cndi - co2 fertilization

8/14/2019 CNDI - CO2 Fertilization

1/104

CO2 and WARMING CNDI 2008

N. FAROOQI

CO2 Ag Disad (Generic): 1NC (1/2)...........................................................................................................4CO2 Ag Disad (Generic) Overview: 2NC...................................................................................................6

CO2 Ag Disad (Generic) Uniq. Overview: 2NC.........................................................................................7

Food Production Increasing Massive Starvation Risk on Horizon...........................................................8Farmers Need To Expand.............................................................................................................................9

co2 da - impact...........................................................................................................................................10co2 = better plants.....................................................................................................................................11

co2 good for plants.....................................................................................................................................12co2 enhances plants....................................................................................................................................13

co2 good for plants.....................................................................................................................................14

co2 good for plants.....................................................................................................................................15co2 needed for future ag............................................................................................................................16

co2 good for phytoplankton.......................................................................................................................17

co2 good for plants.....................................................................................................................................18co2 good for plants.....................................................................................................................................19

co2 good for plants.....................................................................................................................................20

co2 good for plants.....................................................................................................................................21co2 good for plants.....................................................................................................................................22

AT: Weather Overwhelms Plants...............................................................................................................23

co2 doesnt have a big impact on climate..................................................................................................23

at: co2 affects plant decompostion ............................................................................................................24co2 good for plants w/warm climate..........................................................................................................25

co2 key to plant survival............................................................................................................................26

co2 da.........................................................................................................................................................27co2 da ........................................................................................................................................................28

*******Additional Warming Answers......................................................................................................29

warming happened, its good.....................................................................................................................30warming already happened, high co2 not the cause..................................................................................31

warming already happened due to solar act...............................................................................................32

warming already happened due to solar act...............................................................................................33

warming already happened .......................................................................................................................34warming already happened without high co2............................................................................................35

***Colling Bad..........................................................................................................................................36

cooling hurts nations..................................................................................................................................36***AT: Storms...........................................................................................................................................37

no increase in cyclonic activity..................................................................................................................37

no change in hydro cycle...........................................................................................................................38no intense hydro cycle...............................................................................................................................39

warming doesnt cause intense hydro cycle...............................................................................................40

warming doesnt cause intense hydro cycle...............................................................................................41hydro cycle changed before ind. rev..........................................................................................................42

warming doesnt cause severe weather......................................................................................................43

warming doesnt have a strong impact......................................................................................................44

warming doesnt cause floods....................................................................................................................45plants adapt to climate change...................................................................................................................46

plants adapt to climate change...................................................................................................................47

turn-warm. and co2 help bio-d...................................................................................................................48co2 doesnt increase nitrogen.....................................................................................................................49

1


2/104


N. FAROOQI

co2 doesnt cause warming........................................................................................................................50

***AT: Coral Reefs....................................................................................................................................52

corals can adapt..........................................................................................................................................52corals can adapt .........................................................................................................................................53

***Cooling Now........................................................................................................................................54

cooling trend and more albedo...................................................................................................................54

***AT: Biod Loss......................................................................................................................................55alternate causes to bio-d loss......................................................................................................................55

warming leads to more bio-d.....................................................................................................................56ehux turn...................................................................................................................................................57

plants adapt to climate change...................................................................................................................58

turn-warm. and co2 help bio-d...................................................................................................................59

co2 good for plants in a warm climate.......................................................................................................60TuRN-co2 reduction hurt bio-d..................................................................................................................61

aff studies are wrong..................................................................................................................................62

aff studies are wrong .................................................................................................................................63current warm period isnt bad....................................................................................................................64

(turn) co2 checks warming.........................................................................................................................65***AT: SLR...............................................................................................................................................66large sea level rise unlikely........................................................................................................................66

large sea level rise unlikely........................................................................................................................67

sea level rise constantly changing..............................................................................................................68average slr hasnt accelerated....................................................................................................................69

slr hasnt changed a lot with co2................................................................................................................70

***AT: Methane.........................................................................................................................................71

co2 doesnt cause an increase of methane release.....................................................................................71methane levels are decreasing....................................................................................................................72

***Various.................................................................................................................................................73

its been warmer.........................................................................................................................................73warming already happened........................................................................................................................74

more demand for ag in future.....................................................................................................................75

co2 doesnt stop calcification.....................................................................................................................76warming can check bad co2 concentrations...............................................................................................77

co2 good for corals and phytoplankton......................................................................................................78

corals can adapt to env. changes................................................................................................................79

urban heating allows for investigation.......................................................................................................80***AT: GCMs...........................................................................................................................................81

climate models wrong................................................................................................................................81

climate models fail.....................................................................................................................................82gcms fail....................................................................................................................................................83

gcms fail....................................................................................................................................................84

climate models wrong................................................................................................................................85climate models wrong................................................................................................................................86

climate models wrong................................................................................................................................87

*******Co2 Ag Answers*******............................................................................................................88Bugs...........................................................................................................................................................89

Warming Decreases Crop Production........................................................................................................90

Warming Decreases Precipitation..............................................................................................................91

Warming = Storms, Kills Plants.................................................................................................................92

2


3/104


N. FAROOQI

Warming = Soil Erosion.............................................................................................................................93

CO2 = Decreased Nutritional Value .........................................................................................................94

AT: Adaptation...........................................................................................................................................95Climate Change Disrupts Agriculture........................................................................................................96

Computer Models ......................................................................................................................................97

Climate Change Disrupts Weather.............................................................................................................98

GCMs = Indicators of Climate Change....................................................................................................99Warming = Ag Shift ................................................................................................................................100

Warming Destroys Regional Ag..............................................................................................................101Neg Args = Govt Inaction........................................................................................................................102

3


4/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 AG DISAD (GENERIC): 1NC (1/2)

A. Uniqueness And Link Agricultural Production Will Fall Short Of Solving For The

Massive Population And Starvation Boom On The Horizon Unless We Continue To Pump

Co2 Into The Atmosphere

IDSO AND IDSO IN 99

(Keith, Vice Pres. Ctr Study CO2 and Global Change, Ph.D. in Botany @ ASU, won several top awards whileinstructing students in biological and botanical laboratories and lectures at ASU, and Craig, Chrmn Brd of Ctr for

Study CO2 & Global Change, Ph.D. in Geog. ASU, Give Peace a Chance by Giving Plants a Chance, Volume 2,

Number 19: 1 October 1999, pg. Online @ http://www.co2science.org/edit/v2_edit/v2n19edit.htm//wyo-ef)

Within this context, we recently completed a project commissioned by the Greening Earth Society entitled "Forecasting World Food Supplies: The Impact of the Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentration," which we presented at the

Second Annual Dixy Lee Ray Memorial Symposium held in Washington, DC on 31 August - 2 September 1999. We found that continued increases in agricultural

knowledge and expertise would likely boost world food production by 37% between now andthe middle of the next century, but that world food needs, which we equated with world

population, would likely rise by 51% over this period. Fortunately, we also calculated that the shortfall in production

could be overcome - but just barely - by the additional benefits anticipated to accrue from themany productivity-enhancing effects of the expected rise in the air's CO 2 content over the same

time period.

