Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 Next
Comments 116301 to 116350:
-
Marcus at 18:04 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
Gallopingcamel, do you actually ever bother to *read* the results of these studies? Have a look at the results of one of their papers, where they find "...that elevated CO2 increased disease incidence and severity in two Cercospora leaf spot pathosystems in some years." So much for CO2 being a good thing. What is of far greater importance for tree growth is *not* CO2, but access to *WATER* & *GOOD CLIMATE*, neither of which were properly simulated in the FACE studies you refer to! -
Paul D at 18:00 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
The 'fallacy of exclusion' link doesn't seem to work. -
DLB at 17:54 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
About the only statement I agree with in this rather dismissive post is “the globe is not a controlled environment, and its incredible sensitivity to a variety of factors is something that is often (not considered) when such narrow arguments are proffered”. Using the same logic laboratory scale experiments on the effects of CO2 and temperature on coral and other marine creatures should also be assessed with a grain of salt (excuse pun). -
Doug Bostrom at 17:47 PM on 1 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
Daniel, Donnelly interprets his data as offering -no- detail between 1300 to 1850, instead chooses as much as possible to smooth his interpolation by taking a linear approach, you propose that there may be detail therein. Who is more liberal in interpretation? We disagree and I don't think either of us is going to change our minds. -
ScaredAmoeba at 17:29 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
Logical Science has a collection of studies onThe CO2 will fertilize the plants and increase food production meme. There is also additional scientific evidence for increased CO2 resulting in: a) Increased toxicity http://www.biolsci.monash.edu.au/staff/gleadow/docs/2009-clover-cg-co2.pdf b) Reduced protein levels Effects of elevated CO 2 on the protein concentration of food crops: a meta-analysis - TAUB et al. 2008 c) Increased toxicity and reduced nutritional value http://www.biolsci.monash.edu.au/staff/gleadow/docs/gleadow-2009-cassava-online.pdf -
tobyjoyce at 17:22 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
@galloping camel, I checked the website and the "F" in FACE stands for "forest". It is not clear if the results are transferable to large scale commercial growing of vegetables for consumption, where some key nutrients may be under stress. The video seems to show a replicated experiment where all factors except one (CO2) are kept constant, possibly at a generous level. Interesting, but a poor experimental design and too simplistic to be conclusive. -
Berényi Péter at 17:20 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
You may be interested in the Bookhaven FACE Research (Free-Air CO2 Enrichment) site. There is an extensive publications list there and also links to all the FACE research sites around the world. EuroFACE has a brief RESULTS page and lots of online publications as well. Explore, enjoy. -
daniel at 17:15 PM on 1 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
Yes pete I know that we are focused too much on the one paper here. But I am not going to take the blame for that one (nor am I suggesting that you're blaming me). When I used the infamously inflammatory "utter joke" comment (and I apologise for the severity) I made it clear that I was saying as much considering the paper "on it's own" see for yourself #19. Others decided to take offence and make it part of the focus of the discussion. I just wanted to examine the papers cited by the article and show the poor quality of conclusions that can come from what is supposed to be "peer reviewed" climate science and how this kind of data is then used to support AGW to the public. I feel that there is far too much public trust in the quality of work, not just in climate science, but in the entire body of technical literature out there across all fields. The kind of ad hominem rhetoric above is being used as a debate strategy by proponents of AGW and it is simply not science. Can we please just discuss the data and the quality of conclusions drawn. It is extremely unconvincing (or should be) to anyone who works in a technical field to simply quote your qualifications and report a list of published articles. All this proves is that you are active in the field and fairly knowledgeable. But your papers can still be scrutinised by others who have been educated in distant fields but still have an understanding of (and can easily read up on) how the basic underlying principles (Math, Stat, Phys, Chem, sampling techniques etc.) are used to perform the work in your field and whether you have gleaned logically valid conclusions from your study. To adress your points from #39 in order 1) I believe that Gehrels et. al. 2006 cited in the original article tried to address the low resolution issue and even mention it in the paper. But I will go on to argue that this paper is another insight into