Is it a myth that carbon dioxide emissions are bad?

Dark Clouds over Syria, oil on canvas by Ashok

Do we need more carbon dioxide or less on the planet? In order to answer that question properly, it would  be useful to ascertain  what is the best level of this gas in the atmosphere is as regards the long term well being of all life on the planet - plants, animals, and humans. The present level in the atmosphere is around 400 ppm.

Studies have shown that a level of around 1000 ppm is best for plants. Therefore it seems that at least from the point of view of the green side of life, we need around two and a half times our present levels. At a time when most evolution of life took place on the planet, the carbon dioxide levels were much higher.  During the Cambrian period that saw an explosion of new life forms, it was around fifteen times as high. Most of that evolution took place in the oceans that prospered hugely by the increased dissolved carbon dioxide. The higher ph levels were a breeding ground for life and that is expected as both carbon dioxide breathing life forms and oxygen breathing ones prosper in cooperation. Later, it appears that some 200 million years ago when CO2 levels were 4-5 times present levels earth became a virtual garden of Eden. The period that saw the rise of giant fern forests Check out the following link for some of the information on this. You may locate much more through a Google search.

http://www.naturalnews.com/039720_carbon_dioxide_myths_plant_nutrition.html

But critics argue that carbon dioxide is a green house gas and this would lead to global warming despite the fact that my friends in Canada and Nainital Himalayas would be delighted for that warming. However, before we decide if this amount would lead to global warming. Let us become more precise. It is no use saying that Atlantic Ocean will become more salty if we add a pinch of salt to it. No doubt the Atlantic ocean will become saltier but if the additional saltiness has any practical significance or not can only be determined through further calculations.

400 PPM is around .04 percent in the atmosphere. A rough calculation carried out by this author several years ago showed that if we increase carbon dioxide by 1% in the atmosphere it could lead to a one degree centigrade rise in the worst case scenario that includes other chain effects due to increased absorption of heat. Therefore, if the present 0.04 percent level became two and a half times to 0.1 percent or a 1000 ppm the rise in temperature because of this effect would be less than 0.1 degree centigrade, an insignificant amount compared to other natural temperature changes. This author would like a recheck of these calculations by atmospheric heat transfer scientists and would like to hear of it as a comment to this post.

This author has not come across any scientific calculation to show how a 200ppm rise in carbon dioxide can cause a rise of more than 0.1 degree centigrade. If there is any, aside from statistical correlations or trends that can always mislead, please inform through a comment to this note so that he may revise his conclusions on a such a vital matter to the planet

It may also be mentioned for a lay person that when carbon dioxide is talked of as a greenhouse gas one should not conjure a vision of a greenhouse made of glass, a dramatic vision inspired by popular fiction on the topic, that traps in much more heat radiation from low temperature sources while letting the suns heat pass in while also limiting convective current losses, but even if one insisted on thinking of it as something similar, than think of it as a green house that has only 0.04 percent (the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) of its roof installed.

But what about the heuristic correlations that have been made by scientists and some politicians like Al Gore on a statistical basis without having to calculate? These are estimates that are obtained by statistical analysis and by drawing a graph between rise of CO2 over the last 100 year against temperature rise. It shows a much greater correlation than the calculated one degree rise for one percent rise in carbon dioxide. However statistical correlations can mislead. For example, if one correlated how many times the nursery rhyme Humpty Dumpty was sung in kindergarten schools and correlated that with temperature rise one might end up with a correlation too.

While nursery rhymes are not a relevant parameter here, the number of trees on the planet are. If we correlated the amount of green tree cover on the planet with temperature rise it appears that one gets a much better inverse correlation with global warming., i.e the lesser the trees the warmer the planet. On the whole, global temperatures appear to have gone up as the green tree cover on the planet has reduced for urbanization and agriculture over the last 165 years. The depletion of forests could also be the cause of climate extremes on the planet although to calculate that precisely is beyond the capacity of current science, except on a statistical basis that as already pointed out that may lead to erroneous conclusions.

Global warming does seem to be taking place (even if it is only one degree in a century), it does appear to be because of human activity and the most likely human activity causing it appears to be a depletion of tree cover on the planet rather than increased carbon dioxide levels.

But if that is the case then why are the scientists silent? Why do many stop at saying that there does appear to be global warming due to human activity but stopping short of elaborating what that activity is, leaving the public to jump to a conclusion of the greenhouse effect of popular fiction? Well the emperor has new clothes that everyone is admiring - oh what lovely color cry some, oh what a wonderful fabric and stitch cry others, it is a miracle of fashion say many more as the emperor moves proudly through the streets strutting his stuff and the dress makers sit in a corner smiling silently not willing to let out the secret so as not to spoil the fun.  It is not as if the emperor has nothing on.  A stray piece of vivid greenhouse-green thread from the dressing room has lodged securely on his behind.  He is at least 0.04 percent ( the amount of co2 in atmosphere)  dressed. So! who wants to be the kid who shall spoil the party and say that the emperor is in fact naked without a stitch on!

A growing population does need more food and land for agriculture but if an emphasis on growing food producing trees is now made, the pressure on increasing agricultural lands would decrease. Besides, there is a still a lot of barren and saline land on the planet that is being used neither for forests nor agriculture. It is a myth that trees cannot be grown on saline lands provided the right trees are selected (check out a post on that in my other blog at http://someitemshave.blogspot.in/2011/02/myth-that-fruits-flowers-and-trees-do.html.  Within our cities too we can do with less concrete and more trees. Every additional tree helps.

