Carbon dioxide could reduce crop yields

Nov 30, 2012
Dubbed as the "Miracle Rice", IR8 was famous for its revolutionary high yield compared with other varieties existing at the time. Because of today's environmental conditions, IR8 is unable to produce the same yield levels. Credit: International Rice Research Institute

High-yielding dwarf plant varieties lose their advantage due to increasing carbon dioxide concentration.

The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere continues to climb and heat up the climate. The gas is, however, indispensable for , as they use the carbon it provides to form glucose and other important substances. Therefore, the more carbon dioxide the better? The equation is unfortunately not as simple as that. The plants, which ensure our basic food supply today, have not been bred for vertical growth but for short stalks and high grain yields. Scientists from the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology and the University of Potsdam have now discovered that an increase in carbon dioxide levels could cancel out the of dwarf varieties.

A variety of rice called IR8, which has now disappeared almost completely from the market, caused quite a stir in the 1960s. At the time, this dwarf variety of rice produced incredible yields and warded off the predicted at the time. While most other high-yielding varieties buckled under the weight of their grains, IR8's strong short stalks had no difficulty in supporting its high grain yields. In addition, the plant saved on nutrients and energy through the lack of vertical growth and was even more productive as a result. Everything that was not required to grow longer stalks was made available to the . Plants like IR8 succeeded in protecting humanity against global famine and were hailed as part of the "" in agriculture.

In the meantime, however, the yields from IR8 have declined by around 15 percent, and the cultivation of this previously very promising plant is no longer seen as worthwhile. To understand this development, it is necessary to know about the mechanism that lies behind dwarf growth in plants. The dwarf rice variety lacks an enzyme that is required for the production of the plant growth hormone gibberellic acid; without gibberellic acid, the rice plant remains short but strong and high-yielding.

Although nothing has changed in the genetic makeup of the IR8 rice plant in the past 50 years, its yields have declined continuously. The researchers working with Bernd Müller-Röber from the Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology and the University of Potsdam therefore wanted to find out whether this development was possibly linked with the global increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. After all, the current concentration of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is 25 percent higher than in the 1960s.

Using the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana (generally known as thale cress), the researchers were able to observe that a higher results in the unblocking of the capacity of dwarf plant to form gibberellic acid. The carbon dioxide appears to have the same growth-stimulating effect as that triggered by the gibberellic acid. Thus, in the experiment, the dwarf plants gradually lost their advantage and increasingly resembled the control plants.

"Breeders now face the challenge of developing new plants that can continue to provide good yields under the altered climatic conditions," says Jos Schippers, one of the authors of the study. The cultivation of dwarf varieties is not only common in the case of rice, farmers also prefer short-stalked varieties of wheat; both cereals are the staple food consumed by a majority of the global population. The researchers are now looking for the mechanism through which the gaseous influences the growth of the plants.

Explore further: Biologists develop nanosensors to visualize movements and distribution of plant hormone

More information: Dimas M. Ribeiro, Wagner L. Araújo, Alisdair R. Fernie, Jos H. M. Schippers & Bernd Müller-Röber, Action of gibberellins on growth and metabolism of Arabidopsis thaliana plants associated with high concentration of carbon dioxide, Plant Physiology Preview. First Published on October 22, 2012, as DOI: 10.1104/pp.112.204842

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Chrono, the last piece of the circadian clock puzzle?

10 hours ago

All organisms, from mammals to fungi, have daily cycles controlled by a tightly regulated internal clock, called the circadian clock. The whole-body circadian clock, influenced by the exposure to light, dictates the wake-sleep ...

Drought hormones measured

10 hours ago

Floods and droughts are increasingly in the news, and climate experts say their frequency will only go up in the future. As such, it is crucial for scientists to learn more about how these extreme events affect plants in ...

Research traces the genetic print of the Asturian people

18 hours ago

The DNA of the people of Asturias still maintains the genetic prints of remote ages. A research conducted at the University of Oviedo proves that the old frontiers marked by the pre-Roman Astur settlements have left their ...

User comments : 48

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Claudius
1.9 / 5 (27) Nov 30, 2012
"The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere continues to climb and heat up the climate."

Yet there has been a "plateau" in global temperature for the last 16 years, as CO2 levels have increased.

