« | »

Plants Really Don’t Like Carbon Dioxide!

From the shameless ‘warmer’ cultists at the New York Times:


It’s Love-Hate: Plants and Carbon Dioxide

By JOHN COLLINS RUDOLF

May 21, 2010

[A] video, “The Greening of Planet Earth,” released in 1991 and financed by the Western Fuels Association, a coal supplier, insisted that the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels would be a great thing, ushering in an epoch of bountiful plant growth and soaring grain yields.

Elements of their central thesis – that elevated levels of carbon dioxide would boost plant growth – were widely accepted by the scientific establishment at the time.

You see, no one else besides the evil coal industry has ever suggested that plants benefit from carbon dioxide. That is just some crazy notion promulgated by special interests who want to destroy the planet.

Two decades later, science takes a far less rosy view. In 2005, Britain’s Royal Society determined that the benefit to crops of added carbon dioxide were far less pronounced under real-world conditions than in laboratory experiments.

Er, but they didn’t say it wasn’t true, did they?

Other studies have found the nutritional content of crops falling as carbon dioxide levels rose. The promised “greening” of the planet, it seems, is not working out as advertised.

And by “other studies” The Times means one other study, which they tout below.

“It’s less clear that we’re going to have an overall benefit,” said Arnold J. Bloom, a professor of plant science at the University of California at Davis. “In most cases it seems that the decline in nutrition is going to be greater than anyone expected.”

"It seems."

These declines in nutrition content have puzzled investigators. Yet in a study published this month in the journal Science, a team of researchers led by Dr. Bloom may have found a cause. According to their findings, higher levels of carbon dioxide interfere with plants’ ability to process nitrate, a vital soil nutrient, stunting the growth of key proteins.

“Nitrogen levels in most plants decline as they are exposed to higher levels of carbon dioxide,” Dr. Bloom said. “That’s a bad thing.”

Never mind that for centuries generations of scientists and agriculturalists and farmers have studied growing plants as if their lives depended on it. And none of them seem to have ever noticed this phenomenon.

It took Dr. Bloom [sic] to discover this truth. And at what a convenient point in time.

The implications for global food security are profound. If emissions continue to increase at present rates, global yields of wheat and other crops could drop as much as 20 percent by 2050, the study found.

Has there been any evidence of a drop in plant nutrition over the last century, since we are told that are carbon emission levels have skyrocketed during that time? If so, don’t you think someone would have noticed?

Still, we had better heed Mr. Bloom’s warnings, if we want to protect our “global food security.” 

Careful adjustments in fertilizer use could blunt these impacts but would probably be difficult for today’s industrial-scale farms to manage.

So, even it Dr. Bloom’s theory is true, it would only require tweaking the amount of nitrogen in fertilizer to overcome it. But we can’t do that, because it would be too “difficult for today’s industrial scale farms to manage.”

Instead, we should take the easier route and just turn our economy upside down and destroy our modern civilization by cutting back our carbon emissions to impossible levels.

For the record, here is his (probably self-scribed) biography:

Arnold J. Bloom – About the Author

Arnold J. Bloom received his undergraduate degree in Physics from Yale University. He spent several years developing computer models of the spread of air pollution over cities in the USA and Germany. He received a Ph.D. in Biological Sciences from Stanford University, where he also completed a two-semester course in Environmental Legislation at the Law School…

His publications range from major reviews on the economics of resource allocation in plants to the future of agriculture under rising carbon dioxide levels. He has coauthored textbooks on plant physiology and plant mineral nutrition.

[His ‘e book’] ‘Global Climate Change: Convergence of Disciplines’ derives from a General Education course offered for the past seven years that has grown to an enrollment of three hundred students…

Dr. Bloom doesn’t have an agenda. That’s for sure.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Friday, May 21st, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “Plants Really Don’t Like Carbon Dioxide!”

  1. Right of the People

    So let me see if I get this one right. Dr. Bloom is a physicist and a biologist but not a botanist? What do the botanists think? You know the folks who specialize in the study of plants.

    Forever they have been teaching even in the state run schools and the liberal enclaves like Harvard and Yale that plants take in carbon dioxide and through photosynthesis turn it into nutrition for the plant then they “exhale” oxygen. I first learned this in 4th or 5th grade science and later in biology in high school and botany in college.

    What has changed? Did the marvelous Dr. Bloom make some earth shattering discovery that plants don’t absorb CO2 and convert it to oxygen?

    Hey, I’ve got a degree in computer science and 34 years of experience in the field. I guess that makes me qualified to spout off about high finance or maybe medicine or how about nuclear physics. I’ve stayed at a Holiday Inn Express before. If I were a liberal whackjob I would be qualified to do all those things.

  2. canary

    In looking for what led to the Mexico offshore drilling, I came to more greenie sites that I meant to. One huge sight showed a recent article and graph that this winter snowed less than ever in U.S. history. Anyone can draw a graph. And I don’t know if they ever gave that area in California water, where the clean air didn’t keep those crops from drying up, but it will lead to drought, and need for more irrigation. Rationing water leads to droughts.
    Also, I have a couple of neighbors that are using hybrid grass seeds and their grass is only grass all year long. Get’s a little dry like all grass does in the hottest months. But, people have no idea the hybrid methods that are making larger crops, crops grow in shade, less water.
    We live in a self-replenishing planet.
    And what are they trying to say that the stone wheel has made giant Dinos Darn, if only they were still around eating people, destroying homes, so people would have to hunt them down cook and eat them.

  3. Liberals Make Great Speedbumps

    “where he also completed a two-semester course in Environmental Legislation Extortion at the Law School…”

    Fixed that for you.

  4. sheehanjihad

    how come cow & horse manure makes things grow greener, thicker and faster.?

    It sounds like the same substances are being used by Arnold Bloom, because his ignorant stupidity is being laid on thicker and faster as he spouts totally bogus claims at the behest of the man behind the curtain…….God! I cannot believe that such people exist…but worse, it’s the sheeple that listen and believe..

  5. proreason

    If the computer models predict it, it must be true.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »