Earth benefits from increasing greening that reverberates through entire ecosystems! Rising CO2 and its fertilization effects makes ecosystems more robust and more resilient. Greening debunks claims by enemies of climate truth that rising CO2 is causing ecosystem collapse!
Transcript
There’s been great news that Earth has been greening, and more greening means more photosynthesis, which is the foundation of all food webs. This means more resilient ecosystems. But, the enemies of climate truth want you to believe rising CO2 is killing plants and creating deadly tipping points. NASA posted this illustration showing from 1982 to 2009, using a leaf area index, that the planet was benefiting from a persistent and widespread increase in the growing season. Up to 50% of the global vegetated area had increased its leaf area, and scientists determined 70% of that greening was due to CO2’s fertilization effects, which benefits are reverberating throughout entire ecosystems. In contrast, just 4% of the globe showed decreasing vegetation, or browning.
Now, justifiably, Jordan Peterson told his 5 million followers that rising CO2 has been a great benefit to our world’s ecosystems. CO2 is essential for plants, but as a result of his political heresy, Peterson became a target of the climate crisis thought police and the bogus fact-checking by Rosh, who is intent on convincing you the greening trend was stopped and the climate crisis remains.
But greening benefits have not been restricted to land plants. Between 1998 and 2018, scientists determined the Arctic Ocean’s plankton had also increased the ocean’s primary production by 57%. More food for fish and seals means more food for polar bears, contributing to the observed increasing bear populations. Such thriving ecosystems make ordinary thinking people mistrust doomsday narratives like Greta Thunberg’s rant that ecosystems are collapsing and people and animals are dying.
So, to support Greta’s fears and counteract any wrong thinking from greening’s good news, publicity stunts around the world organized people dressed in white lab coats proclaiming “the science is clear, there is a climate crisis.” Such contradictory evidence and narratives gravely affect people vulnerable to delusional disorders, making them unable to know what’s real and what is imagined. Before, only lone wackos told us the planet’s end is near, and now, thanks to organized media campaigns, elementary school children are taught our world is dying. Hordes of older people cry we have only 12 years to save the planet. They convince our children with delusions that the Earth is on fire, oceans are boiling, and that they will die from climate change.
So, how can so many people believe doomsday politics in a greening world? This is where the climate crisis thought police intervene to ensure you embrace their catastrophic version of reality, so that you will act the way they want us to, supposedly to save the planet. Rosh Salgado D’Arcy is getting his PhD in climate communications. His tweets, Tik Toks, and videos denigrate critical thinking skeptics as deniers. He reveals that a university degree in climate communications is really a euphemism for the biased training of climate crisis thought police, mastering PhD levels of Orwellian doublespeak. Rosh wants you to believe CO2’s observed benefits were fleeting and can’t be trusted, that rising CO2 only has a net negative effect on the future. But fact-checking Rosh reveals his deception; in Orwellian pig logic, all science is equal, but some science is more equal than others.
Climate communicators don’t promote research which, when its facts debunk a good climate crisis narrative. So, a 2019 study by Winkler that determined 40% of the Earth’s natural vegetation still shows significant increasing trends in leaf area. Rosh doesn’t communicate those results.
However, Rosh eagerly communicates shaky conclusions by Chen 2022 that support his doomsday forecast, as if that is the only imagined reality people should ever believe. W. Rosh highlights Chen’s claim that greening has reversed across 90% of the global vegetated areas since the year 2000. In contrast to Winkler’s 40%, Chen claims greening only continues in just 10% of the global vegetated areas due to a warming tipping point. Rosh backs that imagined reality up with a Scientific American article by The Washington Post, well-known alarmist journalist Chelsea Harvey, that also promotes Chen’s meme that the greening stopped 20 years ago.
Rosh dishonestly ignores that Chen’s 2022 study presents very contradictory results, so your view of reality solely depends on which graph you want to embrace to determine trends in leaf area. Results from three different satellite databases and models were used. Using the AVHRR database and linear regression statistic, Chen’s results contradicted Chen’s conclusions, showing increased greening has not stopped but has continued since the year 2000, with peak greening at the study’s conclusion in 2018. I highlighted their gray trend line with red. Their second database, designated GLASS, also showed peak greening in 2018. Likewise, a linear regression determined the greening trend has continued since the year 2000.
However, by using different statistical models that look for assumed turning points, Chen argued that since the late 1990s, the Earth was browning, despite the most recent increase in greening. Chen’s browning trend is highlighted by my blue line. The third database used by Chen 2022, labeled LAI3g, diverges from the other two databases, with its outlier data for leaf area dramatically dropping off in the last few years. Still, linear regressions show a slight overall rising trend in the Earth’s greening. But Chen’s use of LAI3g data presents other serious problems. The original 2016 study promoting the Earth’s greening trend and CO2’s fertilization effect, they also use the same LAI3g database. However, while the 2016 showed peak greening around 2010 and 2011, Chen’s version suspiciously moves the greening peak back to the 1990s. Here’s the green arrows for comparison. By that sleight of hand, Chen’s 20-year browning trend was created, yet Rosh never communicates these scientific problems to the public.
So why would Rosh and Chelsea Harvey emphasize the dubious science of Chen 2022? Apparently, it was the best support for their climate crisis narratives. Chen justified his exaggerated browning and, I quote, “on the inhibitive effects of excessive optimal temperatures,” which sounds like too much of a good thing. They also emphasized increased drying out of the land. So Rosh finishes his so-called fact check of greening and Jordan Peterson by proclaiming his climate belief that the net effect of rising CO2 is bad for plants. To that end, he regurgitates the fabricated meme that CO2 has increased the intensity of heat waves, even though that requires Rosh to ignore EPA data showing, in truth, observed heat waves were worse in the 1930s, with no increasing trend.
Rosh’s false narrative also suggested rising CO2 is causing greater intensity of rainfall and droughts, but scientists have found only 6% of the world has experienced any significant decrease in rainfall (the orange areas), and most of that decrease happens over the oceans. The remaining reduced areas of rainfall partially explain the local areas of browning.
So, for pushing false realities, increasing people’s delusional disorders, and for uncritically pushing the party line that demonizes CO2, despite the Earth’s greening and greater resilience, Rosh wins our Enemy of Truth award. So, when you see his climate tweets or TikTok, realize it’s just Rosh’s hogwash.
“Preference for warmer regions has been a key determinant of internal population shifts in the United States and other industrialized countries in the post-World War II era. Internal migrations toward the Sunbelt have been eased by science and technology developments that, for example, cooled torrid summer air and controlled malaria in the South, and along the Gulf coast.” (National Academy of Sciences, below)
The mainstream media war against the green greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), cannot negate the most settled part of the climate change debate. Into the 1990s, it was accepted practice to present the scientific consensus of the beneficial qualities of CO2 on the planet. Given its relevance for today’s debate, it is worth revisiting the National Academy of Sciences, et al., Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1992).
Some quotations follow:
“Enriching the atmosphere to 600 ppm CO2 should increase all yields, especially plants with a photosynthesis like wheat that responds sharply to more CO2. It should close the gap between wheat and corn. It should especially favor the many plants in the natural landscape that have a responsive photosynthesis like wheat.” (p. 552)
Where ones with responsive photosynthesis compete with ones with unresponsive photosynthesis, the enrichment with CO2 should make the former more competitive. It should slow evaporation and save water. By speeding photosynthesis and slowing evaporation, CO2 should increase the efficiency of the use of water, the tons of yield per 1000 m3 of evaporation.” (p. 552)
“Preference for warmer regions has been a key determinant of internal population shifts in the United States and other industrialized countries in the post-World War II era. Internal migrations toward the Sunbelt have been eased by science and technology developments that, for example, cooled torrid summer air and controlled malaria in the South, and along the Gulf coast. (pp. 622-23)
“Human adaptability is shown by people working in both Riyadh and Barrow and seeking out both Minneapolis and Galveston. Recent American migration has on average been toward warmth.” (p. 502)
“In societies like the United States, most adaptation to changing climate takes place through decentralized individual reactions to social, economic, and political signals.” (pp. 511-12)
The same remains true today. Geoscience consultant Randal Utech has posted the following:
Some interesting facts on CO2. The trace gas of life is very beneficial. CO2 is greening the earth and feeding the hungry. CO2 has not been proven to ‘drive’ climate change except as conveyed by the models which remain erroneous and incomplete. We are near the lowest level of CO2 over earth history. The secondary feedback heating effect of CO2 is limited by the IR logarithmic forcing law and is nearly saturated at current levels. The earth never had runaway heating even at 10x-20x current levels of CO2. Interesting that most plants evolved at levels averaging near 1200 ppm or roughly 3x current levels.
