Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Dioxide
1NC
Agricultural crises are creating global food shortages that kills a billion
people increased CO2 is key to solve
Idsos, 11 [Sherwood PhD and former research physicist for the Department of Agriculture, Keith PhD Botany, Craig PhD
Geography, 6/6/2011, Meeting the Food Needs of a Growing World Population,
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N27/EDIT.php] DHirsch
Parry and Hawkesford (2010) introduce their study of the global problem by noting that " food
production needs to
increase 50% by 2030 and double by 2050 to meet projected demands ," and they note that
at the same time the demand for food is increasing, production is progressively
being limited by "non-food uses of crops and cropland ," such as the production of biofuels, stating
that in their homeland of the UK, "by 2015 more than a quarter of wheat grain may be destined for bioenergy production," which
surely must strike one as both sad and strange, when they also note that " currently, at least one billion people
are chronically malnourished and the situation is deteriorating," with more people
"hungrier now than at the start of the millennium." So what to do about it: that is the
question the two researchers broach in their review of the sad situation. They begin by describing the allimportant process of photosynthesis, by which the earth's plants "convert light
energy into chemical energy, which is used in the assimilation of atmospheric
CO2 and the formation of sugars that fuel growth and yield," which phenomena
make this natural and life-sustaining process , in their words, "a major target for
improving crop productivity both via conventional breeding and biotechnology."
Next to a plant's need for carbon dioxide comes its need for water, the availability
of which, in the words of Parry and Hawkesford, "is the major constraint on world
crop productivity." And they state that "since more than 80% of the [world's] available
water is used for agricultural production, there is little opportunity to use
additional water for crop production, especially because as populations increase,
the demand to use water for other activities also increases ." Hence, they rightly conclude that "a
real and immediate challenge for agriculture is to increase crop production with
less available water." Enlarging upon this challenge, they give an example of a success story: the Australian wheat variety
'Drysdale', which gained its fame "because it uses water more efficiently." This valued characteristic is achieved "by slightly
restricting stomatal aperture and thereby the loss of water from the leaves." They note, however, that this ability "reduces
photosynthetic performance slightly under ideal conditions," but they say it enables plants to "have access to water later in the
growing season thereby increasing total photosynthesis over the life of the crop." Of course, Drysdale is
but one variety of one crop; and the ideal goal would be to get nearly all varieties
of all crops to use water more efficiently. And that goal can actually be reached
by doing nothing, by merely halting the efforts of radical environmentalists to
deny earth's carbon-based life forms -- that's all of us and the rest of the earth's
plants and animals -- the extra carbon we and they need to live our lives to the
fullest. This is because allowing the air's CO2content to rise in response to the burning of
fossil fuels naturally causes the vast majority of earth's plants to progressively
reduce the apertures of their stomata and thereby lower the rate at which water
escapes through them to the air. And the result is even better than that produced by
the breeding of Drysdale, because the extra CO2 in the airmore than
overcomes the photosynthetic reduction that results from the partial closure of
plant stomatal apertures, allowing even more yield to be produced per unit of
water transpired in the process. Yet man can make the situation better still, by breeding
and selecting crop varieties that perform better under higher atmospheric
CO2 concentrations than the varieties we currently rely upon, or he can employ
various technological means of altering them to do so. Truly, we can succeed, even
where "the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of substantially
reducing the world's hungry by 2015 will not be met," as Parry and Hawkesford accurately inform us.
And this truly seems to us the moral thing to do, when "at least one billion people
are chronically malnourished and the situation is deteriorating," with more people
"hungrier now than at the start of the millennium."
there is no rational basis whatsoever to support the contention that carbondioxide-driven global warming would be on the whole harmful to life and
civilization. Quite the contrary: All available evidence supports the contention that
human CO2 emissions offer great benefits to the earths community of life. Putting
aside for the moment the question of whether human industrial CO2 emissions are having an effect on
climate, it is quite clear that they are raising atmospheric CO2 levels. As a result,
they are having a strong and markedly positive effect on plant growth worldwide.
There is no doubt about this. NASA satellite observations taken from orbit since
1958 show that, concurrent with the 19 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 over
the past half century, the rate of plant growth in the continental United States has
increased by 14 percent. Studies done at Oak Ridge National Lab on forest trees have shown that increasing the
carbon dioxide level 50 percent, to the 550 parts per million level projected to prevail at the end of the 21 century, will likely
increase photosynthetic productivity by a further 24 percent. This is readily reproducible laboratory
science. If CO2 levels are increased, the rate of plant growth will accelerate. Now
let us consider the question of warming: If it is occurring and I believe it is,
based not on disputable temperature measurements but on sea levels, which have
risen two inches in two decades is it a good thing or a bad thing? Answer: It is a
very good thing. Global warming would increase the rate of evaporation from the
oceans. This would increase rainfall worldwide. In addition, global warming
would lengthen the growing season, thereby increasing still further the bounty of
both agriculture and nature.
a meta-analysis
of 159 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles published between 1983 and 2000, dealing with
the effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on the reproductive growth
characteristics of several domesticated and wild plants. In calculating the mean responses reported
in those papers, Jablonski et al. found that for increases in the air's CO2 concentration ranging
from approximately 150 to 450 ppm (rough average of 300 ppm), across all species studied,
the extra CO2 supplied to the plants resulted in 19% more flowers, 18% more
fruits, 16% more seeds, 4% greater individual seed mass, 25% greater total seed
mass (equivalent to yield), and 31% greater total mass.
The effects of increasing CO2 concentrations on various crops are summarized in Table 1
Increases in plant growth vary among species. As expected the crops with the so-called C4 photosynthetic pathway, maize, and
sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench], have smaller responses than the C3 crops. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) may be higher
because it is a woody species. However, all show a positive response to CO2 increases . In general,
doubling CO2
Nearly all of Earth's plant life responds favorably to increases in the air's
CO2 content by exhibiting enhanced rates of photosynthesis and biomass
production. But what about other plant characteristics? How do they respond to rising atmospheric CO2? The present review
investigates what scientists have learned with respect to plant floral features. In one of the earliest papers to address this subject,
Idso et al. (1990) grew water lilies in sunken metal stock tanks located out-of-doors and enclosed within clear-plastic-wall open-top
chambers through which air of either 350 or 650 ppm CO2 was continuously circulated. Over the course of two growing seasons, he
and his colleagues measured a number of plant responses to these two environmental treatments. Their results indicated
that the water lilies in the CO2-enriched enclosures grew better than the water
lilies in the ambient CO2 enclosures, as the leaves in the CO2-enriched tanks were
larger and more substantial, and 75% more of them were produced over the course
of the initial five-month growing season. Each of the plants in the CO2-enriched
tanks also produced twice as many flowers as the plants growing in normal air;
and the flowers that blossomed in the CO2-enriched air were more substantial
than those that bloomed in the air of normal CO2 concentration: they had more
petals, the petals were longer, they had a greater percent dry matter content, and
each flower consequently weighed about 50% more . In addition, the stems that
supported the flowers were slightly longer in the CO2-enriched tanks; and the
percent dry matter contents of both the flower and leaf stems were greater, so that
the total dry matter in the flower and leaf stems in the CO2-enriched tanks
exceeded that of the flower and leaf stems in the ambient-air tanks by
approximately 60%. Several years later, Deng and Woodward (1998) studied the direct and interactive effects of elevated
CO2and nitrogen supply by growing strawberries in controlled glasshouses exposed to atmospheric CO2concentrations of 390 and
560 ppm at three levels of nitrogen for nearly three months. The two authors found that strawberries growing at the
researchers report that the soil warming of their study resulted in carbon losses
from the soil; but they say that it simultaneously stimulated carbon gains in the
woody tissues of the trees. Altogether, over the seven years of the experiment, they indicate that "the
cumulative warming-induced net flux of carbon has been from the forest to the
atmosphere," but they note that "the magnitude of the flux has diminished over
time as a result of the increase in tree growth rate in the heated area." And they state that
in the seventh year of the study, "warming-induced soil carbon losses were almost
totally compensated for by plant carbon gains in response to warming," which
phenomenon they attributed to "warming-induced increases in nitrogen
availability." What it means Melillo et al. conclude that "although warming has resulted in a net
positive feedback to the climate system, the magnitude of the feedback has been
substantially dampened by the increase in storage of carbon in vegetation ." And if their
study were to continue, and if the trend established over its first seven years were to continue, one could expect to see
the sign of the feedback change from positive to negative, perhaps as soon as the
next year or two, and to grow more negative from that point in time, with the longterm climate feedback ultimately proving to be negative, demonstrating the
extreme importance of long-term studies of this nature.
can influence the political stability of countries . Simultaneously, political instability (such as wars or
other forms of civil strife) can influence food security, as can be seen recently in the case of Indonesia. One seminar participant
noted that the greatest risk for regime stability is the risk of urban riotsriots that are
sometimes sparked by food shortages or sudden price increases among food products. Generally, starvation in
the countryside does not result in political instability. This is because those who experience the brunt of food shortages tend to be
rural and have little political voice. A recent example of this phenomenon occurred in India where rising food prices led to urban
riots directed at Indias ruling political partythe Bharatiya Janata Party. Similarly, when the price of rice soared in Indonesia,
thereby making it prohibitively expensive for a large segment of the population, food riots erupted in eastern Java. The government
deployed military forces around markets to prevent looting. Moreover, Chinas sharp rejection of the Lester Brown thesis that China
needs to import massive amounts of grain from the world market in the coming century was partially rooted in a persistent fear
within the Chinese government that food insecurity could potentially provoke widespread anger against the Communist Party and
perhaps lead to civil unrest. Thus, the sensitivity that many Asian governments have about food security may be linked to fears of
social instability and perhaps even political revolution. Food security thus becomes an issue of regime survival. Another security
concern prominent in many Asian capitals is the prospect for increased economic migration as a result of food shortages. Internal
migration is the first concern for many governments, especially as internal migration is often a natural "coping response" in times of
famine. When North Korea experienced severe floods in September 1995, South Korea responded by creating refugee camps to deal
with the possible flood of people who might have fled toward the south. Similarly, Indonesias food crisis in 1997 was partly
responsible for the outflow of thousands of Indonesian migrants to Malaysia. As the crisis in Indonesia intensified in early 1998,
many neighboring countries feared that many more "hungry Indonesians [would] take to boats in search of a better life." 54 Many
countries in East Asia are extremely sensitive and wary about immigrationespecially mass migration or illegal migration. The
recent surge in labor and economic migration throughout the region has catapulted the immigration issue to the highest levels of
government. Immigration disputes, moreover, have broken out between nationssuch as the in case of Singapore and the
Philippines in 1995regarding illegal immigration and repatriation policies. Few governments in the region officially desire more
immigration. To the extent that food insecurity might spur greater migration, then it
The rhizome of Z. officinale is generally used as a culinary spice in Malaysia, and also
for the treatment of oral diseases, leucorrhoea, stomachb pain, stomach
discomfort, diuretic, inflammation and dysentery. Shukla et al. (2007) reported
cancer preventive properties of ginger and showed that this ability is related to
[6]-gingerol. Kuokkanen et al. (2001) showed that the concentration of total phenolics was
significantly increased in the birch leaves produced in the CO2-enriched air , as has also
been observed in the experiments of Lavola and Julkunen (1994), Williams et al. (1994), Kinney et al. (1997) and Ibrahim et al.
(2011). Environmental conditions, cultural practice, and management approaches can impact the quality of food by their abilities to
promote good health and well being. In fact, new management strategies are emerging that use ecophysiological factors to elevate
phytochemical concentrations in food crops. Some ecophysiological conditions that are thought to
The results showed strong inhibitory activity of Malaysian young ginger varieties
on human breast cancer cells (MCF7 and MDAMB231). Our results in this study
indicate that some compounds in Malaysian young ginger varieties posses
anticancer activities and may contribute to the therapeutic effect of this medicinal
herb. According to the report of the American National Cancer Institute (NCI), the criteria of anticancer activity for the crude
extracts of herbs is an IC50<30 g/ml (Itharat et al., 2004). Thus, according to the results from current
study seems that enriched ginger varieties by elevated CO2 concentration could be
employed in ethno-medicine for the management of breast cancerous diseases.
Therefore, more focused clinical studies are necessary to establish whether these varieties can be exploited to reach cancer blocking
or remedial effects in human body.
Exts Ginger
Antioxidants in Ginger are significantly higher under CO2 studies prove
Jaafar et. al 11 [Hawa and Ali Ghasemzadeh, Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University Putra
Malaysia, 43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia, 7/18/2011. Antioxidant potential and anticancer activity of young ginger
(Zingiber officinale Roscoe) grown under different CO2 concentration,
http://www.academicjournals.org/jmpr/PDF/pdf2011/18July/Ghasemzadeh%20and%20Jaafar.pdf] DHirsch
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Determination of antioxidant activity of ginger The results obtained from the preliminary analysis of
antioxidant activity are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. According to the data obtained, significant differences were
rhizomes by elevated CO2 concentration more than in leaves with highest value of TBA (78.73%) obtained from Halia Bara
rhizomes. The leaves extract of Halia Bentong and Halia Bara in ambient CO2 condition exhibited strong potential of free radical
scavenging activity. According to the results TBA content of the Halia Bara leaves grown in ambient CO2 concentration reached to
70.73%, while at the same extract concentration, that of the rhizomes was 67.88% (Table 1). In ambient CO2
concentration differences between leaves and rhizomes in both varieties for TBA
activity was not significant, while in elevated CO2 concentration significant
differences was observed between different parts of varieties. The results of the
current study showed that TBA activity of the ginger parts extract were less than
those of -tocopherol (82.1%) and quercetin (94.7%), at 45 g/ml when grown under
ambient CO2 (Figure 1). Halia Bara rhizomes grown under elevated CO2 showed higher antioxidant activities compare to tocopherol at concentration of 47 g/ml and above. Methanol extracts may include phenolic and hydroxy-phenolic compounds with
acids, alcohols, sugars or glycosides, as reported by Kim et al. (2004). Many researchers had shown that high total flavonoids
content increases antioxidant activity and there was a linear correlation between flavonoids content and antioxidant activity (Jung et
al., 2007; Ghasemzadeh et al., 2010a, b). Silva et al. (2002) showed myricetin is expected to be the most efficient avonoid
antioxidant followed by quercetin.
