO2 treatment cores, both with and without visible plant residues, than from similar cores from the ambient CO2
treatment (47.2% and 29.5%, respectively, for their degree of CO2 enrichment, which equates to about 88% and 55%, respectively, for
a 300-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration); and they say that these extra amounts of DIC represent "an additional possible
mechanism for carbon sequestration in soils of arable cropping systems under future elevated CO2 concentrations." Finally, on top of
everything else, they report that stubble and root biomass tended to be higher by 12.0 and 9.44%, respectively, in soil cores taken from
the elevated CO2 plots at the end of the study, which equates to approximate stubble and root biomass enhancements of 22% and 18%,
respectively, for a 300-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
What it means
With respect to the potential for enhanced carbon sequestration in wheat (and other cereal-crop) fields in a CO2-enriched world of the
future, the six scientists conclude that "increased input of plant residues and reduced decomposition of plant-derived carbon" are,
indeed, "possible mechanisms for enhanced carbon sequestration under elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration."
86
CO2 GOOD - CARBON SEQUESTRATION - FUNGUS

Elevated CO2 levels increase carbon sequestration by boosting fungus growth.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 2/20/08 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Carbon Sequestration in Semi-Arid Grasslands”
What was done

The authors used open-top chambers to investigate the effects of an elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration (720 vs. 360 ppm) on the
composition of the microbial community in the soil of a semi-arid grassland in the shortgrass steppe region of northeastern Colorado
(USA) over the last three years of a five-year study.
What was learned
Kandeler et al. report that over the course of their experiment, "the abundance of fungal phospholipid fatty acids (PLFAs) shifted," as
the CO2 treatment increased the content of a certain fungal signature molecule by approximately 60% during the final two years of the
study, while "in the year after which CO2 enrichment had ceased, abundances of fungal and bacterial PLFAs in the post-CO2 treatment
plots shifted slowly back towards the control plots."
What it means
The seven scientists say that "since fungi are unique in their ability to translocate and utilize spatially separated nutrient resources
(Poll et al., 2006) and fungi are composed of more complex recalcitrant compounds (Allison et al., 2005), long-term dominance of a
fungal-dominated microbial community may result in greater carbon sequestration than in systems with lower fungal abundance (Six
et al., 2006)." Consequently, they conclude that the higher abundance of fungi observed in the soil of the CO2-enriched chambers of
their study could comprise "a primary mechanism leading to enhanced carbon storage in shortgrass steppe, if elevation of atmospheric
CO2 continues in the future."
87
CO2 GOOD - PEACE

Increased CO2 is key to peace.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 11/16/05 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “War and Social Unrest- Summary”
http://www.co2science.org/subject/w/summaries/war.php 7/20/08)
Many other people have also understood the connection between "drought, food scarcity, social upheaval and political instability"
described by Florescano et al., not the least of which was former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who once penned an op-ed piece
entitled "To Cultivate Peace, We Must First Cultivate Food." As we reported in our Editorial of 1 Oct 1999, he said that "when
the Cold War ended 10 years ago, we expected an era of peace" but got instead "a decade of war." He then asked why peace had been
so elusive, answering that most of the past century's wars were fueled by poverty in developing countries "whose economies depend
on agriculture but which lack the means to make their farmland productive." This fact, he said, suggests an obvious, but often
overlooked, path to peace: "raise the standard of living of the millions of rural people who live in poverty by increasing agricultural
productivity," his argument being that thriving agriculture, in his words, "is the engine that fuels broader economic growth and
development, thus paving the way for prosperity and peace."
Can the case for atmospheric CO2 enrichment be made any clearer? Automatically, and without the investment of a single hard-earned
dollar, ruble, or what have you, people everywhere promote the cause of peace by fertilizing the atmosphere with carbon dioxide,
because carbon dioxide - one of the major end-products of the combustion process that fuels the engines of industry and transportation
- is the very elixir of life, being the major building block of all plant tissues due to the essential role it plays in the photosynthetic
process that sustains nearly all of earth's vegetation, which in turn sustains nearly all the planet's animal life. As with any production
process, the insertion of more raw materials (in this case CO2) into the production line results in more manufactured goods coming out
the other end, which in the case of the plant-growth production line is biosphere-sustaining food. And as President Carter rightly
stated, "leaders of developing nations must make food security a priority." Indeed, he ominously proclaimed in his concluding
paragraph that "there can be no peace until people have enough to eat."
Within this context, Idso and Idso (2000) developed and analyzed a supply-and-demand scenario for food in the year 2050.
Specifically, they identified the plants that at the turn of the century supplied 95% of the world's food needs and projected historical
trends in the productivities of these crops 50 years into the future, after which they evaluated the growth-enhancing effects of
atmospheric CO2 enrichment on these plants and made similar yield projections based on the increase in atmospheric CO2
concentration likely to have occurred by that future date. This exercise revealed that world population would likely be 51% greater in
the year 2050 than it was in 1998, but that world food production would be only 37% greater if its enhanced productivity comes solely
as a consequence of anticipated improvements in agricultural technology and expertise. However, they further determined that the
consequent shortfall in farm production could be overcome - but just barely - by the additional benefits anticipated to accrue from the
aerial fertilization effect of the expected rise in the air's CO2 content, assuming no Kyoto-style cutbacks in anthropogenic CO2
emissions.
These findings suggest that the world food security envisioned by President Carter is precariously dependent upon the continued rising
of the air's CO2 concentration. As Sylvan Wittwer (Director Emeritus of Michigan State University's Agricultural Experiment Station)
stated in his 1995 book, Food, Climate, and Carbon Dioxide: The Global Environment and World Food Production:
"The rising level of atmospheric CO2 could be the one global natural resource that is progressively increasing food production and
total biological output, in a world of otherwise diminishing natural resources of land, water, energy, minerals, and fertilizer. It is a
means of inadvertently increasing the productivity of farming systems and other photosynthetically active ecosystems. The effects
know no boundaries and both developing and developed countries are, and will be, sharing equally."
Another fabled visionary has also written about the need to vastly increase the world's agricultural productivity. In the October 2000
issue of Plant Physiology, as described in our Editorial of 15 Nov 2000, Norman Borlaug (Father of the Green Revolution and 1970
Nobel Prize Laureate for Peace) had an important Editor's Choice article entitled "Ending World Hunger: The Promise of
Biotechnology and the Threat of Antiscience Zealotry." In it, he describes the very real problem of food shortages that could be faced
by the world in the not too distant future, noting that "it took some 10,000 years to expand food production to the current level of
about 5 billion tons per year," and that in order to meet the needs of the growing population of the planet, "by 2025, we will have to
nearly double current production again."
Unfortunately, Dr. Borlaug saw some ominous forces at work that could keep us from achieving that goal, specifically citing those that
array themselves against the genetic engineering of agricultural crops. "Extremists in the environmental movement," he wrote, "seem
to be doing everything they can to stop scientific progress in its tracks," stating that "the platform of the antibiotechnology extremists,
if it were to be adopted, would have grievous consequences for both the environment and humanity." In addition, he lamented the fact
that "some scientists, many of whom should or do know better, have also jumped on the extremist environmental bandwagon in search
of research funds."
88
CO2 GOOD - PEACE

What strikes us most forcefully about Dr. Borlaug's words is how they also describe the sad situation we face with respect to the
ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration. He talked, for example, about the "unsubstantiated scare mongering done by opponents of
genetic engineering," which is amazingly similar to the unsubstantiated scare mongering done by climate alarmists, who would deny
the world the incredible agricultural benefits of the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment. "Nowhere," Dr. Borlaug
wrote, "is it more important for knowledge to confront fear born of ignorance than in the production of food," which is what we have
been trying to do on our website from the day it first went public.
It is truly unconscionable that this agricultural aspect of the global change debate is almost never broached. As Dr. Borlaug rightly
states, "agricultural scientists and leaders have a moral obligation to warn political, educational, and religious leaders about the
magnitude and seriousness of the arable land, food, and population problems that lie ahead, even with breakthroughs in biotechnology
[our italics]." In fact, "if we fail to do so," as he described it, "we will be negligent in our duty and inadvertently may be contributing
to the pending chaos of incalculable millions of deaths by starvation."
"Global food insecurity will not disappear without new technology," Borlaug concluded; and our analysis suggests that it will be next
to impossible to meet the challenge of feeding earth's population just a few short decades from now without a continuation of the
ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content. We have got to wake up to this reality and eschew the diabolical doctrine of biting the hand that
feeds us by limiting anthropogenic CO2 emissions. We truly need the extra crop productivity and enhanced water use efficiency that
is provided to earth's vegetation by atmospheric CO2 enrichment; and that need will only increase with time.
89
CO2 GOOD - PEACE - AGRICULTURE

Increased CO2 concentration accelerates the photosynthetic process and increases agricultural output, solving the
root cause for war.
Dr. Craig D. Idso, President of CO2 Science, and Dr. Keith E. Idso, VP of CO2 Science, “Give Peace a Chance by Giving Plants a
Chance”, Volume 2, Number 19, October 1999, http://co2science.org/articles/V2/N19/EDIT.php
Perusing our local newspaper of 26 September 1999, our attention was captured by the title of an opinion piece in the Perspective
section: "To cultivate peace, we must first cultivate food." Penned by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, this article - albeit
unknowingly, perhaps - makes an impressive case for the great good that can come from the ongoing rise in the air's CO2
content. President Carter begins by stating that "when the Cold War ended 10 years ago, we expected an era of peace" but got instead
"a decade of war." He then asks why peace has been so elusive, answering that most of today's wars are fueled by poverty, poverty
in developing countries "whose economies depend on agriculture but which lack the means to make their farmland
productive." This fact, he says, suggests an obvious, but often overlooked, path to peace: "raise the standard of living of the
millions of rural people who live in poverty by increasing agricultural productivity," his argument being that thriving agriculture,
in his words, "is the engine that fuels broader economic growth and development, thus paving the way for prosperity and
peace." Can the case for atmospheric CO2 enrichment be made any clearer? Automatically, and without the investment of a single
hard-earned dollar, ruble, or what have you, people everywhere promote the cause of peace by fertilizing the atmosphere with
carbon dioxide; for CO2 - one of the major end-products of the combustion process that fuels the engines of industry and
transportation - is the very elixir of life, being the primary building block of all plant tissues via the essential role it plays in the
photosynthetic process that sustains nearly all of earth's vegetation, which in turn sustains nearly all of the planet's animal life.
As with any production process, the insertion of more raw materials (in this case CO2) into the production line results in more
manufactured goods coming out the other end, which, in the case of the production line of plant growth and development, is
biosphere-sustaining food. And as President Carter rightly states, "leaders of developing nations must make food security a
priority." Indeed, he ominously proclaims in his concluding paragraph that "there can be no peace until people have enough to eat."
Within this context, we recently completed a project commissioned by the Greening Earth Society entitled "Forecasting World Food
Supplies: The Impact of the Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentration," which we presented at the Second Annual Dixy Lee Ray
Memorial Symposium held in Washington, DC on 31 August - 2 September 1999. We found that continued increases in agricultural
knowledge and expertise would likely boost world food production by 37% between now and the middle of the next century, but
that world food needs, which we equated with world population, would likely rise by 51% over this period. Fortunately, we also
calculated that the shortfall in production could be overcome - but just barely - by the additional benefits anticipated to accrue
from the many productivity-enhancing effects of the expected rise in the air's CO2 content over the same time period. Our
findings suggest that the world food security envisioned by President Carter is precariously dependent upon the continued rising
of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration. As Sylvan Wittwer, Director Emeritus of Michigan State University's Agricultural
Experiment Station, stated in his 1995 book, Food, Climate, and Carbon Dioxide: The Global Environment and World Food
Production, "The rising level of atmospheric CO2 could be the one global natural resource that is progressively increasing food
production and total biological output, in a world of otherwise diminishing natural resources of land, water, energy, minerals, and
fertilizer. It is a means of inadvertently increasing the productivity of farming systems and other photosynthetically active
ecosystems. The effects know no boundaries and both developing and developed countries are, and will be, sharing equally." So, let's
give peace a chance. Let's give plants a chance. And, while we're at it, let's give all of the world's national economies a chance as
well. Let's let the air's CO2 content rise unimpeded, and let's let the peoples of the world reap the multitudinous benefits that come
from the God-given - and scientifically proven - aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Let's live and let live. And
let's let CO2 do its wonderful work of promoting world peace via the planet-wide prosperity that comes from enhanced
agricultural productivity.
90
CARBON FERTILIZATION - EXPERIMENTS RIGHT