“Atmospheric carbon dioxide: you can’t see, hear, smell or taste it. But it’s there—all around us—and it’s crucial for life…. Ironically, far too many demonize and falsely label this important atmospheric trace gas a pollutant. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of being shunned like the plague, the ongoing rise in CO2 should be welcomed with open arms.”
“Based on the numerous experiments listed there, I can tell you that, typically, a 300-ppm increase in the air’s CO2 content … will raise the productivity of most herbaceous plants by about one-third, which stimulation is generally manifested by an increase in the number of branches and tillers, more and thicker leaves, more extensive root systems, and more flowers and fruit.”
“In basic terms, plant water-use efficiency is the amount of biomass produced by a plant per unit of water lost via transpiration…. Most plants experience water-use efficiency gains on the order of 70 to 100%–or more—for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (see and read reviews of multiple peer-reviewed studies under subheadings of Water-Use Efficiency here on my CO2 Science website).
“… elevated CO2 significantly increased the production of carbohydrates, proteins, fats and crude fibers in caraway, as well as organic and amino acids, regardless of growth stage (sprout or mature plants). Higher CO2 also enhanced plant mineral content, vitamins and phenolics, as well as antioxidant and antibacterial activities.”
“Tropospheric ozone (O3) is a gaseous air pollutant that results from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. It negatively affects plant growth…. However, the situation may not be as bad as it seems, especially when the positive effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on plant growth and yield are factored in, which typically reduce or fully negate plant cell damage from ozone.”
“So when the next summer heat wave arrives along with all the negative spin stories demonizing CO2 as its cause, I hope you will remember this post and the numerous scientific studies proving rising CO2 levels helps plants better withstand and recover from temperature-induced stresses. And when you do remember this, please share it with others!”
“Ocean acidification and warming concerns, however, are vastly overstated and generally far out of touch with reality. In almost every instance, the predicted degree of harm is exaggerated due to improper scenario inputs that utilize the most extreme scenarios of future temperature and seawater pH. Furthermore, their projections fail to take into account the ability of species to acclimate and adapt, both within and across generations.”
“Atmospheric CO2 is not causing, nor will it ever cause, a direct threat to your health or cognitive performance. CO2 levels would need to increase some 36 times above the present concentration before they would even begin to pose a mild health concern.”
“CO2 literally is the ‘food’ that sustains essentially all plants (and animals who consume plants, including humans) on the face of the Earth. And when that food supply is diminished, nature begins to diminish.”
As shown here, any critical thinking person knows the alarmist polar bear narratives are just totally false, ignorant and manipulative fear mongering.
It is not ice that bears depend on, but ringed seals. An understanding of seal biology reveals that less ice is good and more ice is bad for polar bears.
Fact 1: Most ringed seals remain in the Arctic Ocean all winter and give birth to their pups on the ice. Bear cubs and adults gain most of their weight feeding on ringed seal pups from March through May, before any significant sea ice melt.
Fact 2: To survive the winter freeze ringed seals must make breathing holes in the sea ice. They can only make breathing holes in thin new ice. New ice mostly forms where ice melts each summer. Old ice that never melted in previous years is too thick to make breathing holes.
Thus, places like Hudson Bay where the sea ice melts completely each year provides ideal habitat for ringed seals and thus polar bears. In contrast due to dominance of thick multi-year ice, in the central Arctic Ocean very few seals and thus very few polar bears are observed!
Fact 3: Seals depend on fish and the fish food web depends on the primary production of photosynthesizing plankton.
Thick ice prevents photosynthesis. Ice free water allows photosynthesis. Research by Lewis (2020) Changes in Phytoplankton Concentration now drive Increased Arctic Ocean Primary Production reported, “primary production increased by 57% between 1998 and 2018” and “increases were due to widespread sea ice loss”.
Thus the truth is, less ice enables a bountiful food web that sustains the bears.
But observe here how the alarmist Polar Bear International totally misrepresented the arctic food web to push a global warming threat by suggesting the foodweb dependends on ice.
The graphic on the left by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme correctly illustrates how phytoplankton are mostly abundant where the ice has melted and is in agreement with scientific research that less ice increased primary production by 57%. Their graphic also shows a minor contribution from ice algae.
Then compare the propaganda graphic by Polar Bear International. Their illustration only show ice algae on and under ice, but deceptively omits the far greater importance of phytoplankton to the food web where there is no ice.
Beware people of these dishonest so-called Arctic scientists.
Each summer wherever ice melts, abundant photosynthesizing plankton generate a bountiful food web that maintains an abundance of ringed seals. Ringed seals are so abundant the IUCN designates them as species of Least Concern.
Due to the lack of solar heating during long Arctic nights, new sea ice will always form each year. Each year ringed seals will make their breathing holes and birthing lairs. And female polar bears and their cubs will emerge from winter hibernations to fatten on baby seals. Global warming has benefitted polar bears!
Join us for a special episode of Climate Change Roundtable titled, “Global Greening – the Good Kind of Green.” Dive deep into the benefits of global greening and discover how increasing atmospheric CO2 is leading to enhanced plant growth globally. This week features special guests Patrick Moore and William Happer, two of the most distinguished scientists in their fields.
Patrick Moore, not just a co-founder of Greenpeace but also an environmentalist with over 40 years of dedication, has been a vocal advocate for sound environmental practices his entire career. His key achievements include leading campaigns against whaling and exposing the anti-human agenda of the organization he co-founded, Greenpeace. Moore left the organization due to differences in beliefs, feeling that Greenpeace had shifted from a science-based approach to one driven by sensationalism and politics.
William Happer, a distinguished physicist from Princeton, has been recognized for his groundbreaking research in atomic physics, optics, and atmospheric science. He served as the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University and has been a prominent figure in the U.S. Department of Energy. Happer’s extensive research on the interactions between light and matter has paved the way for numerous technological advancements, and his insights into atmospheric phenomena have been pivotal in shaping our understanding of the environment.
In this episode, our host, Anthony Watts, and weekly panelist, Linnea Lueken, will delve into the science behind global greening. Special guests Patrick Moore and William Happer will reveal details and insights you haven’t heard before, shedding light on the lesser-known aspects of this phenomenon.
Tune in LIVE for Climate Change Roundtable at noon CT on Friday to engage in this enlightening discussion. Don’t forget to leave your questions to have them answered live during the show! Tune in to share your thoughts, and be a part of this pivotal conversation on the positive side of global greening.
Preeminent physicist Freeman Dyson (1923-2020) put the CO2 obsession in sharp focus in his foreward to CARBON DIOXIDE The good news by Indur M. Goklany (2015). Excerpts in italics. with my bolds.
To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.
The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence. Those of my scientific colleagues who believe the prevailing dogma about carbon dioxide will not find Goklany’s evidence convincing. . .That is to me the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?
People should be celebrating, not demonizing, modern increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). We cannot overstate the importance of the gas. Without it, life doesn’t exist.
First, a bit of history: During each of the last four glacial advances, CO2’s concentration fell below 190 parts per million (ppm), less than 50 percent of our current concentration of 420 ppm. When glaciers began receding about 14,000 years ago – a blink in geological time – CO2 levels fell to 182 ppm, a concentration thought to be the lowest in Earth’s history.
Line of Death
Why is this alarming? Because below 150 ppm, most terrestrial plant life dies. Without plants, there are no animals.
In other words, the Earth came within 30 ppm in CO2’s atmospheric concentration of witnessing the extinction of most land-based plants and all higher terrestrial life-forms – nearly a true climate apocalypse. Before industrialization began adding CO2 to the atmosphere, there was no telling whether the critical 150-ppm threshold wouldn’t be reached during the next glacial period.
Contrary to the mantra that today’s CO2 concentration is unprecedentedly high, our current geologic period, the Quaternary, has seen the lowest average levels of carbon dioxide since the end of the Pre-Cambrian Period more than 600 million years ago. The average CO2 concentration throughout Earth’s history was more than 2,600 ppm, nearly seven times current levels.