B. The Impact Future Increases In Co2 Are Necessary To Prevent Ozone Pollution, Increase

Crop Yields And Save Our Species Without Massive Increases In Co2 We Will Not

Survive The Next Century And Neither Will The Biosphere

IDSO AND IDSO IN 01

(Keith, Vice Pres. Ctr Study CO2 and Global Change, Ph.D. in Botany @ ASU, won several top awards while

instructing students in biological and botanical laboratories and lectures at ASU, and Craig, Chrmn Brd of Ctr for

Study CO2 & Global Change, Ph.D. in Geog. ASU, Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Could Dramatically Increase

Global Agricultural Production By Thwarting the Adverse Effects of Ozone Pollution, Volume 4, Number 43: 24

October 2001, pg. Online @ http://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n43edit.htm//uwyo-ef)

Damage to crops caused by air pollutants is one of the major scourges of present-day

agriculture. How great are the production losses caused by these plant-debilitating agents? In a recent

study of the effects of ozone pollution in the Punjab region of Pakistan, Wahid et al. (2001)periodically applied a powerful ozone protectant tosoybean plants growing in three different locations in the general vicinity of the city of Lahore - a

suburban site, a remote rural site, and a rural roadside site - throughout two different growing seasons (one immediately post-monsoon and one the following spring orpre-monsoon). The results were

truly astounding. At the suburban site, application of the ozone protectant increased the weight of seeds produced per plant by 47% in the post-monsoon season and by 113% in the pre-monsoon season. Atthe remote rural site, the corresponding yield increases were 94% and 182%; and at the rural roadside site, they were 170% and 285%. Averaged across all three sites and

both seasons of the year, the mean increase in yield caused by countering the deleterious effects

of this one major air pollutant was nearly 150%. Due to their somewhat surprising finding that "the impacts of ozone on the yield of soybean are larger in the ruralareas around Lahore than in suburban areas of the city," the authors concluded "there may be substantial impacts of oxidants on crop yield across large areas of the Punjab." In addition, they noted that earlierstudies had revealed similar large ozone-induced losses in the productivity of local cultivars of

wheat and rice. Hence, it is clear that whatever could be done to reduce these massive crop

losses - or, ideally, eliminate them altogether - would be a godsend to the people of Pakistan

and the inhabitants of many other areas of the globe. Fortunately, such a savior is silentlyworking its wonders throughout the entire world. That of which we speak, of course, is the

ongoing rise in the air's CO 2 content, which counteracts the negative effects of ozone - andthose of many other air pollutants (Allen, 1990; Idso and Idso, 1994) - by restricting the noxious molecule's entry into

plant leaves via induced reduction of leaf stomatal apertures (Reid and Fiscus, 1998), and by ameliorating its

adverse biochemical activities when it does penetrate vegetative tissues (Reid et al., 1998). In a number of

studies of these beneficial consequences of atmospheric CO 2 enrichment for the crop studied by Wahid et al., i.e., soybeans,

it has been found that a nominal doubling of the air's CO 2 concentration is sufficient to greatly

reduce - and in some cases completely eliminate - the yield-reducing effects of ozone pollution

4
http://www.co2science.org/edit/v2_edit/v2n19edit.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/edit/v2_edit/v2n19edit.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n43edit.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n10b3.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n10b3.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n10b3.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n21b1.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n21b1.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n21b1.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n21b1.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n21b1.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/edit/v2_edit/v2n19edit.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n43edit.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n10b3.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n21b1.htm


5/104


N. FAROOQI

(Heagle et al.,1998aand1998b;Milleret al., 1998; Reid and Fiscus, 1998; Reid et al., 1998). The same conclusion follows from the results of several

studies that have looked at wheat in this regard (Heagle et al., 2000;McKee et al., 2000;Pleijel et al., 2000;Tiedemann and Firsching, 2000). In fact, thework ofVolin et al. (1998) suggests that these CO 2 -induced benefits will likely be experienced by all plants. As the researchers

directly state in the title of their paper: "species respond similarly regardless of photosynthetic pathway or plant

functional group." Think about the implications of these findings. A doubling of the air's CO 2 content could well double

agricultural production in many areas of the world by merely eliminating the adverse effects of

but one air pollutant, i.e., ozone. Then, consider the fact that by the mid-point of the currentcentury, we will likely face a food production crisis of unimaginable proportions (see our Editorials of21 February

2001 and 13 June 2001). Finally, ask yourself what the Precautionary Principle has to say about this state ofaffairs (see our Editorial of 4 July 2001). We conducted such an exercise in our review of the paper of Hudak et al. (1999), concluding that perhaps our new mantra should be:

Free the Biosphere! Let the air's CO 2 content rise. And we still feel that way. CO2 is the elixir

of life. It is one of the primary raw materials - the other being water - out of which plants

construct their tissues; and it is essential to their existence and our existence. Without more ofit in the air, our species - as well as most of the rest of the planet's animal life - will not survive

the 21st century intact. The biosphere will continue to exist, but not as we know it; for most of

its wild diversity of life will have been extinguished by mankind's mad rush to appropriate evermore land and water to grow the food required to feed itself(Tilman et al., 2001). So we say again, let the air's CO2 content rise. It's the rightthing to do, both scientifically and morally.

5
http://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n13b3.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n13b3.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n13b3.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n13b5.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n13b5.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n13b5.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n13b4.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n13b4.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n13b4.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n13b4.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n13b4.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n23b1.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n23b1.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n23b1.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n23b1.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n23b1.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2000/v3n37b2.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2000/v3n37b2.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2000/v3n37b2.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2000/v3n37b2.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2000/v3n37b2.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n16b3.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n16b3.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n16b3.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n16b3.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n16b3.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2000/v3n14b2.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2000/v3n14b2.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2000/v3n14b2.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1998/121598b4.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1998/121598b4.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1998/121598b4.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1998/121598b4.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n8edit.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n8edit.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n8edit.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n8edit.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n24edit.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n24edit.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n27edit.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n27edit.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n10b2.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n10b2.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n10b2.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n10b2.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n10b2.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n13b3.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n13b5.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n13b4.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n23b1.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2000/v3n37b2.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n16b3.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2000/v3n14b2.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1998/121598b4.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n8edit.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n8edit.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n24edit.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n27edit.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n10b2.htm


6/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 AG DISAD (GENERIC) OVERVIEW: 2NC

Extend Our 1nc Idso And Idso Evidence With Massive Increases In Co2 In The Future We

Will Be Able To Circumvent The Large-Scale Famine That Is Right Around The Corner

Multiple Studies Suggest That Co2 Is Critical To Increasing Agricultural Production For A

Couple Of Reasons:

Co2 Allows Plants To Increase Their Water-Use Efficiency By Reducing The Amount Of

Water Needed And By Increasing Plants Abilities To Get Water From The Soil

Co2 Helps Plants To Avoid The Effects Of Environmental Pollution The Stomates Of

Various Crops Such As Wheat And Rice Will Become More Healthy And Will Allow Less

Pollution To Penetrate The Crops Outer Layers

This Alone Will Allow The World To Boost Agricultural Production By Over 50% - Our

Second Piece Of Idso Evidence Indicates That We Must Increase Agricultural Production In

Order To Prevent Massive Strain On The Biosphere That Would Result In The Extinction Of

Our Species And The Destruction Of The Biosphere By Overproduction Of Agriculture

This Is The Biggest Impact In The Round We Have To Increase Agricultural Production OrRisk The End Of Life On Earth

6


7/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 AG DISAD (GENERIC) UNIQ. OVERVIEW: 2NC

Extend Our 1nc Idso And Idso Evidence World Food Production Is On The Brink Co2

Fertilization Will Just Barely Be Able To Solve The Coming Crisis

Satellites Measurements Prove Our Argument Areas That Are Critical To World

Agricultural Production Are Getting Greener And Agriculture Is Increasing In These Areas