Considerable growth and developmental variations occur in plants exposed to UV-B radiation and
atmospheric [CO2 ]. Selection of leaves from a plant at different node positions provided us with leaves that differed in
age, and the leaves at same node in different treatments enabled us to study the effect of different intensities of UV-B radiation and
[CO2 ] on leaves of the same age. In
cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. cv. DES119), Sassenrath-Cole et al. (1996) found that
photosynthetic responses to light environment during leaf ageing were
solely as a result of physiological changes within the senescing leaf and not the
result of photon flux density environment or shading. Decline in photosynthesis
and chlorophyll are early symptoms of senescence, with chloroplasts as one of the
primary targets for degradation (Thomas and Stoddart 1980, Grove and Mohanty 1992). In cotton,
remobilization of leaf N to reproductive organs appears to be the principle
component leading to photosynthetic decline (Pettigrew et al. 2000) and the data also
suggest that environmental factors can play a role in causing the photosynthetic
decline. In our study, atmospheric [CO2 ] did not alter the senescence as indicated by Pn and chlorophyll pigments.
Elevated [CO2 ], however, increased Pn by 35% similar to that recorded in earlier
studies in well-watered and well fertilized conditions (Reddy et al. 1997, 2000). In this study, at 0 kJ
changes in leaf
of UV-B and with increase in leafage, a decrease in Pn was recorded with no change in chlorophyll pigments indicating that decline
in Pn is a stimulant for leaf senescence in cotton. The
Agriculture and Environmental Sciences , Islamia University, Bahawalpur , Pakistan (Muhammad Ather Nadeem, Asghar Ali,
Muhammad Tahir , Muhammad Naeem 1 , Asim Raza Chadhar and Sagheer Ahmad, 2010, Effect of Nitrogen Levels and Plant
Spacing on Growth and Yield of Cotton, Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 2,
http://www.pjlss.edu.pk/sites/default/files/121-124%20(dr.%20Athar%202).pdf | JJ)
attack are main causes of its low yield. In cotton plant, spacing has effects on the growth and yield characteristics of the plant. Plant
population (density) is very important for attaining optimum crop growth and yield under irrigated conditions. Mostly, farmers
maintain plant spacing and density according to their traditional methods of planting rather than variety requirement and hence do
not obtain the high crop yield. Hussain et al. (2000) reported that 30 cm spacing between cotton plants increased plant height,
number of bolls per plant and boll weight as compared to 10 cm and 20 cm. However, plant spacing did not affect ginning out turn
or fiber quality. On the other hand Muhammad et al. (2002) found that boll weight decreased by increasing plant population. The
field conditions that produce short stature plants can generally tolerate higher plant density without incurring significant yield
reduction (Hake et al., 1991). Adequate plant population facilitates the efficient use of applied fertilizers and irrigation (Abbas,
2000). When density is low, fruiting branches are longer and a greater percentage of bolls are produced on outer position of fruiting
branches but first position bolls produced by high density are the biggest and best resulting in high yield. Fruit initiation was
influenced by plant density in upland cotton (Buxton et al., 1977).
Nuclear War
Guthrie, 2K (Grant, J.D. candidate, 2000, University of California, Hastings College of the Law., Hastings International
and Comparative Law Review Nuclear Testing Rocks the Sub-Continent: Can International Law Halt the Impending Nuclear
Conflict Between India and Pakistan? Spring/Summer 2000, pg lexis wyo-ef)
Exts Pakistan
Causes global conflict
Pitt 9, Managing Editor of truthout.org, NYT and internationally bestselling author, 5/8/2009. Unstable
Pakistan Threatens the World, www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?
mod=article&cat=commentary&article=2183)
But a suicide bomber in Pakistan rammed a car packed with explosives into a jeep filled with troops today, killing five and
wounding as many as 21, including several children who were waiting for a ride to school. Residents of the region where the attack
took place are fleeing in terror as gunfire rings out around them, and government forces have been unable to quell the violence. Two
regional government officials were beheaded by militants in retaliation for the killing of other militants by government forces. As
familiar as this sounds, it did not take place where we have come to expect such terrible events. This, unfortunately, is a whole new
ballgame. It is part of another conflict that is brewing, one which puts what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan in deep shade, and
which represents a grave and growing threat to us all. Pakistan is now trembling on the edge of violent
chaos, and is doing so with nuclear weapons in its hip pocket, right in the middle of one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the
world. The situation in brief: Pakistan for years has been a nation in turmoil, run by a shaky government supported by a corrupted
system, dominated by a blatantly criminal security service, and threatened by a large fundamentalist Islamic population with deep
ties to the Taliban in Afghanistan. All this is piled atop an ongoing standoff with neighboring India that has been the center of
political gravity in the region for more than half a century. The
could be galvanized into military action of some kind, as could nuclear-armed China or nucleararmed Russia. If the Pakistani government does fall, and all those Pakistani nukes are not immediately accounted for and
secured, the specter (or reality) of loose nukes falling into the hands of terrorist organizations
could place the entire world on a collision course with unimaginable disaster.
Only where you find earthworms will you find rich, healthy soil with high amounts
of organic matter and vice versa. Earthworms simply cannot proliferate and
flourish in areas where chemical fertilizers and pesticides are paramount.
Earthworms, actually, act as a barometer for soil health . Many agriculture oriented people still do
not understand or appreciate the tremendous enriching value that earthworms have on our soils. It took a French scientist and
ecologist, Andr Voisin, author of the insightful Soil, Grass and Cancer, to point out that the
the slippery lumbricid, most common in the United States and Europe, is
agriculture but is the very foundation of all civilization . In Better Grassland Sward, Voisin traces
man's civilizations in relation to the distribution of active earthworms, of which he lists some three thousand species. Among the
most ancient of terrestrial animal groups, several hundred million years old, they come in various colors and sizes: brown, purple,
red, pink, blue, green and light tan, the smallest barely an inch long, the largest a ten-foot giant in Australia, though South African
newspapers reported a boa-constrictor-sized monster twenty feet long, a yard wide through the middle. The most common
European and American earthworm, Lumbricus terrestris, grows barely longer than six inches. Ten thousand years ago, immediately
after the last ice age, the
work of earthworms.
It was estimated that during the six months of active growing season
each year the castings of earthworms on these soils amounted to a stunning 120
tons per acre, and in each handful of that soil are more microorganisms than there
are humans on the planet. Thirty years before the birth of Darwin, as the American colonists were breaking away
from the mother country, an English naturalist, Gilbert White, was writing: Worms seem to be the great
promoters of vegetation, perforating and loosening the soil, rendering it pervious
to rains and the fibers of plants by drawing straws and stalks of leaves and twigs
into it; and, most of all, by throwing up such infinite numbers of lumps of earth
called worm-casts, which being their excrement, is a fine manure for grain and
grass. . . . The earth without worms would soon become cold, hard-bound, and
void of fermentation, and consequently sterile . That the phenomenon was understood before the time of
Christ is clear from Cleopatra's decree that the earthworm be revered and protected by all her subjects as a sacred animal. Egyptians
were forbidden to remove it from the land, and farmers were not to trouble the worms for fear of stunting the renowned fertility of
the Nilotic valley's soil.
stretches back to its Second Assessment Report in 1995. On that occasion, recommendations
from one of the expert science advisory groups were reworded in alarmist terms by a single
scientist charged with preparing the wording for the critical Summary for Policymakers. Along
the way since, we have had: (i) the resignation of leading scientists from IPCC because of their
dissatisfaction with its procedures; (ii) the domination of the 2001 Third Assessment Report by
the statistically invalid hockey stick graph of global temperature; and (iii) the discovery of the
dysfunctional peer-reviewing of the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, in which a full 30 percent
of the references have proved to represent student theses and reports by environmental activist
groups and the like. Meanwhile, November 2009 saw the publication of e-mails leaked from the IPCCs main advisory group
for the global temperature record, located at the Climatic Research Centre (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. As the
subsequent Climategate affair showed, CRU scientists and their worldwide network of
contacts have been abusing basic scientific process for many years, including attempting to
manipulate the scientific literature toward their preferred alarmist stance on global warming in
support of IPCC intentions. Finally, and just a few weeks ago, Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise
published her devastating expos of the chicanery and corruption that underlie many IPCC processes in a new book titled The
delinquent teenager who was mistaken for the worlds top climate expert.It has been clear for many years, then and as is
to
be expected of a body that is composed of government appointees that the IPCC is dominantly
a political body. As such, the organization gives political advice that, in turn, rests upon
politicized and spun views of the basic science (i.e., Frisbee science). The IPCCs reputation as
a source of credible and impartial scientific advice is, therefore, now shredded beyond retrieval,
and many senior scientists believe that it should be closed down forthwith. In contrast, the authors
and contributors to the NIPCC publications represent independent and often senior scientists
who are beholden to no one, and have no political agenda to pursue. NIPCC presents the science
as it is, not as it can be spun. In particular, NIPCC volumes contain descriptions of hundreds of
papers that argue against the occurrence of dangerous human-caused global warming and which
have gone unreported or under-reported by the IPCC.
This is the essential background to understanding Fakegate, the strange and still being written
story of the decline and fall of political activist Peter Gleick , who had successfully engineered a long career
posing as an objective climate scientist. Gleick, who has announced he is taking a temporary, short-term leave of absence as
president of the Pacific Institute, also served until recently as chairman of the science integrity task force of the American
Geophysical Union. Gleick has publicly confessed that he contacted The Heartland Institute
fraudulently pretending to be a member of the Board of Directors . Emails released by The Heartland
Institute show that he created an email address similar to that of a board member and used it to convince a staff member to send
him confidential board materials. Gleick then forwarded the documents to 15 global warming alarmist
advocacy organizations and sympathetic journalists, who immediately posted them online and
blogged and wrote about them. Their expectation apparently was that the documents would be as embarrassing and
damaging to the global warming skeptics as were the emails revealed in the Climategate scandal to the alarmist side. The
Climategate revelations showed scientific leaders of the UNs IPCC and global warming alarmist movement plotting to falsify climate
data and exclude those raising doubts about their theories from scientific publications, while coordinating their message with
supposedly objective mainstream journalists. But the stolen Heartland documents exonerated, rather than
embarrassed, the skeptic movement. They demonstrate only an interest at Heartland in getting
the truth out on the actual objective science. They revealed little funding from oil companies and
other self interested commercial enterprises, who actually contribute heavily to global warming
alarmists as protection money instead. The documents also show how poorly funded the global warming
skeptics at Heartland are, managing on a shoestring to raise a shockingly successful global
challenge to the heavily overfunded UN and politicized government science. As the Wall Street
Journal observed on Feb. 21, while Heartlands budget for the NIPCC this year totals $388,000, that
compares to $6.5 million for the UNs IPCC, and $2.5 billion that President Obamas budget
commits for research into the global changes that have resulted primarily from global overdependence on fossil fuels. That demonstrates how an ounce of truth can overcome a tidal wave
of falsehood.
Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics Cum Laude, University of Minnesota (1964); M.S. Soil Science, University of Minnesota
(1966); Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1967); Research Assistant in Physics, University of Minnesota (1962); National
Defense Education Act Fellowship (1964-1967); Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974); Editorial Board Member, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (19721993); Secretary, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1973-1974); Vice-Chair, American Meteorological
Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1974-1975); Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001); Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1975-1976);
Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977); Secretary, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1979-1980);
President, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1980-1982); Member, Task Force on "Alternative
Crops", Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1983); Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State
University (1984-2007); Editorial Board Member, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present); Member,
Botanical Society of America; Member, American Geophysical Union; Member, American Society of Agronomy; ISI Highly Cited
Researcher; President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present) Idso: "I presume that all
of the original basic scientific research articles of which I am an author that appear on the list
were written while I was an employee of the USDA's Agricultural Research Service; and,
therefore, the only source of funding would have been the U.S. government. I retired from my position
as a Research Physicist at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in late 2001 and have not written any new reports of new original
research. Since then, I have concentrated solely on studying new research reports written by others that appear each week in a
variety of different scientific journals and writing brief reviews of them for the CO2Science website. In both of these
segments of my scientific career, I have always presented -- and continue to present -- what I
believe to be the truth. Funding never has had, and never will have, any influence on what I
believe, what I say, and what I write." Conclusion: The scientists unjustly attacked in the Carbon Brief
article are not "linked to" [funded by] ExxonMobil. The Carbon Brief and any other website perpetuating this smear
should issue a retraction.