the nature of the methods used in these studies which appear to be creating large height uncertainties, coupled with time uncertainties, that undermine any detection of short term recent trends (even with high resolution data). I'm not saying that any significant errors in the methodologies have occurred, just that the methods employed have too much uncertainty to detected the trends described. Please cite the papers and I'll try and get a hold of them. If these studies suffer from the same problems I see in Gehrels 2006 then I will most likely not be convinced of recent rapid SLR. 2) Yes this is a good point there needs to be a driver of SLR. But given that my confidence in the quality climate science is currently very weak due to issues like those in my complaints above then I doubt that my appraisal of the Grinsted and other SLR (or other) articles (that also investigate other factors like paleo-climate etc.) will be similar to yours. I fear I will find the same skewed conclusions I have thus far read in the two papers cited. I will need time to read the Grinsted paper and the reviews/articles you have linked to. Thankyou for those please let me know of any others you think are relevant. Doug, you may almost get my point on the Donnely paper. You said in #40: "Your entire thesis depends on deriving -more- interpretive detail from a data series you yourself claim has insufficient power to describe -less- detail." Donnely's thesis is actually guilty of claiming -more- detail through 1300-1850 AD than is actually detected. I am saying that it is largely unclear as to what short term trends may or may not have existed in that time. Therefore the final conclusion by Donnely et. al. based on the data they have provided (not counting sea level data from any other papers) was invalid and may be just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the true state of the quality of climate literature. If this, seemingly popular, website uses these papers to back it's message of AGW then I fear what else may be going on -
gallopingcamel at 16:44 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
I have always had sympathy for plants as they have to survive with such a low atmospheric concentration of CO2. Concentrations have been as low as ~200 ppm but now are (mercifully) approaching 400 ppm. Then it struck me that fish are more deserving of my sympathy as they are trying to survive in water that always has less than 10 ppm of oxygen. -
gallopingcamel at 16:31 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
John Cook, I love you. Who else could find such comical stuff. Here is a nice little animation which I am sure most of your readers are familiar with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE&feature=player_embedded Mariana, you will no doubt claim that this is a laboratory experiment with no relevance to the real world. Guess what? Duke University and NASA took the experiment out doors into the Duke forest in North Carolina: http://face.env.duke.edu/main.cfm The FACE experiment showed a dramatic increase in the rate of plant growth stimulated by CO2 until limitations in other nutrients kicked in. -
ScaredAmoeba at 16:28 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
Oops 1988 typo! Should be 1998! -
ScaredAmoeba at 16:27 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
The CO2 is plant food dates back at least to 1988 with Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - ROBINSON, BALIUNAS, SOON AND ROBINSON [may be a little slow] of the Oregon travesty of a Petition.[Final Paragraph from this document] Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.
I haven't yet delved into the references regarding this. -
Marcus at 16:25 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
Yes, apescape, that would be the result of increasing drought, which is causing trees to grow less each year-in spite of warmer conditions & higher CO2 overall. Another nail in the coffin of the CO2 is plant food argument. -
CBW at 15:35 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
Increased CO2 improves plant growth. Warmer temperatures mean longer growing seasons, which means more plant growth. Therefore, the midwestern U.S. in the 1930s, which had both warmer temperatures and higher CO2 than previous decades must have been great for agriculture. QED. Oh... wait... -
apeescape at 15:34 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
Links appear broken. Also, I believe I remember a small controversy about some stunted tree growth of the past few decades... -
Marcus at 15:02 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
Jim Eager-that's exactly my point. The FACE studies *only* replicate the increase in CO2, not the commensurate increase in warmth (which leads to a shorter growing seasons) & decrease in fresh water availability (increasing the likelihood of plant stress & reduced yields). Even without including these factors, the FACE studies have shown only the most marginal increases in overall yield, yet these same studies have shown a decrease in quality & an increase in the cost to produce it (due to increased demand for nitrogen). Like I said, John D's argument is looking pretty flaky about now! -
