1. More carbon dioxide is good
Greenhouse growers routinely increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the air inside their greenhouse. Plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. Giving the plants more carbon dioxide acts as a kind of fertilizer. Plant growth is found to be optimized at around 1,000 to 1,200 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the air. Earth's atmosphere at this time is about 400 parts per million, so from a plant growth point of view, carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere could be tripled with good effect.
Plants do not have lungs and muscles. They just sit there. On the underside of their leaves are little openings called "stomata". It is through the stomata that plants inhale carbon dioxide. This is a passive process. The stomata sits there open and just waits for a carbon dioxide molecule to come in. However, during this wait, about 100 water molecules from the plant are lost out the stomata for each carbon dioxide molecule that comes in. If the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was higher, then the amount of water molecules lost would be less, and the plant would have greater drought tolerance.
So, greater carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would produce more lush foliage and allow plants to begin to grow in drier regions, potentially even in deserts. Satellite studies indicate that these phenomena are already starting to occur.
2. We are in a carbon dioxide drought
Look at the following chart
This chart helps explain why plants are adapted to a higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the air. For most of Earth's history the atmosphere has been richer in carbon dioxide. Where did the carbon dioxide disappear to? It is presently locked up in oil, gas, coal, shale and limestone. The limestone is made of calcium carbonate from the shells of sea creatures.
3. Is there a relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature?
Here is the above chart with temperature added. There may be a correlation, but it is difficult to discern cause and effect.
Atmospheric gases are relatively homogenous across the globe, but temperatures vary wildly with latitude, elevation, and other factors. To determine today's global average temperature is difficult. For example, what if you have a weather station in a rural area and a city expands to encompass it. Cities are warmer. What if you create a new weather station and put the instruments on the roof. Roofs are warmer. There are vast areas in Africa and elsewhere with no weather stations. To determine the historical global average temperature is very, very difficult. Perhaps even impossible.
Here are two charts that were presented at a court case in British Columbia. Both charts were derived from tree rings.
The top chart shows the 1% rise in temperature since 1850 as advertised by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This chart is the cause of all the excitement about global warming. The bottom chart shows no such increase. Ordinarily this would be a scientific dispute between two scientists and would be resolved by the scientific community through further research. Instead, the IPCC arbitrarily used the top chart to promote its political agenda. The email exchanges between the various scientists were heated, and when released to the public became the basis for the "Climategate" scandal.
4. Is carbon dioxide a significant greenhouse gas?
To determine the significance of a greenhouse gas you need to fully understand the molecule. This is still being researched. Then you need to fully understand what portion of the infrared light spectrum resonates with the molecule. This is still being researched. Then when you fully understand the molecule and how it reacts to light energy, you need to understand the atmospheric context to determine the significance. This is still being researched.
The present incomplete understanding of greenhouse gases is that there are five main greenhouse gases naturally present in the atmosphere plus several man-made greenhouse gases. The natural greenhouse gases are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3).
Water vapor averages 15% of the atmosphere and is the most significant greenhouse gas. The other gases are so small a portion of the atmosphere that they are measured in parts per million.
Here is a chart showing one scientist's view of the situation. Click on the picture to see the source.
Greenhouse gases reduce the outgoing infrared radiation keeping the planet about 15 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be in their absence. The scientist who prepared this chart was very careful not to say that one greenhouse gas is more important than another. We are left to make our own conclusion.
He does say, "The relative importance of a greenhouse gas depends on its abundance in Earth's atmosphere and how much the gas can absorb specific wavelengths of energy."
OK, let's think about this. He says "The relative importance of a greenhouse gas depends on its abundance in the Earth's atmosphere..." Well, water vapor averages about 15% of the atmosphere or 150,000 parts per million. Carbon dioxide is about 400 parts per million. Which is the elephant in the room?
In the article he goes on to say, "Water vapor and carbon dioxide can absorb radiation wavelengths in the range of 4 μm to 80 μm, except those between 8 μm and 12 μm."