Claiming that our authors are biased because of funding is both false and
also on the level of Nazi/Marxist policy
Reisman 06 George Reisman, contributor to the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on
Economics and Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics June 29 2006 CO2 Sciences Finding on Global Warming:
A Marxist-Type Response http://archive.mises.org/5248/co2-sciences-finding-on-global-warming-a-marxist-type-response/
One of the very first replies to my posting of CO2 Sciences journal review A 221-Year Temperature History of the Southwest Coast
of Greenland was this: CO2 Science is funded by Exxon. Come on, you guys are usually such
independent thinkers you can do better than rehash this stuff. The author of this statement
believes that it is sufficient to name the economic affiliation of an individual or organization to
be able to dismiss and ignore anything that comes from them. This was a tactic employed for
generations by the Marxists. Instead of refuting the criticisms leveled against their doctrines by
economists and others, they were content to identify critics as a member of the capitalist class or
as having received financial support from capitalists. The Nazis had their own variant of the
practice. They were content to identify their critics as Jewish or as somehow supported by Jews
or otherwise affiliated with Jews. The devastating criticisms of socialism made by Mises were
dismissed on both grounds. Now, today, here is Exxon. I dont even know that it is the source of funds for CO2 Science, or
is the major or only source. But Im willing to assume that it is. How does it follow from that, that whatever comes from CO2 Science,
or from Exxon, on the subject of global warming and CO2 emissions is automatically false? Yes, it is true that Exxon-Mobil is the
largest American oil company and wants to be able to remain in that branch of business, while the environmental movement would
like to destroy it, and the whole rest of the oil industry, along with the coal and atomic power industries, and is using the alleged
connection between global warming and CO2 emissions as its main weapon in its attempt to do so. (This weapon, of course, does not
apply in the case of atomic power. But atomic power is regarded by the environmental movement as a terrifying death ray, even
more frightening than global warming.) So, yes, Exxon may have a financial self-interest at stake, which depends on whether or not
there is a real connection between the CO2 emitted by the consumption of its fuels and global warming. Its financial self-interest
may very well lie with the establishment of lack of any connection. As a minor digression, I need to point out that this is not
necessarily the case. To the extent that the environmental movement succeeds in making petroleum scarcer and more expensive, the
revenues and profits earned by the owners of existing petroleum reserves rise. Major oil companies like Exxon-Mobil have actually
gained in this way and have been severely criticized for these gains. In fact, some of their critics seem to imply that oil companies
are, or at least should be, actual supporters of the environmental movement, precisely because it makes oil scarcer and more
expensive and thus increases their profits to the extent that they already have reserves. I have to say that I believe that the norm of
competition within the oil industry, as well as its pride in the products it produces, prevents any such monopolistic, proenvironmentalist mindset. The individual oil company knows that its self-interest lies with an increase in its reserves, because
whatever the effect on the overall supply and price of petroleum, its own situation would be worse if others added those reserves
instead of it. Because then, it would be faced with the same lower price, but have less to sell. So, granted, the individual oil
companies, like Exxon Mobil, have a financial self-interest in the continued and growing production of petroleum and are glad to
find any evidence they can that diminishes the threat of the environmentalist agenda. The relevant question is, which better serves
their self-interest in accomplishing this? Is it to fabricate the facts or to find the actual facts and present them if they support its
case? Or, to say the same thing in different words, which is the better defense of their self-interest: The actual truth if it supports
their case? Or simply lies? In the United States, we are fortunate to have both a long-standing tradition and clear Constitutional
protection of a defendants right in a criminal trial not to testify. What the Marxists and Nazis and those who are following in their
AT: Ozone
O3 doesnt affect plant productivity
Gray et al. 10 7/19/10. Sharon B. Gray has a Ph.D. in Plant Biology from the University of Illinois at
UrbanaChampaign [Sharon B., Orla Dermoda, and Evan H. DeLucia. "Journal of Experimental Botany." Spectral Reflectance from a
Soybean Canopy Exposed to Elevated CO2 and O3. Oxford Journals, 19 July 2010.
<http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/61/15/4413.short>.MR
By affecting the physiology and structure of plant canopies, increasing atmospheric
Although NIR/red showed the same trend, the effect of O3 on NIR/red was not statistically
significant. Season-wide analysis showed significant effects of O3 on PRI; however, analysis of
individual dates revealed that this effect was only statistically significant on two dates. Elevated
O3 had minimal effects on the total canopy chlorophyll index. PRI appeared to be more sensitive to decreased
photosynthetic capacity of the canopy as a whole compared with previously published single leaf gas exchange measurements at
SoyFACE, possibly because PRI integrates the reflectance signal of older leaves with accumulated O 3 damage and healthy young,
upper canopy leaves, enabling detection of significant decreases in photosynthetic carbon assimilation which have not been detected
in previous studies which measured gas exchange of upper canopy leaves. When the canopy was exposed to elevated
CO2 and O3 simultaneously, the deleterious effects of elevated O3 were diminished. Reflectance data,
while less sensitive than direct measurements of physiological/structural parameters, corroborate direct measurements of LAI and
photosynthetic gas exchange made during the same season, as well as results from previous years at SoyFACE, demonstrating that
these indices accurately represent structural and physiological effects of changing tropospheric chemistry on soybean growing in a
field setting.
In response to short-term fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 concentration, ca, plants adjust leaf diffusive
conductance to CO2, gc, via feedback regulation of stomatal aperture as part of a mechanism for
optimizing CO2 uptake with respect to water loss. The operational range of this elaborate control mechanism is
determined by the maximum diffusive conductance to CO 2, gc(max), which is set by the size (S) and density (number per unit area, D)
of stomata on the leaf surface. Here, we show that, in response to long-term exposure to elevated or
subambient ca, plants alter gc(max) in the direction of the short-term feedback response of gc to ca
via adjustment of S and D. This adaptive feedback response to ca, consistent with long-term optimization of leaf gas
exchange, was observed in four species spanning a diverse taxonomic range (the lycophyte Selaginella uncinata, the fern Osmunda
regalis and the angiosperms Commelina communis and Vicia faba). Furthermore, using direct observation as well as flow
cytometry, we observed correlated increases in S, guard cell nucleus size and average apparent 1C DNA amount in epidermal cell
nuclei with increasing ca, suggesting that stomatal and leaf adaptation to ca is linked to genome scaling.
air's CO2 content thus continues to rise, phosphatase activity in wheat roots should
increase, thereby converting organic phosphorus into inorganic forms that can be
used to support the increased plant growth and development that is stimulated by
higher CO2 concentrations. And because a similar increase in phosphatase activity at elevated CO2 has already been
reported for a native Australian pasture grass, these results may be applicable to most of Earth's
vegetation. If this is indeed the case, then plants that are currently phosphorus limited in
their growth might increase their phosphorous acquisition from soil organic
supplies as the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases ; and this phenomenon, in turn,
may allow them to sequester even greater amounts of carbon from the air as the
atmosphere's CO2 concentration climbs ever higher.
from present-day levels will increase average C3 species growth on the order of 30%
under optimum conditions (e.g., Kimball, 1983, 2007, 2010; Kimball et al., 2002) with the expectation that an
increase to 440 mol mol1 would increase C3 plant growth on the order of 10%. Since T is most tightly coupled to changes in
growth when plants are small and less after canopy closure, the overall impact of changes in CO2 via LAI effect are expected to be
small. Of greater importance is the duration of leaf area which will directly affect total seasonal crop water requirements. In
determinate cereal crops that are adapted to today's temperature and growingseason length, increasing temperature will hasten plant maturity reducing leaf
area duration with an overall reduction in total season water requirement . However, if
alternative crops or perennial crops or varieties adapted to the higher temperatures and longer growing season are used, crop water
requirements would likely increase. However, a direct effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 is to
cause partial stomatal closure . The result decreases conductance for water vapor
loss from leaves to the atmosphere. A summary of the information available from chamber-based studies on the
effects of elevated CO2 on stomatal conductance have shown, on average, that doubling CO2 reduces stomatal
conductance by nearly 34% (e.g., Kimball and Idso, 1983). Morison (1987) found an average reduction of about
40% for both C3 and C4 species. Wand et al. (1999), after a meta-analysis on wild C3 and C4 grass species, grown with no stresses,
concluded that elevated CO2 reduced stomatal conductance by 39% in C3 and 29% in C4
species. In soybean, the reduction in conductance was about 40% for a doubling of CO2 (Ainsworth et al., 2002; Ainsworth and
Rogers, 2007). Ainsworth and Long (2005) did not observe significant differences in stomatal conductance of two C3 and C4 species
when they summarized results from free-air CO2 enrichment experiments where daytime CO2 concentrations were increased from
present to 550 to 600 mol mol1 They found an average reduction in stomatal conductance of 20%. Thus, increases in
atmospheric CO2 concentration to nearly 450 mol mol1 as estimated (IPCC, 2007) by 2040 likely
will cause reductions of approximately 10% in stomatal conductance . Such a reduction in
leaf-level stomatal conductance, when considered with energy balance in the whole canopy, should lead to decreases in transpiration
and potential positive impacts on crop WUE.
Zak et al., 2007; McCarthy et al., 2010)." And in their most recent examination of the effects of elevated CO2 on nitrogen (N) cycling
in the Duke Forest - where they indicate that elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations have "consistently stimulated forest
productivity" throughout the decade-long experiment being conducted there - they go on to provide "an integrated understanding"
of this phenomenon that serves as "a basis for inferring how C and N cycling in this forest may respond to
elevated CO2 beyond the decadal time scale." "Using natural-abundance measures of nitrogen isotopes together with an
ecosystem-scale 15N tracer experiment," as the six scientists describe it, they "quantified the cycling of 15N
in plant and soil pools under ambient and elevated CO2 over three growing
seasons to determine how elevated CO2 changed nitrogen cycling between plants, soil and microorganisms," after having first
measured natural-abundances of 15N in plant and soil pools within the two CO2 treatments over the prior year. And as a result of
these efforts, they discovered that "at the Duke FACE site, the rate at which N is being sequestered in
plant biomass is greater than the rate of atmospheric deposition and heterotrophic
N fixation," which has also been established by the work of Finzi et al. (2002), Hofmockel and Schlesinger (2007) and Sparks
et al. (2008), all of which findings suggest, in their words, that "soil organic matter decomposition
supplies a significant fraction of plant N in both ambient and elevated-CO2
conditions, but that this is greater under elevated CO2 ." Based on these real-world experimental
observations, Hofmockel et al. conclude that "in pine forests of the southeastern United States, rising CO2 may elicit
shifts in the mechanisms by which plants acquire nitrogen, allowing a sustained
increase in net primary productivity for decades," while further opining that "increased mineralization
of nitrogen in the organic and 0-15 cm mineral horizon and deeper rooting are likely sustaining the elevated CO2 enhancement of
net primary productivity."
structure using 16S rRNA gene clone libraries, on microbial activity measured with extracellular enzyme activity,
or on potential soil mineralization and nitrification rates ," noting that "these results
support findings at other forested Free Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) sites." Given such
findings, Austin et al. conclude that "since no effects (adverse or otherwise) have been observed
on bacterial communities and functional activity in this study," as well as in other
forest FACE studies, "increased carbon inputs may continue to accumulate within
the soil," noting further that "if excess carbon is sequestered in soil carbon pools, forests
may act as a negative feedback to increased global carbon emissions ," citing the work of
Houghton et al. (1999) in this regard.
In a synthesis of results on plant growth and soil nutrient cycling under elevated
CO2 in long-term field experiments, however, they say they showed that "under low N
availability elevated CO2 still stimulated plant production by ~10%, even though
data suggested that PNL had developed in these ecosystems (de Graaff et al., 2006)." In addition,
they note that "plant production and soil C contents continue to increase under elevated
CO2 in the Duke [Forest] FACE experiment, despite there being no evidence of increased net N
mineralization or nutrient-use efficiency (Finzi et al., 2001; Johnson, 2006; Finzi et al., 2006)," and they
say that "this suggests that an unexplained internal source of N can alleviate PNL in
unfertilized ecosystems exposed to long-term elevated CO2. " So how is it done? Giving others
their due, the three researchers write that "Hungate and Chapin (1995) postulated that if mineral nutrients are
scarce in soils, microbes utilize rhizodeposits as a carbon-source, and decompose
more soil organic matter in order to acquire nutrients ," so that "more N is then
moved into the active N pool in the soil where, eventually, [it] may be made
available to plants." Noting that "this process is referred to as priming, which is defined as the stimulation of soil organic
matter decomposition caused by the addition of labile substrates (Jenkinson et al., 1985; Dalenberg and Jager, 1989)," de Graaff et
al. (2009) go on to say that "since elevated CO2 frequently stimulates rhizodeposition - an important
contributor to labile soil C inputs - and increases decomposition of soil organic matter, priming of more recalcitrant soil organic
matter may be the mechanism partially responsible for alleviating PNL under elevated CO2 in low N environments." This concept
served as the stimulus for the study of de Graaff et al. (2009), where, as they describe it, various genotypes of two subspecies of
spring wheat "were grown for one month in microcosms, exposed to 13C labeling at ambient (392 ppm) and elevated (792 ppm) CO2
concentrations, in soil containing 15N predominantly incorporated into recalcitrant soil organic matter pools," at the conclusion of
which period the plants were harvested and numerous plant and soil properties assessed. This work revealed, in their words, that
"decomposition of stable soil C increased by 43%, root-derived soil C increased by 59%, and microbial-13C was enhanced by 50%
under elevated compared to ambient CO2," and that, concurrently, "plant 15N uptake increased (+7%) under elevated CO2 while
15N contents in the microbial biomass and mineral N pool decreased." As for the implications of these findings, the three
researchers say they suggest that "increased rhizodeposition under elevated CO2 can stimulate
palaeoecology" - a problem long ago noted by Idso (1989) - which they suggest "has been encouraged
by an influential school of thought in contemporary biogeochemistry [that] questions the
relevance of plant-physiological effects of CO2 over the long term and at the
ecosystem scale (e.g. Korner, 2000)," based on what they describe as "a much-debated hypothesis"
that suggests that "limitations in the supply of nitrogen needed to support increased plant
growth should over time reduce or eliminate any effect of atmospheric CO2
concentration on net primary productivity." What is more, the two authors note that "clear
evidence in support of this 'progressive nitrogen limitation' (PNL) hypothesis has
not emerged to date (see e.g. Moore et al., 2006)," adding that "it is well established that elevated
CO2 can increase net primary productivity, even in ecosystems where nitrogen
supply is demonstrably limiting to plant growth (e.g. Lloyd and Farquhar, 1996, 2000; Nowak et al.,
2004." Consequently, the two researchers set out to once again demonstrate (as has been
done multiple times before) the consistent and enduring positive growth response
of entire ecosystems to atmospheric CO2 enrichment over prolonged periods of
time, which phenomenon is the absolute antithesis of the progressive nitrogen limitation hypothesis. Specifically, what Prentice
and Harrison did was to examine various aspects of the palaeorecord to see if they were
either consistent or inconsistent with the PNL hypothesis . In doing so, they determined that (1)
"reduced terrestrial carbon storage during glacials, indicated by the shift in stable isotope composition of dissolved inorganic carbon
in the ocean, cannot be explained by climate or sea-level changes," but that it is "consistent with predictions of current processbased models that propagate known physiological CO2 effects into net primary production at the ecosystem scale," and that (2)
"restricted forest cover during glacial periods, indicated by pollen assemblages dominated by non-arboreal taxa, cannot be
reproduced accurately by palaeoclimate models unless CO2 effects on C3-C4 plant competition are also modeled." And as a
result of these observations, the two scientists say they "do not find support for the
opinion (e.g. Korner, 2000)" - which "questions the relevance of plant-physiological effects
of CO2 over the long term and at the ecosystem scale" - "that other constraints
[such as low soil nitrogen concentrations] effectively eliminate the ecosystem-level
effects of changing CO2 concentration on carbon storage over long time scales ,"
further concluding that "the palaeo-record also supports the attribution of increases in the woody component of tropical savannas to
physiological effects of rising CO2." These findings, as well as those of many other researchers that are documented in
totally
refute theoretical model studies (see Thornton et al., 2009), that has been touted by climate
alarmists as suggesting that the aerial fertilization effect of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content will not allow Earth's
vegetation to extract as much carbon from the atmosphere as real-world experiments indicate it will. Much to the contrary, the
growth-promoting effect of the upward trend in the atmosphere's CO2
concentration is here to stay; and it will only increase in prowess as the air's CO2
content continues to rise.
reviews of their work archived under the heading of Nitrogen (Progressive Limitation Hypothesis) in our Topical Archive,
Plants in elevated CO2 can use soil nitrogen more effectively and supply is
sustainable
Idsos 2/8 Keith E. Idso, Vice President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, received his B.S.
in Agriculture with a major in Plant Sciences from the University of Arizona and his M.S. from the same institution with a major in
Agronomy and Plant Genetics, completed his Ph.D. in Botany at Arizona State University; Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, was a Research Physicist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural
Research Service at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona, Bachelor of Physics, Master of Science, and Doctor
of Philosophy degrees are all from the University of Minnesota, author or co-author of over 500 scientific publications; and Craig D.