Long’s criticism of non-FACE techniques is found absolutely false by a team of specialists—FACE and non-FACE
techniques both accurately predict elevated CO2 yields
Sherwood B. Idso et al, PhD, Soil Science, 2006 [Keith E. Idso, Craig D. Idso, and Julene M. Idso] (“Long on Hype, Short on Facts:
FACE vs. non-FACE Studies of Plant Growth Responses to CO2” CO2 Science 12/27/07)
[http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N27/EDIT.php accessed 7/21/08]
In a paper designed to strike a telling blow against the views of the many people who believe the positive effects of the ongoing rise in
the air's CO2 content will temper - or even negate - the catastrophic consequences that climate alarmists claim the biosphere will
suffer as a result of climate-model-predicted CO2-induced global warming, Long et. al. (2005) claimed there would be lower-than-
expected CO2-induced crop yield increases in a high-CO2 world of the future, because of problems associated with all atmospheric
CO2 enrichment techniques other than the free-air CO2 enrichment or FACE technique, which they said yields CO2-induced growth
enhancements that are only half as large as those measured in the non-FACE studies upon which prior predictions of future crop yields
had been based. Receiving little flack (indeed, receiving rave reviews) following the publication of their paper in Britain's prestigious
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Long et. al. (2006) had a similar paper accepted for publication in the similarly-
prestigious American journal Science, wherein they again contended that crop models based on non-FACE studies "have
overestimated future yields," once again by the familiar factor of two.
Believing this claim to be grossly in error, we discussed it at some length in our editorial of 5 July 2006, wherein we accepted Long et.
al.'s quantitative evaluations of the CO2-induced growth responses derived from FACE and non-FACE assessment techniques, but
where we argued it was the FACE technique that was the more likely of the two approaches to be in error, citing two aspects of it - (1)
rapidly-varying atmospheric CO2 concentrations around the targeted concentration in CO2-enriched treatments and (2) the fact that
many FACE studies have only employed atmospheric CO2 enrichment during daylight hours - both of which phenomena have been
shown to dramatically reduce CO2-induced growth responses in some studies. In giving Long et. al. the benefit of the doubt with
respect to their quantitative evaluations, however, we apparently were far too generous, for an international team of ten specialists in
the field has recently published a comprehensive and persuasive debunking of all of Long et. al.'s negative contentions about non-
FACE experiments (Tubiello et. al., 2006).
The researchers' detailed criticisms of the Long et. al. (2006) paper focus on the latter's inattention to certain important "technical
inconsistencies," as Tubiello et. al. call them, plus the fact that Long et al.'s findings were "lacking [in] statistical significance." When
the pertinent data were properly analyzed, for example, the ten-member four-country team demonstrated that "the meta-analysis of
Long et. al. (2006) does not [our italics] show significantly lower crop yield response to elevated CO2 in FACE compared to non-
FACE experiments."
As further evidence for the validity of their findings, Tubiello et. al. note that when the air's CO2 concentration was raised to a value
of 550 ppm in various prior experiments, "mean yields increased 17-20% in FACE, compared to 19-23% in non-FACE experiments,"
as they report has also previously been demonstrated by Amthor (2001), Kimball et. al. (2002), Gifford (2004), Long et. al. (2004) and
Ainsworth and Long (2005). In addition, they demonstrated that "simulated yield responses to elevated CO2, as implemented in most
crop models used for climate change impact assessment, are [our italics] consistent with FACE results," and that "any remaining
differences in CO2 response based on FACE results would not significantly alter projections of world food supply in the 21st century."
Another of Tubiello et. al.'s important conclusions about atmospheric CO2 enrichment studies is the fact that "controlled
environmental chamber, greenhouse, closed-top or open-top field chambers, or gradient tunnel approaches can continue to be used
with reliable results," which has always been our view as well. The only questions remaining, therefore, are why some studies
employing rapidly-fluctuating CO2 concentrations and/or daylight-only CO2 enrichment have yielded CO2-induced growth
enhancements that have been much smaller than those of experiments where the atmosphere's CO2 concentration has not been subject
to rapid fluctuations and where the CO2 enrichment has been applied for a full 24 hours per day.
With respect to FACE studies, the dichotomy in the first of these situations may be due to the fact that in most of them the large size of
the plots employed may damp out the rapid CO2 concentration fluctuations that occur at the points of release of the CO2 before it
reaches the plants. In the case of daylight-only vs. 24-hour-per-day CO2 enrichment, however, the answer is not so obvious. In any
event, the important point of the Tubiello et. al. paper is that it clearly refutes the erroneous contentions of Long et. al. (2005, 2006)
that FACE studies are far superior to studies that employ other types of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, and that studies based on all
types of non-FACE techniques have overestimated the growth-promoting effects of elevated CO2 by an approximate factor or two.
These contentions are absolutely false.
91
CARBON FERTILIZATION
Rising CO2 levels have dramatically increased yields of plants and is the safest way to help plant growth.
Idso et al., 2004 (Sherwood, PhD soil science; “Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment:
Just What the Food Doctor Ordered!;” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N15/EDIT.php)
What has this extra 100 ppm of CO2 done for us to date in the way of increasing farm productivity? In our Editorial of 11 July 2001,
we describe experimental work based on the studies of Mayeux et al. (1997) and Idso and Idso (2000) that suggest its aerial
fertilization effect has led to mean yield increases of approximately 70% for C3 cereals, 28% for C4 cereals, 33% for fruits and
melons, 62% for legumes, 67% for root and tuber crops, and 51% for vegetables. Although less than the 93% increase in per-hectare
food production brought about by the many low-cost, low-tech projects assessed by Pretty et al., these historical CO2-induced yield
increases have nevertheless been both substantial and important. What is more, they were totally unplanned by man, coming about
solely as a result of humanity's flooding of the air with CO2. In addition, this unanticipated but welcome godsend is not just a relic of
the past; for, if we will let it, it will grow even stronger in the years and decades ahead, as the air's CO2 content continues to rise.
Another positive aspect of the technologies and inputs employed in the projects studied by Pretty et al. is that "they make the best use
of nature's goods and services whilst not damaging these assets." This virtue is best appreciated when compared to some of the negative side effects of
what Pretty et al. call "industrialized agriculture," where they say "environmental and health problems associated with industrialized agriculture have been well
documented," citing the works of Conway and Pretty (1991), EEA (1998) and Wood et al. (2000). Within this context, we merely note that not only does
atmospheric CO2 enrichment not hurt "nature's goods and services," it actually helps them, making natural vegetation -- and field
crops too -- more resistant to the deleterious effects of gaseous air pollution, soil salinity, water stress and high temperatures (Idso and
Idso, 1994). Speaking of agricultural systems that emphasize the principles employed in the programs they analyzed -- which are
shared, if not bettered, by enriching the air with CO2 -- Pretty et al. say they "contribute to a range of valued public goods, such as
clean water, wildlife, carbon sequestration in soils, flood protection, groundwater recharge, and landscape amenity value." With such
side effects as these, the ongoing rise in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration would appear to be just the medicine the world needs to
sustain its natural ecosystems while helping humanity to adequately feed its growing numbers.
Increased CO2 increases plant photosynthesis and their maximum survivable temperature.
So what's the real situation with respect to rising air temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, as well as the life-and-death
impacts they may - or may not - have on earth's plants and animals?
A good place to begin in answering this question is with the growth-enhancing effects of elevated atmospheric CO2, which typically increase with
rising air and leaf temperatures. This phenomenon is illustrated by the data of Jurik et al. (1984), who exposed bigtooth aspen leaves to atmospheric CO2 concentrations
of 325 and 1935 ppm and measured their photosynthetic rates at a number of different temperatures. In the figure below, we have reproduced their results and slightly
extended the two relationships defined by their data to both warmer and cooler conditions.
In viewing this figure, it can be seen that at a leaf temperature of 10°C, elevated CO2 has essentially no effect on net photosynthesis in
this particular species, as Idso and Idso (1994) have demonstrated is characteristic of plants in general. At 25°C, however, where the
net photosynthetic rate of the leaves exposed to 325 ppm CO2 is maximal, the extra CO2 of this study boosted the net photosynthetic
rate of the foliage by nearly 100%; and at 36°C, where the net photosynthetic rate of the leaves exposed to 1935 ppm CO2 is maximal, the
extra CO2 boosted the net photosynthetic rate of the foliage by a whopping 450%. In addition, the extra CO2 increased the optimum
temperature for net photosynthesis in this species by about 11°C: from 25°C in air of 325 ppm CO2 to 36°C in air of 1935 ppm CO2.
In viewing the warm-temperature projections of the two relationships at the right-hand side of the figure, it can additionally be seen that the transition from positive to
negative net photosynthesis - which denotes a change from life-sustaining to life-sapping conditions - likely occurs somewhere in the vicinity of 39°C in air of 325 ppm
CO2 but somewhere in the vicinity of 50°C in air of 1935 ppm CO2. Consequently, not only was the optimum temperature for photosynthesis of bigtooth aspen greatly
increased by the extra CO2 of this experiment, so too was the lethal temperature (above which life cannot long be sustained) likewise
increased, and by approximately the same amount, i.e., 11°C.
These observations, which are similar to what has been observed in many other plants, suggest that when the atmosphere's temperature
and CO2 concentration rise together (Cowling, 1999), the vast majority of earth's plants would likely not feel a need (or only very little
need) to migrate towards cooler regions of the globe. Any warming would obviously provide them an opportunity to move into places
that were previously too cold for them, but it would not force them to move, even at the hottest extremes of their ranges; for as the
planet warmed, the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration would work its biological wonders, significantly increasing the
temperatures at which most of earth's C3 plants - which comprise about 95% of the planet's vegetation - function best, creating a
situation where earth's plant life would actually "prefer" warmer conditions.
92
CO2 helps soil fertility
Idso et al., 2004 (Sherwood, PhD soil science; “African Food Security: The Need for a ‘Doubly Green
Revolution;’”http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N12/EDIT.php)
In the case of soil infertility, many experiments have demonstrated that even when important nutrients are present in the soil in less
than optimal amounts, enriching the air with CO2 still boosts crop yields. With respect to the soil of an African farm where their
"genetic and agro-ecological technologies" have been applied, for example, Conway and Toenniessen speak of "a severe lack of
phosphorus and shortages of nitrogen." Even in such situations, materials archived in our Subject Index provide several examples of
how atmospheric CO2 enrichment enhances plant growth under these adverse conditions [see Growth Response to CO2 With Other
Variables (Nitrogen -- Agricultural Crops) and Growth Response to CO2 With Other Variables (Phosphorus)]. Furthermore, if
supplemental fertilization is provided as described by Conway and Toenniessen, these same Subject Index sections provide examples
of even larger CO2-induced benefits above and beyond those provided by the extra nitrogen and phosphorus applied to the soil
Increased carbon dioxide is key to increased plant growth