IDSO, IDSO, AND IDSO IN 02(Sherwood, Pres. Ctr for Study of CO2 and Global Change, frmr Res. Phys. w/U.S. Dept of Ag's Agr Research Service

at U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory Adjunct Professor Depts Geology, Geography, and Botany and

Microbiology @ ASU, author of over 500 scientific publications, Keith, Vice Pres. Ctr Study CO2 and Global Change,

Ph.D. in Botany @ ASU, won several top awards while instructing students in biological and botanical laboratories

and lectures at ASU, and Craig, Chrmn Brd of Ctr for Study CO2 & Global Change, Ph.D. in Geog. ASU, The

Greening of the Earth Continues, Volume 5, Number 45: 6 November 2002, pg. Online @

http://www.co2science.org/edit/v5_edit/v5n45edit.htm)

More recently, Zhou et al. (2001) used satellite measurements todemonstrate how vegetative activity increased byslightly over 8% and 12% between 1981 and 1999 in North America and Eurasia, respectively; while Ahlbeck

(2002) employed statistical procedures to demonstrate that the primary driver of this phenomenon was the

concurrent rise in the air's CO2 content, with regional warming playing a secondary role. When some controversy

arose over this conclusion (Kaufmann et al., 2002), we confirmed Ahlbeck's assessment of the situation by means

of a quantitative comparison of what was observed via satellite and what would have been expected on the basis of

the known strength of the aerial fertilization effect of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration that occurredover the period in question (see our Editorial of18 September 2002).

7
http://www.co2science.org/edit/v5_edit/v5n38edit.htmhttp://www.co2science.org/edit/v5_edit/v5n38edit.htm


8/104


N. FAROOQI

FOOD PRODUCTION INCREASING MASSIVE STARVATION RISK ON HORIZON

Food Production Is Massively Increasing In The Status Quo But 800 Million More People

May Be At Risk To Starvation In The Future

IDSO, IDSO, AND IDSO IN 03

(Sherwood, Pres. Ctr for Study of CO2 and Global Change, frmr Res. Phys. w/U.S. Dept of Ag's Agr Research Service

at U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory Adjunct Professor Depts Geology, Geography, and Botany and

Microbiology @ ASU, author of over 500 scientific publications, Keith, Vice Pres. Ctr Study CO2 and Global Change,

Ph.D. in Botany @ ASU, won several top awards while instructing students in biological and botanical laboratories

and lectures at ASU, and Craig, Chrmn Brd of Ctr for Study CO2 & Global Change, Ph.D. in Geog. ASU,

Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment:Just What the Food Doctor Ordered! Volume 6, Number 15: 9 April 2003, pg. Online

@ http://www.co2science.org/edit/v6_edit/v6n15edit.htm)

Over the last four decades of the 20th century, per capita world food production rose by approximately 25% (FAO,

2000). Nevertheless, as noted by Pretty et al. (2003), "food poverty persists." In fact, out of the six billion people

currently inhabiting the planet, they say some 800 million lack adequate access to food.

8


9/104


N. FAROOQI

FARMERS NEED TO EXPAND

Farmers Are Looking To Expand Food Crops To New Areas Of The Globe

Wittwer 1995

[Sylvan H. Wittwer; PhD in horticulture member of climate research board author of Food Climate and Carbon

Dioxide: The Global Environment and World Food Production published by the library of congress 2000 P -167-// UW

ef]A drought-tolerant sorghurn variety, recently introduced in the Sudan, yields double those of traditional varieties.

New cowpeas with short growing seasons, drought tolerance, and resistance to virus and bacterial diseases are

available for the Sahel, and a disease-resistant cassava, with three times the yield of native strains, has been intro-

duced into Nigeria and the adjoining lowland tropics. These are being accompanied by new polyploid cassava

varieties with potential yields of 70 to 80 metric tons/ha.

9


10/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 DA - IMPACT

Food demand will soon rise, CO2 is necessary to use water effieciently and to meet food

demands, or humanity faces a grave fate.

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change 6/6/2007(Separating Scientific Fact from Personal Opinion A critique of the 26 April 2007 testimony of James E. Hansen

made to the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming of the United States House of

Representatives entitled "Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate", pg online @http://co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php //cndi-nf)

How much land can ten billion people spare for nature? This provocative question was posed byWaggoner (1995) in an insightful essay wherein he explored the dynamic tension that exists between the need forland to support the agricultural enterprises that sustain mankind, and the need for land to support the natural

ecosystems that sustain all other creatures. This challenge of meeting our future food needs - and not

decimating the rest of the biosphere in the process - was stressed even more strongly by Huanget al. (2002), who wrote that humans "have encroached on almost all of the world's frontiers, leaving

little new land that is cultivatable." And in consequence of humanity's usurpation of this most

basic of natural resources, Raven (2002) stated in his Presidential Address to the American Association for

the Advancement of Science that "species-area relationships, taken worldwide in relation to habitat

destruction, lead to projections of the loss of fully two-thirds of all species on earth by the end

of this century." In a more detailed analysis of the nature and implications of this impending"global land-grab" - which moved it closer to the present by a full half-century - Tilman et al. (2001)concluded that the task of meeting the doubled world food demand, which they calculated would

exist in the year 2050, would likely exact a toll that "may rival climate change in environmental

and societal impacts." But how could something so catastrophic manifest itself so soon? Tilman and his ninecollaborators shed some light on this question by noting that at the end of the 20th century mankind was

already appropriating "more than a third of the production of terrestrial ecosystems and about

half of usable freshwaters." Now, think of doubling those figures, in order to meet the doubledglobal food demand that Tilman et al. predict for the year 2050. The results suggest that a mere 43 years

from now mankind will be appropriating more than two thirds of terrestrial ecosystem

production plus all of earth's remaining usable freshwater, as has also been discussed by

Wallace (2000).

10


11/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 = BETTER PLANTS

Elevated CO2 levels increase plant size, strength, and photosynthetic activity.

Idsos 6/25/2008(Craig Idso, frmr Dir of Env. Science, member of the American Assoc for Adv of Science, American Geophysical

Union, American Meteorological Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, Assoc of American Geographers, Eco

Society of America, Sherwood Idso, pres\ of Center for the study of CO2 and Global Change, Keith Idso, vice pres of

Center for the study of CO2 with a Phd in botany, The Shuttling of Nitrogen from One-Year-Old to Current-YearFoliage in CO2-Enriched Atmospheres Vol. 11:26, pg online @ http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N26/EDIT.php

//cndi-nf)

In a paperrecentlypublished in Tree Physiology, Maier et al. (2008) describe the effects of a nitrogenfertilizer application on upper-canopy needle morphology and gas exchange in approximately 20-meter-tall

loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) trees previously exposed to elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations

(200 ppm above ambient) for nine years at the Duke Forest FACE facility in Orange County, North Carolina,USA. This work revealed that during the tenth year of exposure to elevated CO2, there was a

strong enhancement (greater than 50%) oflight-saturated netphotosynthesis per unit leaf area across

all age classes of needles, but that the stimulation was 28% greater for current year foliage thanfor one-year-old foliage. In addition, they report that current-year foliage incorporated the added nitrogen into

photosynthetic components that increased the photosynthetic capacity of the current-year foliage, but that the one-

year-old foliage tended to simply store extra nitrogen, which subsequently served as "an important source ofnitrogen for the development of current-year foliage" via "efficient retranslocation of nitrogen from senescing one-

year-old foliage to developing foliage." These findings sounded eerily familiar to us, as wehad observed asimilar phenomenon several years earlierin sour orange tree (Citrus aurantium L.) foliage in an open-topchamber experiment we conducted at Phoenix, Arizona (Idso et al., 2001), where half of the trees we

studied had been grown from the seedling stage for the prior six years in air that was

continuously enriched with an extra 300 ppm ofCO2. In the seventh year of that study, we identifiedthree putative vegetative storage proteins located within amorphous material in the vacuoles of leaf

mesophyll cells that was rerouted, "starting at about day 25 of the new year, into developing foliage on the

new branch buds of the CO2-enriched trees." We speculated that this phenomenon may havebeen "the key that allows the CO2-enriched trees to temporarily stockpile the unusually large

pool of nitrogen that is needed to support the large CO2-induced increase in new-branchgrowth that is observed in the spring," citing the work of Idso et al. (2000), who had previously found that

24 days after new-branch emergence in the spring, "the new branches of the CO2-enriched trees were,

on average, 4.4 times more massive than the new branches of the trees growing in ambient air,"

and that "the total new-branch tissue produced on the CO2-enriched trees to that point in time

was over six times greater than that produced on the ambient-treatment trees." If there is a commonmechanism that links our results with those of Maier et al., it could well revolve around the hypothesized vacuolar

storage proteins we identified in the sour orange tree foliage. In this regard, we detected immunologically-

related proteins in a variety of other citrus species, but not in 20 different grasses, shrubs and treesgrowing in the Biosphere 2 facility near Oracle, Arizona. Nevertheless, this possibility is deserving of further

study; for if found to have merit, Idso et al. (2001) further speculated that the proteins in question "could

possibly be genetically exploited to enhance the responses of other plant species to atmosphericCO2 enrichment," which could prove to be a valuable property, indeed, of agriculturally-

important plants in a high-CO2 world of the future.

(References: Idso, C.D., Idso, S.B., Kimball, B.A., Park, H.-S., Hoober, J.K. and Balling Jr., R.C. 2000. Ultra-

enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2

cycle? Environmental and Experimental Botany 43: 91-100. Idso, K.E., Hoober, J.K., Idso, S.B., Wall, G.W. andKimball, B.A. 2001. Atmospheric CO2 enrichment influences the synthesis and mobilization of putative vacuolar

storage proteins in sour orange tree leaves. Environmental and Experimental Botany 48: 199-211. Maier, C.A.,

Palmroth, S. and Ward, E. 2008. Short-term effects of fertilization on photosynthesis and leaf morphology of field-

grown loblolly pine following long-term exposure to elevated CO2 concentration. Tree Physiology 28: 597-606.)

11


12/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 GOOD FOR PLANTS

Higher levels of CO2 and/or warmer climates increase plant growth.

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change 6/26/2008(Marine Coccolithophore Photosynthesis in a CO2-Enriched Warmer World Vol. 11:26, pg online @

http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N26/B2.php //cndi-nf)

The authors grew the marine coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi, which they isolated from the Sargasso

Sea,by semi-continuous culture methods at two different (low, high) light intensities (50 and 400

mol photons/m2/sec), two different (low, high) temperatures (20 and 24C), and two different (low,

high) CO2 concentrations (375 and 750 ppm). What was learned Feng et al. report that in the low-light

environment, the chlorophyll a-normalized photosynthetic rates of the coccolithophores in all

four temperature/CO2 treatments attained maximum values at an irradiance of approximately 200

mol photons/m2/sec, where the maximum rate was lowest in the low-temperature, low-CO2 orambient

treatment, but was significantly increased by 55% by elevated temperature alone and by 95%

by elevated CO2 alone, while in the high-temperature, high-CO2 or greenhouse treatment it was

increased by 150% relative to the ambient treatment . In the high-light environment, on the other hand,the chlorophyll a-normalized photosynthetic rates did not max out below the maximum irradiance tested (900

mol photons/m2/sec) for any but the ambient treatment. Hence, the equations fit to the data of the other

treatments were extrapolated to their respective photosynthetic maxima, which produced

corresponding maximum photosynthetic rate increases of 58%, 67% and 92% for the elevatedtemperature alone, elevated CO2 alone and greenhouse treatments, respectively. Last of all, in the

high-light greenhouse treatment characteristic of the future, the maximum photosynthetic ratewas found to be 178% greater than what it was in the low-light ambient treatment characteristic

of the present. What it means In the words of the seven researchers, "these results suggest that future

trends of CO2 enrichment, sea-surface warming and exposure to higher mean irradiances from

intensified [surface water] stratification will have a large influence on the growth of Emilianiahuxleyi." And, of course, that "large influence" will be positive.

12


13/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 ENHANCES PLANTS

CO2 allows for enhanced plants.

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change 5/28/2008

(Genotypic Differences in Floral Initiation Response to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment in

Thale Cress Plants Vol. 11:22

The authors grew, from seed, well watered and fertilized plants of two closely related out-

crossed genotypes of Arabidopsis thaliana (SG and CG) -- which were generated through artificial

selection, where genotype SG was selected for high seed number at elevated CO2 over fivegenerations, and where genotype CG was randomly selected and thus represents a nonselected control -- in 500-ml pots filled with a 1:1:1 mixture of vermiculate, gravel and Turface within controlled environment chambers

maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 380 and 700 ppm, measuring time to visible flowering, number

of leaves at flowering and total biomass at flowering, as well as foliar sugar concentrations. Then, in a

subsequent experiment with the same growth conditions, they characterized the expression

patterns of several floral-initiation genes. What was learned Springer et al. report that "SG delayedflowering by 7-9 days, and flowered at a larger size (122% higher biomass) and higher leaf number

(81 more leaves) when grown at elevated versus current CO2 concentration," but that "flowering time,size and leaf number at flowering were similar for CG plants grown at current and elevated CO2." In addition,

they say that "SG plants had 84% higher foliar sugar concentrations at the onset of flowering whengrown at elevated versus current CO2, whereas foliar sugar concentrations of CG plants grown at elevated

CO2 only increased by 38% over plants grown at current CO2." Last of all, they report that "SG exhibitedchanges in the expression patterns of floral-initiation genes in response to elevated CO2, whereas

CG plants did not." What it means Noting that "delayed flowering increases production of vegetative

resources that can be subsequently allocated to reproductive structures," the researchers go on to say that "suchevolutionary responses may alter total carbon gain of annual plants if the vegetative stage is extended, and may

potentially counteract some of the accelerations in flowering that are occurring in response to increasing

temperatures." More generally, their results demonstrate the ability of elevated CO2 to alter theexpression of plant genes in ways that may enable plants to take better advantage of the

ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.

13


14/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 GOOD FOR PLANTS

CO2 increases photosynthetic rates in trees.

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change 6/26/2008

(Trees (Types - Pine: Loblolly, Photosynthesis) Summary Vol. 11 25:18, pg online @

http://co2science.org/subject/t/summaries/treeslobphoto.php //cndi-nf)

Tissue et al. (1997) grew loblolly pine tree seedlings for a period of four years in open-top

chambers maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 350 and 650 ppm in a study of thelong-term effects of elevated CO2 on the photosynthetic rates of this abundant species of pine.