Idso, founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, received his B.S. in
Geography from Arizona State University, his M.S. in Agronomy from the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, and his Ph.D. in
Geography from Arizona State University, where he studied as one of a small group of University Graduate Scholars (The
Progressive Nitrogen Limitation Hypothesis: Notoriously Famous ... but Fading Fast, CO2 Science, 8 February 2012,
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N6/EDIT.php)//BI
rate at which N is being sequestered in plant biomass is greater than the rate of
atmospheric deposition and heterotrophic N fixation," which has also been established by the work of Finzi et al.
(2002), Hofmockel and Schlesinger (2007) and Sparks et al. (2008), all of which findings suggest, in their words,
that "soil organic matter decomposition supplies a significant fraction of plant N
in both ambient and elevated-CO2 conditions, but that this is greater under
elevated CO2." Based on these real-world experimental observations, Hofmockel et al. conclude that "in pine forests of the
southeastern United States, rising CO2 may elicit shifts in the mechanisms by which plants
acquire nitrogen, allowing a sustained increase in net primary productivity for
decades," while further opining that "increased mineralization of nitrogen in the organic and 0-15 cm mineral horizon and
deeper rooting are likely sustaining the elevated CO2 enhancement of net primary productivity."
at
the Duke FACE experiment, we would expect the CO2-mediated growth enhancement
to diminish. By contrast, after more than a decade of CO2 treatment, there is little
evidence that PNL is occurring in the replicated Duke experiment based on evidence from
aboveground or total NPP (Finzi et al., 2007).
Hofmockel et al. 11 Kirsten S., PhD, Ecology, Biogeochemistry, Global Climate Change, assistant professor in the
Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology Department at Iowa State University; Anne Gallet-Budynek, Ph.D., Natural Sciences,
ETH Zurich (Zurich, Switzerland), previously a Post-doctoral fellow at the Boston University, Biology Department; Heather R.
McCarthy, Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from Brown University, a Master of Science in Environmental Sciences from the
University of Virginia, and a Ph.D. in Natural Resources from the University of New Hampshire Institute for the Study of Earth,
Oceans and Space; William S. Currie, Associate Professor and Associate Dean, School of Natural Resources and Environment,
University of Michigan; Robert B. Jackson, Nicholas Professor of Global Environmental Change, Associate Dean for Research and
Professor of Biology, Earth & Ocean Sciences; Adrien Finzi, PhD, University of Connecticut, Professor of Biology at Boston
University (Sources of increased N uptake in forest trees growing under elevated CO2: results of a large-scale 15N study, Global
Chance Biology, 7 July 2011, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02465.x/)//BI
There has been much speculation about the sustainability of high NPP in response
to elevated CO2 in N limited ecosystems (Field, 1999; Luo et al., 2004; Finzi et al., 2006b; Hungate et al.,
2006; Norby & Iversen, 2006; Zak et al., 2007). Labeling forests with 15N has provided information
about the short- and long-term fate of N and has led to insights regarding global C
cycling. At the Duke FACE site, the rate at which N is being sequestered in plant biomass is greater than the rate of atmospheric
deposition and heterotrophic N fixation (Finzi et al., 2002; Hofmockel & Schlesinger, 2007; Sparks et al., 2008), suggesting that
SOM decomposition supplies a significant fraction of plant N in both ambient and elevated-CO2 conditions, but that this is greater
under elevated CO2 (Fig. 1j). The results from natural abundance data and this 15N tracer
experiment suggest that in pine forests of the southeastern United States, rising CO2 may elicit
shifts in the mechanisms by which plants acquire N, allowing a sustained increase
in NPP for decades. Our study suggests that increased mineralization of N in the organic and 015 cm mineral horizon
and deeper rooting are likely sustaining the elevated CO2 enhancement of NPP.
nitrogen fixation have positive effects on plant growth . The model with nitrogen fixation (C0N1)
yielded 20% more total biomass and 13% more green biomass than the model without nitrogen fixation (C0N0) under the present
CO2concentration. In comparison,
symbiotic nitrogen fixation . A 30% increase in maximum total biomass and a 19%
increase in maxi mum green biomass with nitrogen fixation were obtained for
doubled CO2 concentration. Figure 2 also indicates that symbiotic nitrogen fixation tended to pro mote the
responses of plant growth to enrichment of the atmospheric CO2. With nitrogen fixation, the total and green
biomass under doubled CO2 concentration were respectively 65 and 44% larger
than those under the present CO2 concentration, compared with only 52 and 37%
induced increases in these quantities without nitrogen fixation.
AT: Photosynthesis
CO2 allows much more efficient water usage
Chun et al, 11 USDA ARS BARC-W, Animal and Natural Resources Institute, Crop Systems and Global
Change Laboratory, USDA ARS BARC-W, Animal and Natural Resources Institute, Crop Systems and Global
Change Laboratory, USDA ARS BARC-W, Animal and Natural Resources Institute, Crop Systems and Global
Change Laboratory, University of Maryland, Queenstown, USDA ARS BARC-W, Animal and Natural Resources
Institute, Crop Systems and Global Change Laboratory (Jong A. Chun, Dennis Timlin, David Fleisher, Vangimalla
R. Reddy, Qingguo Wang, 3/11/2011, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Effect of elevated carbon dioxide and
water stress on gas exchange and water use efficiency in corn, SciVerse | JJ)
WUE = above ground biomass per water use
Corn plants were grown under ambient (400 mol mol1) and elevated (800 mol mol1) CO2 combined with
four different irrigation treatments, to investigate water use and canopy level photosynthesis and to quantify water use efficiency.
Fifteen TDR probes per chamber were used to monitor hourly soil water contents. Both at well-watered and at
water stressed conditions, higher water contents maintained under the elevated
CO2 conditions than under the ambient CO2, even though 2049% less water was
irrigated for the elevated CO2 conditions since 21 DAE than for the ambient CO2 conditions.
Approximately 1320% and 35% less water was used under the elevated CO2
conditions than under the ambient CO2 conditions, for the water stressed conditions and for the wellwatered conditions, respectively. These results suggest that under increased CO2 concentrations as
generally predicted in the future, less water will be required for corn plants than at present. At
the end of the experiment, significant differences in canopy gross photosynthesis between
well watered and water stressed treatments within a CO2 treatment were
observed, while no significant differences between the CO2 treatments were observed. Daily WUE was defined as daily gross
photosynthesis divided by daily water use. Approximately 50% less differences in magnitude of daily WUE was observed under the
well-watered condition than under the water stressed conditions. However, daily WUE under the elevated CO2
treatment were mainly higher than under the ambient CO2 treatment. The breaking
points (changes from high to low rates of soil water uptake) were observed in the bottom of soil bins (between 0.625 and 0.85 m
from the soil surface) for water stressed conditions, and the breaking points under ambient CO2 appeared 69 days earlier than
under elevated CO2. This result suggests that it took longer for the easily available water to become depleted for the elevated CO2
treatments than for the ambient.
Rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures affect a plants metabolism. Chemical
reactions during photosynthesis are faster at higher temperatures; as the reaction
rate doubles every ten degrees Fahrenheit. C4 plants grow faster at higher
temperatures when compared to C3 plants . As plants photosynthesize faster, they
fixate more carbon, resulting in more plant tissue such as leaves. Photosynthate products of
photosynthesis, such as sugars, are created by plants. As the plant photosynthesizes faster, more
photosynthate is produced and distributed throughout the plant . At the same time, more
nutrients are needed by the plant so more roots are produced; waterefficiency also
increases at higher CO2 levels. An increased concentration of CO2 also affects plant transpiration. Stomata in
plants are small openings on the underside of plants through which water transpires. In the presence of increased
CO2, the opening of the stomata is narrowed. Thus, this lowers the amount of air
pollutants that can make their way into plants . In some plants however, the closing of the stomata has an
adverse effect on photosynthetic rate because it limits the uptake of CO2. It is also causing a reduction the
amount of water that is lost through transpiration. In addition, increased CO2
changes the chemical composition of the leaves and reduces the proportion of
nitrogen in the plant.
of germplasm
adapted to higher temperature environments was less sensitive to high
temperature than was germplasm from cooler environments (Al-Khatib and Paulsen, 1990).
When this germplasm was grown under moderate (22/17C) and high (32/27C)
temperatures in the seedling stage or from anthesis to maturity, there was a highly significant
correlation between photosynthesis rate and either seedling biomass (r=0.943***) or
grain yield of mature plants (r=0.807**). Genotypes most tolerant to high temperatures
had the most stable leaf photosynthetic rates across temperature regimes or they
had the longest duration of leaf photosynthetic activity after anthesis and high
grain weights. The above relationship was exemplified by 'Ventnor' from the high temperature area of Australia and
'Lancero' from the high altitude area of Chile (Table 6.1). See Al-Khatib and Paulsen (1990). Despite observed
negative effects of high temperature on leaf photosynthesis, the temperature
optimum for net photosynthesis is likely to increase with elevated levels of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Several studies have concluded that CO2-induced
increases in crop yields are much more probable in warm than in cool
environments (Idso, 1987; Gifford, 1989; Rawson, 1992, 1995). Thus, global
warming may not greatly affect overall net photosynthesis.
AT: Weeds
Increased CO2 inhibits nitrogen assimilation in C3 plants but not C4 plants
means all the weeds die while the crops stay alive
Bloom et al, 12 - Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Biology of Stress and Plant
Pathology Department, Centro de Edafologa y Biologa Aplicada del Segura, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Cientificas (CEBAS-CSIC), Campus de Espinardo, San Diego Botanic Gardens, The Jacob Blaustein Institute for
Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Sede Boqer Campus, School of Biological Sciences, P.O.
Box 646340, Washington State University, Pullman (Arnold, Jose Salvador Rubio Asensio, Lesley Randall,
Shimon Rachmilevitch, Asaph B. Cousins, and Eli A. Carlisle, CO2 enrichment inhibits shoot nitrate assimilation
in C3 but not C4 plants and slows growth under nitrate in C3 plants, Ecology Vol. 93, February 2012, Ecological
Society of America | JJ)
The results of these gas flux and growth experiments support the hypothesis that atmospheric
CO2 enrichment
interferes with the ability of C3 species to assimilate NO3 into organic N
compounds in their shoots and that this impedes their growth . In a diverse collection of C3
species and C3-C4 intermediates, CO2 enrichment severely decreased photosynthetic O2 evolution associated with NO3
assimilation (Fig. 1a,c). There are obviously alternative mechanisms for NO3 assimilation because plants under CO2 enrichment
and NO3 nutrition continued to grow, albeit often at a slower pace (Figs. 2 and 3). One such mechanism is root NO3 assimilation,
which may be enhanced under CO2 enrichment (Kruse et al. 2003). Unfortunately, relatively little is known about the extent to
which the balance between root and shoot NO3 assimilation varies within and among species (Epstein and Bloom 2005, NunesNesi et al. 2010). In several species measured at ambient CO2 concentration, shoots
account for the majority of whole-plant NO3 assimilation over the entire day (Bloom
et al. 1992, Cen and Layzell 2003). This study establishes that CO2 enrichment inhibits shoot nitrate
assimilation in a wide variety of C3 plants and that this phenomenon influences
whole-plant growth; therefore, shoot nitrate assimilation provides an important
contribution to the performance of the entire plant. Several physiological mechanisms may be
responsible for the relationship between elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations and shoot NO3 assimilation (Bloom et al. 2010).
One involves the rst biochemical step of NO3 assimilation, the conversion of NO3 to NO2 in the cytoplasm of leaf mesophyll cells.
Photorespiration is the biochemical pathway in which the chloroplast enzyme Rubisco catalyzes the oxidation of the highenergy
substrate ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate (RuBP) rather than catalyzes the carboxylation of RuBP through the C3 carbon xation pathway
(Foyer et al. 2009). Photorespiration stimulates the export of malic acid from chloroplasts (Backhausen et al. 1998) and increases
the availability of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide hydride (NADH) in the cytoplasm (Igamberdiev et al. 2001) that powers this
rst step of NO3 assimilation (Robinson 1987, Quesada et al. 2000). CO2 enrichment decreases
(Fig. 1b).
One of the repeating nightmares about global warming is that the current very pokey
rate of sea level rise will suddenly accelerate. Now, it turns out that multiple lines of
evidence say this has not happened and isnt likely to , either. Recently, Science magazine reported
that glacial flow in Greenland has not been accelerating as fast as previously reported (Moon et al., 2012). The major implication is
that the contribution of ice loss from Greenland to global sea level rise is not
increasing at the rate once expected. Now, Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) reports that glacier loss in the
Russian high Arctic is contributing about 0.025 mm of sea level rise per year, but that contribution has likely been
largely unchanged for at least 30 years (Moholdt et al., 2012). More from GRL (Levitus et al., 2012) is that the
rate of increase in the oceans heat contentwhich raises sea levelhas recently slowed. And finally, from a soon-to-be-published
paper in GRL comes word that the net non-climate contributions of human activity to sea level
rise have been speeding up (Wada et al., 2012). Here, Ill tie them all together and tell you what they mean. Ill focus
on the Wada et al. (2012) paper because from the results presented there, we can derive the global implications of all the others.