John Brookes at 14:57 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
I like the "CO2 is good for plants" argument. Especially when you put it alongside the "CO2 is present in such small concentration in the atmosphere that it can't possibly do anything" argument. However, I'm quite happy to concede the "CO2 is good for plants argument". Its pretty much the same as the "at least he made the trains run on time" argument for Mussolini. -
Eamon at 14:53 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
That should be "factors proportionately". -
Eamon at 14:52 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
The funny thing about this whole "CO2 is Plant Food!!!" malarkey is that the science showing it's rubbish is from the early 19th Century: Liebig's Law of the Minimum In summary: its no use increasing one factor which contributes to plant growth without increasing the other factor proportionately. -
AWoL at 14:14 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is not a pollutant
Well thanks for the replies. Doug Brostron makes a good point in favour of government with respect to cholera in London. However, when governments get involved in commercial activity they invariably mess up. The Russian cotton industry and the disaster of the Aral sea and the dismal performance of collectivisation. But you're right, and I shall have to add public health to the short list of those things that governments are good at. Regarding the effect of CO2 on plants and particularly crops. I checked and indeed much of which you say is true, especially in already drought prone marginal areas. However northern latitudes are expected to benefit. At least in the short- term. There could be problems later, if temperatures rise......but only if temperatures rise.Unfortunately throughout most of those articles, the assumption is made that because CO2 is going up and temperature is going up, then the two are inextricably linked. Whilst there are warnings about a decline in seed quality, growers in Holland are pumping CO2 into greenhouses to obtain increased output in the order of 20-30%. Benefits fall off after 1000ppm and indeed higher levels are harmful. If anyone says, as I have done up to now, that plants can't get enough of the stuff, then that is indeed plain wrong. However I have heard it said, that it will be very difficult to get above 600ppm(atmospheric) even with no brakes applied to hydrocarbon consumption.True or false? So far I haven't come across any complaints about CO2 enhancement being a waste of time and money. If world output is going to be affected, water availability and temperature would seem to be bigger factors than CO2 levels. Obviously there are going to be changes, and winners and losers, but overall won't things carry on much as they are? Scaddenp makes the point about rapidity of change. An example or two, if poss please? Can't say I've noticed very much different here in Britain and the continent. Drought seems to be problem in Australia... but what's unusual about that? And while we're at it, where are the drowned deltas? I thought I was fairly well clued up on Geography, but maybe not. Maybe, when making a statement, you could provide an example or two? -
Bern at 13:51 PM on 1 July 2010Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
Monckhausen, if you do a bit of digging around this site, you'll find some figures for climate sensitivity. As the numbers on that page point out, various estimates range from 0.9ºC per doubling of CO2, right up to 7.7ºC per doubling. The average (and most likely value) seems to be around the 3 to 3.5ºC mark. I can't comment on the other numbers given, but the fact that everything neatly lines up with factor-of-ten differences immediately rings alarm bells to me. Nature is rarely that neat. -
Jim Eager at 13:37 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
Marcus, one more key question to ask: Q 6) Do the elevated CO2 trials also elevate ambient temperature commensurate with the test levels of CO2? A 6) No, they do not. -
Marcus at 13:28 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
So, according to my admittedly brief reading on the FACE trials, the yield gains from a doubling in CO2 are 5%-7% for rice, & 8% for wheat. Of course this takes no account for the potential shortening of growing times-or reduced rainfall-caused by global warming. Nor does it take into account the reduced protein yield that was shown in the Horsham trial, & previously shown by Ziska et al (1997). Seneweera and Conroy also showed-in 1997-that plants grown in CO2-rich environments show decreased uptake of both iron & zinc. Given that the Horsham trial also showed an increased demand for nitrogen by wehat, such a small increase in yields is not going to sell farmers on the "benefits" of global warming. -
carrot eater at 13:13 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
villabolo: I don't know if it's worthwhile or instructive to get into semantic arguments over whether a necessity counts as "food" or not. There are better things to worry about. -
adelady at 12:40 PM on 1 July 2010What is Global Warming and the Greenhouse Effect?