Some scientists have ascertained that mineral and protein content of some vegetables and fruits is lower if the carbon dioxide ppm goes up although plants grow healthier and faster. But that is obvious, a skinny chicken has a higher percentage of bone as compared to a healthy chicken but one would still prefer a healthy one. More chlorophyll is good for health too and would help conquer many diseases of modern age. Plants grown with more CO2 have more chlorophyll and more cellulose (roughage) all great for health.

Therefore should we look for ways to increase carbon dioxide levels to around 1000 ppm from the present 400 ppm? It has been rising in any case on the planet because of burning of fossil fuels but it does not look like the planet has enough fossil fuels to burn to reach that level and burning forests to achieve the same end would be counter productive. Further as we run out of fossil fuels a point would be reached when alternative energy will become cheaper. That is the point when humans would stop using any remaining fossil fuels irrespective of whatever this blogger or others say. Certainly when a fossil fuel is burnt much more than carbon dioxide is released and air pollution occurs. However, that air pollution is localized in time and space. The present discussion is as regards long term global issues. The local issues have to be dealt with primarily at the local level. The gap between renewable energy and conventional energy costs is closing rapidly and it is costs that dictate what form of energy humans use. One cannot prevent humans from using the cheapest available source of energy especially in the developing world where because of lack of development malnutrition still prevails. Therefore it does not look like the planet can reach ideal levels of 1000 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Mankind would just have to learn to manage with less.

This author does not imply that use of fossil fuels is not causing harm. Aside from local level pollution that persists in some cities, there is damage from oil spilled and damage to the bosom of mother earth from fracking or strip mining for coal. However, the cause of harm must be correctly assigned so that the best possible corrective actions may be taken and not others that harm rather than help.

An even more serious concern than global warming is climate extremes. It plays havoc with human, animal and plant lives.  Here it seems that while miniscule amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have no significant role to play, forests and tree covers appear to be an agent of stability. Forests appear to play the same role for climate on earth as vibration dampners play in mechanical machinery. A barren planet or another consisting of largely rock and sand land masses (with concrete and paving materials falling in the same category) is more likely to see climate extremes rather than one covered by trees and forests.

 

NOTE:

The scientifically minded may say that statements have been made in this blog post that have not been fully backed by scientific reasons or analysis. If that were done then the blog post would become less understandable and interesting to the average reader of a blog. Analogies with fairy tales and nursery rhymes interest many.

For example, a statement has been made towards the end of this blog post that small amounts of carbon dioxide cannot play the same role in stabilizing climate extremes as trees on land can. To explain how that might happen require a deep knowledge of fluid mechanics, heat transfer and thermodynamics. For example it is a known fact in fluid mechanics that rough surfaces (such as those created by trees on the surface of the earth) offer little resistance to smooth laminar flows while resisting swift turbulent flows vigorously. This has something to do with the eddy structures that exist in turbulent flows and not in laminar ones. Also the roots of tress draw moisture from within the earth while releasing it through their leaves. In that process when leaves dry out some surrounding heat is absorbed. The resulting water vapor eventually accumulates high above the earth where it condenses at lower temperature returning that heat high above the earth. The entire process results in moderating the temperature gradients from land to sky. There is much more on this that is not fully understood even by this author despite the fact that he is doctorate in thermal sciences from one of the finest universities in the world and has made scientific contributions that can be found cited by a search as a google scholar. These are matters of ongoing study. Therefore it is too much to expect that the general public would benefit here from scientific evidence. On the other hand the public is easily swayed by lay reports in the media including popular fiction. While doing so, the public must keep in mind that media campaigns are generated not merely out of scientific knowledge but also out of economic and political agendas that may serve the short or medium term interests of some. Long term interests of all can be served  by nothing but the truth.

The conclusion of this entire debate is that:

Trying to cap carbon emissions looks like a lose- lose situation for all. it leads the world into increased nuclear dangers and the poor malnourished of the world into greater malnutrition or starvation. It appears to be waste of time and effort because time and costs will do that on their own as we exhaust our limited fossil fuel resources. On the other hand putting all efforts into restoring  forests and trees is a win-win situation. It even appeases those who are worried about carbon dioxide, because trees are a carbon dioxide sink.

UPDATE October 2015

In several earlier posts of this blog including this one this blogger has consistently maintained that while climate changes are taking place and they o seem to be from human causes, this cause cannot be due to carbon dioxide. Its level of 400ppm or 0.04% is simply too small to cause a significant change in temperature as a greenhouse gas. A recent study has validated the author’s claim.

Dr David Evans ONE of the world's leading climate change experts claims to have discovered mathematical anomalies which effectively 'disprove' global warming.

He said he "mapped out" the architecture of the climate models used and found, that while the physics was correct, it had been "applied wrongly".

He claims to have found two reasons for it being wrongly applied, the first being a vastly over estimated impact on our temperature from CO2.

 

For more details see:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down

The author still maintains that the human cause that is significantly influencing climate and causing climate extremes is the large scale deforestation that has taken place on the planet over the last century.

The author with godson and grandson in Nainital Himalayas