Wada and colleagues, in a paper titled Past and future contribution of global groundwater depletion to sea-level rise,
examine how much human removal of water from deep aquifers (for irrigation, etc.), also
known as dewatering of the continentswater that eventually finds it way into
the seahas contributed to observed sea level rise from 1900 through 2000, as well as
how much it may contribute in the future (through 2100). I have discussed previous work from Yoshihide Wada (http://www.catoat-liberty.org/the-current-wisdom-2/) and there has been a complimentary analysis done by Leonard Konikow of the U.S.
Geological Survey (see here for details, http://www.masterresource.org/2011/09/rapid-sea-level-rise-nature-no/ ). The take-home
message from those articles was that the dewatering was adding a significant, growing, but
often overlooked, input of water to the global oceans and was responsible for a
non-negligible amount of sea level rise. In fact, between the Wada and Konikow calculations, the
contribution was estimated to range from 15 percent to 25 percent of the current rate of sea
level rise, which stands at about 2.5 mm/year (a rate which has been declining in recent decades, see
herehttp://sealevel.colorado.edu/). You would think that a factor contributing such a substantial proportion to current sea level rise
wouldnt be overlooked, after all, the media hyperventilated last week when a report came out about the potential speedup of glaciers
in Antarctica which currently contribute ~0.25 mm/year of sea level risea value about half the current groundwater depletion
contribution. In what is becoming a depressingly repetitive pattern, big science assessments of climate
change, like those made by our government, or those of the United Nations, simply ignore
legitimate findings that dont fit with the established (end of the world) meme.
According to Wada et al. (2012) [i]n the IPCC fourth assessment report, the contribution of non-frozen terrestrial waters to sealevel variation is not included due to its perceived uncertainty and assumption that negative contributions such as dam
impoundment compensate for positive contributions (mainly from groundwater depletion). This situation is drastically changing.
Wada et al. continue However, recent work on global groundwater depletion [Wada et al., 2010;
Konikow, 2011] suggests
al., 2012). Notice in Figure 1 that the grey line (the net contribution) rises above zero in the early 1980smeaning that since then,
human activity has been putting more water in the ocean than we are holding back. Also notice that our net positive
contribution to sea level rise has been rapidly rising since then. Consider the above in light of the one
of the favorite climate change alarmist talking pointsthat the rate of sea level rise is accelerating and instead of perhaps a foot of
sea level rise by centurys end, we should be expecting 3 feet or more. Lets look at the data. Figure 2 shows the latest-greatest sea
level rise history as assembled by John Church and colleagues (Church and White, 2011; red line) along with the same thing once we
remove net human contribution from impoundment and dewatering (blue line). Notice that the shapes of the two curves are a bit
different after about 1950 (when the direct human contribution starts to be significantsee Figure 1). The red curve (total sea level)
appears to be slightly cupped upwards (that is, accelerating), while the blue curve (sea level less direct human contribution) appears
more linear (i.e., constant). Figure 2. Observed change in sea level, 1900-2010. Raw sea level values (red); sea level after removing
contribution from impoundments and continental dewatering (blue) (data from Church and White, 2011; Wada et al., 2012). Figure
3 shows the running 10-yr trend through each of the two datasets, beginning with data in 1950. The red curve (which is the raw sea
level data) shows an upward trend (again, indicating an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise), with the highest values at the end of
the curve. On the other hand, the blue curve (which is the raw sea level less the direct human contribution), shows no such upwards
trend (indicating that no acceleration) and the current rate of sea level rise (right-hand end of the curve) is neither the highest, nor
far from being unique. Figure 3. 10-yr moving linear trend through the raw sea level values (red), and the sea level after removing
the contribution from impoundments and continental dewatering (blue), 1960-2009 (data from Church and White, 2011; Wada et
al., 2012). What this means is that the apparent acceleration in the rate of sea level rise has
been caused solely by the changes in the direct contribution from human activity
(which continues to increase) and not by climate change. This makes perfect sense given the other
papers I listed at the beginning of the article, which indicate modest increases from the worlds glacial fields along with a modest
decrease in the rate of thermal expansion as the build-up of heat content in the oceans slows, reflecting the hiatus in global
temperature rise that began over 15 years ago. So much for another alarmist talking point. This one
AT: Pests
High CO2 levels allow for pest control and disinfection of crops
Hashem et al, 12 - Department of Economic Entomology and Pesticides, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo
University, Department of Economic Entomology and Pesticides, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University,
Environment and Bio-agriculture Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Al-Azhar University, Plant Protection
Research Institute, ARC, Giza (Mohamed Y. Hashema, Sayeda S. Ahmeda, Mohsen A. El-Mohandesb, Mahrous A.
Gharib, Journal of Stored Products Research Volume 48, January 2012, Susceptibility of different life stages of
saw-toothed grain beetle Oryzaephilus surinamensis (L.) (Coleoptera: Silvanidae) to modified atmospheres
enriched with carbon dioxide, SciVerse | JJ)
Modified atmospheres have been used for disinfesting raw or semi-processed food
products, such as cereal grains and dried fruits, while still in storage. Treatments based on
reduced oxygen (O2) and high carbon dioxide (CO2) or nitrogen (N2) contents are technically
suitable alternatives for arthropod pest control in durable commodities ( [FleuratLessard, 1990], [Adler et al., 2000], [Navarro, 2006] and [Riudavets et al., 2010]). Atmospheres rich in CO2,
those with over 40% in air, are faster at controlling pests than those with high
contents of N2 (Navarro, 2006). Data on the effects of different types of CO2 treatments
and dosages on key pests are available for many species and stages of storedproduct pests under particular sets of conditions ( [Banks and Annis, 1990], [White et al., 1995] and
[Annis and Morton, 1997]). Depending on the temperature, CO2 treatments may take from a few days to several weeks to be
effective in gas-tight chambers or silos (Riudavets et al., 2009). CO2 has received considerable attention for the disinfection of
stored foodstuffs, particularly durable products ( [Bailey and Banks, 1980], [Annis, 1987] and [Bell and Armitage, 1992]). The
toxicity of CO2 to insects is known to vary among species, developmental stages and age groups. Parameters of the physical
environment, such as temperature, humidity, and CO2 levels in storage, also influence toxicity. In the majority of studies involving
CO2, much attention has been focused on determining the time required to kill insect pests ( [Adler, 1999], [Santos et al., 1999] and
[Van Epenhuijsen et al., 2002]).
first
study that measured the effect of global atmospheric change on an omnivorous consumer," the
authors explored the impacts of elevated atmospheric CO2 on the behavior and performance of
an omnivorous bug (Oechalia schellenbergii, Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) and its prey, a polyphagous chewing
herbivorous pest (Helicoverpa armigera; Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), feeding on pea (Pisum sativum) foliage grown in
controlled-environment cabinets maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of either 360
or 700 ppm. What was learned Coll and Hughes report that the H. armigera pests that fed on the elevated
CO2-grown pea plants were significantly smaller than those that fed on the ambient CO2-grown
pea plants, and that the bigger O. schellenbergii bugs that fed on them "performed best when fed
larvae from the elevated-CO2 treatment," because the prey of that treatment "were smaller and
thus easier to subdue." In fact, only 13.3% of the predation attempts made on the larvae that
were fed ambient-CO2-grown foliage were successful, as compared to 78.2% for the larvae that
were fed elevated-CO2-grown foliage. What it means In light of their findings, the two researchers concluded that
"elevated CO2 may benefit generalist predators through increased prey vulnerability, which
would put pest species under higher risk of predation ." Consequently, and "since omnivory is
widespread in agroecosystems," they argue that "yield loss to most pest species will be lower
under elevated atmospheric CO2 levels, compared to the current condition ," which is good news for
agriculture and great news for the people who depend upon it for their survival, which is nearly all of us.
AT: Flood
Even a 32% increase in CO2 content wont cause increased flood rates
NIPCC, 11 Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, 11/16/2011, Global Warming and
Extreme Weather Events, http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/nov/16nov2011a5.html | JJ)
The study was designed to check whether there were any trends in flood magnitude in the U.S. (lower 48 states) and its major
regions with the increase in global mean carbon dioxide concentration. Specifically, Hirsch and Ryberg (2011) used
stream
flow data on annual flood series from 200 stream gauges operated by the US Geological Survey
(USGS) which had a minimum of 85 years of data through water year 2008 from
basins with little or no reservoir storage or urban development (urban development was
defined as at least 150 persons per square kilometer in 2000) to look for trends in the U.S. as a whole , as well
as four major U.S. regions: the northeast, northwest, southwest and southeast. The results, as shown in the figure below, indicate
that, except for the decreased flood magnitudes observed in the southwest, there is no strong empirical
evidence for any trend in flood magnitudes for the entire U.S. or any of the other
three regions despite a 32% increase in carbon dioxide concentration over the
study period. <<<TABLE AND CAPTION REMOVED BY JJ KIM>>> The results of this study,
therefore, throw cold water on claims that CO2-induced global warming is
increasing flood magnitudes in the U.S.A.
hydroclimatic extremes throughout the Medieval Climate Anomaly, Little Ice Age
and Recent Global Warming." This finding, as they astutely state, "may question the
common belief that frequency and severity of such events closely relates to climate
mean states," which conclusion essentially rebuffs the well-worn climate-alarmist
claim that global warming will lead to more frequent and severe floods and
droughts. The odds are that if global warming didn't do so over the past thousand
or more years, it likely won't do so in the future.
AT: Hurricanes
Their evidence is fear mongering with no scientific basis
Bell, 10 [Larry, Professor at the University of Houston, 12/27/10. Hot Sensations Vs. Cold Facts,
http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/23/media-climate-change-warming-opinions-contributors-larry-bell.html] DHirsch
Remember all the media brouhaha about global warming causing hurricanes that commenced following the devastating U.S. 2004
season? Opportunities to capitalize on those disasters were certainly not lost on some U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change officials. A special press conference called by IPCC spokesman Kevin Trenberth
AT: C3 Overcrowds C4
C4 plants have a competitive advantage in warmer conditions
Blando et al., 12 School of Community and Environmental Health, Old Dominion University, Norfolk,
VA, BS in environmental science from Rutgers University, MS in Industrial Hygiene from Johns Hopkins
University, and PhD from the joint program in exposure assessment at Rutgers University and the University of
Medicine and Dentistry of NJ; Leonard Bielory, Center for Environmental Prediction, Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey; Viann Nguyen, School of Community and Environmental Health, Old Dominion
University; Rafael Diaz, Virginia Modeling and Simulation Center, Old Dominion University; Hueiwang Anna
Jeng, Post-Doctoral Scholar - Tulane University School of Public Health, New Orleans (James, Anthropogenic
Climate Change and Allergic Diseases; Atmosphere, 28 February 2012, http://www.mdpi.com/20734433/3/1/200)//BI
1999), which is often more strongly expressed in C4 plants than in C3 plants and that
competitive than the C3 species in regions receiving more frequent and severe
droughts," which basically characterizes regions where C4 plants currently exist. Two
years later, Morgan et al. (2001) published the results of an open-top chamber study of a native shortgrass steppe
ecosystem in Colorado, USA, where they had exposed the enclosed ecosystems to atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 360 and 720
ppm for two six-month growing seasons. In spite of an average air temperature increase of 2.6C, which was caused by the presence
of the open-top chambers, the elevated CO2 increased aboveground biomass production by an
average of 38% in both years of the study; and when 50% of the standing green plant biomass was defoliated to simulate grazing
halfway through the growing season, atmospheric CO2 enrichment still increased aboveground biomass by 36%. It was also
found that the communities enriched with CO2 tended to have greater amounts of
moisture in their soils than communities exposed to ambient air; and this phenomenon likely contributed
to the less negative and, therefore, less stressful plant water potentials that were
measured in the CO2-enriched plants. Last of all, the elevated CO2 did not preferentially
stimulate the growth of C3 species over that of C4 species in these communities .
Hence, elevated CO2 did not significantly affect the percentage composition of C3 and
C4 species in these grasslands; and they maintained their original level of vegetative
biodiversity. In light of these several observations, we believe it to be highly unlikely that the
ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content will lead to C3 plants replacing C4 plants in
the vast majority of earth's ecosystems. This would also appear to be the take-home message of the study of
Wand et al. (1999), who in a massive review of the scientific literature published between 1980 and 1997 analyzed
nearly 120 individual responses of C3 and C4 grasses to elevated CO2. On average,
they found photosynthetic enhancements of 33 and 25%, respectively, for C3 and
C4 plants, along with biomass enhancements of 44 and 33%, respectively , for a doubling
of the air's CO2 concentration. These larger-than-expected growth responses in the C4 species
led them to conclude that "it may be premature to predict that C4 grass species will
lose their competitive advantage over C3 grass species in elevated CO2 ." Further support
for this conclusion comes from the study of Campbell et al. (2000), who reviewed research work done
between 1994 and 1999 by a worldwide network of 83 scientists associated with the Global Change and
Terrestrial Ecosystems (GCTE) Pastures and Rangelands Core Research Project 1, which resulted in the publication of over 165 peerreviewed scientific journal articles. After analyzing this great body of research, they concluded
C4 species have evolved in a high CO2 environment. This increases both their
nitrogen and water use efficiency compared to C3 species. C4 plants have greater
rates of CO2 assimilation than C3 species for a given leaf nitrogen when both parameters are expressed
either on a mass or an area basis (Ghannoum et al., 2011). Although the range in leaf nitrogen content per unit areas is less in C4
compared to C3 plants, the range in leaf nitrogen concentration per unit dry mass is similar for both C4 and C3 species. Even though
leaf nitrogen is invested into photosynthetic components into the same fraction in both C3 and C4 species, C4 plants allocate less
nitrogen to Rubisco protein and more to other soluble protein and thylakoids components. In C3 plants, the photosynthetic enzyme
Rubisco accounts for up to 30% of the leaf nitrogen content (Lawlor et al., 1989), but accounts for only 421% of leaf nitrogen in C4
species (Evans & von Caemmerer, 2000; Sage et al., 1987). The lower nitrogen requirement of C4 plants results from their CO2concentrating mechanism, which raises the bundle sheath CO2 concentration, saturating Rubisco in normal air and almost
eliminating photorespiration. Without this mechanism, Rubisco in the C3 photosynthetic pathway operates at only 25% of its
capacity (Sage et al., 1987) and loses ca. 25% of fixed carbon to photorespiration (Ludwig & Canvin, 1971). To attain
comparable photosynthetic rates to those in C4 plants, C3 leaves must therefore invest more
heavily in Rubisco and have a greater nitrogen requirement. Because the Rubisco specificity for CO2 decreases
with increasing temperature (Long, 1991), this difference between the C3 and C4 photosynthetic
nitrogen-use efficiency is greatest at high temperatures (Long, 1999). The high photosynthetic
nitrogen-use efficiency of C4 plants is partially offset by the nitrogen requirement for CO2-concentrating mechanism enzymes, but
the high maximum catalytic rate of PEP-carboxylase means that these account for only ca. 5% of leaf nitrogen (Long, 1999).