This experiment indicated that the trees growing in CO2-enriched air exhibited photosyntheticrates that were 60-130% greater than those exhibited by seedlings growing in ambient air

during the warmer summer months, while during the colder winter months the extra CO2

boosted seedling photosynthetic rates by a lesser 14 to 44%.Maier et al. (2002) constructed open-top chambers around loblolly pine trees that had been

growing on an infertile sandy soil for 13 years, after which they fumigated them for two

additional years with air containing atmospheric CO2 concentrations of either 350 or 550 ppm. Thisstudy indicated that the elevated CO2 enhanced the trees' net photosynthesis rates by 82%, with

the trees showing no signs of photosynthetic acclimation over the two-year duration of the study.

Crous and Ellsworth (2004) made photosynthetic measurements of different-age needles atdifferent crown positions on 19-year-old (in 2002) loblollypine trees at the Duke Forest FACE facility --where the CO2-enriched trees were exposed to air containing an extra 200 ppm ofCO2 -- in the

sixth year of a long-term study, after which the results were compared with the results of similar

measurements made over the prior five years. In doing so, they found "some evidence of moderatephotosynthetic down-regulation ... in 1-year-old needles across the fifth to sixth year of CO2

exposure." However, they report that "strong photosynthetic enhancement in response to

elevated CO2 (e.g., +60% across age classes and canopy locations) was observed across the years." Hence,there is reason to believe that the positive effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on earth's

woody plants may perhaps be maintained indefinitely, which bodes well indeed for all

components of the biosphere that will live in the high-CO2 world of the future that grows evercloser with each passing day.

(Reference: Crous, K.Y. and Ellsworth, D.S. 2004. Canopy position affects photosynthetic adjustments to long-

term elevated CO2 concentration )

14


15/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 GOOD FOR PLANTS

CO2 good for plants and consumption.




Center for the study of CO2 with a Phd in botany, The Shuttling of Nitrogen from One-Year-Old to Current-Year

Foliage in CO2-Enriched Atmospheres Vol. 11:26, pg online @ http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N26/EDIT.php//cndi-nf)

With respect to the first subject of their review, Stiling and Cornelissen report that "the densities of all leafminer species (6) on all host species (3) were lower in every year in elevated CO2 than they were

in ambient CO2." With respect to the second subject, they say that "elevated CO2 significantly

decreased herbivore abundance (-21.6%), increased relative consumption rates (+16.5%),

development time (+3.87%) and total consumption (+9.2%), and significantly decreased relative growthrate (-8.3%), conversion efficiency (-19.9%) and pupal weight (-5.03%)," while noting that "host plants

growing under enriched CO2 environments exhibited significantly larger biomass (+38.4%),

increased C/N ratio (+26.57%), and decreased nitrogen concentration (-16.4%), as well asincreased concentrations of tannins (+29.9%)." What it means With plant biomass increasing and

herbivorous pest abundance decreasing (by +38.4% and -21.6%, respectively, in response to an

approximate doubling of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration), it would appear that in the eternal struggleto produce the food that sustains all of humanity, either directly or indirectly, man's crops will fare

ever better as the air's CO2 content continues its upward climb. Likewise, it would appear there

will be a concomitant expansion of the vegetative food base that sustains all of the biosphere.

15


16/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 NEEDED FOR FUTURE AG

CO2 is essential to meet future demands.



Representatives entitled "Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate", pg online @

http://co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php //cndi-nf)Since atmospheric CO2 is the basic "food" of nearly all plants, the more of it there is in the air,

the better they function and the more productive they become. For a 300-ppm increase in the

atmosphere's CO2 concentration above the planet's current base level of slightly less than 400ppm, for example, the productivity of earth's herbaceous plants rises by something on the order

of 30% (Kimball, 1983; Idso and Idso, 1994), while the productivity of its woody plants rises by

something on the order of 50% (Saxe et al., 1998; Idso and Kimball, 2001). Thus, as the air's CO2content continues to rise, so too will the productive capacity or land-use efficiency of the planet

continue to rise, as the aerial fertilization effect of the upward-trending atmospheric CO2

concentration boosts the growth rates and biomass production of nearly all plants in nearly all

places. In addition, elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations typically increase plant nutrient-use

efficiency in general - and nitrogen-use efficiency in particular - as well as plant water-useefficiency, as may be verified by perusing the many reviews of scientific journal articles we have produced onthese topics and archived in the Subject Index of our website (www.co2science.org). Consequently, with respect tofostering all three of the plant physiological phenomena that Tilman et al. (2002) contend are needed to prevent the

catastrophic consequences they foresee for the planet just a few short decades from now, a continuation of the

current upward trend in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration would appear to be essential.

16


17/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 GOOD FOR PHYTOPLANKTON

CO2 is good for phytoplankton.

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change 6/11/2008(Phytoplankton Calcification in a CO2-Accreting Ocean Vol. 11:24, pg online @

http://co2science.org/issues/v11/v11n24_co2science.php //cndi-nf)

For the past several years, the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content has been claimed by the world's

climate alarmists to be making life ever more difficult for earth's calcifying marine organismsby lowering the calcium carbonate saturation state of seawater, which phenomenon has been predicted by them to

greatly hamper the abilities of these creatures to produce their calcium carbonate skeletons. However, several

experimental studies have cast great doubt on this theoretical contention, as may be readily

seen by perusing the many materials we have archived in our Subject Index under the general heading of

Calcification, while here we review yet another pertinent study. What was done Iglesias-Rodriguez et al.conducted several batch incubations of the phytoplanktonic coccolithophore species Emiliania

hyxleyi while bubbling air of a number of different atmospheric CO2 concentrations through

the culture medium and determining the amounts of particulate inorganic carbon (PIC) andparticulate organic carbon (POC) produced by the coccolithophores within the different CO2

treatments. In addition, they determined the change in average coccolithophore mass over the past

220 years based on data obtained from a sediment core extracted from the subpolar North Atlantic Ocean, over

which period of time the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rose by approximately 90 ppm. What waslearned The thirteen researchers -- hailing from the United Kingdom, France and the United States --

observed an approximate doubling of both PIC and POC between the culture media inequilibrium with air of today's CO2 concentration and 750 ppm CO2. In addition, they write that the

field evidence obtained from the deep-ocean sediment core they studied "is consistent with

these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40%

increase in average coccolith mass." What it means Once again we have a situation where real-world observations depict something that is just the opposite of a major theory-based

prediction, the clear implication being that relevant environmental and energy policies must be based on theformer and not the latter.

17


18/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 GOOD FOR PLANTS

CO2 increases photosynthetic and biomass production.

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change 6/4/2008(Trees (Types Pine: Scots) -- Summary Vol. 11:23, pg online @

http://co2science.org/subject/t/summaries/treesscots.php //cndi-nf)

Nearly all trees respond to increases in the air's CO2 content by exhibiting enhanced rates of

photosynthesis and biomass production, as well as beneficial changes in several other plant

physiological processes and properties. In this summary, we describe the findings of a number of such

experiments that have been conducted on Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) trees. Rouhier and Read (1998) grewScots pine seedlings for four months in growth cabinets maintained at atmospheric CO2

concentrations of either 350 or 700 ppm. In addition, one third of the seedlings were inoculated withone species of mycorrhizal fungi, one third were inoculated with another species, and one third

were not inoculated at all, in order to determine the effects of elevated CO2 on mycorrhizal

fungi and their interactive effects on seedling growth. These procedures resulted in the doubled

atmospheric CO2 content increasing seedling dry mass by an average of 45% regardless offungal inoculation. In addition, the extra CO2 increased the number of hyphal tips associated

with seedling roots by about 62% for both fungal species. Hyphal growth was also accelerated

by elevated CO2; and after 55 days of treatment, the mycorrhizal network produced by one of

the fungal symbionts occupied 444% more area than its counterpart exposed to ambient CO2.These results suggest that as the air's CO2 content continues to rise, fungal symbionts of Scots pine

will likely receive greater allocations of carbon from their host. This carbon can be used to increase

their mycorrhizal networks, which would enable the fungi to explore greater volumes of soil in search

of minerals and nutrients to benefit the growth of its host. In addition, by receiving greater

allocations of carbon, fungal symbionts may keep photosynthetic down regulation fromoccurring, as they provide an additional sink for leaf-produced carbohydrates.

