I was delighted to join Richard Tice last Sunday on his excellent Talk TV Sunday morning show to discuss some of the recent good environment news that is ignored by mainstream media. More Arctic ice, polar bears, seals and coral, of course. Great to be getting on with, but is there no end to all these glad tidings? Now, scientists have shown that world food production has soared in recent decades as carbon dioxide has taken small steps to reclaim atmospheric levels common through geological time until the relatively recent past. One Italian scientist estimated that reducing atmospheric CO2 back to pre-industrial levels would lead to an 18% decrease in the production of many basic global foodstuffs.
The current level of atmospheric CO2 at 419 parts per million (ppm) is near an all-time low. If it goes much lower, say to around 180 ppm, plant and human life will start to die off. According to the ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore, over the last 500 million years the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has fallen from 15,000 billion tonnes to just over 850 billion tonnes. A minute part of this enormous capture is released during periods of natural warming, especially from the vast stores held in the Earth’s oceans. Many scientists remain relaxed about rising levels of CO2. Dr. Roy Spencer, the former senior scientist at NASA, also notes the beneficial effect on plants, adding: “Though CO2 is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere.”
Of course the current alarm about CO2, politicised in the interest of pushing the command-and-control Net Zero project, is about its warming effects in the atmosphere. But links showing an automatic increase in temperature after a rise in CO2 are hard to find throughout the 600 million year climate record. One interesting hypothesis gaining scientific ground is that the gas becomes ‘saturated’ after a certain point, and its warming properties fall dramatically. This hypothesis is not proven to the satisfaction of all, but it remains a more plausible explanation of past observed trends than the automatic linking proposition that has become part of ‘settled’ science.
What is beyond dispute is that the Earth has ‘greened’ dramatically over the last 40 years, thanks to the extra gas. It has been estimated that there has been a 14% increase in vegetation, mostly due to higher levels of CO2 in this period. In a paper published in 2016 by 32 authors from eight countries, it was noted that there was a “persistent and widespread increase” in growing season greening over 25-50% of the global vegetated area. Recent increases in global vegetation are shown at the top in a picture compiled by NASA. More vegetation of course means more food up and down the chain. Every form of life benefits, from insects to tigers, and of course humans.
On September 14th, the Daily Sceptic reported on the work of four Italian scientists who have undertaken a major review of historical climate trends and concluded that a “climate emergency” is not supported by the data. They also noted a considerable recent ‘greening’ of plant biomass caused by higher levels of CO2. Helped also by big improvements in agricultural technology, food yields have soared. Four crops, maize, rice, soybean and wheat, are noted to provide 64% of human caloric intake.
The graph above shows the huge recent gains in these yields over the last 60 years. The annual gains are between 2.4% and 3.8%. Of course, without these rises in agricultural productivity, the world would be a much poorer and hungrier place. The Italian scientists do more than hint at this when they note: “Global greening is a cultural challenge that leads us to reflect on the positive implications of the increase in the atmospheric levels of CO2.”
The climate science site No Tricks Zone recently highlighted two further scientific studies that showed higher CO2 fertilisation effects were driving global greening and enhancing photosynthesis. A group of agri-scientists suggested there would be a 30-50% increase in photosynthesis with CO2 in a range from 451 to 720ppm. This would lead to a 25% increase in crop yield. The scientists looked in particular at barley and found an increase in yield of 54% if CO2 rose to 700ppm.
Meanwhile, another group of scientists have found that elevated levels of CO2 are very helpful for fruit trees, producing “increased photosynthesis, efficient use of water, growth and biomass”. With CO2 at 600-750ppm, plants will grow 30% faster. Research is said to be lacking for fruit compared to many other crops, but the authors conclude that: “There is undoubtedly a ‘fertilisation effect of CO2’ on fruit species that increases with the advance of climate change.”
Climate, of course, is always changing, and the cancelling of debate about the subject under the ‘settled’ science directive is little more than an insult to the intelligence. There is presumed to be a wholly deleterious effect on the climate caused by humans burning fossil fuel. But no credible, peer-reviewed science paper yet exists that proves conclusively that humans cause all or most recent global warming. There is simply an assumption that higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will be catastrophic, producing warming that to date has only been seen in climate model guesses. No wonder many scientists are relaxed about higher levels of CO2. Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the original founders of Greenpeace, has even said he looks forward to the day when governments will meet to sign treaties promising to increase their carbon emissions.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Thank you for the links, Mr Morrison.
One problem we have is that nearly all our MPs signed up to the Climate Change Act. It seemed like good politics then.
Perhaps there is a change in the wind coming. This might help.
The new Chief Scientific Officer will be able to report that he has reviewed recent evidence on climate change – Happer, Wijngaarden, Lindzen et al. – and concludes that average temperature stopped rising about eighteen years ago; models overestimate warming and are not to be relied on; the link between carbon dioxide and temperature is tenuous at best and is insufficient to warrant de-carbonisation. In fact, higher carbon dioxide levels have contributed to desirable outcomes including shrinking deserts and record crop yields. Accordingly, the push to net zero should be abandoned and the Climate Change Act 2008 adjusted or repealed.
Politicians will be able to say – facts changed, I changed my mind. A respectable ladder to climb down will be available.
Aye, and pigs might fly.
The majority are not looking for a ladder to climb down. They don’t care that it’s right or wrong. They care that it’s a narrative they can use to consolidate power away from the local and toward the global. It’s about “these issues are too important to be decided in local / regional / national elections,” and most of all it’s about maintaining the illusion of democracy while allowing global institutions to run the world.