Idso et al., 2004 (Sherwood, PhD soil science; “Feeding Humanity to Help Save Natural Ecosystems: The Role of the Rising
Atmospheric CO2 Concentration” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N36/EDIT.php)
Fortunately, we have a powerful ally in the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content that can provide what we can't. Since atmospheric
CO2 is the basic "food" of essentially all terrestrial plants, the more of it there is in the air, the bigger and better they grow. For a
nominal doubling of the air's CO2 concentration, for example, the productivity of earth's herbaceous plants rises by 30 to 50%
(Kimball, 1983; Idso and Idso, 1994), while the productivity of its woody plants rises by 50 to 80% or more (Saxe et al. 1998; Idso
and Kimball, 2001). Hence, as the air's CO2 content continues to rise, so too will the land use efficiency of the planet rise right along
with it (see also Plant Growth Data on our website). In addition, atmospheric CO2 enrichment typically increases plant nutrient use
efficiency and plant water use efficiency (see Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Water Use Efficiency in our Subject Index). Thus, with
respect to all three of the major needs noted by Tilman et al. (2002), increases in the air's CO2 content pay huge dividends, helping to
increase agricultural output without the taking of new lands from nature. In conclusion, it would appear that the extinction of two-
thirds of all species of plants and animals on the face of the earth is essentially assured within the next century, if world agricultural
output is not dramatically increased. This unfathomable consequence will occur simply because we will need more land to produce
what is required to sustain us and, in the absence of the needed productivity increase, because we will simply take that land from
nature to keep ourselves alive. It is also the conclusion of scientists who have studied this problem in depth that the needed increase in
agricultural productivity is not possible, even with anticipated improvements in technology and expertise. With the help of the
ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content, however, Idso and Idso (2000) have shown that we should be able - but just barely - to meet our
expanding food needs without bringing down the curtain on the world of nature. That certain forces continue to resist this reality is
truly incredible. More CO2 means life for the planet; less CO2 means death ... and not just the death of individuals, but the death of
species. And to allow, nay, cause the extinction of untold millions of unique and irreplaceable species has got to rank close to the top
of all conceivable immoralities. We humans, as stewards of the earth, have got to get our priorities straight. We have got to do all that
we can to preserve nature by helping to feed humanity; and to do so successfully, we have got to let the air's CO2 content rise. Any
policies that stand in the way of that objective are truly obscene.
93
Increased atmospheric carbon levels increases crop yields, even in agriculturally weak countries.
State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “Climate-Mediated Changes in 20th-Century Argentina Agriculture”
What was done For nine areas of contrasting environment within the Pampas region of Argentina, which accounts for over 90% of the
country's grain production, the authors evaluated changes in climate over the 20th century along with changes in the yields of the
region's chief crops (soybean, wheat, maize and sunflower). Then, after determining upward low-frequency trends in yield due to
technological improvements in crop genetics and management techniques plus the aerial fertilization effect of the historical increase in
the air's CO2 concentration, these annual yield anomalies and concomitant climatic anomalies were used to develop relations
describing the effects of precipitation, temperature and solar radiation on crop yields, so that the effects of long-term changes in these
climatic parameters on Argentina agriculture could be determined. What was learned Although noting that "technological
improvements account for most of the observed changes in crop yields during the second part of the 20th century, which totaled 110%
for maize, 56% for wheat and 102% for sunflower, Magrin et al. report that due to changes in climate between the periods 1950-70
and 1970-99, yields increased by 38% in soybean, 18% in maize, 13% in wheat, and 12% in sunflower. What it means Twentieth-
century climate change, which is claimed by climate alarmists to have been unprecedented over the past two millennia and is often
described by them as one of the greatest threats ever to be faced by humanity, has definitely not been a problem for agriculture in
Argentina. In fact, it has helped it.
Carbon fertilization increases crop yields and livestock production

State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “The Agroclimate of Alberta, Canada”
What it means Shen et al. conclude that "the changes of the agroclimatic parameters imply that Alberta agriculture has benefited from
the last century's climate change," emphasizing that "the potential exists to grow crops and raise livestock in more regions of Alberta
than was possible in the past." They also note that the increase in the length of the frost-free period "can greatly reduce the frost risks
to crops and bring economic benefits to Alberta agricultural producers," and that the northward extension of the corn heat unit
boundary that is sufficient for corn production "implies that Alberta farmers now have a larger variety of crops to choose from than
were available previously." Hence, they say "there is no hesitation for us to conclude that the warming climate and increased
precipitation benefit agriculture in Alberta."
Carbon Fertilization is vital to the practice of agriculture—empirically proven.

State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “The Debt We Owe to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment?”
In an intriguing paper recently published in Global Change Biology, Cunniff et al. (2008) note that "early agriculture was
characterized by sets of primary domesticates or 'founder crops' that were adopted in several independent centers of origin," all at
about the same time; and they say and that "this synchronicity suggests the involvement of a global trigger." Further noting that Sage
(1995) saw a causal link between this development and the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that followed deglaciation (a jump
from about 180 to 270 ppm), they hypothesized that the aerial fertilization effect caused by the rise in CO2 combined with its
transpiration-reducing effect led to a large increase in the water use efficiencies of the world's major C4 founder crops, and that this
development was the global trigger that launched the agricultural enterprise. Consequently, as a test of this hypothesis, they designed
"a controlled environment experiment using five modern day representatives of wild C4 crop progenitors, all 'founder crops' from a
variety of independent centers."
94
Studies prove—Increased CO2 emissions significantly increases crop yields.
State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “Carbon Dioxide: A Vital Atmospheric Resource Under Siege”
Much has been written of late about the legal technicalities associated with the attempts of climate alarmists and other radical
environmentalists to brand carbon dioxide or CO2 an atmospheric pollutant, primarily for the purpose of regulating (actually,
restricting) anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Perhaps the best way of determining if CO2 truly merits this designation is to perform a
simple experiment to see what effects its partial removal from the air would have on something of great value to life on earth, such as
a common food plant like the cucumber. Fortuitously, the results of just such an experiment were recently reported in the scientific
literature; and it is to them that we turn for a resolution of this important issue. Noting that greenhouses in northern countries are often
not ventilated during autumn, winter and spring, Klaring et al. (2007) report that "in nearly airtight energy-saving greenhouses, this
may result in CO2 concentrations dropping to very low levels due to the CO2 uptake by plants," which leads us to wonder: What
effect does this reduction in greenhouse-air CO2 content have on the growth of greenhouse-raised cucumbers? In an attempt to
answer this question, the four researchers developed a system to maintain the CO2 concentration of the air within a greenhouse at the
same concentration as that of the air outside the greenhouse. This they did by adding CO2 to the air of one of two identical
greenhouses at approximately the same rate at which it was being removed by the photosynthetic activity of the cucumber plants it
contained (and at approximately the same time), as estimated by two simple photosynthesis models. Based on our visual inspection of
Klaring et al.'s graphs of hourly atmospheric CO2 concentrations within a greenhouse treated in this manner and within another
greenhouse where the CO2 removed by the photosynthesizing cucumber plants was not replenished, we calculate that over the
daylight periods of two separate experiments they conducted, there was a mean daytime reduction of approximately 110 ppm (from
approximately 395 ppm to about 285 ppm) in the greenhouse-air CO2 concentration caused by the growth of the plants in the non-
CO2-replenished greenhouse. And this reduction in the air's CO2 concentration, according to what they report, led to a 28% decrease
in cucumber fruit yield, which is the same percentage by which the greenhouse air's CO2 concentration was reduced by the
photosynthesizing cucumber plants in the control or non-CO2-replenished greenhouse. Now the partial removal of an atmospheric
pollutant from the air would be expected to have a positive impact on important plant processes; but in the case of the perceptive
cucumbers (which could not be fooled), just the opposite was observed: letting the cucumbers partially remove from the air what some
people want to call a pollutant (CO2) and not replacing it actually harmed the cucumbers, by significantly reducing their productivity.
Thinking of this experiment in reverse leads to the same conclusion: the 38% increase in the CO2-replenished greenhouse air's CO2
concentration significantly boosted cucumber fruit yield (by a similar 38%), which is not what an air pollutant does, but what an aerial
fertilizer does.
95
CARBON FERTILIZATION - POPULATION

Absent carbon fertilization agriculture will be outstripped by human population, resulting in mass starvation.
State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “The World's Water Problems”
In closing, we would like to place one additional proposal on the table. We should allow the air's CO2 content to rise unimpeded, as
market-driven technological evolution takes its natural course and gradually replaces (or not!) the burning of fossil fuels as our major
source of energy. Why? Because CO2 is a potent anti-transpirant, as well as a powerful aerial fertilizer; and allowing its atmospheric
concentration to continue its upward climb will enable nearly all of earth's plants to produce considerably more biomass per unit of
water used in the process (see our Editorial of 21 Feb 2001). Indeed, even with the implementation of all of the options discussed by
Glennon et al., as well as still others pertaining to additional aspects of agriculture, it has been estimated (see our Editorial of 2 May
2001) that we will still fall short of producing the food we will need to feed our numbers in but a few short decades. Consequently, to
make up the difference, we may well usurp nearly all of the planet's remaining arable land and freshwater resources between now and
then, leaving essentially nothing for nature, if we cannot continue to reap (see our Editorial of 11 Jul 2001) the important biological
benefits of our CO2-accreting atmosphere.
Increased CO2 concentration is critical to producing enough food—reliance on innovation only will inevitably fail.
State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “Can the World Produce 40% More Rice by 2030?”
We agree that all of these things are needed; however, as indicated by Tilman et al. (2001), "even the best available technologies, fully
deployed, cannot prevent many of the forecasted problems." This was also the conclusion of Idso and Idso (2000), who acknowledged
that "expected advances in agricultural technology and expertise will significantly increase the food production potential of many
countries and regions," but who went on to note that these advances "will not increase production fast enough to meet the demands of
the even faster-growing human population of the planet." Fortunately, we have a strong ally in the ongoing rise in the air's CO2
concentration that may help us meet and surmount this daunting global challenge. Atmospheric CO2 enrichment, for example, has
been demonstrated to significantly increase rice photosynthesis and biomass production (see our compilations of over 100 individual
experimental results for photosynthesis and biomass responses of rice to CO2-enriched air in the Data section of our website). In
addition, elevated CO2 concentrations have been shown to enhance the ability of rice to cope with both biotic and abiotic stresses (see
Agriculture (Species - Rice) in our Subject Index). Hence, in addition to our purposeful directed efforts to increase rice yields in the
years and decades to come, we will experience the unplanned help provided by the CO2 emissions that result from the burning of
fossil fuels. Working together, these two positive forces may help us meet the clear and present need to ramp up rice production to the
degree required to adequately feed the world a mere quarter-century from now, and to do so without usurping all of the planet's
available land and water resources and thereby consigning the bulk of "wild nature" to the ash heap of history. Without the help of
both approaches, we will in all likelihood fail and, with the rest of the biosphere, suffer unimaginable negative consequences.
96
CARBON FERTILIZATION - NIGHT WARMING

