Shock: NYTimes reports ‘Some recent scientific papers have made a splash by claiming that [doubling CO2] might not be as bad as previously feared’

Penn State warmist Chris Forest responds “The story is not over.” But Al Gore said it was!

The NYTimes concludes:

So if the recent science stands up to critical examination, it could indeed turn into a ray of hope…

Read more at the NYTimes.

15 thoughts on “Shock: NYTimes reports ‘Some recent scientific papers have made a splash by claiming that [doubling CO2] might not be as bad as previously feared’”

  1. “these recent calculations fall well within the long-accepted range — just on the lower end of it.”

    This just means they can pander to skeptics without changing the warmist narrative. Not very shocking.

  2. They made the point that because plant life relies on CO2 to survive, if CO2 were to double this would be beneficial rather than destructive. This is wrong- this is like saying because humans rely on water for survival, floods would be beneficial.

  3. Your analogy fails. Optimum CO2 levels for plants are indeed 2 to 4.5 times current 400 ppm.

  4. Steven,
    The hypothesized bad effects of CO2 on humanity are not showing up. No temp. rise in 17 years. No change in the frequency of droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes… (see IPCC SREX report published March 28th 2012). The benefits of CO2 are indisputable. It is plant food. What weight should one give when balancing a hypothetical with an indisputable?

  5. Because high levels may be better for some plants but not others- it’s impossible to generalize. And that’s on a controlled hothouse so every aspect is closely monitored

  6. No actually plants prefer higher CO2 levels and this has been proven in greenhouse studies showing how much faster plants grow in the presence of CO2. The lack of CO2 in the air causes plants to use much more water in an effort to capture CO2 as well. If we had reasonable amounts of CO2 in the air 2000 ppm plants that we currently consider wet climate plants would grow in much more arid landscapes.

    What really should be studied, is why over the last 4 million years the CO2 level has dropped so much. We are still at geologically historic lows for CO2 even with the man made addition. Where is all the carbon going?

  7. Actually the C02 is causing harvest yields to go up 30% over the last 30 years. As the CO2 levels go higher not only will yields continue to increase, but grains we rely on will be able to be grown in more arid climate, because even as the plants tighten their stomata to conserve water, there will still be enough CO2 going into the plant to grow.

  8. Obviously there are scores and scores of vegetables being pumped 1000ppm but to link them all here…. Perhaps somewhere there is plant which hates CO2 with a vengeance, but for now every plant/flower/vegetable grown in hothouses get co2 pumped to increase productivity and growth rates. And a lot gets grown in hothouses. All sorts of species across the line. I guess observational reality beats vague theories anyday.

  9. Climate sensitivity FROM CO2-alone radiative forcing is ~1 degree C, following the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody formula F=5.35xLN(2) = 3.7 W/M2, which is almost exactly 1 degree at the emission level. What’s the science that gets you to 3 or 4 or 5 degrees?

    According to the IPCC, this warming must be TRIPLED because the 1 degree CO2-alone warming causes more GHG water vapor in the UT. Unfortunately at least 4 studies since 2007 (when the last IPCC report was published) show said increase in UT water vapor accompanying global warming DOES NOT HAPPEN in the historical record. Therefore no 3X amplification.

    So we’re back to 1 degree C climate sensitivity from CO2. What did I miss?

Comments are closed.