CO2 increases root growth and mass.

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change 6/4/2008(Trees (Types Pine : Scots) Summary Vol. 11:23, pg online @

http://co2science.org/subject/t/summaries/treesscots.php //cndi-nf)Janssens et al. (1998) grew three-year-old Scots pine seedlings in open-top chambers kept atambient and 700 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentrations for six months , while they studied the effects

of elevated CO2 on root growth and respiration. In doing so, they learned that the elevated CO2 treatment

significantly increased total root length by 122% and dry mass by 135% relative to the roots ofseedlings grown in ambient-CO2 air. In addition, although starch accumulation in the CO2-

enriched roots was nearly 90% greater than that observed in the roots produced in the ambient-

CO2 treatment, the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio of the CO2-enriched roots was significantly lowerthan that of the control-plant roots, indicative of the fact that they contained an even greater

relative abundance of nitrogen. The most important implication of this study, therefore, was that Scots

pine seedlings will likely be able to find the nitrogen they need to sustain large growth

responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment with the huge root systems they typically produce inCO2-enriched air.

18


19/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 GOOD FOR PLANTS

CO2 helps trees produce starch and let plants use less water.



Kainulainen et al. (1998) constructed open-top chambers around Scots pine trees that were about

twenty years old and fumigated them with combinations of ambient or CO2-enriched air (645

ppm) and ambient or twice-ambient (20 to 40 ppb) ozone-enriched air for three growing seasons tostudy the interactive effects of these gases on starch and secondary metabolite production. In

doing so, they determined that elevated CO2 and O3 (ozone) had no significant impact on starch

production in Scotspine, even after two years of treatment exposure. However, near the end ofthe third year, the elevated CO2 alone significantly enhanced starch production in current-year

needles, although neither extra CO2, extra O3, nor combinations thereof had any significant effects on theconcentrations of secondary metabolites they investigated.

Kellomaki and Wang (1998) constructed closed-top chambers around 30-year-old Scots pine trees,which they fumigated with air containing either 350 or 700 ppm CO2 at ambient and elevated

(ambient plus 4C) air temperatures for one full year, after which they assessed tree water-use by

measuring cumulative sap flow for 32 additional days. This protocol revealed that the CO2-enriched air

reduced cumulative sap flow by 14% at ambient air temperatures, but that sap flow wasunaffected by atmospheric CO2 concentration in the trees growing at the elevated air

temperatures. These findings suggest that cumulative water-use by Scotts pine trees in a CO2-enrichedworld of the future will likely be less than or equal to -- but no more than -- what it is today.

CO2 decreases plant transpiration, and heat helps trees sap flow.



Seven years later, however, Wang et al. (2005)published a report of a study in which they measured

sap flow, crown structure and microclimatic parameters in orderto calculate the transpiration rates of

individual 30-year-old Scots pine trees that were maintained for a period of three years inambient air and air enriched with an extra 350 ppm ofCO2 and/or warmed by 2 to 6C in closed-

top chambers constructed within a naturally-seeded stand of the trees. As they describe it, theresults of this experiment indicated that "(i) elevated CO2 significantly enhanced whole-tree

transpiration rate during the first measuring year [by 14%] due to a large increase in whole-tree

foliage area, 1998, but reduced it in the subsequent years of 1999 and 2000 [by 13% and 16%,

respectively] as a consequence of a greater decrease in crown conductance which off-set theincrease in foliage area per tree; (ii) trees growing in elevated temperature always had higher sap

flow rates throughout three measuring years [by 54%, 45% and 57%, respectively]; and (iii) the

response of sap flow to the combination of elevated temperature and CO2 was similar to that ofelevated temperature alone, indicating a dominant role for temperature and a lack of interaction

between elevated CO2 and temperature." These observations suggest that as the air's CO2 contentcontinues to rise, we probably can expect to see a decrease in evaporative water loss rates fromnaturally-occurring stands of Scots pine trees ... unless there is a large concurrent increase in airtemperature. As demonstrated in various places throughout our website, however, there is good reason to believe

we will not see CO2-induced global temperature increases of the magnitude employed in this study during what

yet remains of the current interglacial.

19


20/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 GOOD FOR PLANTS

CO2 increases the growth of trees. Warmer temperatures can increase it even more.



Also working with closed-top chambers that were constructed around 20-year-old Scots pines

and fumigated with air containing 350 and 700 ppm CO2 at ambient and elevated (ambient plus 4C)

air temperatures fora period of three years were Peltola et al. (2002), who studied the effects ofelevated CO2 and air temperature on stem growth in this coniferous species when it was growing on asoil low in nitrogen. After three years of treatment, they found that cumulative stem diameter

growth in the CO2-enriched trees growing at ambient air temperatures was 57% greater thanthat displayed by control trees growing at ambient CO2 and ambient air temperatures, while the

trees exposed to elevated CO2 and elevated air temperature exhibited cumulative stem-diameter

growth that was 67% greater than that displayed by trees exposed to ambient-CO2 air and

ambient air temperatures. Consequently, as the air's CO2 content continues to rise, Scots pine treeswill likely respond by increasing stem-diameter growth, even if growing on soils low in

nitrogen, and even if air temperatures rise by as much as 4C.

CO2 enhances many aspects of trees.



Finally, Bergh et al. (2003) used a boreal version of the process-based BIOMASS simulation model to

quantify the individual and combined effects of elevated air temperature (2 and 4C above ambient)

and CO2 concentration (350 ppm above ambient) on the net primary production (NPP) ofScots pine

forests growing in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. This work revealed that airtemperature increases of 2 and 4C led to mean NPP increases of 11 and 20%, respectively.

However, when the air's CO2 concentration was simultaneously increased from 350 to 700 ppm, the

corresponding mean NPP increases rose to 41 and 55%. Last of all, when the air's CO2 contentwas doubled at the prevailing ambient temperature, the mean value of the NPP rose by 27%.

Consequently, as the air's CO2 content continues to rise, Ponderosapines of Denmark, Finland, Iceland,

Norway and Sweden should grow ever more productively; and if air temperature also rises, theywill likely grow better still. In summary, as the air's CO2 content continues to rise, we can expect

to see the root systems of Scots pines significantly enhanced, together with the mycorrhizal fungal

networks that live in close association with them and help secure the nutrients the trees need to

sustain large CO2-induced increases in biomass production. Concurrently, we can expect to seemuch smaller changes in total evaporative water loss, which means that whole-tree water use

efficiency should also be significantly enhanced.

(References: Bergh, J., Freeman, M., Sigurdsson, B., Kellomaki, S., Laitinen, K., Niinisto, S., Peltola, H. and

Linder, S. 2003. Modelling the short-term effects of climate change on the productivity of selected tree species inNordic countries. Forest Ecology and Management 183: 327-340)

20


21/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 GOOD FOR PLANTS

CO2 can increase plant growth and enhance soil.

