Increasing exposure to carbon dioxide appears to boost crop yields, Hans-Joachim Weigel of the Johann Heinrich von Thuenen Institute for rural areas, forestry and fisheries in the central city of Brunswick told AFP.

"Output increased by about 10 percent for barley, beets and wheat" when the plants were subjected to higher levels of carbon dioxide, Weigel said.

The Thuenen Institute, which has been monitoring the phenomenon in fields since 1999, trains CO2 jets on the plants so the gas reaches 550 parts per million in the air around them -- the level expected in the atmosphere by 2050.

Read More...

Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next » 1. wargammer2005   July 8th, 2008 - 5:59 am in the past CO2 levels have been up to 10 times higher than they are now. the greatest increase in temps happened before 1940, there was 40 years of cooling from 1940 util about 1975, when the level of CO2 was going up. but followers of the human caused global warming faith will NEVER let facts get in the way of their desire to control our lives. 2. JWS   July 8th, 2008 - 6:07 am CO2 helps plants?!?!?! You mean these “jeenyuses” are just now figuring this out? Because I learned about photosynthesis in 3rd grade. What next? Do sunlight and water also make plants grow? 3. Jason1975   July 8th, 2008 - 6:07 am Let’s all think back to 5th grade science people. Plants need (CO2s) Carbon Dioxide for photosynthesis. So it’s not surprising that CO2s would be good for plant life. 1970s - Global Cooling 1980s - Acid Rain 1990s - Hole in the Ozone Now - Global Warming Any predictions on what the next environmental scare will be? It’s all rubbish! 4. Ben Franklin..... Really!   July 8th, 2008 - 6:08 am The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) says CO2 isn’t pollution - neither does the EPA or the U.N. IPCC!!! The ICSC also calls Global Warming a political Hoax. I agree. http://www.climatescienceinternation…=81&Itemi d=1 5. DataPimp   July 8th, 2008 - 6:13 am You got it wargammer2005… It has nothing to do with the enviroment and everything to do with control. The environment is merely the catalyst to launch their oppression from. First they try to guilt everyone into following, and then they get laws enacted to force those who do not subscribe to the guilt to obey. 6. Jabber   July 8th, 2008 - 6:16 am Global warming has been the chosen tool (scare tactic) to modify behavior. Foreign oil dependence is the actual threat to our Republic and high gas prices will modify behavior. We need an energy plan 20 yrs ago. Congress/Government has been negligent for too long. Global warming won’t do us in but Congress will. Vote out all incumbents, Dem and Repub. Time for a revolution. 7. Airwick   July 8th, 2008 - 6:17 am It’s too bad that we are not plants. Oh well, at least something will be left over after we are gone. Perhaps the next cycle of evolution will do better. 8. Awkins   July 8th, 2008 - 6:17 am OMG! Who would have ever thought that plants grow better with more CO2? Seriously, it was taught (I don’t know if it still is) in high school biology that all green plants require CO2 and produce oxygen. All of these plants should be paid big bucks for providing “carbon credits” to the rest of the world. Heck, I’ve planted 5 trees in my yard years ago and they’ve all grown very huge since and are turning CO2 into O2. Al Gore, I need some carbon credit money, quick! I’m losing out here. 9. JD   July 8th, 2008 - 6:17 am DUH! Anyone with a 7th grade education has learned this in science class. 10. donald duck   July 8th, 2008 - 6:18 am “The dangerous rise….” Did AlGore write this??? The CO2 level is going to go to from 380 ppm in 2008 to 550 ppm in 42years!!! CO2 is required for green plants to undergo photosythesis, and, yes , an increase would be benficial. But only AlGore would predict a 45% rise in the CO2 level even though ALL of the meaningful data is showing a COOLDOWN trend on the planet. My oh my, what is a global warming cult follower to do??? I know, more goofy “news” stories about global warming!!! 11. JWS   July 8th, 2008 - 6:20 am Ok Airwick, the other lesson from 3rd grade bio is that the CO2 gets turned into……. OXYGEN!!! Yay! Good boy! 12. Airwick   July 8th, 2008 - 6:21 am Jabber, Hate to rain on your parade but who are you going to vote “in”? It’s not enough to vote “out all incumbants”; someone has got to replace them. What makes you think that the “replacements” will be any different than those already in office? 