Improved leaf and plant water use efficiency in C4 plants is due to both higher photosynthetic rates per unit leaf area and lower
stomatal conductance, with the greater CO2 assimilation contributing to a major extent (Ghannoum et al., 2011). The
competitive against C3 plants in cold climates (Sage & McKown, 2006; Sage & Pearce, 2000). The
mechanisms explaining the lower performance of C4 plants under cold conditions have not been clarified (Sage et al., 2011). Among
early plausible explanations were the low quantum yield of the C4 relative to the C3 pathway (Ehleringer et al., 1997), and enzyme
lability in the C4 cycle, most notably around PEP metabolism (PEPcarboxylase and pyruvate orthophosphate dikinase) (Matsuba et
al., 1997). Both hypothesis are insufficient since maximum quantum yield differences do not relate to conditions under which the
vast majority of daily carbon is assimilated and there cold-adapted C4 species that have cold stabled forms of PEP-carboxylase and
pyruvate orthophosphate dikinase, and synthesize sufficient quantity to overcome any short term limitation (Du et al., 1999; Hamel
& Simon, 2000; Sage et al., 2011). The current hypothesis is that C4 photosynthesis is limited by Rubisco capacity at low
temperatures. Even in cold-tolerant C4 species, Rubisco capacity becomes limiting at low temperature and imposes a ceiling on
photosynthetic rate below 20 C (Kubien et al., 2003; Pittermann & Sage, 2000; Sage, 2002).
scientists, especially those with ecological orient at ions , take delight in glam oriz ing, along w i t h a s y m p a t h e t i c p r e s s , t h e f e w e x c e p t i o n s
which, in turn, become widely quoted in the sci en t i f i c l i t er at u r e . T h e s e i n cl u d e t u s s oc k ar ct i c t u n d r a ; s o m e g r a s s l a n d s w h e r e
u n d e s i r a b l e species may, under restricted conditions, outgrow t h e m o r e d e s i r a b l e ; a n d i n s o m e e c o s y s t e m s wh er e com pet i ti o n am ong
speci es m ay cr eat e a lack of balance. (See "Rising Carbon Dioxide Is Great for Plants," CR, December 1992.) Globally, it is estimated the
overall
crop productivity has been already increased by 10% because of CO2 and may account
water, energy) essential for food production, which are costly and progressively in shorter supply, the rising level of atmospheric
CO2, is a universally free premium gaining in magnitude with time on which we can all reckon for the future. The effects
(Jan 12,
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060112/20060112_02.html)
Also writing about the need to increase global food production near the close of the 20th century were the Rockefeller
Foundation's Conway and Toenniessen (1999), who stated that "the Green Revolution was one of the great
technological success stories of the second half of the twentieth century," but that its
benefits were dropping and that a number of arguments "point to the need for a second
Green Revolution." It is enlightening to consider the arguments made by Conway and Toenniessen. First, they note
that the world already produces more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet, but that it is not evenly distributed,
due to "notoriously ineffective" world markets that leave 800 million people chronically undernourished. Hence, it would
seem that requirement number one for the second Green Revolution should be that the agricultural benefits to be reaped
should be equitably distributed among all nations. Second, the Rockefeller representatives say that food aid programs
designed to help countries most in need "are also no solution," as they reach "only a small portion of those suffering chronic
hunger." In addition, they say that such programs, if prolonged, "have a negative impact on local food production." Hence, it
would seem that requirement number two for the second Green Revolution should be that local food production should be
enhanced worldwide. Third, Conway and Toenniessen state that 650 million of the world's poorest people live in rural areas
and that many of them live in "regions where agricultural potential is low and natural resources are poor." Hence, it would
seem that requirement number three for the second Green Revolution should be that regions of low agricultural potential
lacking in natural resources should be singled out for maximum benefits. All three of these requirements represent noble
causes; but if mankind already produces more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet and we don't do it, i.e., we
don't feed everyone, it is clear that mankind must not be noble enough to rise to the challenge currently confronting us. So
why does anyone think we will do any better in the future? Based on humanity's prior track record, it would seem to us that
the second Green Revolution envisioned by the Rockefeller Foundation will also fall short of its noble goal, depending, as it
were, on a less-than-noble humanity to see it through. So what do we do? Let's consider the three requirements for the next
Green Revolution and see how the likelihood of meeting them may be enhanced by letting the air's CO2 concentration
continue to rise unimpeded. Requirement No. 1: The agricultural benefits to be reaped should be equitably distributed
among all nations. First of all, what are the agricultural benefits of elevated atmospheric CO2? For a 300 ppm
increase in the air's CO2 content, they are 30 to 50% increases in the yields of nearly all food
crops. As for their equitable distribution among all nations, the fact that CO2 is well mixed throughout
the atmosphere insures that all nations will share equally in the availability of this great
resource and its proven yield-enhancing properties. Requirement No. 2: Local food
production should be enhanced worldwide. The nice thing about the aerial fertilization
effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment in this regard is that it is a blessing that transcends
all political barriers. As Wittwer (1995) has so eloquently put it, the effects of elevated CO2 "know no boundaries and
both developing and developed countries are, and will be, sharing equally," for "the rising level of atmospheric CO2 is a
universally free premium, gaining in magnitude with time, on which we all can reckon for the foreseeable future."
Requirement No. 3: Regions of low agricultural potential lacking in natural resources should be singled out for maximum
benefits. Fortunately, CO2 helps most where people hurt most: in areas of low agricultural
potential. In a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, for example, Idso and Idso
(1994) found that the greatest CO2-induced percentage increases in plant productivity
typically occur in places of limited resources and heightened environmental stresses. In
light of these observations, it would seem that atmospheric CO2 enrichment meets the
major requirements of the much-needed "second Green Revolution" as envisioned by the
Rockefeller Foundation. Their conventional programs will do much to help; but they will not solve the problem on their
own. With the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration as a potent ally, however, we may come much closer to achieving
our "noble goal" than we have ever come in the past.
(Jan 12,
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060112/20060112_02.html)
Humanity faces many challenges; we always have, and we always will. None of them,
however, is as pressing as the need to be able to produce the food we will require to
sustain ourselves in but a few short decades without usurping most of the planet's
remaining arable land and freshwater resources in the process and thereby leaving
precious little of either for the plant and animal components of the planet's natural
ecosystems. In addition, no need is more essential to the preservation of world peace than for people everywhere to
have sufficient food to eat. Many thoughtful people have agonized over these facts. As described in our Editorial of 1 Oct
1999, for example, our local newspaper of 26 September 1999 published a brief article by former U.S. President Jimmy
Carter entitled To cultivate peace, we must first cultivate food, wherein he stated that "when the Cold War ended 10 years
ago, we expected an era of peace" but got instead "a decade of war." He then asked why peace is so elusive, answering that
most of today's wars are fueled by poverty - poverty in developing countries "whose economies depend on agriculture but
which lack the means to make their farmland productive." This fact, he said, suggests an obvious, but often overlooked, path
to peace: "raise the standard of living of the millions of rural people who live in poverty by increasing agricultural
productivity," his argument being that thriving agriculture, in his words, "is the engine that fuels broader economic growth
and development, thus paving the way for prosperity and peace." Can the case for atmospheric CO2
enrichment be made any clearer? Automatically, and without investing a single hardearned dollar, ruble or whatever, people everywhere promote the cause of peace when they
utilize energy produced by the burning of fossil fuels; for CO2 - one of the major endproducts of the combustion process - is the very elixir of life, being the primary building
block of all plant tissues via the essential role it plays in the photosynthetic process that
sustains nearly all of earth's vegetation. And as with any production process, the insertion
of more raw materials (in this case CO2) into the front of the production line results in
more manufactured goods coming out the end of the line, which in the case of enhanced
plant growth and development is biosphere-sustaining food. Consequently, in light of the
former president's statement that "leaders of developing nations must make food security a
priority" for "there can be no peace until people have enough to eat," one can begin to appreciate
the role of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content within this important context. In investigating
the subject in more detail " Idso and Idso (2000) developed a supply-and-demand scenario for food
in the year 2050, wherein they identified the plants that currently supply 95% of the world's food
needs and projected historical trends in their productivities (based on the assumption of continued
increases in agricultural knowledge and expertise) 50 years into the future. Under this scenario,
they found that world food production would rise by about 37% between the start of the 21st
century and its midpoint, but that world food needs, which they equated with world
population, would likely rise by 51% over the same period. Fortunately, they additionally
calculated that the shortfall in production could be overcome (but only barely) by the
benefits anticipated to accrue from the many productivity-enhancing effects of the
expected concomitant rise in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration. These findings
demonstrate that world food security is precariously dependent upon the continued rising of the
air's CO2 content, which must be allowed to take its natural course, for as Sylvan Wittwer, Director
Emeritus of Michigan State University's Agricultural Experiment Station, stated in his 1995 book
Food, Climate, and Carbon Dioxide: The Global Environment and World Food Production : "The
rising level of atmospheric CO2 could be the one global natural resource that is
progressively increasing food production and total biological output, in a world of
otherwise diminishing natural resources of land, water, energy, minerals, and fertilizer. It
is a means of inadvertently increasing the productivity of farming systems and other
Wittwer 92 (Sylvan H., Professor of Horticulture at Michigan State University, Fall, Issue 62, Policy Review)
One of the best-kept secrets in the global warming debate is that the plant life of Planet Earth would benefit greatly from a
higher level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. You read that correctly. Flowers, trees, and food crops love carbon
dioxide, and the more they get of it, the more they love it. Carbon dioxide is the basic raw material that plants use in
photosynthesis to convert solar energy into food, fiber, and other forms of biomass. Voluminous scientific evidence shows
that if CO2 were to rise above its current ambient level of 360 parts per million, most plants would grow faster and larger
because of more efficient photosynthesis and a reduction in water loss. There would also be many other benefits for plants,
among them greater resistance to temperature extremes and other forms of stress, better growth at low light intensities,
improved root/top ratios, less injury from air pollutants, and more nutrients in the soil as a result of more extensive
nitrogen fixation. This good news about carbon dioxide has been all but ignored in alarmist discussions about possible
global climate changes. CO2-related benefits were barely mentioned at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June, where
the rising level of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" was decried as the world's greatest environmental threat.
The Rio Summit ended with the United States and over 150 other nations signing a Framework Convention on Climate
Change, committing themselves to stabilizing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases at 1990 levels.
More C02 makes plants more efficient and produce more food in less time.
Wittwer 92 (Sylvan H., Professor of Horticulture at Michigan State University, Fall, Issue 62, Policy Review)
There are two important reasons for this productivity boost at higher CO2 levels. One is superior efficiency of
photosynthesis. The other is a sharp reduction in water loss per unit of leaf area. Photosynthesis converts the renewable
energy of sunlight into energy that living creatures can use. In the presence of chlorophyll, plants use sunlight to convert
carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates that, directly or indirectly, supply almost all animal and human needs for food;
oxygen and some water are released as by-products of this process. The principal factors affecting the rate of photosynthesis
are a favorable temperature, the level of light intensity, and the availability of carbon dioxide. Most green plants respond
quite favorably to concentrations of CO2 well above current atmospheric levels. A related benefit comes from the partial
closing of pores in leaves that is associated with higher CO2 levels. These pores, known as stomata, admit air into the leaf for
photosynthesis, but they are also a major source of transpiration or moisture loss. By partially closing these pores, higher
CO2 levels greatly reduce the plants' water loss--a significant benefit in arid climates. There are marked variations in
response to CO2 among plant species. The biggest differences are among three broad categories of plants--C3, C4, and
Crassulacean Acid Metabolism or CAM--each with a different pathway for photosynthetic fixation of carbon dioxide. Most
green plants, including trees, algae, and most major food crops, use the C3 pathway, so named because the first products of
photosynthesis (called photosynthate) have three carbon atoms per molecule. C3 plants respond most dramatically to higher
levels of CO2 . At current atmospheric levels of CO2, up to half of the photosynthate in C3 plants is typically lost and
returned to the air by a process called photo-respiration, which occurs simultaneously with photosynthesis in sunlight.
Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 virtually eliminate photo-respiration in C3 plants, making photosynthesis much more
efficient. High CO2 levels also sharply reduce dark respiration (the partial destruction of the products of photosynthesis
during nighttime) among C3 plants.
Wittwer 92 (Sylvan H., Professor of Horticulture at Michigan State University, Fall, Issue 62, Policy Review)
And yet, for over 100 years, nurserymen have been adding carbon dioxide to their greenhouses to raise the yields of
vegetables, flowers, and ornamental plants. And for decades, it has been well known among botanists, biochemists,
agriculturalists, and foresters that a shortage of carbon dioxide is the most common limiting factor preventing
photosynthesis from proceeding more efficiently.
CO2 increased grain production by 1.3 billion tons in the last 54 years
Avery and Burnett 05 (Dennis, NCPA adjunct scholar and H. Sterling, Senior Fellow
at NCPA, May 19. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba517/)
The available evidence undermines Browns claims. Indeed, a warmer planet has beneficial effects on food production. It
results in longer growing seasons more sunshine and rainfall while summertime high temperatures change little. And a
warmer planet means milder winters and fewer crop-killing frosts.