Anyhow. Back to the original idea. This is exactly the kind of explanation that will work with a non-scientific audience. And the more people in the scientific community who can come up with these ideas the better. Or talk them through with PR or advertising types who can simplify and condense complex messages, the easier it will be to have a more informed community. -
Marcus at 12:31 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
Yet again you miss the point John D, its becoming an increasingly bad habit for you. Every time you bring up this issue, you fail to answer the key questions: 1) does an enriched CO2 environment generate long-term, increased plant growth in the absence of ideal conditions? 2) does an enriched CO2 environment generate a significant increase in the quantity of *edible* biomass (usually seeds or fruit)? 3) does an enriched CO2 environment generate a significant increase in the nitrogen content of the edible biomass? 4) does an enriched CO2 environment lead to a decrease in demand for other limiting factors (like fertilizer & water)? 5) does an enriched CO2 environment have any other positive or negative impacts on cropping *in the real world*? Based on the experiences of the farmers I work with, & the results of the Horsham trial you love so much, the answers to those questions are: 1) No. Improvements have been shown only in the short term, & only under ideal conditions. 2) No. In most cases only the vegetative biomass has shown significant increase, wheras edible biomass has shown no significant increase. 3) No, the Horsham trials actually show a significant decrease in plant protein yields. 4) No, the Horsham trials actually show that plants grown under enriched CO2 have a *greater* demand for nitrogen than plants grown under regular conditions. 5) Yes-increased CO2 is resulting in global warming which-in turn-is leading to a general decline in fresh water availability (Autumn rainfall in South Australia alone has dropped by 30% in the last 30 years). Increased CO2 will also cause increased vegetative growth in weeds, which will place further cost constraints on farmers in terms of weed control &/or fertilizer/water. So you see that your arguments really don't stand up to close scrutiny Mr D. Its also worth noting that the people that I encounter who are *most* concerned with Global Warming are the farmers I collaborate with-many of whom have worked the land for 30 years or more. If increasing CO2 in the atmosphere was so good IN THE REAL WORLD, then why are so many farmers having an increasingly tough time in maintaining a viable enterprise? -
jimbo at 12:24 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
I would like to add here that there is a need for a more information on the various photosynthetic pathways for various plants i.e. C3, C4 and CAM. Ultimately how elevations in CO2 can be positive in some instances and negative in others. The negatives being erratic growth of certain food producing plants, and the impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services associated with increased CO2. Anyone have any expertise in this field? -
Chris G at 12:24 PM on 1 July 2010What is Global Warming and the Greenhouse Effect?
#67, I believe you are correct - distance from peak to trough, or some harmonic thereof. Sounds right. -
Doug Bostrom at 12:17 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
Perhaps the next time anyone visits a supermarket and salivates over the well grown fresh produce, and admires the beautiful flowers, just check out how much of what has been admired, or has been put onto your dinner plate in recent decades has been grown in an enriched CO2 environment. Drawing on your expertise, would you please produce some statistics on what we might expect in that department, John? Typically speaking, when I visit my grocery here on the West Coast of the US, what might I expect to see in terms of fruit and produce grown as you imply is common? Depending on the season we typically in a week purchase zucchini, celery, lettuce, tomatoes, potatoes, broccoli, onions, garlic, asparagus, apples, plums, peaches, bananas plus of course other vegetables and fruit. Of the foods I've named, what percentages would I expect to have been grown in enhanced C02 environments? -
Marcus at 12:14 PM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
Wow, what an incredibly long post to say almost *nothing* of value John D. You keep banging on about how *wonderful* the FACE trials are in showing that increased CO2 is a good thing, yet the Horsham trials you rely on show that-even in relatively optimum conditions (in terms of water & nutrients)-there was no significant improvement in grain yield for most varieties, a significant decline in protein yield & an increased demand for nitrogen by plants grown in the enhanced CO2 conditions. As nitrogen is one of the biggest costs facing farmers, this hardly represents GOOD NEWS for the farming community-which is probably why the investigators themselves are so circumspect about their findings-especially given that they were starting to see acclimation just a couple of years into the trial. Given that CO2-induced warming is also expected to cause declines in rainfall, then the prospects for enhanced agricultural output in an enriched CO2 world are looking far grimmer than you'd have us believe. The fact, Mr D, is that until you're prepared to provide more substantial REFERENCES to back up your claims, then people will dismiss you as yet another denialist who gets all his (mis)-information from Monckton et al. -
johnd at 11:53 AM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