Night-warming mitigates any negative effects of Carbon Fertilization
State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “Global Warming and Extreme Weather:
Impacts on Agriculture (Italy)?” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N23/EDIT.php) 5/28/2008
Climate alarmists say rising temperatures produce more frequent and aberrant weather extremes and that some of these things - such
as droughts, floods and storms, as well as the higher temperatures themselves - negatively impact agriculture. This is a great
hypothesis, since it can be readily tested with real-world data. Mann et al. (1999), for example, have compiled considerable evidence
suggesting that the Northern Hemisphere warmed throughout the 20th century at a rate that was unprecedented over the past
millennium; while Esper et al. (2002) have demonstrated that this unprecedented warming actually began nearly two centuries ago.
Long-term weather records, therefore, should readily reveal whether or not climate alarmists are justified in their pessimism about
agricultural productivity being negatively impacted in a warming world. The study of Moonen et al. (2002) is an excellent example of
what can be done in this regard. It is based on 122 years of real-world data collected from 1878 to 1999 at the weather station of the
Department of Agronomy and Agroecosystem Management of the University of Pisa, Italy, which is located at the edge of the city.
Meteorological parameters routinely measured over this period were daily maximum, minimum and mean air temperature, along with
daily rainfall amount; while agrometeorological parameters included the date of first autumn frost, date of last spring frost, length of
growing season, number of frost days, lengths of dry spells, potential evapotranspiration, reference evapotranspiration, soil moisture
surplus, theoretical irrigation requirement, number of days with soil moisture surplus, and number of days with soil moisture deficit.
What did the scientists find? With respect to temperature, they note that "extremely cold temperature events have decreased and
extremely warm temperature events have remained unchanged." They suggest that both of these observations may be attributed to the
increase in cloud cover that would be expected to occur in a warming world. More clouds would reduce midday heating, for example,
and thereby offset much - if not all - of the impetus for global warming during the hottest part of the day. At night, however, the
increased cloud cover would enhance the atmosphere's greenhouse effect, thereby adding to the long-term warming trend.
Consequently, Moonen et al. say that "no negative effects can be expected on crop production from this point of view." In fact, they
find a real "silver lining" in the latter of these cloud feedback phenomena, reporting that "the number of frost days per year has
decreased significantly resulting in a decrease in risk of crop damage." Hence, they say the time of planting spring crops could be
safely advanced by many days, noting that the length of the growing season increased by fully 47 days over the period of their study.
97
CARBON FERTILIZATION - DIGESTIBILITY

Increased carbon dioxide helps plant digestibility.
Idso et al., 2004 (Sherwood, PhD soil science; “Digestibility of Pasture Forage Is Enhanced by Elevated CO2;”
What was done

In the spring (November) of 2000 and 2001 in a FACE study conducted in a temperate pasture on the west coast of the North Island of
New Zealand, Allard et al. measured changes in the nitrogen [N] concentrations of the leaves of the several different species that
comprised the pasture, as well as changes in species composition, that arose in response to the imposition of an approximate 105-ppm
increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, after which they determined the implications of these changes for the digestibility of the
total mix of pasture forage. What was learned The researchers report that "under elevated CO2, leaves of the individual species
exhibited lower N concentrations and higher water-soluble carbohydrate (WSC) concentrations." They also discovered "there was a
significantly greater proportion of legume in the diet at elevated CO2." In addition, they found that this "shift in the botanical
composition towards a higher proportion of legumes counterbalanced the N decrease observed at the single species scale, resulting in
an N concentration of the overall diet that was unaffected by elevated CO2." In contrast to this ultimate balancing of CO2-induced
nitrogen increases and decreases, Allard et al. report that "changes at the species level and at the sward level appeared to combine
additively in relation to WSC." Hence, they note that "as there was a significant correlation between WSC and digestibility (as
previously observed by Dent and Aldrich, 1963 and Humphreys, 1989), there was also an increase in digestibility of the high CO2
forage," which result, in their words, "matches that found in a Mini-FACE experiment under cutting (Teyssonneyre, 2002; Picon-
Cochard et al., 2003)," where "digestibility also increased in response to CO2 despite reduced crude protein concentration." What it
means In the words of the authors, "these data, and the strong relationship between soluble sugars (rather than N) and digestibility
suggest that the widespread response to CO2 of increased soluble sugars might lead to an increase in forage digestibility [generally]."
98
CARBON FERTILIZATION - WEEDS

CO2 helps crops resist weeds.
In the case of weeds, Conway and Toenniessen speak of one of Africa's staple crops, maize, being "attacked by the parasitic weed
Striga (Striga hermonthica), which sucks nutrients from roots." This weed also infects many other C4 crops of the semi-arid tropics,
such as sorghum, sugar cane and millet, as well as the C3 crop rice, particularly throughout much of Africa, where it is currently one
of the region's most economically important parasitic weeds. Here, too, materials archived on our website describe how atmospheric
CO2 enrichment greatly reduces the damage done by this devastating weed [see our Journal Reviews of Watling and Press
(1997) and Watling and Press (2000)].
99
CARBON FERTILIZATION - PARASITES

CO2 helps plants resist disease and parasites.
In the case of insects and plant diseases, atmospheric CO2 enrichment also helps prevent crop losses. In a study of diseased tomato
plants infected with the fungal pathogen Phytophthora parasitica, which attacks plant roots inducing water stress that decreases yields,
for example, the growth-promoting effect of a doubling of the air's CO2 content completely counterbalanced the yield-reducing effect
of the pathogen (Jwa and Walling, 2001). Likewise, in a review of impacts and responses of herbivorous insects maintained for
relatively long periods of time in CO2-enriched environments as described in some 30-plus different studies, Whittaker (1999) noted
that insect populations, on average, have been unaffected by the extra CO2. Since plant growth is nearly universally stimulated in air
of elevated CO2 concentration, however, a smaller proportion of it would thus be likely to be consumed by herbivorous insects in a
high-CO2 world.
100
CARBON FERTILIZATION - FAMINE

CO2 is key to solving mass starvation.
In conclusion, in essentially every major way in which human ingenuity can increase crop productivity to help feed the
poor of Africa -- or anywhere else, for that matter -- the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content can greatly add to whatever
man can do, thereby producing a truly "Doubly" Green Revolution that is absolutely essential to preventing future food
shortages. Will we be intelligent enough and caring enough to channel our efforts in the directions needed to rise to this
challenge? Or will we do all in our power to fight against the very phenomenon that can prove our salvation? These are
questions that are too important to be left to others to decide. Each of us has a responsibility to act in accordance with
what he or she knows to be scientifically factual. To acquiesce to what is merely politically fashionable is to abdicate that
which sets us apart from all creation and makes us moral.
China, which feeds a fifth of the population, would benefit from climate change and CO2 fertilization.
Idso et al., 2004 (Sherwood, PhD soil science; “Chinese Agricultural Productivity in a Warmer, Wetter World”
Background The authors note that "China's agriculture has to feed more than one-fifth of the world's population, and, historically,
China has been famine prone." As an example of the latter, they report that "as recently as the late 1950s and early 1960s a great
famine claimed about thirty million lives (Ashton et al., 1984; Cambridge History of China, 1987)." What was done Investigating
how climate in different places affects the value of farmland via the methodology of Mendelsohn et al. (1994), Liu et al. calculated
detailed estimates of the economic impact of predicted climate change on agriculture in China, utilizing county-level agricultural,
climate, social, economic and edaphic data for 1275 agriculture-dominated counties for the period 1985-1991, together with the
outputs of three general circulation models of the atmosphere based on five different scenarios of anthropogenic CO2-induced climate
change that yielded a mean countrywide temperature increase of 3.0°C and a mean precipitation increase of 3.9% for the year 2050
relative to the present. What was learned In the mean, Liu et al. determined that "all of China would benefit from climate change in
most scenarios." In addition, they state that "the effects of CO2 fertilization should be included, for some studies indicate that this
may produce a significant increase in yield," an increase, we would add, that is well established and was not included in their analysis.
What it means Acting together, the increases in Chinese agricultural productivity estimated to result from the direct effects of
increased anthropogenic CO2 emissions plus the changes in temperature and precipitation typically predicted to result from these
emissions could well spell the difference between whether China's growing population will or will not be able to adequately feed itself
at the midpoint of the current century, which may also spell the difference between whether the world of that day will be peaceful or
embroiled in conflict.
101
CARBON FERTILIZATION - FAMINE

A study shows that carbon dioxide is necessary for soybean growth, a plant key for solving the world hunger.
Idso et al., 2004 (Sherwood, PhD soil science; “Does Elevated Atmospheric CO2 Protect Sybeans Against Ozone Damage?”
In the words of the authors, "meta-analytic techniques were used to quantitatively summarize the response of soybean to an average,
chronic ozone [O3] exposure of 70 ppb, from 53 peer-reviewed studies," after which the net effect of concurrently elevated O3 and
CO2 (to unspecified concentrations described as being "above 400 ppm") was similarly derived. What was learned Morgan et al.
report that "at maturity, the average shoot biomass was decreased 34% and seed yield was 24% lower" in response to elevated O3
alone. However, they note that "when both O3 and CO2 are elevated, the mean decrease in photosynthesis is 7%," which "compares
to a 20% loss for plants grown at elevated O3 and the current ambient CO2." Likewise, they report that "seed yield decreases for
plants grown in elevated O3 and elevated CO2 are only half of those for plants grown in current ambient CO2 and elevated O3." The
three scientists also note "there were significant ozone responses in several plant parameters at low daily average concentrations (less
than 60 ppb)," which is less than current concentrations in many locations. In fact, they report that in studies where the O3 treatment
average was less than 60 ppb, "seed yield, shoot and root dry weight were all significantly decreased by about 10%," which suggests
that in these circumstances the degree of atmospheric CO2 enrichment employed in the joint O3/CO2 experiments likely would have
completely eradicated the O3-induced losses in plant production. What it means Clearly, the ongoing rise in the air's CO2
concentration will be an important factor in helping to maintain, and hopefully improve, the productivity of crops such as soybean in
the years and decades ahead, when enhanced productivity on ever more valuable land [see our Editorial of 4 Sep 2002] with dwindling
water supplies [see our Editorial of 21 Feb 2001] will be sorely needed to feed the world's growing human population.
102
CARBON FERTILIZATION - PREVENTS FAMINE