13. Al Gores Conscience   July 8th, 2008 - 6:23 am Dr. David Whitehouse, British scientist, gives an overview in the U.K. Independent on 5 Dec. 2007: “Something is happening to our Sun . . . It has to do with sun spots . . . after a period of exceptionally high activity in the 20th century, our Sun has suddenly gone exceptionally quiet. When this happened in the 1700’s scientists called the event the “little ice age.” 14. ROD   July 8th, 2008 - 6:23 am All comments are spot on! Global Warming is about Political Control and the horrid “S” word. If they can gain complete and total control over every facit of our lives and do it based on “Science” as a justification AND by the populace “Voting” those controls in…then they have their new “Mandate from Heaven” to rule. It is all a reworking of the old royalty ruling through God grace. JASON1975, Maybe the next scare will be Space Aliens invading that we all need to give up more freedoms for in order to be “Protected”? 15. Ben Franklin..... Really!   July 8th, 2008 - 6:24 am If Global Warming is so important, why was Al Gore nominated for a Nobel by a Socialist Party Flunkie and not a Scientst or Science organization? And why is George Soros paying Dr James Hansen millions through his Open Society Institute to promote Global Warming as if it were fact? This is insulting! 16. Mike M.   July 8th, 2008 - 6:25 am http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html “Earth’s atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth’s history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm” All that peer reveiwed scientific data but still NONE to support the claim that humans cause global warming - NONE! Trees don’t hug energy efficient houses - they hug electric power stations and SUV’s. Liberals hate LIFE ITSELF! They have gotten away murdering millions in the womb and now move on to attacking a gas of life that supports US! MORE CO2 = MORE LIFE = what liberals HATE. 17. Jabber   July 8th, 2008 - 6:27 am Airwick, Someone who understands 7th grade science and the national urgency of an energy plan. The current mob has failed us, Dem and Repub. 18. Mike M   July 8th, 2008 - 6:35 am At http://www.petitionproject.org/ they’ve stated the CO2 benefits a long time ago. Of course their findings were NEVER MENTIONED IN MSM. “Clearly, the green revolution in agriculture has already benefitted from CO2 fertilization, and benefits in the future will be even greater. Animal life is increasing proportionally, as shown by studies of 51 terrestrial (120) and 22 aquatic ecosystems (121). Moreover, as shown by a study of 94 terrestrial ecosystems on all continents except Antarctica (122), species richness – biodiversity – is more positively correlated with productivity – the total quantity of plant life per acre – than with anything else.” 19. Al Gores Conscience   July 8th, 2008 - 6:38 am Airwick, tell me again what the appropriate level of CO2 in the atmosphere is. Was it better when the majority of the earth was tropical prior to the ice age, or was it better prior to the industrial revolution? Who decides what’s just right? Let me guess, you need a multi-million dollar grant to study it for a few more decades…oh, and the trillions collected in new taxes will be more than enough to fund the study and feed the poor and fund the UN while we’re at it. 20. Airwick   July 8th, 2008 - 6:41 am JWS, While you are reviewing your third grade biology perhaps you should review your third grade math. We are losing vast acreage of forests (tropical and otherwise) every year to “development” (mostly in the form of lumber and agriculture). The phytoplankton in the ocean, particularly around those ozone holes that another of the “loony left’s” imaginary threats, are stressed and not as vibrant as they once were. You can have all the carbon dioxide you want but you still need plants to convert it to oxygen. This is, of course, beside the point. You do NOT compensate for a increase of carbon dioxide by increasing oxygen. The fact is that we are producing carbon dioxide faster than plants can absorb it and take it out of the atmosphere. That is indisputable. You can argue whether or not the excess carbon dioxide will be the cause of “global warming”, but it is increasing. Also, if the planet gets “warmer” it does not necessarily mean that it will just get warmer everywhere. The result will be unusual weather, not necessarily warmer weather. Europe, for example, may have much colder winters If the planet is cooling why is the arctic icecap melting? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »

Post a Comment

Name * Mail (will not be published) * Website   Comment Notice: Comments containing foul language will not be posted. Enter the characters from the image below:   * Required Fields