Home » Global Warming » That’s What Happens in a “Greenhouse.” Duh!

That’s What Happens in a “Greenhouse.” Duh!

As DaveScott has pointed out in this space on several occasions, increased levels of atmospheric CO2 is, in at least some very important respects, a good thing.  Now Nature reports scientists are reaching the same conclusion here (sub required).

Barley, beets (for those who like food that tastes like dirt) and wheat production increased by 10% when exposed to the year 2050 CO2 levels predicted by some climate models.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

3 Responses to That’s What Happens in a “Greenhouse.” Duh!

  1. “…the year 2050 CO2 levels predicted by some climate models.”

    Better revise that to 2010, because the 700 forest fires now blazing in California and Nevada must be pumping out enough CO2 to cover 40 climate model years.

    Surprisingly (but not really) there has been virtually no mention in the daily press of the fires’ very obviously gi-normous “carbon footprint.”

    Anyone care to calculate/estimate how much CO2 these perennial West Coast fires spew out annually, and how that compares to auto-fumes output?

  2. BarryA

    re; CO2 enrichment for increased plant growth

    Scientists have known that for probably a century. I’ve known it for decades.

    Emkay

    The fires are emitting a lot of CO2 but that’s probably more than offset by particulate pollutants which block sunlight and have a cooling effect.

    CO2 is a very very minor greenhouse gas. Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. The whole theory behind the CO2 bogeyman is that just a little bit of added greenhouse gas will throw the whole system into an unstoppable cycle of positive feedbacks leading to a runaway greenhouse, the sky will fall, and we all die. Mention is seldom made that historic CO2 levels have been far higher, the earth far warmer, and it never resulted in a runaway greenhouse. It won’t happen this time either. The feedbacks are actually negative, which is what we really have to fear, because those result in glaciers covering most of the globe. When the earth is at its warmest the whole thing is covered in lush green growth and all the higher ups in the food chain enjoy explosive growth as well. When the earth is cold, it isn’t lush with plant growth, and stuff higher up the food chain starves. Cold is bad. Warm is good. The bad thing is mankind building a massive civilization that depends on the status quo of existing ocean level. We built a huge infrastructure just above sea level. One thing that does surely happen on a warmer earth is sea levels rises and it rises a lot. For plants and animals that don’t build immmovable cities of concrete, glass, and steel right on the shore this is not a problem. They just migrate to higher land and have plenty of time to do it. Man’s short sightedness is not nature’s problem. What we should be doing instead of trying to control what we can’t control (global climate) is start planning to move to higher ground if and when the need arises. Not much to worry about though, even the nattering nabobs of negativity at the IPCC are predicting a worst case sea level rise of no more than a few feet by the end of the century. We’ll have burnt up all the fossil fuels long before then anyhow and our biggest problem will be trying to keep warm in the winter with no heating fuel.

  3. I’m sure that 2/3rd’s of a degree change over the last 12 decades will start to matter by then. (gore kool-aid off)

Leave a Reply