Carbon fertilization prevents food insecurity by globally increasing yields.
State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “Ozone's Negative Impact on Grain Production in Asia: Can CO2
Help?” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V8/N8/B2.php) 8/10/2005
Background The authors report that East Asia hosts 25% of the world's population but produces only 21% of the planet's total cereals.
Food security, therefore, has been a long-standing concern of the region, especially of China, which became a net importer of grain in
1999. Also of concern, according to the authors, is the fact that East Asia is experiencing increasingly serious air pollution,
particularly by ozone (O3), which negatively impacts agricultural productivity and thereby exacerbates the problem of diminishing
food security. What was done "Using an integrated assessment approach," Wang and Mauzerall say they "evaluated the impact that
surface O3 in East Asia had on agricultural production in 1990 and is projected to have in 2020." What was learned The authors'
"conservative estimates," as they describe them, "show that due to O3 concentrations in 1990, China, Japan and south Korea lost 1-9%
of their yield of wheat, rice and corn and 23-27% of their yield of soybeans," and that by 2020 "grain loss due to increased levels of
O3 pollution is projected to increase to 2-16% for wheat, rice and corn and 28-35% for soybeans." In addition, they say that "the
associated economic costs are expected to increase by 82%, 33%, and 67% in 2020 over 1990 for China, Japan and South Korea,
respectively." What it means Wang and Mauzerall conclude that "East Asian countries may have tremendous losses of crop yields in
the near future due to projected increases in O3 concentrations." We thus conclude they will need all the help they can get from (1)
the aerial fertilization effect of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content, which increases the productivity of essentially all plants
everywhere on earth (for numerous examples, see our Plant Growth Databases), together with (2) its anti-transpiration effect (see
Stomatal Conductance (Agricultural Crops) and Transpiration in our Subject Index), which increases the water use efficiency of nearly
all crops (see Water Use Efficiency (Agricultural Species) in our Subject Index), along with (3) its ability to often totally ameliorate
the deleterious effects of O3 on plants (see Ozone (Effects on Plants - Agricultural Species) in our Subject Index), plus (4) its ability to
significantly reduce isoprene emissions from plants, which leads to significant reductions in atmospheric O3 concentrations (see
Isoprene in our Subject Index. With rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations working these many different ways to thwart the negative
impact of ozone on grain production in Asia, the region should be able to maintain its ability to meet its food needs in the years and
decades ahead. If mankind largely abandons the use of fossil fuels, however, or if expensive - or even inexpensive - techniques are
developed to sequester carbon in the deep ocean or elsewhere, we will have to face the dire consequences of the hard reality that, to
quote Wang and Mauzerall, "East Asian countries are presently on the cusp of substantial reductions in grain production." Do we
really want to do that?
Increased carbon dioxide is critical to ensuring an adequate food supply for the growing world population.
Oliver, Fred L. (Director of the Maynard Oil Company and ex-Navy pilot. “A Concerned Citizen Expresses His Views on the Fossil
Fuel Industry and Scientific Research” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V8/N7/EDITB.php) 2/16/2005
The world will be hard put to develop a substitute for the depleting supplies of fossil fuels. I have done what I could to encourage
them to do just that and find substitutes since about 1958 without much success, but I will continue to do so. In the meantime, I will
continue to attempt to find as much oil and gas as I am able within the continental United States, because this nation will need it even
with the development of as much renewable energy as possible. (The expanded development of nuclear energy is now required.) If I
am successful with my exploration, I will continue to make a living with the freedom of a supply and demand market in our nation.
Yes, I have a vested interest in the oil and gas exploration business, and I believe it is, and has been, of benefit to my country for over
50 years. Of course, I am prejudiced in this view, but I believe I am also scientifically objective, and I have no desire to change that
disposition at this late period of my life. Where do these facts represent any failure to adequately inform the public? CO2 is a
requirement for essentially all plant life; it is highly beneficial for the greening of the earth. Also, continued global warming, such as
occurred over the last century, could itself be beneficial to the growing population of the planet, as it has been to date. In fact, it and
the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content may even be requirements for an abundant future life for both mankind and the world of
nature. So are fossil fuels, therefore, a requirement at this time!
103
CARBON FERTILIZATION - GREEN REVOLUTION

Increased CO2 is crucial for the next Green Revolution.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 2/1/00 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “In Search of the Second ‘Green Revolution’”
It is enlightening to consider the arguments made by Conway and Toenniessen. First, they note that the world already produces more
than enough food to feed everyone on the planet, but that it is not evenly distributed, due to "notoriously ineffective" world markets
that leave 800 million people chronically undernourished. Hence, it would seem that requirement number one for the second Green
Revolution should be that the agricultural benefits to be reaped should be equitably distributed among all nations.
Second, the Rockefeller representatives say that food aid programs designed to help countries most in need "are also no solution,"
reaching "only a small portion of those suffering chronic hunger." In addition, they say that such programs, if prolonged, "have a
negative impact on local food production." Hence, it would seem that requirement number two for the second Green Revolution
should be that local food production should be enhanced worldwide.
Third, Conway and Toenniessen state that 650 million of the world's poorest people live in rural areas and that many of them live in
"regions where agricultural potential is low and natural resources are poor." Hence, it would seem that requirement number three for
the second Green Revolution should be that regions of low agricultural potential lacking in natural resources should be singled out
for maximum benefits.
All three of these requirements represent noble causes; but if mankind already produces more than enough food to feed everyone on
the planet - and we don't do it - it is clear that mankind must not be noble enough to rise to the challenge currently confronting us. So
how does anyone think that we will do any better in the future? It would seem to us, based on humanity's prior track record, that the
second Green Revolution envisioned by the Rockefeller folk will also fall short of its noble goal, banking, as it were, on a less-than-
noble humanity to see it through.
So what do we do? We look for help. Where? Up in the sky: to the despised effluent of our industrial activities, to the one thing for
which the nations of the world are setting their differences aside to come together to fight, to what Al Gore in his infamous book,
Earth in the Balance, has portrayed as the greatest threat ever to confront the planet. In a word (or two), we look ... to carbon dioxide.
Consider what's needed for the next Green Revolution and what can be done by elevated levels of atmospheric CO2.
Requirement No. 1: The agricultural benefits to be reaped should be equitably distributed among all nations. First of all, what are the
agricultural benefits of elevated atmospheric CO2? For a 300 ppm increase in the air's CO2 content, they are 30 to 50% increases in
the yields of nearly all food crops. And as for their equitable distribution among all nations, the fact that CO2 is so well mixed
throughout the atmosphere insures that all nations will share equally in the availability of this great resource and its proven yield-
enhancing properties.
Requirement No. 2: Local food production should be enhanced worldwide. The nice thing about atmospheric CO2 enrichment is that
it is a blessing that transcends all political barriers. As Sylvan Wittwer, the father of agricultural research on this topic, has so
eloquently put it, "the effects know no boundaries and both developing and developed countries are, and will be, sharing equally," for
"the rising level of atmospheric CO2 is a universally free premium, gaining in magnitude with time, on which we all can reckon for
the foreseeable future" (Wittwer, 1995).
Requirement No. 3: Regions of low agricultural potential lacking in natural resources should be singled out for maximum benefits.
Fortunately, CO2 helps most where people hurt most: in areas of low agricultural potential. In a comprehensive review of the
scientific literature, for example, Idso and Idso (1994) found that the greatest CO2-induced percentage increases in plant productivity
typically occur in places of limited resources and heightened environmental stresses.
It would seem, therefore, that atmospheric CO2 enrichment truly fits the bill when it comes to meeting the major requirements of the
much-needed second Green Revolution. The programs envisioned by the Rockefeller Foundation will do much to help; but they will
not solve the problem on their own. With the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content as our potent ally, however, we may come much
closer to achieving our noble goal than we ever have in the past.
104

CO2 significantly boosts crop yields, making it a key component of a Green Revolution.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 3/19/03 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “African Food Security:
The Need for a "Doubly Green Revolution” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N12/EDIT.php Accessed 7/21/08)
Some two-tenths of a billion Africans, give or take a few million, are undernourished (FAO, 2001). Most of them are children, who
according to the Rockefeller Foundation's Gordon Conway and Gary Toenniessen, "do not have access at all times to enough food to
lead active, healthy lives." What is more, the situation is deteriorating.
Writing in the 21 February 2003 issue of Science, the Rockefeller Foundation duo says the downward trend in food production per capita is the result of rapid population growth and poor crop
production, the latter of which problems they attribute to low soil fertility and the negative effects of crop pests, diseases and abiotic environmental stresses.
What can be done to remedy this unfortunate situation? Building on their earlier call for a second Green Revolution (Conway and Toenniessen, 1999), the two food specialists describe a
program that appears to have great potential to reduce the severity of Africa's food shortfall. In a nutshell, they say it is based on intensifying agricultural production "with genetic and agro-
ecological technologies that require only small amounts of additional labor and capital," describing the development and application of these technologies as comprising a "Doubly Green
Revolution."
Although we admire the zeal with which Conway and Toenniessen approach this worthy cause and acknowledge its tremendous importance and the efficacy of the techniques they champion
for accomplishing its goals, we feel the appellation they attach to it is a major misnomer. Much good can indeed come from applying human ingenuity to the problem of food insecurity; yet the
Tilman et al. (2001) to be insufficient to meet future food needs.
result is but a single integrated approach. In addition, this approach has been demonstrated by
As the latter group of thoughtful scientists has rightly concluded after careful study of the issue, "even the best available technologies,
fully deployed, cannot prevent many of the forecasted problems."
So what is the other half of the required and truly "Doubly" Green Revolution? It is, as we have long advocated (Idso and Idso, 2000),
allowing the air's CO2 concentration to rise unimpeded so that the many proven benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment may be
bestowed upon the planet's natural vegetation and mankind's crops, all without the need for any "additional labor and capital."
But can we really get something for nothing? Yes we can. Conway and Toenniessen (2003) describe how ameliorating four major
impediments to plant growth significantly boosts crop yields. These impediments are (1) soil infertility, (2) weeds, (3) insects and
diseases, and (4) drought. Reducing the negative consequences of each of these yield-reducing factors, as the Rockefeller scientists
demonstrate, boosts crop productivity in an additive manner. In what follows, we describe how merely not interfering with the
ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content accomplishes the very same things, and that it does so on top of what human ingenuity is able to
accomplish, resulting in yet additional benefits.
In the case of soil infertility, many experiments have demonstrated that even when important nutrients are present in the soil in less
than optimal amounts, enriching the air with CO2 still boosts crop yields. With respect to the soil of an African farm where their
"genetic and agro-ecological technologies" have been applied, for example, Conway and Toenniessen speak of "a severe lack of
phosphorus and shortages of nitrogen." Even in such situations, materials archived in our Subject Index provide several examples of
how atmospheric CO2 enrichment enhances plant growth under these adverse conditions [see Growth Response to CO2 With Other
Variables (Nitrogen -- Agricultural Crops) and Growth Response to CO2 With Other Variables (Phosphorus)]. Furthermore, if
supplemental fertilization is provided as described by Conway and Toenniessen these same Subject Index sections provide examples
of even larger CO2-induced benefits above and beyond those provided by the extra nitrogen and phosphorus applied to the soil.,
In the case of weeds, Conway and Toenniessen speak of one of Africa's staple crops, maize, being "attacked by the parasitic weed
Striga (Striga hermonthica), which sucks nutrients from roots." This weed also infects many other C4 crops of the semi-arid tropics,
such as sorghum, sugar cane and millet, as well as the C3 crop rice, particularly throughout much of Africa, where it is currently one
of the region's most economically important parasitic weeds. Here, too, materials archived on our website describe how atmospheric
CO2 enrichment greatly reduces the damage done by this devastating weed [see our Journal Reviews of Watling and Press (1997) and
Watling and Press (2000)].
In the case of insects and plant diseases, atmospheric CO2 enrichment also helps prevent crop losses. In a study of diseased tomato
plants infected with the fungal pathogen Phytophthora parasitica, which attacks plant roots inducing water stress that decreases yields, for example, the growth-
promoting effect of a doubling of the air's CO2 content completely counterbalanced the yield-reducing effect of the pathogen (Jwa and
Walling, 2001). Likewise, in a review of impacts and responses of herbivorous insects maintained for relatively long periods of time
in CO2-enriched environments as described in some 30-plus different studies, Whittaker (1999) noted that insect populations, on
average, have been unaffected by the extra CO2. Since plant growth is nearly universally stimulated in air of elevated CO2
concentration, however, a smaller proportion of it would thus be likely to be consumed by herbivorous insects in a high-CO2 world.
Lastly, in the case of drought, we again have the nearly universal bettering of plant water use efficiency that is induced by atmospheric
CO2 enrichment [see Water Use Efficiency (Agricultural Species) in our Subject Index, as well as the Grassland Species and Woody
Species subheadings].
In conclusion, in essentially every major way in which human ingenuity can increase crop productivity to help feed the poor of Africa -- or anywhere else, for that
matter -- the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content can greatly add to whatever man can do, thereby producing a truly "Doubly" Green
Revolution that is absolutely essential to preventing future food shortages. Will we be intelligent enough and caring enough to channel our efforts in
the directions needed to rise to this challenge? Or will we do all in our power to fight against the very phenomenon that can prove our salvation? These are questions
that are too important to be left to others to decide. Each of us has a responsibility to act in accordance with what he or she knows to be scientifically factual. To
acquiesce to what is merely politically fashionable is to abdicate that which sets us apart from all creation and makes us moral.
105