villabolo at 11:00 AM, I doubt that Monckton is the originator of the CO2 is food for plants "meme". The technique has been in commercial use for decades and is well understood by agricultural experts. It is only the focus on CO2 atmospheric levels rising that has over the last couple of decades caused them to conduct trials to see if what was being done artificially by commercial operators will be replicated under real world conditions. -
johnd at 11:44 AM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
Rather than simply taking the quick look at the science behind the argument as the author believes is all that is necessary, perhaps a detailed study of the real world, and the real world trials, such as the FACE trials, which are not mentioned, that replicate projected growing conditions, including enhanced atmospheric CO2, higher temperatures and lower moisture levels would be even more enlightening. Perhaps even looking at the results of trials that studied how plant growth responded to depleted CO2 levels would bring even better understanding as to the central role CO2 plays as a growth regulator. The arguments against increased CO2 being a positive for plant growth seems to be based on a belief that the current balance of inputs that plants require is optimum, each in the correct ratio. Commercial greenhouse growers know that that is not correct. Even if they provide sufficient warmth, nutrients and moisture, the full growth potential is not achieved until the CO2 levels are increased to optimum levels as well. Perhaps the next time anyone visits a supermarket and salivates over the well grown fresh produce, and admires the beautiful flowers, just check out how much of what has been admired, or has been put onto your dinner plate in recent decades has been grown in an enriched CO2 environment. The examples of the negative aspects only illustrate a lack of appreciation of the real world. What weeds in agricultural crops love even more than CO2 is nutrients, especially nitrates, and most cropped land has been stuffed full of nutrients. One of the biggest inputs into cropping is weed control, and any competent farmer is gradually reducing the weed seed bank, with genetic modification helping produce crop varieties that are more and more resistant to herbicides. Whether in the past, now or in the future, any farmer who has not overcome the weeds before the crop is planted will not be viable for very long. From an Australian perspective, over the last 50 years, the amount of cereals produced per acre has risen to nearly 3 times the previous level. It is anticipated that the same increase can occur again over the next 50 years even allowing for climate change. That means that the area of weeds that need to be controlled is dramatically decreasing for the same amount of food harvested. That seems more like a positive rather than a negative. As far as the supply of nutrients go, irrespective of any other factors, to produce more food, more nutrients are required to be put into the growing system, that is a basic truth. If the argument is made that the supply of nutrients will not allow the increased growth due to CO2 fertilisation, then there will also not be enough nutrients to support increased food production even if CO2 levels remained constant, or even fell. Being able to put more nutrients onto a smaller unit of soil to produce even higher yields is a positive both for efficiency of nutrient usage and application. OT a bit, but the biggest challenge is that for every 20,000kj per person per day that is produced in the paddock, only about 8500kj ends up on a persons plate. The more developed the society, the greater the wastage, little ever being returned to be recycled productively, huge amounts instead making it into landfill, decomposing to produce CO2 and methane. Lamenting over whether there will be sufficient nutrients to support increased growth due to CO2 is misplaced whilst such wastage is allowed to continue. The IPCC states that globally averaged mean water vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase, though there may be some shift in rainfall patterns. For Australia, in the areas where the rainfall is projected to decrease, the IPCC project a decrease in evaporation of the same magnitude if their Fig.10.12 is any indication. As for the wild fires, the argument is not even relevant, a red herring if ever there was one. Wild fires only present a problem when humans choose to settle in the areas prone to fire and build inappropriate infrastructure that is unable to be defended. Fires are a natural part of most landscapes, and where mankind is upsetting the natural cycle is not by allowing fires to burn, but by putting out the fires that would burn more frequently in less extreme conditions keeping fuel loads lower. This interference means that when a wild fire does start that is unable to be controlled, the higher fuel loads, and the fact that the conditions are generally more extreme, the results are even more devastating. -
Bern at 11:40 AM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
Hmm, that's a good point, villabolo. It's like saying oxygen is "food for humans", which anyone can see is false. Thanks for pointing that out. -
ProfMandia at 11:34 AM on 1 July 2010Perth forum on climate change: all the gory details
barry, You are correct! I was oversimplifying by looking just at the peaks over time and not the rate of change to get to those peaks. It does appear that CO2 increased fairly rapidly (on natural scales) in the 5,000 years after deglaciation. If we use the current 2 ppm rate then we are increasing CO2 about 80 times faster than nature. Sorry for the mistake. -
villabolo at 11:00 AM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