Beneficial CO2 Increases
CO2 increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to 420 ppm today, most of it after World War II as industrial activity accelerated. The higher concentration has been beneficial because of the gas’s role as a plant food in increasing photosynthesis.
Its benefits include:
— Faster plant growth with less water and larger crop yields.
— Expansion of forests and grasslands.
— Less erosion of topsoil because of more plant growth.
— Increases in plants’ natural insect repellents.
A summary of 270 laboratory studies covering 83 food crops showed that increasing CO2 concentrations by 300 ppm boosts plant growth by an average of 46 percent. Conversely, many studies show adverse effects of low-CO2 environments.
For instance, one indicated that, compared to today, plant growth was eight percent less in the period before the Industrial Revolution, with a low concentration of 280 ppm CO2.
Therefore, attempts to reduce CO2 concentrations are bad for plants, animals and humankind.
Data reported in a recent paper by Dr. Indur Goklany, and published by the CO2 Coalition, indicates that up to 50 percent of Earth’s vegetated areas became greener between 1982-2011.
Researchers attribute 70 percent of the greening to CO2 fertilization from of fossil fuel emissions. (Another nine percent is attributed to fertilizers derived from fossil fuels.)
Dr. Goklany also reported that the beneficial fertilization effect of CO2 – along with the use of hydrocarbon-dependent machinery, pesticides and fertilizers – have saved at least 20 percent of land area from being converted to agricultural purposes – an area 25 percent larger than North America.
The amazing increase in agricultural productivity, partly the result of more CO2, has allowed the planet to feed eight billion people, compared to the fewer than 800,000 inhabitants living a short 300 years ago.
More CO2 in the air means more moisture in the soil. The major cause of water loss in plants is attributable to transpiration, in which the stomata, or pores, on the undersides of the leaves open to absorb CO2 and expel oxygen and water vapor.
With more CO2, the stomata are open for shorter periods, the leaves lose less water, and more moisture remains in the soil. The associated increase in soil moisture has been linked to global decreases in wildfires, droughts and heat waves.
Exaggeration of CO2’s Warming Effect
Alarm over global warming stems from exaggerations of CO2’s potential to retain heat that otherwise would radiate to outer space. As with water vapor, methane and nitrous oxide, CO2 retains heat in the atmosphere by how it reacts to infrared portions of the electromagnetic spectrum.
However, the gas has saturated to a large extent within the infrared range, leaving relatively little potential for increased warming.
Both sides of the climate debate agree that the warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases significantly (logarithmically) as the concentration increases.
This is one reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming when CO2 concentrations approached 20 times that of today. This inconvenient fact, despite its importance, is rarely mentioned because it undermines the theory of a future climate catastrophe.
A doubling of CO2 from today’s level of 420 ppm – an increase estimated to take 200 years to attain – would have an inconsequential effect on global temperature.
Pennsylvania’s solar-powered fossil fuels
CO2 being liberated today from Pennsylvania coal was removed from the atmosphere by the photosynthesis of trees that fed on sunlight and carbon dioxide and then died to have their remains accumulate in the vast coal swamps of the Carboniferous Period.
Pennsylvania Marcellus and Utica shale hydrocarbons being exploited today were also the likely hydrocarbon source of shallower reservoirs producing since the late 1800s.
The source of those hydrocarbons was algae remains that gathered on the bottom of the Ordovician and Devonian seas.
Like the coal deposits, the algae used solar-powered photosynthesis and CO2 (the algal blooms were likely fueled by regular dust storms) to remove vast amounts of CO2 from the air and lock it up as carbon-rich organic matter.
The provenance of these hydrocarbons spawns two novel ideas. First, there is a strong case that these are solar-powered fuels.
Second, the sequestering of carbon during the creation of the hydrocarbons lowered atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to sub-optimum levels for plants. Therefore, the combustion of today’s coal and gas is liberating valuable CO2 molecules that are turbocharging plant growth.
The plain fact of the matter is that the modest warming of less than one degree Celsius since 1900, combined with increasing CO2, is allowing ecosystems to thrive and humanity to prosper.
Additional information on CO2’s benefits and related topics are available at CO2Coalition.org, which includes a number of publications and resources of interest.
In the past two decades we have witnessed a upturn in the number of acres of forest lands burned in the United States. As shown in the graph below compiled by the National Interagency Fire Center, the years from 1958 to 1998 marked a consistently lower incidence of forest fires, averaging about 4 million acres burned per year. In the years since 1998 the number of acres burned has increased with two years equaling or exceeding 10 million acres. Aside from the catastrophic loss of timber resources, homes, structures and in some cases entire towns, the resultant smoke from these fires has created very hazardous air quality issues over broad swathes of the American West. In an ominous start to the 2023 fire season, fires in Eastern Canada have been so extensive as to impact much of the Eastern U.S. with dangerous air quality. There has been much handwringing, but thus far little motivation to seriously address this problem. The time has come to act, but the first step is to identify the root of the problem. Please take a moment to study the graph below.
Fig. 1
You will notice that during the years from 1926 to about 1956 forest fires were a much bigger issue virtually all years, showing more acres burned in all, with two years experiencing more than 5 times greater areas than the worst recent year. To put this in perspective, earlier in our history dense forests were viewed as an impediment to settlement and development in much of the west and there was little concern if vast acreages were burned so long as humans and settlements weren’t impacted. To many of our earlier citizens periods of heavy smoke commonly prevalent were viewed as “the price of progress”. It wasn’t until the mid-1930s that the recently formed U.S. Forest Service became active in suppressing forest fires.
What is the common denominator between the numbers on the right side of the chart versus those on the left side, separated by the relatively benign period between 1956 and 1998? As my forestry professor told us during Forest Protection class in 1965, the three most important factors in preventing forest fires were “fuel load, fuel load and fuel load, in that order”. Prior to the 1950s, extending back millennia, fuel loads in the western U.S. were massive. The anecdotal records from the early Spanish and British explorations of the Pacific Northwest indicate dense smoke from massive forest fires extending well out into the Pacific, and a record of Mark Twain’s visit to Tacoma Washington, in 1895 describes the city fathers apologizing to Mr. Twain for the heavy forest fire smoke that obscured the view of the surrounding mountains. The reality is that the period from the early 1950s to just a few years ago was probably a “goldilocks” event, one of the few periods when large fires and heavy smoke were not a common experience.
In conversations with many fellow citizens, it is my perception that most are quite convinced that the United States has less forested area and less wood volume currently than it did decades ago. However, the U.S. Forest Service takes a complete inventory of all United States forest resources on all ownerships on a regular basis that belie that notion.
Year
1953
1963
1977
1987
1997
2007
2012
2017
Acres
741,652
752,786
742,345
732,553
741,937
752,272
766,234
765,493
Volume
615,884
733,056
781,655
835,665
932,089
985,238
Fig. 2
Row 2: Thousands of Acres of Forested Land in U.S., Table 3.
Row 3: Volume of Growing Stock in U.S. in Millions of Cubic Feet; Table 20
From: Forest Resources of the United States, 2017:
Between 1953 and 2017 the acreage of forested land in the U.S. increased by 3.2%, while the volume of growing stock, fuel load, increased by 60%. Due to the actions of environmental groups, harvesting on federal lands essentially ceased in about 1980, resulting in the shuttering of most of our forest products industry. However, the trees continued to grow during the past 43 years and with increased competition has led to areas of stagnation and the resultant insect and disease problems that occur in a natural environment; problems that had been reduced prior to the suspension of selective harvest silvicultural programs that reduced these issues and fuel load. Not only has the fuel load increased dramatically on federally controlled forested areas, but the susceptibility to fire has also increased disproportionately, leading to the uptick in acres burned that we see on the right side of the graph in Figure 1. If we continue to do nothing to reduce fuel load it is only reasonable to conclude that on average the number of acres burned annually will on average increase until we reach the numbers shown on the left side of the graph in figure 1.
In many news reports regarding recent forest fires much of the blame is placed on global warming. Mankind’s addition of CO2 and other greenhouse gases does play a role in the fire issue, but I believe that a serious review of the empirical evidence will reveal that global warming thus far is a relatively minor player. The graph in Figure 3 is very accurate, but the proportion is out of scale to the human experience. This information comes from the NASA sponsored work Drs. Spencer and Christy, University of Huntsville, Alabama, using satellites to take millions of atmospheric soundings daily is probably the most accurate global. temperature record
Fig. 3
available. The trend for the 43 years of this record is .13 degrees per decade, which would equate to 1-degree centigrade above today’s global temperature in the year 2100. Yes, a slight increase but nothing like the predictions generated by recent climate models upon which the IPCC relies for their predictions, many of which run 3 times hotter.