The global elite think of themselves as “citizens of the world,” so they’re no longer invested in national identity. That’s why it’s been so important for them to demonize any form of national pride or patriotism as racist and bad for the planet.
I have only met a few politicians, but I do think they care. It may be that they get sort of removed from reality over time, and think they know best. Good intentions, primrose path. But then we can vote them out.
In the meantime, if their sensitive political antennae detect a change in the career path/ voter wish list – let’s give them the means to help us by helping themselves.
You may be right about many of the low level MPs and other local politicians, but our leaders definitely do not care in the slightest for their citizens. They perform care theatre while acting in ways that further entrench a permanent government of globalist bureaucrats whose views are informed by globalist organizations.
As you say, climate change is normal. What is not normal is the political campaign that seems to rely on the lack of general knowledge about that fact. It may be that the natural process tends to be automatically stable, over a long term, after all.
It should be obvious that CO2 is a major energy transfer medium from the light to the plants, and then to us. It may be that artificial increased levels have been used in certain greenhouses to increase yield, but if it happens naturally, that looks good. The other side of the coin in gardening etc is that one of the problems from year to year is the variation in cloud cover during daylight, but then again if weather changes associated with increased CO2 levels result in a bit less useful light (due to cloud cover), it might tend to reduce growth a bit. Would that be a route to automatic adjustment? Don’t know, but might be worth looking into.
As far as I know, it is well understood that higher temperatures tend to lead to increased cloud cover, meaning more of the sun’s heat is reflected back into space. This is the thermostatic effect that keeps temperature within tolerable limits.
Socialists hate freedom, prosperity and capitalism. Capitalism is their most hated thing of all since it actually reduces poverty and the need for totalitarian rule, ppl that are better off are harder to control. The fact the main bi product of capitalism is plant food is why the need to demonise co2.
Except where capitalism is providing the weapons to fight what the left considers just wars.
Do you remember when Iraq was a just cause in those days before shock and awe?
They (the Left) may hate capitalism but they can work and promote their ideology with corporatism and that is now endemic in the West.
Climate Emergency has nothing to do with climate. It is a thing that we can’t see, that is happening usually somewhere else, that is the justification for wholesale societal changes.
I am much encouraged by this paper. You know, we lifted 1bn people out of outright poverty (<$2 a day) during the second half of the 20th century, making progress on every front really through economic development. How close we are to a real, sustainable world…
So more CO2 helps the world go green. At last, a green strategy that makes sense.
carbon tax is eugenics.
Here’s a great piece of information I discovered yesterday, from a book published in 1992 “King Arthur’s Place in prehistory – The Great Age of Stonehenge”, by W.A. Cummins.
“Pollen data from sites right across Europe have been used to produce a map of the mean July temperatures during this period. The samples used in this analysis are dated to about 4000 BC [the time of the early Neolithic, when farming was introduced to Britain from the continent], a time when the natural forests were as yet unaffected by the inroads of human activity. The mean July temperature in Britain was about 2°C higher than today [1992].”
So what did the higher temperature herald for the people of the British Isles? Drought, poverty and famine? No – it brought in the beginning of farming, a leap in technological activity (the first industrial revolution?) and ultimately the great Wessex culture which built the wondrous Stonehenge.
So for all these ‘Insulate Britain’ lunatics screeching about a 2 degree rise, inform them we’ll simply return to the pleasant climes our ancestors enjoyed 6,000 years ago.
It’s likely that this increase in plant life is driven more by outgassing of CO2 due to slightly warmer ocean temperatures coming out of the Little Ice Age than human activity. Agriculture thrived in the Roman Warm Period (easily as warm as today despite attempts by the climate cuckoos to erase it from the records), helping kickstart our civilisation.
Either way, the cult won’t like it. Their reaction to the prospect of fusion energy, or better nuclear technology is one of horror – not about the environmental impact, but because it could help keep industrial civilisation on the rails, and potentially allow third world countries to develop the standard of living enjoyed by the West.
Jordan Peterson put it best in his recent interview – they don’t love the planet, they hate humanity.
Yes, agreed. Oceans, Henry’s Law. All that.
But. The last four glaciations started warming at about 180 ppm CO2 and rolled over to cooling at about 280 ppm. There is some sort of natural regulator at work. ( I am happy with Albedo and dust – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305)
Here we are at around 420 ppm co2. Likely due to industrialisation. But temperature is only up a bit, not going crazy. Lower, as you say, than Roman, Minoan, Middle Ages, Holocene optimum etc.
What I want to see nailed is the de-carbonisation stupidness. Fossil fuels lift people out of poverty. “Carbon” (co2) is good. Stop this regressive, hurt-the-poor-and-old foolishness.
But… more food = more people.
We want less food = fewer people = saving the Planet’s resources… something…
It would be interesting to find out how much agricultural yields have increased in rural Asian regions, for example throughout the traditional cooperative rice-farming practices of Bali, Indonesia. These farming collectives are known as Subaks and they have operated under a complex, ancient traditional form of management, where to cut a very long story short, cooperation and working in synchrony with natural processes is essential otherwise the system would collapse.
This traditional farming system could be a massively informative case-study that isolates the effects of C02 increases in recent decades with regard to average annual yields, from the effects of improvements in agricultural technology. This is because the system has literally been carried out in the same way for millennia; therefore any improvements in yields can only be a result of environmental factors!
I’ve often wondered why during the age of the dinosaurs there were so many truly massive species compared to today (with the exception of a few species of whales).
Could it be that much higher levels of carbon dioxide plus higher temperatures meant that the Earth was far more productive and able to support these massive creatures, and that in it’s currently impoverished state it can only support smaller animals? (even a large elephant would pale into insignificance beside a lot of dinosaurs).