CO2 increases the amount of micronutrients absorbed by food plants, meaning healthier foods.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 8/4/04 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Plant Micronutrient Concentrations in a CO2-Enriched
World” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V7/N31/EDIT.php Accessed 7/21/08)
Loladze (2002) speculates that the dilution effect of the extra plant biomass produced by the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric
CO2 enrichment may reduce the plant tissue concentrations of a number of micro-nutrients, many of which are important to human
health and are currently present in common food plants in what are believed by some to be insufficient quantities. Hence, he suggests
that the increase in the air's CO2 content that has occurred over the industrial era may have caused an elemental imbalance in some of
earth's plants, contributing to the problem of micro-nutrient malnutrition and harming the health and economy of over half the world's
population, in what he describes as the problem of "hidden hunger."
Although this reasoning has a compelling ring to it, Lieffering et al. (2004) note that "the conclusions of Loladze (2002) were based
on data obtained from plants grown under artificial growth conditions (notably small pots)," such that "the extent of dilution was
probably exaggerated in these studies and the potential for elevated CO2 to exacerbate micro-nutrient deficiencies overestimated."
Hence, in an effort to rectify this situation, Lieffering and his co-workers analyzed the elemental concentrations of archived grain
samples from temperate rice (Oryza sativa L. cv. Akitakomachi) crops they had grown previously under more realistic FACE
conditions out-of-doors in a fertile agricultural field (Okada et al., 2001), where an approximate 200-ppm increase in the air's CO2
concentration increased rice grain yields by about 14% (Kim et al., 2003a,b).
Of the five macro-nutrients they measured (N, P, K, Mg, S), Lieffering et al. report that "only N showed a decrease in concentration
with elevated CO2 in both years," while all six of the micro-nutrients studied (Zn Mn, Fe, Cu, B, Mo) exhibited concentration
increases. For Zn and Mn, in particular, they say "there was a strong tendency [for concentrations] to increase," while the same could
also have been said of Fe, which in the second year of the study exhibited a CO2-induced concentration increase on the order of 68%,
as best we can determine from Lieffering et al.'s bar graphs.
In concluding their paper, Lieffering et al. reiterate that their study of the effects of elevated CO2 on grain elemental concentrations
under real-world field conditions is "the first such report for a staple food crop: all other previously reported data were obtained from
plants growing in pots and in some kind of enclosure." In contrast to the results obtained in most of these latter root-confining
experiments, they note that, other than for N, "no dilution of [the] elements in the grain was observed, contrary to the general
conclusions of Loladze (2002)." Hence, they conclude that "as long as there is a readily available supply of nutrients and that the
nutrient uptake capacity response to elevated CO2 is equal [to] or greater than the whole plant biomass response [which was the case
in their experiment, except for N], then no dilution should be observed."
.
106
CARBON FERTILIZATION - FRUIT

Increased CO2 good for agriculture - fruit quality.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 11/17/04 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Effects of Elevated CO2 on the Quantity and Quality of
Strawberry Fruit” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V7/N46/B1.php Accessed 7/21/08)
What was done

The authors grew strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa Duchesne cv Honeoye) plants out-of-doors in open-top chambers (maintained at
CO2 concentrations of ambient, ambient + 300 ppm CO2, and ambient + 600 ppm CO2) from rooted runners transplanted into field
plots until the plants reached maturity and their fruit were harvested at the commercially ripe stage, after which the fruit were analyzed
for a number of parameters that contribute to their flavor and aroma.
What was learned
Plants grown in air enriched with an extra 300 ppm CO2 produced 17.6% more dry matter per fruit than the plants grown in ambient
air, while plants grown in air enriched with an extra 600 ppm CO2 produced 38.5% more dry matter per fruit than the plants grown in
ambient air. Likewise, the ambient + 300 ppm CO2 plants contained 12% more total sugars (which enhance flavor) per gram dry
weight of fruit than the ambient-treatment plants, while the ambient + 600 ppm plants contained 20% more total sugars per gram dry
weight of fruit than the ambient-treatment plants. In addition, the ambient + 300 ppm CO2 plants contained 8.4% less total organic
acids (which promote sourness) per gram dry weight of fruit than the ambient-treatment plants, while the ambient +600 ppm plants
contained 17.4% less total organic acids per gram dry weight of fruit than the ambient-treatment plants. It was also determined that
the elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 significantly increased the fruit concentrations of several aroma-enhancing compounds.
What it means
Wang and Bunce conclude their paper by saying "the results of this study indicate that enhancing CO2 concentration in the growing
atmosphere would probably improve fruit quality by increasing fruit dry weight, sugar and aroma concentration and decreasing acid
content."
107
CARBON FERTILIZATION - OFFSETS WARMING
Aerial CO2 fertilization offsets any decrease in crop yields due to warming, and has actually been having a positive
effect.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 3/21/07 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “The Impact of Recent Warming on Global Crop Yields”
Lobell and Field say their results suggest that "recent climate trends, attributable to human activity [our italics], have had a discernible
negative impact on global production of several major crops," which is the message that is touted in most news stories of the research.
However, they go on to say that "the impact of warming was likely offset to some extent by fertilization effects of increased CO2
levels." Although this "crumb of concession" sure doesn't sound like much (i.e., "some extent"), we note they accurately report that the
approximate 35-ppm increase in the air's CO2 concentration experienced over the period in question would be expected to have
boosted the yields of the C3 crops studied by about 3.5%, which clearly more than compensates for the temperature-induced decrease
in yield. And if they and others are going to talk about human-induced yield changes, they need to include those due to concomitant
increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration; and when this is done, the positive effect of the aerial fertilization effect totally
overpowers the negative effect of the observed warming. What is more, there is considerable debate about how much of the warming
over the period in question was truly of human origin (as well as how much of it was even real), while there is general agreement that
most of the CO2 increase did indeed have an anthropogenic origin.
Once again, therefore, a bad-news story turns out to be a good-news story: environmental changes attributable to human activity have
likely had a positive effect on the global production of several major crops since 1981.
108
CARBON FERTILIZATION - OFFSETS WARMING

A low-end response to increased CO2 is enough to offset any potential crop loss due to warming.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 3/28/07 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Effects of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment on Spring Wheat
Yields in a Semi-Arid Region of China” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N13/B3.php Accessed 7/21/08)
What was done

The authors studied the effects of minor-to-modest CO2 concentration increases of 14.5, 40 and 54.5 ppm on leaf area index, leaf area
duration, shoot biomass and yield of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum cv. Dingxi 24) grown for two years in a semi-arid region of
China under (1) natural conditions, (2) with irrigation and (3) with irrigation and added fertilizer.
What was learned
Among other things, Li et al. report that "elevated CO2 concentration owing to CO2 application leads to remarkable increase in leaf
area index and shoot biomass, and also generates the higher value of leaf area duration that can benefit the photosynthesis in the
growth stage and yield increase in crop." More specifically, they report that the 40-ppm increase in CO2 concentration increased grain
yield by 4.2% (0.105%/ppm) under natural conditions, while with irrigation and fertilization (treatment 3) the 14.5-, 40- and 54.5-ppm
CO2 concentration increases increased grain yield by 6.3% (0.434%/ppm), 13.1% (0.328%/ppm) and 19.8% (0.363%/ppm),
respectively.
What it means
Even under natural (non-irrigated and unfertilized) conditions in a semi-arid region of China, the CO2-induced increase in wheat yield
observed in this study (0.105%/ppm) was equivalent to the low-end response derived from the meta-analyses of Long et al. (2005,
2006). This finding is particularly gratifying, since the study of [in prior week's issue] Lobell and Field (2007) demonstrates that even
this low-end response is sufficient to more than compensate for the negative effect of global warming experienced between 1981 and
2002 on global wheat yield. What is more, since this period of time is typically claimed by climate alarmists to have seen global
temperatures rise at an unprecedented rate and to an unprecedented level, these findings suggest that even this supposedly catastrophic
degree of global warming poses absolutely no threat to global wheat yields when it is accompanied by the current rate-of-rise in the
air's CO2 content. And when water and fertilizers are applied to the soil, the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment
in the region of Li et al.'s study would appear to be even more effective, rising to a yield-response-level somewhere in the vicinity of
0.328-0.434%/ppm.
109
CARBON FERTILIZATION - RESIST WARMING

Higher temperatures don’t mitigate benefits of carbon fertilization—more carbon protects plants from heat.
State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “The Impact of Predicted Future Warming on Perennial Crop Yields in
California, USA” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N17/EDIT.php) 4/25/2007
Noting that "climate change resulting from human activity [our italics] has the potential to substantially alter agricultural systems,"
Lobell et al. concluded from these exercises that "the unambiguous effect of warming from climate change will be to reduce yields for
several major perennials," stating more specifically that "climate change in California is very likely to put downward pressure on
yields of almonds, walnuts, avocados and table grapes by 2050." The more important question, however, is what will be the net
change in yield produced by the direct positive effects of the projected human-induced rise in the air's CO2 content, i.e., its aerial
fertilization effect, and the negative effects of the change in temperature Lobell et al. project to be concurrent with it. Between the
base period of 2000-2003 and the year 2050, the mean increase in the air's CO2 concentration for the lowest and highest CO2
emission scenarios employed in Lobell et al.'s temperature calculations is approximately 170 ppm, which just happens to be the
approximate mean increase in the air's CO2 concentration employed in the several FACE experiments included in the meta-analysis of
Ainsworth and Long (2005), who found mean yield increases on the order of 17% for many C3 herbaceous crops when they were
exposed to such an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, as actually noted - but not thoroughly enough discussed - by Lobell et
al. For tree crops, however, Ainsworth and Long observed a mean dry weight increase on the order of 28%; and this positive effect
would more than compensate for the negative temperature effect calculated by Lobell et al. for all of the woody crops they studied
with the lone exception of avocados, which experienced a calculated maximum warming-induced yield decrease of 49%. But there is
still other pertinent information that was totally ignored by Lobell et al. that could well end up saving even poor avocados. For five of
the six crops they studied - the exception being almonds - their statistical crop-yield models revealed the existence of an optimum
temperature, above which yields declined in response to further increases in temperature. The form of this relationship also holds in
CO2-enriched air. However, it has been experimentally demonstrated for a number of different plants that as the atmosphere's CO2
concentration rises, so too does plant optimum temperature tend to rise, so that the negative effect of warming on plant productivity
does not "kick in"
Carbon fertilization still increases crop yields—even in higher temperatures