Figure 4. Data from same source as Figure 3, but displayed on scale more typical to the human experience using the highest and lowest known temperatures recorded on earth as the upper and lower bounds..
Fig. 4
The graph in Figure 5 shows data from the USCRN. This is the best surface station record available. Unfortunately, it was not installed until 2005 and only covers the United States and shows no discernable trend.
Fig. 5
Graph created by the United States Climate Research Network (USCRN). This information is obtained from state-of-the-art weather stations in the United States. The sites are excellently situated to avoid urban heat island effects and other undo influences with instruments that provide triple redundancy. This network was created in 2005 after much criticism about the prior U.S. Historical Climate Network which had all manner of deficiencies with only about 11% to its stations meeting NOAA standards.
We do know empirically that increasing CO2 levels will raise temperature modestly. In lab experiments a doubling of CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 560 ppm will raise temperate about 1-degree Centigrade. The next doubling would raise temperature even less as the absorption spectra quickly becomes saturated. So the actual temperature increase due to greenhouse gases is proving to be relatively minimal. A far more important effect, especially from the aspect of the fuel load situation in our nation’s forests is that of the CO2 fertilization effect (CFE) on all vegetative growth, plants, crops and certainly trees. We shall delve more deeply into this aspect shortly, but a little historical perspective is necessary first. When coniferous trees evolved about 360 million years ago, CO2 levels were about 4000 ppm (parts per million), 9 times today’s levels. When deciduous trees, broadleaves evolved about 160 million years ago CO2 levels were about 2200 ppm. The thousands of botanical experiments to study the effect of elevated CO2 on crops, trees, grasses, and other vegetative forms indicate that 800 to 1000 ppm CO2 is the optimum level for most species.
Not only does CO2 fertilization produce more growth, but it also increases the drought resistance of most plants. Additionally, since the stomata, the pores on the leaves through which the CO2 enters the leaf to allow photosynthesis to take place do not need to remain open as long to allow CO2 to enter, less transpiration of water takes place and the plants become more drought resistant. Thus, plants grow more rapidly and require less soil moisture for the same unit of growth. These two issues, CO2 fertilization and increased drought resistance are two important factors in accelerating the increase in fuel load that have yet to receive much media coverage.
When dealing with critical issues such as the appropriate response to our nation’s forest fire issue we need to be totally pragmatic about the thought process that goes into formulating a rational response. We can continue to put the blame on the global warming issue, but the harsh reality is that the U.S. has already done a great deal to reduce our carbon emissions. However, China, India and many lesser developed countries are going in the opposite direction. Both China and India are continuing to build new coal-fired power plants and have no plans to stop this expansion until mid-century at the earliest. CO2 levels in the atmosphere will continue to rise at current rates for the foreseeable future. However, our nation can take immediate action to reduce the fuel load problem, but we need to get started. It will take a multi-pronged approach to work involving:
Education of the public in the necessity of reducing our fuel loads and the ways in which we can do this in an environmentally friendly fashion. The public needs to be made aware of:
Clear cutting is no longer necessary or desirable on most sites. The alternative is selective harvesting where forests are thinned, focusing on species diversification, size distribution, removal of trees with insect or disease issues and wildlife issues as well as the reduction in the fire hazard.
Thinning is a very expensive operation and we have millions of acres that need attention. To raise the funds necessary to address the full scope of the issue we will need to harvest some merchantable timber to reduce the cost per acre.
To have a competitive market for the merchantable wood component of the proposed thinning operations, we need to reestablish a modest forest products industry. Much of our fuel load issue is a result of the elimination of most of our wood products industry in the 1980s. Now we currently import about $20 billion dollars-worth of wood products annually. With farm goods the mantra is to buy locally; should not the same philosophy apply to forest products?
The public needs to be made aware of the scope of the fuel load problem. Most of our citizens are quite convinced that both forested acreage and net growing stock have been in a dramatic decline over the past seven decades, when the reality is forested acreage is up slightly, and net growing stock has increased by 60%. The reality is dramatically different from the public’s perception; something that needs to be addressed to accomplish a solution.
A major factor that also needs to be addressed is the interference created by our legal system, where anyone or any group can stop a harvesting project on federal land for the small price of filing a lawsuit. This problem is what created this problem in the first place, commencing in the 1970s and 1980s. The health issues that we will face if we continue on our current path make something like a war powers act designated by Congress necessary so a rational plan can be created and implemented without continued delay and interference. The alternative is to repeat the fire conditions we experienced prior to the 1950s and for much of our prior history.
Between 1953 and 2017 (volume at the last USFS inventory) the total growing stock on all ownerships has increased by 369,354 million cubic feet. Now, let’s examine the fuel load issue going forward. Since 1953 our timber base has been growing at 1.56% per year, adding 5,771 million cubic feet each year. If our forests were to simply keep growing at that rate in another 64 years our total net growing stock would reach 1,354,592 million cubic feet. At these levels, we would be potentially facing the average burned area shown on the left side of Figure 1, and 5 times greater than anything seen recently.
However, we are living in a much different climatic situation today, one that could make the fire situation even more dire. Yes, we do get modestly higher temperatures with increased greenhouse gases, but with higher CO2 levels there comes an effect termed CO2 fertilization. From your high school botany or biology class we have the formula for photosynthesis:
Fig. 6
At 430 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere currently most terrestrial plants are just starting to get in their happy zone. As mentioned above, the optimum CO2 levels for most plant species is between 800 and 1000 ppm.
While these two issues appear to be a piling on of negative factors, we need to realize that this only applies to fuel load; a situation that can easily be controlled with selective timber harvesting practices. On the positive side we need to realize that both the CO2 fertilization effect and the increase in drought resistance are both a major boon to crop production upon which the survival of the human population is dependent.
We had heard very little about the CO2 fertilization effect (CFE); just how big a factor is it? It turns out that it is very important and very likely has been a salvation for the human species in recent decades as the human population continues to climb toward the 9 billion mark.
How do we know CFE is a factor in plant growth? We now have several lines of evidence that validate this:
1. There is the formula in Fig. 6 that supports this when combined with German scientist Justus von Liebig’s Law of the Minimum which states: ”that the yield achievable is dictated by the nutrient that is most limiting.’ Source: https://nutrien-ekonomics.com/news/liebigs-law-of-the-minimum/ There are 16 essential elements that are supplied in mineral form from the soil and CO2 which is absorbed from the atmosphere. In comparing today’s CO2 levels to the optimum levels stated earlier, we are assured that if all the other essential elements are available plants will grow more rapidly.
2. Global satellite surveys have confirmed a global greening of the planet with one study published April 26, 2016 from NASA titled, “Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds”. The first two paragraphs read:
. “From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands have shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide”, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions.
The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.”
The United States comprises about 6.27% of the terrestrial area of our planet, So the numbers in this paper indicate a greening equal to 13.8 % over the 35 years of the study, 3.9% per decade.
3. Thousands of laboratory and FACE (Free Air CO2 Enrichment) studies have been conducted to observe the results of growing numerous plant species at higher than ambient levels of CO2. A great repository of the data from many of these experiments can be found at: co2 science.org. Virtually all of these species show results ranging from modest to surprisingly large increases. In the table below please find a list for some major forest and crop species grown at CO2 levels 300 ppm above current atmospheric levels.
Percentage Increase in Dry Weight with 300 ppm CO2 Increase above ambient level.
4. Two recent papers have been published also document the effects of CFE.
This paper covers the increase in photosynthetic activity between 1910 and 2010 and attempts to isolate the CO2 fertilization effect for other factors. The abstract from this paper reads:
“Several lines of evidence point to an increase in the activity of the terrestrial biosphere over recent decades, impacting the global net land carbon sink (NLS) and its control on the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide (ca). Global terrestrial gross primary production (GPP)—the rate of carbon fixation by photosynthesis—is estimated to have risen by (31 ± 5)% since 1900, but the relative contributions of different putative drivers to this increase are not well known. Here we identify the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration as the dominant driver. We reconcile leaf‐level and global atmospheric constraints on trends in modeled biospheric activity to reveal a global CO2 fertilization effect on photosynthesis of 30% since 1900, or 47% for a doubling of ca above the pre‐industrial level. Our historic value is nearly twice as high as current estimates (17 ± 4)% that do not use the full range of available constraints. Consequently, under a future low‐emission scenario, we project a land carbon sink (174 PgC, 2006–2099) that is 57 PgC larger than if a lower CO2 fertilization effect comparable with current estimates is assumed. These findings suggest a larger beneficial role of the land carbon sink in modulating future excess anthropogenic CO2 consistent with the target of the Paris Agreement to stay below 2°C warming, and underscore the importance of preserving terrestrial carbon sinks.”