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change 6/4/2008(Belowground Nematode Herbivores of Grasslands Volume 11:23, pg online @

http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N23/B1.php //cndi-nf)

The authors report the responses of belowground nematode herbivores to atmospheric CO2

enrichment to approximately 350 ppm above ambient in experiments conducted on three grassland

ecosystems in Colorado and California (USA) and Montpellier, France. What was learned With respect to the

soils involved, Ayres et al. state that "soil moisture increased in response to elevated CO2 in theCalifornia, Colorado, and French stud[ies] (Hungate et al., 1997; Nijs et al., 2000; Morgan et al., 2004)." With

respect to the plants involved, they state that "elevated CO2 increased root biomass by approximately 3-32% in the first 5 years of the Coloradoan study (Pendall et al., 2004), by 23% after 6 years in the Californian

study (Rillig et al., 1999), and by 31% after 6 months in the French study (Dhillion et al., 1996)." With respect to

the nematodes involved, they state that "CO2 enrichment did not significantly affect the familyrichness, diversity, or PPI [plant parasitic nematode index] of herbivorous nematodes in the Colorado,California, or French study," noting that "in each experiment, neutral effects were the most frequent

response to CO2 enrichment." What it means The seven researchers state that "one consequence of

increased root production, without changes in belowground herbivore populations, might be

greater plant inputs to soil," which "may lead to greater soil organic matter pools in grasslandecosystems, potentially enhancing soil carbon sequestration."

(Reference: Ayres, E., Wall, D.H., Simmons, B.L., Field, C.B., Milchunas, D.G., Morgan, J.A. and Roy, J. 2008.

Belowground nematode herbivores are resistant to elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations in grassland

ecosystems. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 40: 978-985)

21


22/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 GOOD FOR PLANTS

CO2 allowed for large scale agriculture which allowed for civilizations.




Center for the study of CO2 with a Phd in botany The Debt We Owe to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment Vol. 11:22,

pg online @ http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N22/EDIT.php //cndi-nf)In an intriguing paper recently published in Global Change Biology, Cunniff et al. (2008) note that "early

agriculture was characterized by sets of primary domesticates or 'founder crops' that were

adopted in several independent centers of origin," all at about the same time; and they say andthat "this synchronicity suggests the involvement of a global trigger." Furthernoting that Sage

(1995) saw a causal link between this development and the rise in atmospheric CO2

concentration that followed deglaciation (a jump from about 180 to 270 ppm), they hypothesized that theaerial fertilization effect caused by the rise in CO2 combined with its transpiration-reducing

effect led to a large increase in the water use efficiencies of the world's major C4 foundercrops,

and that this development was the global trigger that launched the agricultural enterprise .

Consequently, as a test of this hypothesis, they designed "a controlled environment experiment using

five modern day representatives of wild C4 crop progenitors, all 'founder crops' from a variety ofindependent centers." The five crops employed in their study were Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv, Panicummiliaceum var. ruderale (Kitag.), Pennisetum violaceum (Lam.) Rich., Sorghum arundinaceum (Desv.), and Zea

mays subsp. parviglumis H.H. Iltis & Doebley. They were grown individually in 6-cm x 6-cm x 6-cm pots

filled with a 1:1 mix of washed sand and vermiculite for 40-50 days in growth chambers maintained at

atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 180, 280 and 380 ppm, characteristic of glacial, post-glacial andmodern times, respectively. This work revealed that the "increase in CO2 from glacial to postglacial

levels [180 to 280 ppm] caused a significant gain in vegetative biomass of up to 40%," together

with "a reduction in the transpiration rate via decreases in stomatal conductance of ~35%,"which led to "a 70% increase in water use efficiency, and a much greater productivity potential

in water-limited conditions." In discussing their results, the five researchers concluded that "these key

physiological changes could have greatly enhanced the productivity of wild crop progenitors after

deglaciation ... improving the productivity and survival of these wild C4 crop progenitors inearly agricultural systems." And in this regard, they note that "the lowered water requirements of C4

crop progenitors under increased CO2 would have been particularly beneficial in the aridclimatic regions where these plants were domesticated." For comparative purposes, the researchers

had also included one C3 species in their study -- Hordeum spontaneum K. Koch -- and they report that it

"showed a near-doubling in biomass compared with [the] 40% increase in the C4 species under growth

treatments equivalent to the postglacial CO2 rise." In light of these several findings, it can be

appreciated that the civilizations of the past, which could not have existed without agriculture,

were largely made possible by the increase in the air's CO2 content that accompanied

deglaciation, and that the peoples of the earth today are likewise indebted to this phenomenon,as well as the additional 100 ppm ofCO2 the atmosphere has subsequently acquired.

(Reference: Cunniff, J., Osborne, C.P., Ripley, B.S., Charles, M. and Jones, G. 2008. Response of wild C4 crop

progenitors to subambient CO2 highlights a possible role in the origin of agriculture. Global Change Biology 14:

576-587)

22


23/104


N. FAROOQI

AT: WEATHER OVERWHELMS PLANTS

CO2 DOESNT HAVE A BIG IMPACT ON CLIMATE

CO2 doesnt have a major impact on climate. Past studies prove.

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change 6/25/2008(Snow(North America) -- Summary Vol. 11:26, pg online @ http://co2science.org/subject/s/summaries/snowna.php

//cndi-nf)We find it to be extremely interesting that from 1950 to 2002, during which time the air's CO2

concentration rose by fully 20% (from approximately 311 to 373 ppm), there was no net change in

either the mean onset or duration of snow cover for the entire continent of North America; and to

provide some context for this 62-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, we note that it is essentially

identical to the mean difference between the highs and lows of the three interglacials and

glacials reported by Siegenthaler et al. (2005) for the period prior to 430,000 years ago. Surely, one wouldexpect that such a change should have made some impact on North American snow cover,

unless, of course, atmospheric CO2 enrichment has far less impact on climate than what

climate alarmists claim it does. In a somewhat different type of study, i.e., that of winter weather

variability, which climate alarmists typically depict as becoming more extreme in response to

global warming, Woodhouse (2003) generated a tree-ring based reconstruction of SWE for theGunnison River basin of western Colorado that spans the period 1569-1999. This work revealed , in

her words, that "the twentieth century is notable for several periods that lack [our italics] extremeyears." Specifically, she reports that "the twentieth century is notable for several periods that contain

few or no extreme years, for both low and high SWE extremes."

Also addressing the subject of extreme winter weather was Lawson (2003), who examinedmeteorological records for information pertaining to the occurrence and severity of blizzards

within the Prairie Ecozone of western Canada. Over the period 1953-1997, no significant trends were

found in central and eastern locations. However, there was a significant downward trend inblizzard frequency in the western prairies; and Lawson remarks that "this trend is consistent

with results found by others that indicate a decrease in cyclone frequency over western

Canada." He also notes that the blizzards that do occur there "exhibit no trend in the severity oftheir individual weather elements." These findings, in his words, "serve to illustrate that the changesin extreme weather events anticipated under Climate Change may not always be for the worse."