Global warming also increases carbon dioxide (CO2), which acts like fertilizer for plants. As the planet warms, oceans
naturally release huge tonnages of additional CO2. (Cold water can hold much more of a gas than warmer water.) Since
1950, in a period of global warming, these factors have helped the worlds grain production soar from 700 million to more
than 2 billion tons last year.
Predicted CO2 levels would increase plant productivity by 1/3, better root
systems enable roots to reach deeper water, spur more efficient
photosynthesis
Wittwer 92 (Sylvan H., Professor of Horticulture at Michigan State University, Fall, Issue 62, Policy Review)
While scientists disagree about the likely effects of additional carbon dioxide on global temperature, they generally agree on
another important effect of a rise in the CO2 level. A doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, as is
projected, would increase plant productivity by almost one-third. Most plants would grow faster and bigger, with increases
in leaf size and thickness, stem height, branching, and seed production. The number and size of fruits and flowers would
also rise. Root/top ratios would increase, giving many plants better root systems for access to water and nutrients. More
Efficient Photosynthesis
There are two important reasons for this productivity boost at higher CO2 levels. One is superior efficiency of
photosynthesis. The other is a sharp reduction in water loss per unit of leaf area. Photosynthesis converts the renewable
energy of sunlight into energy that living creatures can use. In the presence of chlorophyll, plants use sunlight to convert
carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates that, directly or indirectly, supply almost all animal and human needs for food;
oxygen and some water are released as by-products of this process. The principal factors affecting the rate of photosynthesis
are a favorable temperature, the level of light intensity, and the availability of carbon dioxide. Most green plants respond
quite favorably to concentrations of CO2 well above current atmospheric levels. A related benefit comes from the partial
closing of pores in leaves that is associated with higher CO2 levels. These pores, known as stomata, admit air into the leaf for
photosynthesis, but they are also a major source of transpiration or moisture loss. By partially closing these pores, higher
CO2 levels greatly reduce the plants' water loss--a significant benefit in arid climates.
Wittwer 92 (Sylvan H., Professor of Horticulture at Michigan State University, Fall, Issue 62, Policy Review)
The most readily identifiable potential climatic impact of significant magnitude on future living standards of the human race
is availability of water resources. The efficiency of their use will be a major key to future food security.
What Does CO2 Do To Crops? We now introduce the impacts of the rising level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. First, we have its presumed effect on climate change, and second, its effect on food production. The climate-change effect is characterized by the widely publicized global warming (the socalled "greenhouse effect"). Presumably this also is causing an increased frequency of extreme or
hazardous events. Conversely, elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have a decidedly beneficial effect on
crop production through an enhancement of photosynthetic capacity and an increase in water-use efficiency. Additionally,
hundreds of experiments now show partial alleviation of the harmful effects of both marginally low and high temperatures,
air pollutants, a lessening of the environmental hazards imposed by drought, alkalinity, and mineral stressesboth excesses
and deficiencieslow-light intensities, and UV-B radiation.
Treseder 4
(Kathleen K., Associate Professor, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at UC Irvine, A Meta-Analysis of
Mycorrhizal Responses to Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Atmospheric CO2 in Field Studies, New Phytologist, Vol. 164,
No. 2, (Nov., 2004), pp. 347-355)
Controls over mycorrhizal dynamics by C, N, and P are germane to global change studies. Enrichment of atmospheric CO2
typically augments photosynthesis (Bazzaz, 1990; Poorter, 1993) and increases nutrient limitation in plants (Oren et at,
2001; Schlesinger & Lichter, 2001; Finzi et at, 2002), while fertilization with N and P (as land is converted to agriculture)
and anthropogenic N deposition enhance soil fertility (Vitousek, 1994). Humans may be altering global and regional
distributions of this ecologically and economically important microbial group.
By contrast to N and P fertilization, CO2 enrichment consistently and strongly increased mycorrhizal growth, by an average
of 47% across all studies (Fig. 1), and by 36% within studies that measured percentage colonization (R = 1.36, CI of 1.11-1.68,
number of studies = 12). Among the study characteristics examined, none contributed significantly to differences among
studies (Table 2), and there was no significant variation among studies in general (QT = 14.5, d.f. = 13, P= 0.342). We could
not test for differences among measurement types, since percentage colonization was the only metric used by more than one
study.
For each nutrient examined, results from the meta-analyses supported the hypothesis that mycorrhizal fungi are more
abundant where plants are more limited by soil nutrients. However, responses to N were less consistent than were responses
to P and elevated CO2, given the heterogeneity in N effects among studies. Replicate numbers within N studies influenced
response ratios, but not substantially. What other characteristics of the studies might be responsible for the remaining
variation in N effects? It is possible that mycorrhizal fungi may not be as effective in facilitating plant uptake of inorganic N
compared with inorganic P (Morse & Phillips, 1971; Smith & Read, 1997). In particular, nitrate is more mobile in the soil
than is phosphate, so diffusion or mass flow may supply N at adequate rates in nitrate-rich systems. Under these
circumstances, plant investment in mycorrhizal fungi may be minimal even in control plots. Alternately, mycorrhizal growth
may be N-limited in some ecosystems (Treseder Allen, 2002) so that N fertilization increases mycorrhizal abundance.
Nitrogen effects were positive in 23% of studies (Table 1). Regardless of the mechanism, the significant variation in N
responses among studies indicates that predictability of N deposition effects on mycorrhizal biomass for any given
ecosystem is relatively low. The smaller confidence intervals for N effects vs P or CO2 effects (Fig. 1) reflect the larger
number of N studies included in the meta-analyses.
Treseder 4
(Kathleen K., Associate Professor, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at UC Irvine, A Meta-Analysis of
Mycorrhizal Responses to Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Atmospheric CO2 in Field Studies, New Phytologist, Vol. 164,
No. 2, (Nov., 2004), pp. 347-355)
In summary, mycorrhizal abundance generally increases under elevated CO2 and declines in response to N and P
fertilization across studies. Plants may adjust allocation of C to mycorrhizal fungi according to the degree to which plant
growth is N or P limited, as hypothesized (Mosse & Phillips, 1971; Read, 1991). Direct limitation of mycorrhizal fungi by soil
nutrients appears to be at most a secondary control,evident in a subset of studies. In respect of environmental change, global
standing stocks of mycorrhizal fungi may be substantially augmented by atmospheric CO2 enrichment and moderately
reduced by P fertilization. Anthropogenic N deposition effects might vary among ecosystems, with a slightly negative
influence overall. These shifts in mycorrhizal dynamics may elicit corresponding shifts in ecosystem dynamics, including
nutrient uptake by plants (Smith & Read, 1997), trace gas emissions (Redeker et al., 2004), carbon sequestration in glomalin
(Treseder & Allen, 2000), and aggregate formation in the soil (Rillig et al., 19996).
Korner 0
(Christian Institute of Botany, University of Basel an, Biosphere Responses to CO2 Enrichment,
Ecological Applications, Vol. 10, No. 6, (Dec., 2000), pp. 1590-1619)
A most important group of soil organisms that completely depends on plants arc fungi, which utilize either live or dead plant
material or exist in symbiosis with live plants, forming mycorrhiza. Since the mycorrhiza forming fungus immediately
depends on photo-assimalates. it is obvious that increasing their abundance will have an effect. A large number of studies
have demonstrated substantial mycorrhizal stimulation under elevated CO2 over a wide spectrum of growth conditions and
plant partners (e. g.. review in O'Neill 1994, Incich et al. 1995, Tingey et al. 1995, Dhillion et al. 1996, Lovelock et al. ]996,
Norby 1996, Godbold ct al. 1997), but in a few cases the effect was. small (Markkolaa et al. 1996). A most remarkable
phenomenon has been described by Sanders (1996), namely, a host specificity of endo-mycorrhizal responses to CO, enrichment. It is not unlikely that some differential plant species responses to elevated CO2 are in fact due to responses of
their mycorrhizal partner, which may either become more supportive or more demanding tinder a changed diet. Hence,
presence of natural mycorrhiza seems imperative in plant CO2 researcha clear advantage of field research, also in light of
evidence that one fungus is able to functionally connect various hosts (Francis and Read 1984, Newman 1988).
Wittwer 92 (Sylvan H., Professor of Horticulture at Michigan State University, Fall, Issue 62, Policy Review)
Elevated concentrations of CO2 also offer protection against air pollutants. The partial closing of the stomata at higher CO2
levels reduces the exposure of both C3 and C4 plants to ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, and other harmful substances
in the air. The benefits are particularly pronounced for soybeans and other legumes that are especially sensitive to air
pollutants.
no . After 45 days of
growth at 10,000 ppm CO2, for example, root dry weight was increased by fully 37% relative to the dry weight of roots
produced in bioreactors in equilibrium with normal ambient air, while root dry mass was increased by a lesser 27% after 45
days at 25,000 ppm CO2 and by a still smaller 9% after 45 days at 50,000 ppm CO 2. Hence, although the optimum CO2
concentration for ginseng root growth clearly resided at some value lower than 10,000 ppm in this study, the concentration
at which root growth rate was reduced below that characteristic of ambient air was somewhere significantly above 50,000ppm, for even at that high CO2 concentration, root growth was still greater than it was in ambient air.
pagewanted=7)
Ziska says that he worries about mankinds ability to feed itself in a fast-changing future. Paradoxically, it is weeds, he says,
that can provide solutions. They have helped us deal with lesser crises in the past. When diseases and pests overwhelmed
our domesticated food crops, it was to their wild relatives plants that mankind has been battling for millennia that
plant breeders turned. Because weeds have more diverse genomes, it is easier to find one with the proper genetic resistance
to a given threat and then to create a new hybrid by breeding it with existing crops. An answer to the Irish potato blight of
1845-6 was eventually found among the potatos wild and weedy relatives; a wild oat found in Israel in the 1960s helped
spawn a more robust, disease-resistant strain of domesticated oats.
Weedy ancestors of our food crops, Ziska predicts, will cope far better with coming climatic changes than their domesticated
descendants. Coping, after all, is what weeds have always done best. As last years climate- change panel report, Climate
Change 2007, made clear, we
More evidence
Bilgin, Clough, & Dilugia 7 (Damla, Steven & Evan, U of Ill-UC,
http://www.life.uiuc.edu/delucia/presentations.htm)
Plants have numerous defence mechanisms many of which are induced by the pathogen attack or various environmental
stresses. Although the ultimate response may be different, abiotic and biotic stress-induced signaling pathways share many
common genes and nodes. Changes in the concentrations of atmospheric gases played a significant role in the evolution of
organisms and their interactions with each other. Increasing levels of ozone (O3) and carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
atmosphere causes changes in the gene expression profile of plants and their response to pathogens and other stresses.
We used soybean plants, an economically important crop, to study the effects of global atmospheric change on gene
expression and plant-pathogen interaction. Soybean plants grown in the field under elevated O3 or CO2 were tested against
virus infection. Both treatments increased the resistance of susceptible plants to Soybean Mosaic Virus (SMV). Gene
expression analysis with Affymetrix arrays showed that the nonspecific resistance response induced by elevated O3 is
different than CO2 induced response. Elevated O3 treatment induced isoflavone biosynthesis and pathogenesis- related
genes PR1, PR5 and PR10. Elevated CO2 changed the cell number and size of foliar tissue and differentially regulated cell
cycle and plant development related genes. The similar and different effects of elevated O3 and CO2 on plant gene
expression and plant pathogen interactions will be discussed. Various reasons of nonspecific resistance induced by the two
major components of global atmospheric change will be presented.
Idso 90 (Sherwood B.(last date cited, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change)
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20061013/20061013_12.html
That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true; and that may be why
ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past; they
probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue. But what we
had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and comes not,
from them or any other organization or person. Rather, it was and is
derived from our individual scrutinizing of the pertinent scientific
literature and our analyses of what we find there, which we have been
doing and subsequently writing about on our website on a weekly basis
without a single break since 15 Jul 2000, and twice-monthly before that since 15
Sep 1998 ... and no one could pay my sons and me enough money to do
that. So what do we generally find in this never-ending endeavor? We find enough
good material to produce weekly reviews of five different peer-reviewed
scientific journal articles that do not follow the multiple doom-and-gloom
storylines of the IPCC. In addition, we often review articles that do follow
the IPCC's lead; and in these cases we take issue with them for what we
feel are valid defensible reasons. Why do we do this? We do it because we feel
that many people on the other side of the debate - but by no means all or even the
majority of them - are the ones that "misrepresent the science of climate change."
Just as beauty resides in the eye of the beholder, however, so too does the
misrepresentation of climate change science live there; and with people on both
sides of the debate often saying the same negative things about those on the other
side, it behooves the rational person seeking to know the truth to carefully evaluate
the things each side says about more substantial matters. Are they based on realworld data? Do the analyses employed seem appropriate? Do the researchers rely
more on data and logic to make their points, or do they rely more on appeals to
authority and claims of consensus? Funding also enters the picture; but one must
determine if it is given to influence how scientists interpret their findings or to
encourage them to maintain their intellectual integrity and report only what they
believe to be the truth. In this regard, as I mentioned earlier, there are many
scientists on both sides of the climate change debate who receive funds
from people that admire their work and who continue to maintain their
intellectual and moral integrity. Likewise, there are probably some on both sides
of the controversy who do otherwise. So how does one differentiate between them?
Idso, Idso and Idso 07 (Sherwood, Craig and Keith, Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change, http://www.pcgp.it/pcgp/dati/2007-04/30999999/Idso.doc)
What, if anything, can be done to avoid this horrific situation? In a subsequent analysis that was published in the 8 August
2002 issue of Nature,10 Tilman and a second set of collaborators introduced a few more facts before suggesting some
solutions. They noted, for example, that by 2050 the human population of the globe is projected to be 50% larger than it
was just prior to the time of their writing, and that global grain demand by 2050 could well double, due to expected
increases in per capita real income and dietary shifts toward a higher proportion of meat. Hence, they but stated the
obvious when they concluded that raising yields on existing farmland is essential for saving land for nature.
So how can this readily-defined but Herculean task be accomplished? Tilman et al. proposed a strategy that focuses on three
essential efforts: (1) increasing crop yield per unit of land area, (2) increasing crop yield per unit of nutrients applied, and (3)
increasing crop yield per unit of water used.