From 1900 to 2010 atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 291 to 390.1 ppm, an increase on 99.1 ppm, which equates to an increase in photosynthetic activity of .302% per increase per I ppm of CO2. With CO2 increasing at 2.37 ppm per year this converts to a 7.157% increase in photosynthesis per decade.
The final paragraph in the paper reads: By reconciling multiple global‐scale observational constraints, we identified a CO2 fertilization effect on historical global GPP that is significantly higher than current estimates. Independent regional studies using amplitude of seasonal cycle data (Northern Hemisphere extra‐tropics; Wenzel et al., 2016) and catchment water balance (tropical forests; Yang et al., 2016) have also inferred larger CO2 fertilization effects than predicted by TBM ensembles. The causes of such model‐data discrepancies are poorly known, but biases associated with the representation of nutrient limitations on GPP have been invoked as one possible cause (Wenzel et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2016). Our results, that account for nitrogen‐cycle effects on ecosystem productivity, suggest that underprediction of GPP trends and CO2 responses is associated with a failure by current TBMs to account for plant coordination of photosynthesis. This finding is important for the future role of land carbon sinks, suggesting an underestimate by current models of potential CO2 removal under low‐emission scenarios consistent with the Paris Agreement targets.”
B. “CO2 fertilization of terrestrial photosynthesis inferred from site to global scales.” Chi Chen et al. PNAS 2022 Vol. 119 No. 10 e2115627119. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2115627119
The abstract in this paper states: “Global photosynthesis is increasing with elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations, a response known as the CO2 fertilization effect (CFE), but the key processes of CFE are not constrained and therefore remain uncertain. Here, we quantify CFE by combining observations from a globally distributed network of eddy covariance measurements with an analytical framework based on three well-established photosynthetic optimization theories. We report a strong enhancement of photosynthesis across the observational network (9.1 gC m−2 year−2) and show that the CFE is responsible for 44% of the gross primary production (GPP) enhancement since the 2000s, with additional contributions primarily from warming (28%). Soil moisture and specific humidity are the two largest contributors to GPP interannual variation through their influences on plant hydraulics. Applying our framework to satellite observations and meteorological reanalysis data, we diagnose a global CO2-induced GPP trend of 4.4 gC m−2 year−2, which is at least one-third stronger than the median trends of 13 dynamic global vegetation models and eight satellite-derived GPP products, mainly because of their differences in the magnitude of CFE in evergreen broadleaf forests. These results highlight the critical role that CFE has played in the global carbon cycle in recent decades.”
The conclusion this paper identifies the “CO2 caused Gross Primary Production trend is comparable to the EC-inferred counterpart and translates this CO2 fertilization effect to a global increase in photosynthesis of 4.1% decade since the 2000s…”
5. For crop species, we have another empirical test that can be applied to see if CFE is real. The U. S. Department of Agriculture has records going back into the late 1800s concerning crop production, including yields per acre, for our species most critical for the survival of humanity. In the chart below the period of comparison has been pared down to compare the average of the yields from the decade of 1950 to 1959 to the most recent decade ending in the year 2022. The reason for starting this comparison in 1950 was to reduce the influence of the dramatic increase in the use of the nitrogen-based fertilizers that we began to use heavily prior to 1950, created using the Haber-Bosch process (H-B). Before the H-B process crop rotation and other methods were used to replenish the nitrogen content of farm soils, but nowhere as efficiently as the H-B process.
Yields Per Acre: Comparison of Decade of 1950s to Most Recent Decade.
The average increase in yield for all crop species of 254%, or about 36% per decade. This is an amazing increase, and very likely the reason that the Malthusians have been proven wrong. The predictions in Dr. Paul Ehrlich’s book “The Population Bomb”, published in 1968 appear to have been erroneous because he did not consider the impact of nitrogen rich fertilizers produced with the H-B process, nor the beneficial effects of the increase in CO2 in both the growth rate and the drought resistance of plant species. Had we not implemented the artificial fertilization methods while the natural CFE benefit was taking hold, Dr. Ehrlich’s dire predictions of global famine may have occurred.
We now have data from 4 different approaches to determining the CFE. They include the two model-based studies dealing with the photosynthetic Gross Primary Production estimates that generated estimates of 7.1% and 4.1% increase per decade, the 2016 NASA study, numerous laboratory, and FACE CO2 fertilization studies on numerous species under controlled conditions, and the analysis of U.S.D.A data on crop production from 1950 to the present. All show that the CFE is both real and substantial. While it is a major boon to mankind due to its effect on crop production, its impact on our forest resources is perhaps too much of a good thing and requires that we immediately take steps to control and utilize the bounty, so we do not have to continually endure smoke-filled skies and very hazardous air quality.
Conclusion: The CO2 fertilization effect is both real and substantial in both beneficial and harmful ways. The United States can do very little to reduce CO2 emissions in the short term. However, if we move promptly we can do a great deal to contain the future impact that CFE will have on our forest’s fuel load, and if done properly can also create jobs and provide needed forest products and greatly reduce the negative effects of rampant forest fires.
“How CO2 Starvation & Plate Tectonics Caused the Greatest Mass Extinction, the Permian Great Dying”
Welcome back everyone.
This video will explore the wealth of evidence suggesting that the combination of CO2 starvation and plate tectonics caused the greatest extinctions on earth collectively known as the end Permian extinction or the Great Dying.
The end-Permian marked the transition from 300 million years of Paleozoic plant and animal dominance and the resetting of earth’s evolutionary trajectory, towards our modern fauna.
The Permian extinctions represented a loss of 57% of all biological families, 83% of all genera, 81%of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species in existence in the end Permian’s last million years.
Coinciding with these Permian extinctions was the decline of abundant CO2 concentrations since the Ordovician period to the stressful low concentrations in the Permian.
For the first time in earth’s history, CO2 concentrations fell below 1000 ppm, the concentration that supports maximum photosynthesis productivity.
While plants suffered from low CO2, land vertebrate extinctions were largely a result of oxygen’s dramatic roller coaster ride that crashed in the Permian.
It is essential to first understand how changes in CO2 concentrations affect photosynthesis and plant productivity.
The key productivity enzyme, Rubisco, grabs a CO2 molecule and then shuttles it down a metabolic pathway to produce the sugars and carbohydrates essential for all life.
Today various versions of Rubisco are saturated when CO2 reaches 1000 ppm thus maximizing photosynthetic production.
Our current atmospheric concentrations are only 40% of the optimum. For that reason, modern commercial greenhouses raise CO2 to 1000 ppm for maximum crop yields.
During pre-industrial times of the Little Ice Age, CO2 concentrations fell to 280 ppm and evidence shows during that time ocean productivity was much lower than today.
If CO2 concentrations fall below 150 ppm, then photosynthesis can stop completely. So, policies to sequester and lower CO2 must be very careful not to approach this deadly level.
There are many competing theories regards the causes of the massive Permian extinctions, but scientists are nowhere near a consensus.
Click-bait media such as the NY Times have been obsessed only with theories blaming warming temperatures. They then segue those theories into fearful narratives about extinction threats from modern global warming.
However, many researchers have pointed to the competition for the declining CO2, that resulted in severely reduced photosynthesis, the collapse of primary productivity and a significant malfunction of the global food webs. Evidence is rapidly accumulating to support their conclusions.
During the Ordovician with CO2 concentrations 5 times greater than the saturation level, newly evolving photosynthesizing species were not limited by competition for CO2. Thus, the greatest phytoplankton diversity developed then.
By the Permian, CO2 concentrations fell to a stressfully low 200 ppm and very few new species appeared.
There is a strong correlation with origination of new Paleozoic phytoplankton species (illustrated in green) and the concentration of CO2 (seen on the right).