A slightly off topic point. Lord Monckton is, as far as I know, the originator of the "Carbon Dioxide is FOOD for plants" meme. For a while I thought that he was being ignorant in mixing up the sense of food and air. After all CO2 was obviously "air" for plants. "Food" would be either fertilizer for your roses or decomposing plants and animals on the Forest floor. Then I got to know the man better and noticed what a subtle manipulator he is. I realized, in a flash, the psychological brilliance of calling CO2 "food" for plants. If CO2 where to be correctly identified as "air" for plants then no one would care. The reason being that we take air for granted in spite of our inability to do without it. "Food", on the other hand, is constantly on our minds. It is a clever Propaganda sleight of hand. If John Q. Public should mention this "food" meme, we should respond to before we even get into any mother explanations. Since it is easy to explain the difference between air and food, our gently correcting Mr. John Q. Public should create the first subtle hints of doubt in his mind. Yes, I know, it's not logically relevant but if we are to communicate with people better then we have to know the difference between the psychological and the logical. -
Tom Dayton at 10:55 AM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
I posted links to a few references in my comments on the CO2 Is Not a Pollutant thread. -
carrot eater at 10:35 AM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
A strength of this website is that it gives several relevant links to the academic literature. While I understand that the point being made here is a simple logical one, moreso than a discussion of the underlying science, I suggest providing some citations here, as well. -
John H at 10:29 AM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
"That principle is that plants 'breathe in' CO2 during the day, but breathe oxygen at night: they are net consumers of CO2 ONLY while they are growing. Once they stop growing, they no longer remove CO2 for us." They only consume a small amount of oxygen. Not to mention it's not night all over the globe at the same time, so it's not like every plant on the face of the earth is consuming massive amounts of oxygen all at the same time. So your point is? -
MattJ at 10:02 AM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
Well, yes, some of us are really tired of hearing that nonsensical line, "CO2 is good for plants". After all, water is good for them too, but too much water still kills them. Even when it doesn't kill them, it can still cause poor development of the plant's root system. Both water and CO2 have to be made available to the plant at the right time and in the right quantities; going outside of either one can be very damaging. THAT is the real principle ignored by the "CO2 is good for plants" crowd. Surely pointing out this real principle is more effective than using language like 'proferred'! Mariana seems to have forgotten both the depth and the character of anti-intellectualism among the very people she is trying to persuade: use of fancy language like 'proferred' is likely to shut their ears before they have given her a fair hearing. Actually, come to think of it, there is another principle Mariana is ignoring: taking it into account could enable her to remove much of her post and write something more compact and hard-hitting instead. And this is a principle the "CO2 is good for plants" crowd has even more conspicuously ignored. That principle is that plants 'breathe in' CO2 during the day, but breathe oxygen at night: they are net consumers of CO2 ONLY while they are growing. Once they stop growing, they no longer remove CO2 for us. Unfortunately, this second principle is not common knowledge; at least in the US when I was in high school, science classes commonly mentioned that plants consume CO2, but I never heard their consumption of oxygen mentioned. Nor am I alone. Only their consumption of CO2 is common knowledge. Finally, answering KR: what she said about the fauna is also true of the flora, it is not obvious which would actually be stronger for her argument. I suspect she really meant what she wrote, since the fauna (including us) are more sensitive to variations in that 'cocktail', variations caused by AGW, possibly amplified by the plant growth assumed. -
Marcus at 09:36 AM on 1 July 2010Perth forum on climate change: all the gory details
@ Arkadiusz Semczyszak-that doesn't answer the question. If, as you claim, this detritus has been around for 10,000 years, then why didn't CO2 levels rise to above 280ppm during-or 1,000 years after-the Holocene Optimum (the peak of the current inter-glacial period)? Also, if the excess CO2 were from detritus, then we'd expect no change in the C-14/C-13/C-12 signature of the atmosphere-yet we are. -
KR at 09:33 AM on 1 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
Wouldn't that be "...the planet's flora requires..." instead of "...the planet's fauna requires..."?Response: Indeed, I hope Mariana doesn't mind that I've gone ahead and corrected this error. Thanks for the tip. -
philc at 08:53 AM on 1 July 2010Astronomical cycles
re 104 scadenp: Guess you missed the point. Scafetta's model is fitting a curve to the data. Intrinsically, the model cannot be guaranteed to work outside the range of the data. The only way it might work is if the functions chosen for the fit actually happened to be functions that were actually good descriptions of the underlying processes. In Scafetta's paper this may actually be the case, since he is using functions drawn from the data and not unreasonably extrapolating that they might continue to describe the data into the future. While the exact mechanism that might cause the climate to respond to the motions of the planets/sun/moon are not known, it is quite reasonable to assume that the mechanism is unlikely to suddenly change or that the motions of the planets are going to vary unpredictably. The mention of climate models was not the point, but just to emphasize that curve fitting is a very iffy way to make predictions. -
Ned at 08:44 AM on 1 July 2010Temp record is unreliable