With respect to the first of these efforts increasing crop yield per unit of land area the researchers note that in many
parts of the world the historical rate-of-increase in crop yield is declining, as the genetic ceiling for maximal yield potential is
being approached. This observation, in their estimation, highlights the need for efforts to steadily increase the yield
potential ceiling. With respect to the second effort increasing crop yield per unit of nutrients applied they note that
without the use of synthetic fertilizers, world food production could not have increased at the rate [that it did in the past]
and more natural ecosystems would have been converted to agriculture. Hence, they say that the ultimate solution will
require significant increases in nutrient use efficiency, that is, in cereal production per unit of added nitrogen. Finally, with
respect to the third effort increasing crop yield per unit of water used Tilman et al. note that water is regionally scarce,
and that many countries in a band from China through India and Pakistan, and the Middle East to North Africa either
currently or will soon fail to have adequate water to maintain per capita food production from irrigated land. Increasing
crop water use efficiency, therefore, is also a must.
Although the impending man vs. nature crisis and several important elements of its potential solution are thus well defined,
Tilman and his first set of collaborators concluded that even the best available technologies, fully deployed, cannot prevent
many of the forecasted problems. This was also the finding of a study my brother and I conducted a few years ago,11
wherein we concluded that although expected advances in agricultural technology and expertise will significantly increase
the food production potential of many countries and regions, these advances will not increase production fast enough to
meet the demands of the even faster-growing human population of the planet.
Abler, Shortle, and Fisher 4 (David, James, and Ann. professors at Penn State in Agriculture,
Environmental Economics, Winter. Penn State Environmental Law Review.)
Climate change could affect Pennsylvania agriculture in several ways. Higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide may lead
to an increase in photosynthesis and thus crop yields, a phenomenon known as the carbon dioxide "fertilization" or
"enrichment" effect. n22 Carbon dioxide is an indispensable component in the process of photosynthesis. Higher levels of
carbon dioxide could also reduce transpiration (evaporation from plant foliage), which would reduce water stress facing
crops during droughts. Studies by MARA's research team and others suggest that the carbon dioxide fertilization effect could
be significant for important crops such as corn, soybeans, and alfalfa. n23 Corn yields in Pennsylvania could rise 5-10% by
the year 2030 as a result of the carbon dioxide fertilization effect. n24
UN News 8 (May, Rice production to reach record high in 2008, but prices to
continue climbing UN, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?
NewsID=26630&Cr=food&Cr1=crisis#)
Rice production in Asia, Africa and Latin America will reach record highs in
2008, but prices could also continue to soar in the short term, the United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported today. The agencys preliminary
forecasts show harvests surging by 2.3 per cent and reaching an all-time
high of over 600 million tons, but prices will remain high in the immediate future
because a large portion of this years crop will only be harvested at the end of 2008.
Flakus 8 (April 15, Greg, US Rice Farmers Boost Production as World Faces Shortage, VOA News,
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-04/2008-04-15-voa50.cfm?CFID=7059592&CFTOKEN=43340757)
A dramatic surge in the international price for rice has U.S. producers
planting more fields in an effort to increase profits. But, as VOA's Greg Flakus reports from the
rice-growing area of Dayton, Texas, high costs could limit their margins. Tractors are tilling the land and building earthen rows that will serve as
levees once water flows into these fields. This area of southeast Texas is one of the best rice growing areas of the United States. Other states
that also produce major amounts of rice include Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Ray Stoesser plants rice on more than 1,800 hectares of
land in the area near his home in Dayton, Texas and he is hoping the recent jump in prices will help him come out ahead. "Naturally, we watch
the market is better than it has been since 1974 right now," he said.
"We can grow rice and make a good yield and we can usually get a second
growth, so we will maximize our profits." The price of rice has more than doubled in the past year, but
the market and
Stoesser says production costs have also risen. "Fertilizer went up $80 a ton last week," he added. "It just seems like when we need it,
everything goes up. All our suppliers say they cannot get potash and they cannot get phosphorous and, of course, nitrogen is mostly imported
into this country right now, so we have to depend on foreign sources for that." Dwight Roberts is president and Chief Operating officer of the
Houston-based U.S. Rice Producers Association. He says rice is the most expensive crop to grow in the United States because it is fully
mechanized, so he says farmers in some of the best growing areas for rice are cautious in their planting decisions.
U.S. rice crop is yet to be planted as we go north into Louisiana and up into Arkansas to the Missouri boot heel," he
noted. Roberts says the United States exports about half the rice it produces, so when
prices are low on the world market, farmers tend to shift production to crops
that are more profitable at home, like corn and soybeans. The price of both
of those crops has risen sharply in recent years because of their use in
making bio-fuels. Dwight Roberts says the reason for the international shortage of rice has to do, in many cases, with
government policies in nations where prices for consumers were subsidized without providing incentives for farmers. He also blames drought in
Australia, where rice production has virtually come to a halt, and an increase in demand driven by population growth. "Economists predict that
the world population will grow by one billion people during the next 10 years and the middle class will grow by 1.8 billion people and 600 million
of those are in China, and when people move up in the economic chain they want to eat better, they want more protein, which requires more
grain and more fuels to produce it," he said. Growth in population has also contributed to urban sprawl. The loss of arable land to housing, roads
and other infrastructure has also reduced the world's rice production. Dwight Roberts says all of these factors have come together to reduce the
amount of rice available. "We have seen in a number of countries including Vietnam, Thailand, the United States, India, Pakistan and, to some
Neue, Ziska, Matthews, and Dai 5 (Heinz-Ulrich, Lewis, Robin, and Qiujie, International Rice
Research Institute, Reducing Global Warming-The Role of Rice, SPRINGERLINK,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/vw288845t3273164/, January 10, 2005)
Activities to provide energy for an expanding population are increasingly disrupting and changing the concentration of
atmospheric gases that increase global temperature. Increased CO2 and temperature have a clear effect on growth and
production of rice as they are key factors in photosynthesis. Rice yields could be increased with increased levels of CO2,
however, the rise of CO2 may be accompanied by an increase in global temperature. The effect of doubling CO2 levels on rice
production was predicted using rice crop models. They showed different effects of climate change in different countries. A
simulation of the Southeast Asian region indicated that a doubling of CO2 increases yield, whereas an increase in
temperature decreases yield. Enhanced UV-B radiation resulting for stratographic ozone depletion has been demonstrated
to significantly reduce plant height, leaf area and dry weight of two rice cultivars under glasshouse conditions.
More evidence
US Wheat Associates 6-12 (http://www.uswheat.org/wheatLetter/doc/B87AF01465FB788E8525746600713272?
OpenDocument)
The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) increased its production forecast this week for U.S. winter wheat
classes with total 2008/09 winter wheat estimated up 11 million metric tons (MMT) or 20 percent higher than last year. The
revised NASS forecast pegs soft red winter (SRW) production at 15.6 MMT, up 7.9 MMT (60 percent) from last year. Hard
red winter (HRW) production is forecast up 2.5 MMT (7 percent) while SW production is projected to grow by 660,000 MT
(10 percent).
More evidence
The Dawn Media Group 5-26 (http://www.dawn.com/2008/05/26/ebr12.htm)
Global wheat production for 2008/09 is projected at a record 656 million tons, up eight perc ent from 2007/08, and five per
cent above the previous record in 2004/05. Higher production is projected for most of the worlds major exporting countries
including Australia, Canada, EU-27, Russia, and Ukraine. Strong world prices and favorable weather in most of EU-27 and
FSU-12 raised production for 2008. Production is also projected higher in Brazil, China, and India. This will partly offset
reductions in Argentina and Kazahkstan. The only significant weather problems for winter wheat remain in drought stricken
Middle East and North Africa countries.
(Dennis NCPA adjunct scholar and Sterling, Senior Fellow at NCPA, May 19,
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba517/)
Continued warming should increase rainfall, rather than reduce it. And even if some areas do experience greater aridity
under warmer conditions, both nature and humans have been through it many times before. Modern transportation helps
avoid food shortages. Higher CO2 Levels. Whether as a natural reaction to warming in the early part of the 20th century, or
the result of human activities including energy use and tropical forest conversion the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
has increased by more than 30 percent during the past half-century. CO2 is a critical component of photosynthesis, the
process by which plants use sunlight to create carbohydrates the material that makes up their root and body structures.
Increasing CO2 levels both speeds the growth of plants and improves the efficiency of their water use. More CO2 also
decreases water loss in plants, which is beneficial in arid climates or during droughts. Botanists have long realized that CO2
enhances plant growth, which is why greenhouse owners pump large volumes of CO2 into their sheds to grow more
tomatoes or carnations. This was confirmed by 55 experiments conducted by research scientist Sherwood Idso, formerly of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. For example: Increasing CO2 by 300 parts per million (ppm) above the current
atmospheric level of more than 370ppm enhanced plant growth by 31 percent under optimal water conditions, and 63
percent under water scarcity. [See the figure.] With a 600 ppm CO2 increase, plant growth was enhanced 51 percent under
optimal water conditions and an astonishing 219 percent under conditions of water shortage. CO2 enrichment also causes
plants to develop more extensive root systems, with important results: 1) Larger root systems allow plants to reach
additional pockets of both water and nutrients in the soil, reducing the metabolic energy required to capture vital nutrients.
2) More extensive, active roots also stimulate and enhance the activity of bacteria and other organisms in the soil that are
beneficial to plants. When dinosaurs walked the Earth (about 70 to 130 million years ago), there was from five to 10 times
more CO2 in the atmosphere than today. The resulting abundant plant life allowed the huge creatures to thrive. Since many
of todays plants evolved when CO2 levels were much higher, some scientists fear todays plants are literally starving from
CO2 deprivation. Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels
would improve plant productivity on average by 32 percent across species. Controlled experiments have shown that: Under
elevated CO2 levels, average yields of cereal grains including rice, wheat, barley, oats and rye are 25 percent to 64
percent higher. Tubers and root crops, including potatoes, yams and cassava, yield 18 to 75 percent more. And yields of
legumes, including peas, beans and soybeans, increase 28 to 46 percent. Humans can help nature along. Recently, Egypt
genetically engineered a drought-tolerant wheat plant containing a gene from the barley plant that needs to be irrigated
only once, rather than eight times per season. The new wheat is expected to dramatically increase food production in semiarid climates.
Terrorists have made Pakistan their haven. It cannot afford any more
instability.
Mazetti and Rohde June 30 (2008,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/washington/30tribal.html)
Intelligence reports for more than a year had been streaming in about Osama bin Ladens terrorism network rebuilding in
the Pakistani tribal areas, a problem that had been exacerbated by years of missteps in Washington and the Pakistani
capital, Islamabad, sharp policy disagreements, and turf battles between American counterterrorism agencies.
The new plan, outlined in a highly classified Pentagon order, was intended to eliminate some of those battles. And it was
meant to pave a smoother path into the tribal areas for American commandos, who for years have bristled at what they see
as Washingtons risk-averse attitude toward Special Operations missions inside Pakistan. They also argue that catching Mr.
bin Laden will come only by capturing some of his senior lieutenants alive. But more than six months later, the Special
Operations forces are still waiting for the green light. The plan has been held up in Washington by the very disagreements it
was meant to eliminate. A senior Defense Department official said there was mounting frustration in the Pentagon at the
continued delay. After the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush committed the nation to a war on terrorism and made the
destruction of Mr. bin Ladens network the top priority of his presidency. But it is increasingly clear that the Bush
administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistans tribal
areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the
world. A recent American airstrike killing Pakistani troops has only inflamed tensions along the mountain border and
added to tensions between Washington and Pakistans new government. The story of how Al Qaeda, whose name is Arabic
for the base, has gained a new haven is in part a story of American accommodation to President Pervez Musharraf of
Pakistan, whose advisers played down the terrorist threat. It is also a story of how the White House shifted its sights,
beginning in 2002, from counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan to preparations for the war in Iraq. Just as it
had on the day before 9/11, Al Qaeda now has a band of terrorist camps from which to plan and train for attacks against
Western targets, including the United States. Officials say the new camps are smaller than the ones the group used prior to 2001. However,
despite dozens of American missile strikes in Pakistan since 2002, one retired C.I.A. officer estimated that the makeshift training compounds
now have as many as 2,000 local and foreign militants, up from several hundred three years ago.Publicly, senior American and Pakistani
officials have said that the creation of a Qaeda haven in the tribal areas was in many ways inevitable that the lawless badlands where ethnic
Pashtun tribes have resisted government control for centuries were a natural place for a dispirited terrorism network to find refuge. The
American and Pakistani officials also blame a disastrous cease-fire brokered between the Pakistani government and militants in 2006. But
more than four dozen interviews in Washington and Pakistan tell another story. American intelligence officials say that the Qaeda hunt in
Pakistan, code-named Operation Cannonball by the C.I.A. in 2006, was often undermined by bitter disagreements within the Bush
administration and within the C.I.A., including about whether American commandos should launch ground raids inside the tribal areas.
Inside the C.I.A., the fights included clashes between the agencys outposts in Kabul, Afghanistan, and Islamabad. There were also battles
between field officers and the Counterterrorist Center at C.I.A. headquarters, whose preference for carrying out raids remotely, via Predator
missile strikes, was derided by officers in the Islamabad station as the work of boys with toys.An early arrangement that allowed American
commandos to join Pakistani units on raids inside the tribal areas was halted in 2003 after protests in Pakistan. Another combat mission that
came within hours of being launched in 2005 was scuttled because some C.I.A. officials in Pakistan questioned the accuracy of the intelligence,
and because aides to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld believed that the mission force had become too large. Current and former
military and intelligence officials said that the war in Iraq consistently diverted resources and high-level attention from the tribal areas. When
American military and intelligence officials requested additional Predator drones to survey the tribal areas, they were told no drones were
available because they had been sent to Iraq. Some former officials say Mr. Bush should have done more to confront Mr. Musharraf, by
aggressively demanding that he acknowledge the scale of the militant threat . Western military officials say Mr. Musharraf was instead
often distracted by his own political problems, and effectively allowed militants to regroup by brokering peace agreements
with them.