During the great Ordovician Biodiversification Event, the greatest abundance of newly evolved phytoplankton species correlated with high CO2 concentrations. New species typically also suffer higher extinction rates (illustrated in red) as they evolved to survive in niches that are still in flux.
As CO2 concentrations plummeted during the Devonian when land plants competed for and sequestered more CO2, fewer new marine phytoplankton species evolved, and extinctions increased.
By the end Carboniferous and early Permian periods, virtually no new species appeared as CO2 concentrations fell dangerously close to levels at which photosynthesis could no longer be supported.
As a result, much of the green algae clades that had dominated the Paleozoic oceans died off, although this clade also provided the ancestors for land plants.
Phytoplankton from the red clades with more efficient photosynthesis, rose to dominance later in the age of dinosaurs and still dominate ocean primary productivity today.
When CO2 concentrations reached their lowest levels ever in the early Permian, phytoplankton fossils became extremely rare and the Permian experienced what scientists call a “phytoplankton blackout.”
So why the Permian blackout?
Biased by the last mass extinction event at the end of the cretaceous when the earth was struck by an asteroid, researchers often search for a single devastating event, like an asteroid or a massive volcanic eruption to explain what happened during the end Permian. However, there is a growing scientific belief that the Permian extinctions were more gradual and caused by a protracted decline in environmental conditions that slowly reduced the earth’s biodiversity and thus reduced the probability of new species evolving that can adapt to changing conditions.
This notion of a protracted extinction was discussed in the 2021 paper “dead clades walking”. A clade is a group of organisms that evolved from a common ancestor. Multiple minor extinction events can gradually reduce a clade’s biodiversity and its resilience, so that the clade is doomed to extinction several million years later.
Clearly a mass extinction does not require an asteroid. The gradual reduction in phytoplankton and photosynthesis can collapse food webs and result in major extinctions that, in the sparse fossil record, are incorrectly interpreted as a relatively rapid extinction event.
The media likes to emphasize the earth’s 5 great mass extinctions. But several previous minor extinctions have all contributed to dead clades walking, clades that finally went extinct during the Permian mass extinction.
The first so-called great mass extinction happened during the Ordovician just after the great biodiversity event. Associated with the Ordovician icehouse, 61% of marine life disappeared and mostly culled many of the new species that had recently evolved in a previous warmer climate.
The late Devonian mass extinction was more disruptive, involving the loss of entire carbonate reef ecosystems that had dominated the early Paleozoic oceans. However, many researchers now believe that the end Devonian extinctions were simply the last of up to 7 protracted minor extinction events during a time when the colonization of the continents by land plants was rapidly depleting CO2 concentrations and dramatically reducing phytoplankton biodiversity.
The beginning of another glacial period during the mid-carboniferous caused 14-39% of the marine genera to go extinct.
The carboniferous rainforest collapse driven by drying continents and extremely low CO2 concentrations is considered to be only a minor extinction event, yet it totally altered tropical ecosystems and marked the peak in atmospheric oxygen before oxygen plummeted during the Permian.
Between 7 and 17 million years before the end Permian mass extinction, between 35 & 47% of marine invertebrate genera went extinct as well as nearly 80% of land vertebrates.
Those previous extinction events reduced biodiversity and support beliefs that the end per main mass extinction event was likely the culmination of dead clades walking.
The end Triassic and end cretaceous mass extinctions are the last two of the great extinctions but will not be examined here.
By sequestering CO2 and raising oxygen concentrations, photosynthesis paved the way for its own demise by amplifying photorespiration which greatly reduces photosynthesis in both marine and land plants.
The key enzyme Rubisco first evolved when CO2 was abundant and oxygen scarce. Thus, under those conditions Rubisco could be sloppy about discriminating between CO2 and oxygen yet still be productive.
As oxygen concentrations increased and CO2 decreased throughout the Paleozoic, Rubisco increasingly grabbed oxygen instead of CO2 initiating destructive photorespiration that reduces plant productivity.
Laboratory experiments under current oxygen levels found when CO2 concentrations are as low as 220 ppm, plant biomass production is reduced by 50% and 30% of that reduced productivity was due to photorespiration. When CO2 was reduced to 150 ppm, productivity was reduced by 92%.
For ocean phytoplankton, reduced CO2 is even more detrimental. When CO2 diffuses into the ocean most molecules immediately react with water creating 3 forms of inorganic carbon. CO2, bicarbonate, and carbonate ions. (Left graph) bicarbonate ions now constitute over 90% of the ocean’s inorganic carbon, but rubisco can only use CO2 molecules.
Furthermore, as CO2 is depleted ocean pH rises (seen in right graph). And ocean pH controls how the inorganic carbon is proportioned between more useable CO2 and bicarbonate ions.
When CO2 falls to 200 ppm, ocean pH rises to 8.5 and the amount of available CO2 approaches zero.
To survive the negative effects of reduced CO2, phytoplankton have evolved CO2 concentrating mechanisms that increase the internal CO2 concentration.
Photosynthesizing cyanobacteria evolved the ability to import bicarbonate ions and shuttle them into a carboxysome where an enzyme converts bicarbonate ions into CO2 while in the proximity of Rubisco.
Algae evolved similar mechanisms with pyrenoids. Without a carbon concentrating mechanism, Paleozoic phytoplankton species experienced limited growth.
All modern phytoplankton have developed various CO2 concentrating mechanisms to survive in today’s low CO2 world.
Experimental phytoplankton strains with dysfunctional CO2 concentrating mechanism just cannot survive.
As CO2 has declined over the last 20 million years several clades of land plants (yet still a small percentage of all species) have evolved a similar CO2 concentrating mechanism known as c4 photosynthesis.
In the upper sunlit euphotic zone, phytoplankton generate an abundance of dissolved organic matter and sinking particulate matter.
That organic matter sustains an abundance of marine life in the complex food webs of the dark twilight zone.
Today’s oceans contain as much dissolved organic matter as exists in the earth’s terrestrial ecosystems.
Several scientists had questioned the reliability of the phytoplankton blackout data because robust invertebrate communities persisted in the fossil record for longer times despite crashes in phytoplankton species.
However, awareness of the bacterial loop, first published in 1983, has altered scientific thinking about ocean food webs. Before 1983, it was widely believed that only phytoplankton could directly sustain the zooplankton, and benthic animals.
However, it is now understood that the bacterial loop recycles dissolved organic matter and thus can maintain a substantial food web until the dissolved organic matter is depleted.
However, unlike oxygen generating phytoplankton, the bacterial loop consumes oxygen and expands the oxygen minimum zones which coincide with the many deadly anoxic events of the Permian.
The complex interactions between, disappearing phytoplankton, cyanobacteria and bacterial loops resulted in the extinction of various Permian marine animals in various niches at different times.
Looking more closely at the stages of the Permian, begining with the ending of the Paleozoic ice age there were large losses in biodiversity with major extinctions during the earliest Permian stages.
Ammonoids had been declining for the Permian’s’ first 30 million years with many going extinct 17 million years before the end pemican extinction.
By the Capitanian stage, 75% of the Permian coral families became extinct as well as 82% of coral species.
By the end Capitanian stage, 7-10 million years before the end Permian, 35 to 47% of all marine invertebrate genera had gone extinct. Many researchers now include the Capitanian extinctions as one of the earth’s 6 great mass extinctions and separate it from the end Permian. The Capitanian extinctions happened in a cool climate and before the rapid rise in CO2 and the warming that some blame for causing the end Permian extinctions.
On land, North American coal deposits disappeared in the early Permian after the carboniferous rainforest collapsed.
Stressful atmospheric CO2 hovered between 150 and 700 ppm during the late carboniferous.
The lowest calculated values of 100 ppm would have been lethal for many Permian plant species and correlates with the disappearance of coal deposits.
Both laboratory experiments and paleontological evidence show most plant species respond to low CO2 concentrations by producing more stomata to increase CO2 diffusion into the plant.
However more stomata increase water loss and make the Permian plants more vulnerable to the increasing dryness throughout Pangea’s formation. As a result, minor plant extinctions happened throughout the Permian, starting with the Carboniferous Tropical Rainforest Collapse.
The towering lycopsid rainforest trees went extinct leaving only related diminutive species requiring less carbon, some of which have survived until today and are frequently used in terrariums.
As moisture requiring species were extirpated and drought tolerant species increased, food chains were gravely disrupted resulting in the mid-Permian Olson extinctions.