State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “Future Rice Yields in India”
What was learned The authors report that "for every 1°C increase in temperature, [the] ORYZA1 and INFOCROP rice models
predicted average yield changes of -7.20 and -6.66%, respectively, at the current level of CO2 (380 ppm)," but that "increases in the
CO2 concentration up to 700 ppm led to ... average yield increases [our italics] of about 30.73% by ORYZA1 and 56.37% by
INFOCROP," which they "attributed to greater tillering and more grain-bearing panicles." In addition, they note that the limitation on
rice yields that is sometimes imposed by spikelet sterility at high temperatures can be "largely overcome by the selection of genotypes
that possess a higher potential of spikelet fertility at high temperatures." What it means In spite of the potential for enhanced global
warming in the years and decades ahead - due to either anthropogenic- or non-anthropogenic-induced forcing - the world's rice
farmers should be able to meet the needs of the planet's expanding human population ... if (1) the air's CO2 content continues to rise
and (2) judicious use of plant breeding is made.
110
CARBON FERTILIZATION - BENEFIT > BAD WEATHER

The benefits of increased CO2 for agriculture far outweigh any negative impacts of changed weather conditions.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 2/22/06 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Spring Barley Production in a CO2-Enriched and Warmer
Central Europe” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V9/N8/B2.php Accessed 7/21/08)
What was done

The crop growth model CERES-Barley version 2.1 (Otter-Nacke et al., 1991) was used to assess the direct biological effect of a
doubling of the air's CO2 concentration (from 350 to 700 ppm) on the growth and yield of spring barley in the Czech Republic, along
with the indirect effect on growth and yield produced by the climate changes that are predicted to accompany such a CO2 increase, as
simulated by several GCMs, including ECHAM4, HadCM2, NCAR-DOE and seven other GCMs available from the IPCC-DDC.
What was learned
The indirect effect on spring barley yield caused by changed weather conditions was mostly negative, ranging from -19% to +5% for
the several climate scenarios applied to three different production regions of the Czech Republic. However, the authors report that "the
magnitude of the direct [biological] effect of doubled CO2 on the stressed yields for the three test sites is 35-55% in the present
climate and 25-65% in the 2 x CO2 climates," and they note that "the stressed yields would increase in 2 x CO2 conditions by 13-52%
when both direct [biological] and indirect [climatic] effects were considered." In addition, they report that "the decrease of the mean
yields due to the indirect [climatic] effect of doubled CO2 may be reduced, and it might be even turned to increase, if the spring barley
is planted 45-60 days sooner," concluding that "application of the earlier planting date would result thus in an additional 15-22%
increase of the yields in 2 x CO2 conditions."
What it means
Clearly, in the words of Trnka et al., "the positive direct effect of doubled CO2 dominates [our italics] over the negative effect of
changed weather conditions." What is more, they note that the results they obtained "might be applied to vast regions of Central
Europe with similar environmental characteristics," in what should be welcome news for people who are being told by many of their
national leaders that negative impacts of projected CO2-induced global warming are of greater import than either global terrorism or
nuclear war.
111
CARBON FERTILIZATION - RICE

Elevated CO2 increases rice yields under higher N levels.
Idso et al., Ph.D Soil Science, 2/14/07 (Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, “Effect of Elevated CO2 on Lodging in Rice”
Background
The authors note that lodging - the beating down of a crop - "can occur under heavy rains and strong winds," and that this
phenomenon "decreases canopy photosynthesis due to self-shading (Setter et al., 1997) and disturbs the translocation of carbon and
nutrients to the rice grains (Hitaka and Kobayashi, 1961), resulting in lower yield and poor grain quality." In fact, they report that
Setter et al. (1997) showed that a moderate degree of lodging, which reduced canopy height by 35%, decreased yield by about 20%,
and that severe lodging, which reduced canopy height by 75%, decreased yield by up to 50%."
What was done
In a Free-Air CO2-Enrichment (FACE) study designed to discover the effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on lodging in rice
(Oryza sativa L.) plants, Shimono et al. grew the cultivar Akitakomachi in paddy fields at Shizukuishi, Iwate, Japan, under three
nitrogen (N) fertilization regimes - low N (6 g N m-2), medium N (9 g N m-2) and high N (15 g N m-2) - at two different season-long
24-hour mean CO2 concentrations - 375 ppm (ambient) and 562 ppm (enriched) - while the degree of naturally-occurring lodging was
measured at the time of grain maturity on a scale of 0-5 based on the bending angles of the stems at 18° intervals, where 0 = 0° from
the vertical, 1 = 1°-18°, 2 = 19°-36°, 3 = 37°-54°, 4 = 55°-72° and 5 = 73°-90°.
What was learned
As expected, and as often has been observed before, the six scientists found that lodging was significantly higher under high N than
under medium and low N. However, they found that the lodging experienced in the high N treatment "was alleviated by elevated
CO2," because the lowest internodes of the rice stems "became significantly shorter and thicker under elevated CO2," which
presumably "strengthened the rice culms against the increased lodging that occurred under high N." In addition, they found that the
reduced lodging experienced under elevated CO2 in the high N treatment increased the grain ripening percentage of the rice by 4.5%
per one-unit decrease in lodging score.
What it means
Some people have worried, in the words of Shimono et al., that "to increase rice yield under projected future CO2 levels, N
fertilization must be increased to meet increased plant demand for this nutrient as a result of increased growth rates," but that greater N
fertilization might enhance lodging, thereby defeating the purpose of the fertilization. However, they learned from their study that
"elevated CO2 could significantly decrease lodging under high N fertilization, thereby increasing the ripening percentage and grain
yield," in what amounts to another CO2-induced success story for what the researchers call "the most important crop for feeding the
world's population."
112
CARBON FERTILIZATION - RICE

Multiple studies prove that high CO2 levels increase rice yields—especially CO2 responsive genotypes must be bred to
maintain food security and avoid the habitat destruction that would kill more species than even climate alarmists claim would
die in a warming environment
Sherwood B. Idso et al, PhD, Soil Science, 2007 [Keith E. Idso, Craig D. Idso, and Julene M. Idso] (“Breeding Food Crops to Take
Advantage of Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations” CO2 Science 08/01/07) [http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N31/B2.php
accessed 7/21/08]
Background
There is growing concern that it will be difficult to feed the expanding human population of the planet just a few decades from now
without the taking of great quantities of land (Waggoner, 1995; Tilman et al., 2001, 2002; Huang et al., 2002) and nearly all available
freshwater resources (Wallace, 2000) from what might be called "wild nature," which habitat usurpation could lead to the extinction of
far greater numbers of plant and animal species (Raven, 2002) than what climate alarmists are predicting will be caused by global
warming. Idso and Idso (2000) have described how the aerial fertilization effect of the ongoing rise in the atmosphere's CO2
concentration can boost the yields of current crop varieties and help avert this disaster, as we discuss in more detail in our Editorial of
4 Sep 2002. The most recent work of De Costa et al. suggests an additional way of profiting from the expected increase in the air's
CO2 content and its ability to stimulate agricultural productivity and water use efficiency.
What was done
The authors grew 16 genotypes of rice (Oryza sativa L.) under standard lowland paddy culture with adequate water and nutrients at the
Rice Research and Development Institute in Sri Lanka from May to August (the yala season) and from November to March (the maha
season) within open-top chambers maintained at either the ambient atmospheric CO2 concentration (370 ppm) or at an elevated CO2
concentration (570 ppm).
What was learned
De Costa et al. report that the CO2-induced enhancement of the light-saturated net photosynthetic rates of the 16 different genotypes
during the grain-filling period of growth ranged from +2% to +185% in the yala season and from +22% to +320% in the maha season.
Likewise, they found that the CO2-induced enhancement of the grain yields of the 16 different genotypes ranged from +4% to +175%
in the yala season and from -5% to +64% in the maha season.
What it means
The five Sri Lanka researchers say their results "demonstrate the significant genotypic variation that exists within the rice germplasm,
in the response to increased atmospheric CO2 of yield and its correlated physiological parameters," and they go on to suggest that "the
significant genotypic variation in this response means that genotypes that are highly responsive to elevated CO2 may be selected and
incorporated into breeding programs to produce new rice varieties which would be higher yielding in a future high CO2 climate,"
whereas Idso and Idso (2000) had merely calculated the increase in yield expected to result from projected increases in the air's CO2
content for existing crop varieties. The latter of these critically important benefits will occur automatically; but to achieve the benefits
envisioned by De Costa et al. - and to avert the biological catastrophe foreseen by the scientists cited in the background section of this
review - will require that the breeding programs De Costa et al. propose be initiated as soon as possible.
113
CARBON FERTILIZATION - RICE - BIODIVERSITY

Land hungry farmers will destroy biodiversity to increase rice yields—rising CO2 levels are imperative to increase rice yields
to the point that food security can be attained without significant biodiversity loss
Sherwood B. Idso et al, PhD, Soil Science, 2006 [Keith E. Idso, Craig D. Idso, and Julene M. Idso] (“Can the World Produce 40%
More Rice by 2030?” CO2 Science 03/01/06) [http://www.co2science.org/articles/V9/N9/EDIT.php accessed 7/21/08]
What will it take to feed five billion rice consumers in 2030? That is the question that plagues the mind of Gurdev S. Khush (2005) of
the International Rice Research Institute in Metro Manila, Philippines. "According to various estimates," in his words, "we will have
to produce 40% more rice by 2030 to satisfy the growing demand without affecting the resource base adversely," because, as he
continues, "if we are not able to produce more rice from the existing land resources, land-hungry farmers will destroy forests and
move into more fragile lands such as hillsides and wetlands with disastrous consequences for biodiversity and watersheds," echoing
sentiments previously expressed by Wallace (2000), Tilman et al. (2001; 2002), Foley et al. (2005), and Green et al. (2005). Hence, as
Khush puts it, the expected increase in the demand for food "will have to be met from less land, with less water, less labor and fewer
chemicals."
How is it to be done?
Khush suggests a number of strategies for attacking the multifaceted problem, including conventional hybridization and selection
procedures, ideotype breeding, hybrid breeding, wide hybridization and genetic engineering, all designed to increase the yield
potential of rice. In addition, he emphasizes breeding for increased resistance to diseases and insect pests, as well as for enhanced
abiotic stress tolerance, which is needed to withstand the negative impacts of drought, excess water, soil mineral deficiencies and
toxicities, as well as unfavorable temperatures (both hot and cold).
We agree that all of these things are needed; however, as indicated by Tilman et al. (2001), "even the best available technologies, fully
deployed, cannot prevent many of the forecasted problems." This was also the conclusion of Idso and Idso (2000), who acknowledged
that "expected advances in agricultural technology and expertise will significantly increase the food production potential of many
countries and regions," but who went on to note that these advances "will not increase production fast enough to meet the demands of
the even faster-growing human population of the planet."
Fortunately, we have a strong ally in the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration that may help us meet and surmount this daunting
global challenge. Atmospheric CO2 enrichment, for example, has been demonstrated to significantly increase rice photosynthesis and
biomass production (see our compilations of over 100 individual experimental results for photosynthesis and biomass responses of
rice to CO2-enriched air in the Data section of our website). In addition, elevated CO2 concentrations have been shown to enhance the
ability of rice to cope with both biotic and abiotic stresses (see Agriculture (Species - Rice) in our Subject Index). Hence, in addition
to our purposeful directed efforts to increase rice yields in the years and decades to come, we will experience the unplanned help
provided by the CO2 emissions that result from the burning of fossil fuels
Working together, these two positive forces may help us meet the clear and present need to ramp up rice production to the degree
required to adequately feed the world a mere quarter-century from now, and to do so without usurping all of the planet's available land
and water resources and thereby consigning the bulk of "wild nature" to the ash heap of history. Without the help of both approaches,
we will in all likelihood fail and, with the rest of the biosphere, suffer unimaginable negative consequences.
114
CARBON FERTILIZATION - RICE - CHINA

