Can We Change? Mystics Say Yes, Science Says No - Or Does It?
by Xavier Connolly.
2011-01-23
CREATIVE COMMONS: Attribute, non commercial, no derivs.
KEYWORDS: science, religion, faith, belief, brain, change, injury, prayer, ritual, superstition, healing, placebo
To save the planet we need more CO2. Now this may seem a strange thing to say when 'scientists' are always banging on about how Carbon Dioxide threatens our way of life and even our lives. But the case I am arguing here, while not coming with any guarantees is at least backed up with hard, practical evidence where all the Waqrmageddonists have is wild speculation backed up by results from mathematical modelling exercises.
After years of hysterical screaming from the Warmageddonists about the horrors he are inflicting on our environment by burning fossil fuels and pumping the emissions into the atmosphere I decided to get away from all the pseudo science of anthropogenic global warming and apply a systems analysts logic and critical thinking to some of the sillier, more fearmongering claims of the Carbon Plague prophets. One of my aims was to put the 'science' in context because of the many problems I have with climate scientists the main one is the reductionist view they take of everything. To be a climate scientist it seems, one must live in a camera obscura ( A dark chamber with a lens or opening through which onto an opposite surface an image is projected in natural colors of reality turned upside down. )
A faction, by no means a concensus but a vociferous minority of 'climate scientists' (a profession the membership of which includes railway clerks, psychologists, superannuated weirdie beardie stoners, public relations consultants, career politicians, fraudsters and anybody who is prepared to defer to the received wisdom,) are convinced that a marginal increase in the proportion of carbon dioxide to other gases in the air we breathe is responsible for the climate chaos.
Unfortunately the vociferous minority have gained the ear of politicians thanks mostly to their big idea for reducing the amount of carbon in the air. This big idea is to slap punitive taxes on all fossil fuels so that our domestic heating, hot water, cooking, car journeys, baths, barbecues, burgers and everything are made more expensive. Business you see will pass on the cost increases caused by taxation to the person at the end of the line. Us. Coz we're guilty.
You can see why politicians like the idea.
Now there are other ideas about the cause of climate chaos, some based in sound common sense (too many people on the planet) some definitely from The Land Of Make Believe (God is punishing us for being sinners,) and a lot from somewhere between those extremes. The Warmageddonists are determined alternative ideas to their will not be heard. What have they to hide, why are they afraid of open and rational debate?
That was what I intended to find out.
By 2070, sixty years from now, if current trends continue global population will have grown to about 9.0 billion according to the best estimates we have. I am not a fan of statistics and mathematical projections, my experience has made me all too aware that using statistical and mathematical modelling techniques a skilled analyst can always show the answer to any problem is what the people paying the bills want it to be. But we have no other way of estimating population growth so we have to work with what is available.
We are looking at an increase of 35%; not 35% of 0.038% but 35% of 100% of the people living on the planet now. 35% of 0.038% (opr 380 paryts per million) is not significant. 35% of everyone is very significant
The most meticulous projections suggest CO2 levels will probably have increased to nearly 700 ppm.an increase of about 300ppm. The amount of carbon dioxide will have almost doubled. Warmageddonists say that will be a disaster, we will all be dead or worse. And Warmageddonists say all scientists are of one view except a few ancient, demented half wits and right wing nut jobs who spend all their time listening to somebody named Rush Limbaugh (I know the name but to me he sounds more like a mix of a Rock band and a German Cheese than an object of fear and loathing, ) and thus cannot be taken seriously.
Furthermore the Warmageddonists claim so much carbon in the air would cause crops to fail and plants to die. So those of us who have not choked to death trying to breathe a mix similar to that which the citizens of Cairo (allegedly the dirtiest city on Earth) breathe every day will starve because there will be nothing to eat. Fortunately the excellent reference website CO2 Science presents us with meta - analyses of research carried out over more than 25 years into the effects of raised CO2 levels on crop yields which saved a lot of work. (On the other hand I could have saved even more work by simply making stuff up like the Warmageddonists do.)
.
Is there any truth in that claim? Let's take a look at some of the 235 scientific studies of what happens to wheat yields when you increase CO2 levels by 300ppm.
The answer is no, crops do not fail if CO2 in air doubles. Yields increase by 32.1% +/- 1.8% on average (Warmageddonist love averages).
And what about rice yields because billions of people in developing nations depend on rice for their staple food. Surely the rice crops will fail. Well maybe not. There have been 182 studies of what happens to rice yields when you increase CO2 levels by 300ppm over current levels.
Again the answer is not what the Warmageddonists have led you to believe. The studies show yields increase on average by 34.4% +/-1.8%
Results for Soya beans are better still. 179 studies of what happens to soybean yields when you increase CO2 levels to 700 ppm show yields increase by 46.5% +/- 2.8% (SE).
20 studies show Maize (corn) yields improve by 21.3% +/- 4.9% when you increase CO2 levels by 300ppm.
Once again these meta-analyses come from the excellent CO2 Science website.
These are the four of the worlds biggest food crops in terms of carbo - hydrates (carbo hydrates - carbon dioxide; do you see a link there?).
Therefore the quantity of energy giving carbs produced to feed the world's 9billion people will - excluding factors that cannot be predicted- keep pace with the growth of population, entirely because of the increase in CO2 emissions. If you want practical proof of this, commercial food growers who grow popular food crops in greenhouses or polytunnels often use CO2-enriched air to obtain higher yields. No mathematical modelling necessary, hard evidence from the real world proves the case. More on this HERE and HERE and HERE. I'll stop now because so much real scientific information could upset the pointy heads who parade around the net saying "I'm a scientists" as if it will fool us al into believing they are clever. There are of course hundreds more studies all drawing similar conclusions.
Of course, there are lots of reasons people don't believe these yield increase would be achieved -- chiefly because CO2 is not always the limiting factor but also because tests carried out in the controlled conditions of a growing chamber such as a greenhouse or polytunnel are not always reproduced in a natural environment -- but the evidence, both mathematical and empirical is there for anybody who cares to approach it with an open mind. Raised levels of CO2 are potentially more beneficial in alleviating food shortages than another science sacred cow, GM crops. Limiting factors have been mentioned first because critical thinking requires objectivity and I would not want anyone to go away with the idea that only one factor, one measurement, is important in translating these calculation into food on plates. Do remember however, especially when the Warmageddonists start whining as they surely will, these calculations do not take into account the longer growing seasons that will result from greater warmth or the higher yields caused by more rainfall. Also plants growing in a higher CO2 air loses less water to the air because it does not have to open as many stomata thus higher CO2 content in air will reduce the rate at which we are depleting gound water reserves.
Wadda we want.?
Carbon Dioxide !
When do we want it?
NOW!
RELATED POSTS:
Latest Fear and Panic Strategy: They Tell Us We Are All Going To Starve