By the Roadian stage 45% of the plant species had gone extinct in the Chinese micro-continents. And by the Capitanian 56% had gone extinct.
Declining biodiversity reduces the probability of new species evolving that would otherwise balance out natural background extinctions.
The formation of Pangea had a negative effect on biodiversity. Pangea removed unique niches from its converging island-like micro-continents. Studies of modern island biology have demonstrated how only a few species are genetically capable of producing a radiation of new species, and only when vacant niches are available.
The “oldest” existing volcanic Hawaiian island, Kauai, emerged about 5 million years ago which is about the time of the arrival of the ancestor of Hawaii’s honey creepers. Since then, one ancestor gave rise to at least 12 unique species, each evolving varied beaks to exploit Hawaii’s unique vegetation.
Of the hundreds of continental vagrant species that ever arrived on the Hawaiian Islands, only a few remained and they only evolved small changes in size or color. But even fewer possessed flexible genomes that allowed successful speciation that could exploit unfamiliar but available niches.
Likewise, the ancestor of the Galapagos finches arrived about 2 million years ago on the volcanic islands and radiated into at least 14 unique species.
During the early Paleozoic, in the Ordovician, many of today’s continental land masses were just a multitude of separate large volcanic islands or micro-continents. Islands provided more coastlines with unique coastal niches for marine species.
There were also more abundant shallow seas that readily recycled critical nutrients that would otherwise be sequestered in the deeper ocean.
The convergence of those Ordovician micro-continents into the fully united single continent of Pangea during the Permian, reduced coastlines, and the areal extent of shallow seas.
Pangea’s formation also provided connectivity that allowed more competitive generalist species to invade and eradicate species living in previously unique niches of isolated islands. The loss of productive shallow seas exterminated the least productive species within those habitats.
And the loss of coastlines reduced the flow of water vapor from the ocean to the inland. As Pangea consolidated, the continental interiors dried and inland species that had adapted to previous wetter climates became the first to go extinct, like the lycopsid trees of the carboniferous rain forest.
However, species on the islands of north and south China persisted for millions of years later.
The drivers and timing of terrestrial vertebrate extinctions often differed from ocean extinctions. However, the ultimate drivers were still CO2 starvation and Pangea’s formation.
As plants colonized the land, global CO2 was further reduced to near lethal levels for algae by the end of the carboniferous, while oxygen levels rapidly increased to the highest levels ever in the earth’s history, benefiting greater animal speciation.
The abundance of oxygen enabled an increase in terrestrial biodiversity as the more aquatic species could venture further onto the land and survive as sufficient oxygen simply diffused through their moist skin or via other forms of primitive breathing. The legacy of these early evolutionary experiments is still seen in amphibian and reptile species that survive today.
Lungless salamanders still totally rely on simple diffusion through their skin for uptake of oxygen (orange bars) and removal of CO2 (green bars). Many frogs and salamanders have aquatic larvae that breathe in water with gills, then metamorphose to air breathing adults with moist skin and primitive lungs ventilated by constant throat flutters.
Despite better evolved breathing mechanisms, many reptiles still supplement their oxygen via diffusion through their skin.
However, oxygen concentrations plummeted during the Permian as the phytoplankton blackout, the rainforest collapse, and Pangea’s switch to less productive vegetation in drier conditions, had dramatically reduced the photosynthetic production of oxygen. Different clades of land vertebrates that had recently evolved in a climate of abundant oxygen, could not compete with species that had evolved more efficient breathing.
Insects rely on passive diffusion for breathing. The high oxygen concentrations enabled the evolution of the earth’s biggest insects and centipedes during the carboniferous. however, those giant insects were the first to go extinct as oxygen levels plummeted during the Permian. In fact, it was the only time our earth had ever experienced the mass extinction of insect clades.
Because true amphibian and reptiles had not evolved yet, and the varied characteristics of Permian vertebrates often blurred the line between reptile and amphibian, many Permian vertebrates are best referred to as just tetrapods (4- leggeds) or amniotes if they no longer needed to lay their eggs in water.
One clade of amphibian-like animals, the lespospondyls, appeared in the carboniferous but were extinct by the mid Permian.
The dinocephalians were synapsids that replaced the pelycosaurs. But they went extinct by the Permian’s end Capitanian stage.
Diapsid clades replaced the synapsids in the mid-Permian. This clade’s more versatile genetics withstood the end-Permian extinctions and enabled the Mesozoic evolution of crocodiles, dinosaurs, birds, snakes, and lizards, many of which have persisted though today.
In light of all the many extinction factors, the NY Times’ promotion of only climate warming as the cause of Permian mass extinctions simply to maintain fear regards our current climate warming, is egregiously irresponsible. The serial reduction of biodiversity for most clades from the Ordovician to the end Permian, strongly suggests CO2 starvation was a far more powerful ecosystem disruptor than periodic warming episodes.
The loss of 61% of marine biodiversity during the Ordovician glaciations, not only demonstrates the lethal power of colder temperatures, but also calls into question the role of CO2 as a temperature control knob.
The Ordovician icehouse happened when CO2 concentrations were ten times higher than today at 5000 ppm.
Some scientists argue solar output was 4% lower and thus counteracted any warming from high CO2. But a solar drop of 7 w/m2 of insolation, does not counteract 13.5 w/m2 of calculated greenhouse warming.
The late Paleozoic icehouse has been attributed to falling CO2 concentrations, even though the glaciations were initiated in the early carboniferous when CO2 was about 2000 ppm. Scientists have proposed other theories for glaciations happening under high CO2 concentrations, suggesting the formation of Pangea prevented warm ocean currents from moderating the polar climate of the southern hemisphere.
By cherry-picking the rise in CO2 only during the very end Permian, such blinkered analyses have allowed some researchers to echo the narrative that it was deadly CO2-driven global warming that caused end Permian extinctions and then fearmonger their conclusions to rant we’re in danger of extinction from today’s 1-degree Celsius warming climate.
However, such theories totally fail to account for dead clades walking and the numerous extinctions that set the stage for the end Permian extinctions via colder conditions and CO2 starvation.
So, I encourage you to heed the warning from Aesop 2500 years ago. We must avoid any remedy that is worse than the disease. Rash attempts to sequester CO2 and lower its concentrations to levels approaching plant starvation, will prove to be disastrous.
Likewise, shun bill gates’ “block the sun” proposals. Such lunacy will definitely disrupt the earth’s life-giving carbon cycle and upset global productivity and devastate all ecosystems! Scientists must take a closer look at how CO2 starvation caused the world’s greatest extinctions and act accordingly. Furthermore, click-bait media needs to be shamed into honestly educating the public about all the science.
Or read the transcripts at perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com
Jim Steele is an ecologist and Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, (whose research restored a critical watershed), author of Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition.
People should be celebrating, not demonizing, modern increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). We cannot overstate the importance of the gas. Without it, life doesn’t exist.
First, a bit of history: During each of the last four glacial advances, CO2’s concentration fell below 190 parts per million (ppm), less than 50 percent of our current concentration of 420 ppm. When glaciers began receding about 14,000 years ago – a blink in geological time – CO2 levels fell to 182 ppm, a concentration thought to be the lowest in Earth’s history.
Line of Death
Why is this alarming? Because below 150 ppm, most terrestrial plant life dies. Without plants, there are no animals.
In other words, the Earth came within 30 ppm in CO2’s atmospheric concentration of witnessing the extinction of most land-based plants and all higher terrestrial life-forms – nearly a true climate apocalypse. Before industrialization began adding CO2 to the atmosphere, there was no telling whether the critical 150-ppm threshold wouldn’t be reached during the next glacial period.
Contrary to the mantra that today’s CO2 concentration is unprecedentedly high, our current geologic period, the Quaternary, has seen the lowest average levels of carbon dioxide since the end of the Pre-Cambrian Period more than 600 million years ago. The average CO2 concentration throughout Earth’s history was more than 2,600 ppm, nearly seven times current levels.
Beneficial CO2 Increases
CO2 increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to 420 ppm today, most of it after World War II as industrial activity accelerated. The higher concentration has been beneficial because of the gas’s role as a plant food in increasing photosynthesis.
Its benefits include:
— Faster plant growth with less water and larger crop yields.
— Expansion of forests and grasslands.
— Less erosion of topsoil because of more plant growth.