So, if the radiation wavelengths absorbed by water vapor and carbon dioxide largely overlap, which will absorb the lion's share of the energy? Obviously, the 150,000 parts per million of water vapor will grab more of the energy than the 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide. This is why scientists tend to say "In the absence of water vapor, carbon dioxide would be a significant greenhouse gas." or "On Mars, carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas." However, on Earth carbon dioxide has little effect.
The next chart shows more clearly how the absorption frequencies of the different gases overlap.
There is a small amount of radiation at frequencies absorbed by carbon dioxide but not by water vapor. These are where carbon dioxide gets most of its energy. However, scientists say that the energy storage effect of carbon dioxide declines "logarithmically". What is happening is that the 400 parts per million carbon dioxide absorb a certain amount of the available radiation. Then, because there is so little radiation remaining at these frequencies and it is scattered throughout the atmosphere, to absorb the same amount of radiation a second time now takes an additional 800 parts per million of carbon dioxide, for a total of 1,200 parts per million. A third comparable increase of energy storage by carbon dioxide would need an additional 1,600 parts per million for a new total of 2,800 parts per million. This means that there comes a point where an increase in carbon dioxide has little or no additional effect on atmospheric temperature. So carbon dioxide is a gas comprising a tiny percent of the atmosphere, that resonates with a tiny fraction of the infrared spectrum, and which after a certain point has no effect whatsoever.
Due to its quantity, water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, but its effect on temperature is highly variable. This is because the water vapor can form clouds which block the sunlight, thereby cooling the Earth. So water vapor both warms the Earth as a greenhouse gas and cools the Earth as cloud. Though the effect of water vapor is variable, there is no doubt that it is significant.
A large quantity of volcanic ash is also known to be significant. The year without a summer in 1816 was directly caused by the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815.
In conclusion, I am totally in favor of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I don't care how high it goes. Why? Because there is good evidence that with more carbon dioxide, farm crops will produce bigger and better yields, and plant growth everywhere on the planet will be invigorated. This is the most certain result of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The elephant in the room among the greenhouse gases is water vapor. At an average of 150,000 parts per million it is in a class of its own. At 400 parts per million or 800 or 1,200 carbon dioxide is not in the same league. If you add up all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, water vapor comprises about 95% of the total.
The quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere is highly variable, but its warming effect is offset by the cooling effect of clouds, so the overall effect of water vapor tends to be somewhat self-balancing.
The science really is not "settled". To say that it is settled is a propaganda technique. It is a way of prematurely ending debate. Since the IPCC got involved there have been new discoveries regarding cosmic rays causing cloud formation and heating volcanoes. The story has changed from "global warming" to "climate change", and may well change again.
Computers and climate models are pretty good at projecting the weather for the next two weeks. To make projections beyond two weeks and to base public policy on unreliable models is an abuse. To revise historic temperature records in order to have these records support the conclusions of climate models is an abuse. To take current temperature readings and "adjust" them to fit the predictions of climate models is another abuse. Under the leadership of the IPCC, billions of dollars are being spent on climate research, but only global warming researchers receive funding. Other researchers are harassed or fired and lose funding. What we are seeing is not science, it is a political agenda.
It has been suggested that there are technologies hidden by the U.S. patent office that would free us of the need to use oil and gas and which would be widely used if made available. If this is true then the "powers that be" have created the situation that they now say is so bad, and can end it at any time. Therefore, their agenda has nothing to do with carbon dioxide and everything to do with distracting and misleading the public.
What do the powers that be really want? Their objectives are literally engraved in stone. Search the Internet for "Georgia Guidestones". There you will see that their objective is to reduce global population to 500 million people. This goal shapes everything they do.
People can adapt to almost anything if given enough time. It took two decades for "global warming" to change to "climate change". When "climate change" finally changes to "global cooling" you can be sure it will be too late.
This page will be updated as more information comes along.