BP writes: But you still don't get is. Adjustment algorithm applied by GHCN v2 is not the same for the US as for the rest of the world. And this fact is not documented. How can I say this politely? You seem not to have read even the most introductory literature about the GHCN data. You might want to start with: Peterson, T. and R. Vose. 1997. An Overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network Temperature Database. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78(12): 2837-2849. Section 6 describes the adjustment process and points out explicitly that one adjustment process is used for data from the USHCN network, and a different process for the rest of the world. It is frankly stunning that you would not have read even the single most basic paper about the GHCN data set before leaping to the conclusion that the data have been "tampered with". It's especially ironic that you are apparently under the impression that you've discovered something new and that I don't understand it. So. Yes, there is a difference between the US and the rest of the world. But as I said above, that's only the first step. You are still better off using a gridded analysis rather than naively assuming that the expected value of the adjustment is stationary across the whole rest of the world. -
kdkd at 08:15 AM on 1 July 2010Astronomical cycles
Ken #113 Again I refer you to my response #108. Your continued ignoring of this inconvenient truth (that the measurements are insufficiently precise over very short time periods rendering your argument invalid) appears to demonstrate that you're mainly interested in hiding under a cloud of technical sounding rhetoric. Anyway, doesn't this discussion live in the sea level rise thread? -
Doug Bostrom at 08:09 AM on 1 July 2010Perth forum on climate change: all the gory details
Further to tobyjoyce's thoughts, despite all the ineffectual #9 birdshot volleyed in the direction of Earth climate theory and models, doubters would do better by concentrating on the effect of clouds on sensitivity. Why there's so much attention paid to mirage targets is an enduring mystery. -
tobyjoyce at 08:01 AM on 1 July 2010Perth forum on climate change: all the gory details
@actually thoughfull, Is climate sensitivity really the skeptics-deniers strongest argument? Evidence can be presented that it is ~3C or so. There is no strong evidence that it departs for that figure in a significant way - the Lindzen&Choi paper and Dr Roy Spencers efforts have not bee met with any acceptance in the scientific community. The burden of proof is on the positive claim, and the evidence has been provided. Reasonable doubt is the task of the rejectionists, but they have failed to meet that standard. -
Peter Hogarth at 07:58 AM on 1 July 2010Astronomical cycles
Ken Lambert at 00:37 AM on 1 July, 2010 I've downloaded the latest Colorado data. The original full series for all satellites are netcdf format from other sources, but I'll have to wait until I get to work to download that and double check. If you look at the Colorado website there's a section on updates. There was a problem (as I indicated) with Jason 1. I suspect that either Jason2 data has been spliced or has been merged from 2008 in the data you have, making your trends a little dubious, The 2.61 mm/yr trend I indicated is from "pure" (corrected) Jason 1 data. I will check as my last full download was a couple of months back. Anyway, I would gently suggest that the data variability (I have also seen the raw data!) means that we have to average all of the data available to allow our trend to be as robust as possible (statistically), rather than try to make mini-trends of sub-sections and draw conclusions, the +/-0.4mm/year error is only valid over the entire time series. If I include all satellite data our confidence in the result should increase. Try putting 2 sigma error bars on your data? I don't think "flattening" SLR or "conflicting data" is supportable here. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:51 AM on 1 July 2010Temp record is unreliable
BP, not to barge in again but perhaps you could simply ask the folks responsible for an explanation of what you think you see? They seem to invite this: For all climate questions, please contact the National Climatic Data Center's Climate Services Division: Climate Services and Monitoring Division NOAA/National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801-5001 fax: +1-828-271-4876 phone: +1-828-271-4800 e-mail: ncdc.info@noaa.gov To request climate data, please e-mail: ncdc.orders@noaa.gov -
Tom Dayton at 07:48 AM on 1 July 2010Temp record is unreliable
BP, an example is an adjustment for the time of day at which a temperature was measured at a station. At least in the U.S., temperatures at many stations originally were measured at the same time every morning. Then many of the stations (all?) changed to measure at the same time every afternoon. Those stations' temperatures from before the time-of-measurement change had to be adjusted to eliminate the difference that was due to the time-of-day change. -
Berényi Péter at 07:21 AM on 1 July 2010Temp record is unreliable
#84 Tom Dayton at 06:58 AM on 1 July, 2010 if you take any two subsets of the stations, you will see the adjustments differ You must be kidding. It is not just any two subsets. What kind of algorithm can have this particular effect? I mean US data were adjusted upward by 0.27°C during the last 35 years while there was no adjustment at all for the rest of the world. Also, between 1870 and 1920 US trend was adjusted downward by 0.4°C while the rest of the world was adjusted slightly upwards. One should be able to tell what makes US weather stations so special. Anyway, I am just checking if there's any other pair of complementer subsets with such a weird behavior.
Prev 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 Next