— Increases in plants’ natural insect repellents.
A summary of 270 laboratory studies covering 83 food crops showed that increasing CO2 concentrations by 300 ppm boosts plant growth by an average of 46 percent. Conversely, many studies show adverse effects of low-CO2 environments.
For instance, one indicated that, compared to today, plant growth was eight percent less in the period before the Industrial Revolution, with a low concentration of 280 ppm CO2.
Therefore, attempts to reduce CO2 concentrations are bad for plants, animals and humankind.
Data reported in a recent paper by Dr. Indur Goklany, and published by the CO2 Coalition, indicates that up to 50 percent of Earth’s vegetated areas became greener between 1982-2011.
Researchers attribute 70 percent of the greening to CO2 fertilization from of fossil fuel emissions. (Another nine percent is attributed to fertilizers derived from fossil fuels.)
Dr. Goklany also reported that the beneficial fertilization effect of CO2 – along with the use of hydrocarbon-dependent machinery, pesticides and fertilizers – have saved at least 20 percent of land area from being converted to agricultural purposes – an area 25 percent larger than North America.
The amazing increase in agricultural productivity, partly the result of more CO2, has allowed the planet to feed eight billion people, compared to the fewer than 800,000 inhabitants living a short 300 years ago.
More CO2 in the air means more moisture in the soil. The major cause of water loss in plants is attributable to transpiration, in which the stomata, or pores, on the undersides of the leaves open to absorb CO2 and expel oxygen and water vapor.
With more CO2, the stomata are open for shorter periods, the leaves lose less water, and more moisture remains in the soil. The associated increase in soil moisture has been linked to global decreases in wildfires, droughts and heat waves.
Exaggeration of CO2’s Warming Effect
Alarm over global warming stems from exaggerations of CO2’s potential to retain heat that otherwise would radiate to outer space. As with water vapor, methane and nitrous oxide, CO2 retains heat in the atmosphere by how it reacts to infrared portions of the electromagnetic spectrum.
However, the gas has saturated to a large extent within the infrared range, leaving relatively little potential for increased warming.
Both sides of the climate debate agree that the warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases significantly (logarithmically) as the concentration increases.
This is one reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming when CO2 concentrations approached 20 times that of today. This inconvenient fact, despite its importance, is rarely mentioned because it undermines the theory of a future climate catastrophe.
A doubling of CO2 from today’s level of 420 ppm – an increase estimated to take 200 years to attain – would have an inconsequential effect on global temperature.
Pennsylvania’s solar-powered fossil fuels
CO2 being liberated today from Pennsylvania coal was removed from the atmosphere by the photosynthesis of trees that fed on sunlight and carbon dioxide and then died to have their remains accumulate in the vast coal swamps of the Carboniferous Period.
Pennsylvania Marcellus and Utica shale hydrocarbons being exploited today were also the likely hydrocarbon source of shallower reservoirs producing since the late 1800s.
The source of those hydrocarbons was algae remains that gathered on the bottom of the Ordovician and Devonian seas.
Like the coal deposits, the algae used solar-powered photosynthesis and CO2 (the algal blooms were likely fueled by regular dust storms) to remove vast amounts of CO2 from the air and lock it up as carbon-rich organic matter.
The provenance of these hydrocarbons spawns two novel ideas. First, there is a strong case that these are solar-powered fuels.
Second, the sequestering of carbon during the creation of the hydrocarbons lowered atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to sub-optimum levels for plants. Therefore, the combustion of today’s coal and gas is liberating valuable CO2 molecules that are turbocharging plant growth.
The plain fact of the matter is that the modest warming of less than one degree Celsius since 1900, combined with increasing CO2, is allowing ecosystems to thrive and humanity to prosper.
Additional information on CO2’s benefits and related topics are available at CO2Coalition.org, which includes a number of publications and resources of interest.
Share this:
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Wer wir sind
Textvorschlag: Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://climate-science.press.
Kommentare
Textvorschlag: Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des Besuchers und den User-Agent-String (damit wird der Browser identifiziert), um die Erkennung von Spam zu unterstützen.
Aus deiner E-Mail-Adresse kann eine anonymisierte Zeichenfolge erstellt (auch Hash genannt) und dem Gravatar-Dienst übergeben werden, um zu prüfen, ob du diesen benutzt. Die Datenschutzerklärung des Gravatar-Dienstes findest du hier: https://automattic.com/privacy/. Nachdem dein Kommentar freigegeben wurde, ist dein Profilbild öffentlich im Kontext deines Kommentars sichtbar.
Medien
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein registrierter Benutzer bist und Fotos auf diese Website lädst, solltest du vermeiden, Fotos mit einem EXIF-GPS-Standort hochzuladen. Besucher dieser Website könnten Fotos, die auf dieser Website gespeichert sind, herunterladen und deren Standort-Informationen extrahieren.
Cookies
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar auf unserer Website schreibst, kann das eine Einwilligung sein, deinen Namen, E-Mail-Adresse und Website in Cookies zu speichern. Dies ist eine Komfortfunktion, damit du nicht, wenn du einen weiteren Kommentar schreibst, all diese Daten erneut eingeben musst. Diese Cookies werden ein Jahr lang gespeichert.
Falls du ein Konto hast und dich auf dieser Website anmeldest, werden wir ein temporäres Cookie setzen, um festzustellen, ob dein Browser Cookies akzeptiert. Dieses Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und wird verworfen, wenn du deinen Browser schließt.
Wenn du dich anmeldest, werden wir einige Cookies einrichten, um deine Anmeldeinformationen und Anzeigeoptionen zu speichern. Anmelde-Cookies verfallen nach zwei Tagen und Cookies für die Anzeigeoptionen nach einem Jahr. Falls du bei der Anmeldung „Angemeldet bleiben“ auswählst, wird deine Anmeldung zwei Wochen lang aufrechterhalten. Mit der Abmeldung aus deinem Konto werden die Anmelde-Cookies gelöscht.
Wenn du einen Artikel bearbeitest oder veröffentlichst, wird ein zusätzlicher Cookie in deinem Browser gespeichert. Dieser Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und verweist nur auf die Beitrags-ID des Artikels, den du gerade bearbeitet hast. Der Cookie verfällt nach einem Tag.
Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites
Textvorschlag: Beiträge auf dieser Website können eingebettete Inhalte beinhalten (z. B. Videos, Bilder, Beiträge etc.). Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites verhalten sich exakt so, als ob der Besucher die andere Website besucht hätte.
Diese Websites können Daten über dich sammeln, Cookies benutzen, zusätzliche Tracking-Dienste von Dritten einbetten und deine Interaktion mit diesem eingebetteten Inhalt aufzeichnen, inklusive deiner Interaktion mit dem eingebetteten Inhalt, falls du ein Konto hast und auf dieser Website angemeldet bist.
Mit wem wir deine Daten teilen
Textvorschlag: Wenn du eine Zurücksetzung des Passworts beantragst, wird deine IP-Adresse in der E-Mail zur Zurücksetzung enthalten sein.
Wie lange wir deine Daten speichern
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar schreibst, wird dieser inklusive Metadaten zeitlich unbegrenzt gespeichert. Auf diese Art können wir Folgekommentare automatisch erkennen und freigeben, anstatt sie in einer Moderations-Warteschlange festzuhalten.
Für Benutzer, die sich auf unserer Website registrieren, speichern wir zusätzlich die persönlichen Informationen, die sie in ihren Benutzerprofilen angeben. Alle Benutzer können jederzeit ihre persönlichen Informationen einsehen, verändern oder löschen (der Benutzername kann nicht verändert werden). Administratoren der Website können diese Informationen ebenfalls einsehen und verändern.
Welche Rechte du an deinen Daten hast
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein Konto auf dieser Website besitzt oder Kommentare geschrieben hast, kannst du einen Export deiner personenbezogenen Daten bei uns anfordern, inklusive aller Daten, die du uns mitgeteilt hast. Darüber hinaus kannst du die Löschung aller personenbezogenen Daten, die wir von dir gespeichert haben, anfordern. Dies umfasst nicht die Daten, die wir aufgrund administrativer, rechtlicher oder sicherheitsrelevanter Notwendigkeiten aufbewahren müssen.
Wohin deine Daten gesendet werden
Textvorschlag: Besucher-Kommentare könnten von einem automatisierten Dienst zur Spam-Erkennung untersucht werden.