Carbon Fertilization has positive impacts on china’s rice yields—preventing regional instability.
State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “Direct Effect of CO2 vs. Indirect Effect of Projected CO2-Induced
Climate Change on Rice Productivity in China” http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N22/B2.php) 5/30/2007
What was learned In the summary section of their paper, Yao et al. report that "at most stations in the main rice areas of China, [the]
B2 climate change scenario could bring negative effect[s] on rice yield," with "the simulated results indicat[ing] that not only mean
rice yield would decrease, but also the probability [of] low yield and the variance of yield would increase." Likewise, they say the
predicted "high probability in low yields also indicates an increasing frequency for continuous year[s] of low yield." Hence, they
conclude "that B2 climate change would pose a threat in mean rice yield over decades, and bring a high risk and increased instability
for inter-annual yield," which all sounds pretty depressing. However - and this is a huge however - in the results and discussion section
of their paper, they let it be known that with the "CO2 direct effect on rice yield, rice yield increases in all selected stations [our
italics]." What it means This study of China's future ability to produce its most important agricultural crop clearly indicates that,
although speculative climate-change predictions of what may occur in the future are bleak indeed in terms of their negative impact on
rice production, the tried-and-true effects of the anticipated future increase in the air's CO2 content on rice productivity are able to
more than compensate for the negative impact of the predicted climate change, and to do so essentially everywhere throughout the
country.
115
CARBON FERTILIZATION - C3 GRASS

Study finds gradually increasing, long-term increases in quality and quantity of C3 grass yields in a high CO2 environment—
short term experiments aren’t conclusive
Sherwood B. Idso et al, PhD, Soil Science, 2004 [Keith E. Idso, Craig D. Idso, and Julene M. Idso] (“Semi-Natural Grassland
Responses to Elevated CO2” CO2 Science 04/28/04) [http://www.co2science.org/articles/V7/N17/B1.php accessed 7/21/08]
What was done

The biomass and herbage quality responses of 72 monoliths (0.4 x 0.4 x 0.4 m) of a fertile but nitrogen-limited C3 grassland
community from southeastern France that was exposed from August 1998 to June 2001 to ambient (350 ppm) and CO2-enriched (600
ppm) air via the Mini-FACE system described by Miglietta et al. (2001) were studied under two cutting regimes (three cuts per year
and six cuts per year).
What was learned
The effect of the extra CO2 on dry matter yield, in the words of the authors, "increased markedly through time." As they describe it,
"the relative response to CO2 was negative in October 1998, on average nil in 1999, reached +30% in 2000 and rose up to +38% in
spring 2001." They also determined that the yield responses to elevated CO2 were typically twice as great under the high-frequency
cutting regime as under the low-frequency cutting regime. With respect to the first of these findings, they report that several other
studies have reported "an increased responsiveness to elevated CO2 through time, both with relatively low fertility calcareous
(Leadley et al., 1999) or semi-arid grasslands (Morgan et al., 2001) and with sown grasses grown with different N fertilizer supplies
(Daepp et al., 2000)."
As for herbage quality, Picon-Cochard et al. report that an increase in the water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) content of the bulk forage
under elevated CO2 and a corresponding decline in cell wall neutral detergent fiber (NDF) contents were observed, and that "the
decline in NDF was correlated with an increased in-vitro dry matter digestibility." Also, they report that a CO2-induced increase in
forb content favored herbage quality "because of a higher digestibility of the forb shoots and, indirectly, through the reduction in the
mass of the grass stems."
What it means
With respect to the conduct of CO2 enrichment studies, the authors say their results suggest "that short-term experiments that impose
an instantaneous change in CO2 concentration may not be sufficient to predict the long-term productivity response to elevated CO2 of
semi-natural grasslands." With respect to the world of nature, their results suggest that as the air's CO2 content continues to rise, we
may expect to see an increase in the production of more-readily digestible forage on earth's temperate C3 grasslands.
116
CARBON FERTILIZATION - BIODIVERSITY

Increased atmospheric CO2 is the only solution to the looming ecological disaster—increases yields, makes
agriculture more efficient, and maintains global biodiversity.
State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “Biospheric Breakdown: What We Must Do to Prevent It?”
What can be done to avert this looming ecological disaster, which would essentially spell extinction for the vast majority of all higher
life forms on the planet? Foley et al. suggest a number of obviously important things, including "increasing agricultural production
per unit land area, per unit fertilizer input, and per unit water consumed; maintaining and increasing soil organic matter ... and
maintaining local biodiversity." But how are these things to be accomplished? Foley et al. provide several examples where site-
specific measures have been taken to address various items on their list of needs. Nothing, however, compares with what can be done
by merely allowing anthropogenic CO2 emissions to take their natural course as technological innovation takes its natural course.
Since the inception of the Industrial Revolution, for example, we calculate in our Editorial of 11 July 2001 - based on the work of
Mayeux et al. (1997) and Idso and Idso (2000) - that the 100-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration that has been caused by
the historical burning of fossil fuels has likely increased agricultural production per unit land area by 70% for C3 cereals, 28% for C4
cereals, 33% for fruits and melons, 62% for legumes, 67% for root and tuber crops, and 51% for vegetables. In addition, it has
significantly increased agricultural production per unit of water used (see Water Use Efficiency (Agricultural Species) in our Subject
Index) at the same time that it has similarly increased nutrient use efficiency (see Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Phosphorus in our
Subject Index). Furthermore, as a result of these several growth-enhancing phenomena, atmospheric CO2 enrichment simultaneously
increases soil organic matter content (see Soils (Carbon Sequestration) in our Subject Index); and there is evidence to suggest that
elevated CO2 concentrations tend to maintain, or sometimes even enhance, local and regional biodiversity (see the various sub-
headings under Biodiversity in our Subject Index, as well as our major report The Specter of Species Extinction: Will Global Warming
Decimate Earth's Biosphere?).
117
CARBON FERTILIZATION - EQUALITY

Carbon Fertilization promotes equality and is key to human survival.
State University. PhD in Botany from Arizona State University. “Biospheric Breakdown: What We Must Do to Prevent It?”
The above-listed consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration are precisely what Foley et al. acknowledge are
needed to avert the incredible catastrophe that otherwise appears unavoidable a mere five decades from now. We also note that these
beneficent effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment are bestowed without regard for national or regional boundaries and among the rich
and poor alike. As the sun that shines upon all, so too do rapidly-mixed anthropogenic CO2 emissions increase the robustness of
vegetation everywhere on earth; and without the help of this phenomenon, we will not succeed in maintaining any semblance of the
natural world much beyond the midpoint of the current century. Yet some people claim these same CO2 emissions pose a greater
threat to humanity and the well-being of the biosphere than nuclear warfare and global terrorism. How horribly wrong they are!
118

Impact Warming Good

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Impact Warming Good

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

NU ZAREFSKY JUNIORS GLOBAL WARMING GOOD

GLOBAL WARMING GOOD INDEX

GLOBAL WARMING - PRODUCT OF THE MEDIA

NO GLOBAL WARMING - OCEANS

What was done

NO GLOBAL WARMING - NATURAL

What was done

NO GLOBAL WARMING - OZONE

NO GLOBAL WARMING - COOLING

What was done

What was done

NO GLOBAL WARMING - NEGATIVE FEEDBACK

What was done

NO GLOBAL WARMING - NEGATIVE FEEDBACK

WEATHER STATIONS BAD - URBAN HEAT ISLAND

GCMS BAD - SATELLITES

GCMS BAD - ACCURACY

What was done

GCMS BAD - PREDICTIONS

WARMING IRREVERSIBLE - EMISSIONS CUT

WARMING IRREVERSIBLE - EMISSIONS CUT

WARMING IRREVERSIBLE - FEEDBACK LOOP

WARMING IRREVERSIBLE - OTHER COUNTRIES

ALT CAUSE - SOLAR FORCING - INTENSITY

ALT CAUSE - SOLAR FORCING - CYCLE

ALT CAUSE - SOLAR FORCING - MARS

ALT CAUSE - GALACTIC RAYS

What was done

ALT CAUSE - NATURAL CYCLE - WATER VAPOR

ALT CAUSE - NATURAL CYCLE - DISPROVES CO2

ALT CAUSE - NATURAL CYCLE - PAST WARMING

ALT CAUSE - NATURAL CYCLE - PAST WARMING

ALT CAUSE - NATURAL CYCLE - NO IMPACT

ALT CAUSE - OUTGASSING

Continues on next page…

ALT CAUSE - OUTGASSING

NO GREENHOUSE - SATELLITE DATA

Continues on next page…

NO GREENHOUSE - SATELLITE DATA

Continues on next page…

NO GREENHOUSE - SATELLITE DATA

NO GREENHOUSE - CO2 CONCENTRATION

NO GREENHOUSE - NOT MAN-MADE

What was done

A2 - SEA LEVEL RISE - ANTARCTICA TURN

A2 - SEA LEVEL RISE - INSIGNIFICANT

A2 - SEA LEVEL RISE - SLOW

What was done

A2 - SEA LEVEL RISE - ALT CAUSE

A2 - GLACIERS MELT - DISPROVE

A2 - GREENLAND ICE SHEET - MODELS FLAWED

A2 - RESOURCE WARS - FAILED GOVERNANCE

A2 - RESOURCE WARS - WON’T HAPPEN

A2 - MALARIA - MODELS FLAWED

A2 - MALARIA - ALT CAUSES

A2 - MALARIA - GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

A2 - ICE AGE - REFUTED

Long History of Alarmism

A2 - ICE AGE - MODELS FLAWED

A2 - BIODIVERSITY - CORAL ADAPTS

A2 - BIODIVERSITY - CORAL ADAPTS

A2 - BIODIVERSITY - CORAL ADAPTS

What was done