(References: Bartlett, M.G., Chapman, D.S. and Harris, R.N. 2005. Snow effect on North American ground

temperatures, 1950-2002)

23


24/104


N. FAROOQI

AT: CO2 AFFECTS PLANT DECOMPOSTION

CO2 doesnt affect plant decomposition



In a somewhat different type of study, Kainulainen et al. (2003) collected needle litter beneath 22-year-

old Scotspines that had been growing for the prior three years in open-top chambers that hadbeen maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 350 and 600 ppm in combination with

ambient and elevated (approximately 1.4 x ambient) ozone concentrations to determine the impacts

of these variables on the subsequent decomposition of senesced needles. This they did by enclosingthe needles in litterbags and placing the bags within a native litter layer in a Scots pine forest, wheredecomposition rates were assessed by measuring accumulated litterbag mass loss over a period

of 19 months. Interestingly, the three researchers found that exposure to elevated CO2 during growth

did not affect subsequent rates of needle decomposition, nor did elevated O3 exposure affectdecomposition, nor did exposure to elevated concentrations of the two gases together affect it.

24


25/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 GOOD FOR PLANTS W/WARM CLIMATE

CO2 is good for plants, and even better with warm climates.




http://co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php //cndi-nf)So what's the real situation with respect to rising air temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, as well as

the life-and-death impacts they may - or may not - have on earth's plants and animals? A good place to begin in

answering this question is with the growth-enhancing effects of elevated atmospheric CO2, whichtypically increase with rising air and leaf temperatures. This phenomenon is illustrated by the data ofJurik et al. (1984), who exposed bigtooth aspen leaves to atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 325 and 1935 ppm

and measured their photosynthetic rates at a number of different temperatures. In the figure below, we have

reproduced their results and slightly extended the two relationships defined by their data to both warmer and

cooler conditions. n viewing this figure, it can be seen that at a leaf temperature of 10C, elevated CO2has essentially no effect on net photosynthesis in this particular species , as Idso and Idso (1994)have demonstrated is characteristic of plants in general. At 25C, however, where the net photosynthetic

rate of the leaves exposed to 325 ppm CO2 is maximal, the extra CO2 of this study boosted the

net photosynthetic rate of the foliage by nearly 100%; and at 36C, where the netphotosynthetic rate of the leaves exposed to 1935 ppm CO2 is maximal, the extra CO2 boosted

the net photosynthetic rate of the foliage by a whopping 450%. In addition, the extra CO2increased the optimum temperature for net photosynthesis in this species by about 11C: from25C in air of 325 ppm CO2 to 36C in air of 1935 ppm CO2.

25


26/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 KEY TO PLANT SURVIVAL

CO2 is necessary for plants to survive in warm climates.




http://co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php //cndi-nf)

In viewing the warm-temperature projections of the two relationships at the right-hand side of the figure, it canadditionally be seen that the transition from positive to negative net photosynthesis - which denotes a change from

life-sustaining to life-sapping conditions - likely occurs somewhere in the vicinity of 39C in air of 325 ppm CO2

but somewhere in the vicinity of 50C in air of 1935 ppm CO2. Consequently, not only was the optimum

temperature for photosynthesis of bigtooth aspen greatly increased by the extra CO2 of this experiment,

so too was the lethal temperature (above which life cannot long be sustained) likewise increased, and byapproximately the same amount, i.e., 11C. These observations, which are similar to what has been observed in

many other plants, suggest that when the atmosphere's temperature and CO2 concentration rise

together (Cowling, 1999), the vast majority of earth's plants would likely not feel a need (or only

very little need) to migrate towards cooler regions of the globe. Any warming would obviously

provide them an opportunity to move into places that were previously too cold for them, but it

would not force them to move, even at the hottest extremes of their ranges; for as the planet

warmed, the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration would work its biological wonders,significantly increasing the temperatures at which most of earth's C3 plants - which comprise

about 95% of the planet's vegetation - function best, creating a situation where earth's plant life

would actually "prefer" warmer conditions.

26


27/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 DA

A. Uniqueness

1. CO2 solves ozone pollution.

Idsos 10/21/2001(Sherwood Idso, pres of Center for the study of CO2 and Global Change, Keith Idso Keith Idso, vice pres of Center

for the study of CO2 with a Phd in botany, Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Could Dramatically Increase Global

Agricultural Production By Thwarting the Adverse Effects of Ozone Pollution Volume 4 #43, pg online@http://co2science.org/articles/V4/N43/EDIT.php //cndi-nf)

Damage to crops caused by air pollutants is one of the major scourges of present-day

agriculture. How great are the production losses caused by these plant-debilitating agents? In arecent study of the effects of ozone pollution in the Punjab region of Pakistan, Wahid et al. (2001)periodically applied a powerful ozone protectant to soybeanplants growing in three different locationsin the general vicinity of the city of Lahore - a suburban site, a remote rural site, and a rural roadside site -throughout two different growing seasons (one immediately post-monsoon and one the following spring or pre-

monsoon). The results were truly astounding. At the suburban site, application of the ozone

protectant increased the weight of seeds produced per plant by 47% in the post-monsoon seasonand by 113% in the pre-monsoon season. At the remote rural site, the corresponding yield

increases were 94% and 182%; and at the rural roadside site, they were 170% and 285%.

Averaged across all three sites and both seasons of the year, the mean increase in yield caused bycountering the deleterious effects of this one major air pollutant was nearly 150%.

Due to their somewhat surprising finding that "the impacts of ozone on the yield of soybean are larger

in the rural areas around Lahore than in suburban areas of the city ," the authors concluded "there

may be substantial impacts of oxidants on crop yield across large areas of the Punjab." In addition,they noted that earlier studies had revealed similar large ozone-induced losses in the

productivity of local cultivars of wheat and rice. Hence, it is clear that whatever could be done

to reduce these massive crop losses - or, ideally, eliminate them altogether - would be agodsend to the people of Pakistan and the inhabitants ofmany other areas of the globe. Fortunately,

such a savior is silently working its wonders throughout the entire world. That of which we

speak, of course, is the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content, which counteracts the negative

effects of ozone - and those of many other air pollutants (Allen, 1990; Idso and Idso, 1994) - byrestricting the noxious molecule's entry into plant leaves via induced reduction of leaf stomatal apertures (Reid and

Fiscus, 1998), and by ameliorating its adverse biochemical activities when it does penetrate vegetative tissues

(Reid et al., 1998).

B. Link

The plan decreases CO2 emmissions.

27


28/104


N. FAROOQI

CO2 DA

C. Impact

Without CO2, the world faces Extinction.(Sherwood Idso, pres of Center for the study of CO2 and Global Change, Keith Idso Keith Idso, vice pres of Center

for the study of CO2 with a Phd in botany, Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Could Dramatically Increase Global

Agricultural Production By Thwarting the Adverse Effects of Ozone Pollution Volume 4 #43, pg online @

http://co2science.org/articles/V4/N43/EDIT.php //cndi-nf)

Think about the implications of these findings. A doubling of the air's CO2 content could well doubleagricultural production in many areas of the world by merely eliminating the adverse effects of

but one air pollutant, i.e., ozone. Then, consider the fact that by the mid-point of the current

century, we will likely face a food production crisis of unimaginable proportions (see ourEditorials of 21 February 2001 and 13 June 2001). Finally, ask yourself what the Precautionary Principle has to

say about this state of affairs (see our Editorial of 4 July 2001). We conducted such an exercise in our review of

the paper of Hudak et al. (1999), concluding that perhaps our new mantra should be: Free the Biosphere! Letthe air's CO2 content rise. And we still feel that way. CO2 is the elixir of life. It is one of the

primary raw materials - the other being water - out of which plants construct their tissues; and it is

essential to their existence and our existence. Without more of it in the air, our species - as wellas most of the rest of the planet's animal life - will not survive the 21st century intact . The

biosphere will continue to exist, but not as we know it; for most of its wild diver

cndi - co2 fertilization

Documents