Anything to demonize CO2, it seems, goes. Anything to promote the AGW hypothesis, it seems, goes. The end justifies the means, and real science is left in the dust.

"Neue HadCRUT-Daten belegen: Globale Temperatur seit 16 Jahren nicht mehr angestiegen"
http://www.kaltes.../?p=6057
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (22) Nov 30, 2012
(English translation here:) http://notrickszo...science/
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (20) Nov 30, 2012
Claudius:

This is the hottest year ever for the U.S.

In fact, this year was so hot for the U.S. that it was calculated ahead of time that even if the last 3 months of the year were much colder than average, it would still be the hottest year ever.

I think they've calculated that this is something like the 8th hottest year ever globally.
VendicarD
3.5 / 5 (12) Nov 30, 2012
"I think they've calculated that this is something like the 8th hottest year ever globally." - Lurker

Last time I looked, it was going to come in as the 5th or 4th warmest on record.
Mandan
3 / 5 (12) Nov 30, 2012
And yet, this article doesn't discuss temperature at all but instead the effects of CO2 on bioligical process in human-engineered plants.

The CO2-is-all-good folks always sneer but biochemistry is biochemistry and in this case we have human-engineered crops feeling the effects of human-influenced atmospheric chemistry.

This is a factor independent of temperature. As an inhabitant of the American breadbasket, I'll also mention the drought over the past two years which has accompanied the heat. The only thing that has given us harvests at all has been the availability of drought-tolerant crops. If high CO2 affects some human-engineered traits, it could also affect these lines with catastrophic results.

Sneering at science in the name of science is not science. Even oxygen and water become toxic if consumed in too high quantities in too short a time. Oceans cannot handle the excessive acidity caused by rising CO2 levels, why should plants be expected under any hypothesis to be able to?
plaasjaapie
2 / 5 (23) Dec 01, 2012
"The carbon dioxide APPEARS {emphasis mine} to have the same growth-stimulating effect as that triggered by the gibberellic acid."

Why is it that just about every time you get into one of these "end-of-the-world" warmist screens you find weasel words like this. The long and short of it is that these warmist clowns don't know why yields of this rice are declining.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (21) Dec 01, 2012
Basicaly, this article is stating that by helping plants grow, CO2 is harming the desired effects artifically bred into these plants by humanity. However, have they really isolated the cause to CO2?

Have they, in fact, performed a double blind study of IR8 grown under lower verses higher CO2 concentrations?

Perhaps they are jumping to conclusions?

This plant species naturally competes for sunlight by attaining height. Perhaps the problem simply lies in the genome of the plants. Perhaps they are activating previously dormant genes, in order to circumvent man's meddling?

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (23) Dec 01, 2012
This is the hottest year ever for the U.S.

In fact, this year was so hot for the U.S. that it was calculated ahead of time that even if the last 3 months of the year were much colder than average, it would still be the hottest year ever.

I think they've calculated that this is something like the 8th hottest year ever globally.
This is an example of what's wrong with the AGW crowd. Global warming is global, except when it isn't. Then, all of a sudden, it's about a REGIONAL anomaly.

Does this mean discussing the European cold snap proves global cooling is the case? Why wouldn't this be equally as valid?

TheHealthPhysicist
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 01, 2012
The warming is global, depending on what manifestation of that warming one is looking at, the manifestations can be regional. We measure global temperatures and the measurements show warming, not cooling.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (29) Dec 01, 2012
It takes talent and desparation to find a way of saying that carbon dioxide, of all things, is bad for plants. In fact it is suspicious that one would even study such a thing, except in manufacturing more string to add to their big ball of speculation that is AGW.
ka_
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2012
Maybe someone have a constant live link to weather data such as this: http://www.nasa.g...56236271

There are satellites that already are tracking world CO2 levels, and the levels are as can be seen from the satellite data increasing. The above video however indicates this map shown does NOT include human induced CO2, just the natural one?? - So anyone with a link to a more realistic "live" simulation.
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (18) Dec 01, 2012
Noumenon is plainly Ignorant !
Big problem with some foods is, increased CO2 changes plants equilibrium of food vs protection, this means some plants start to produce cyanogens Eg in Cassava & Clover, incrementally increasing amounts of cyanide, this doesnt kill immediately but results in HCN in the food causing paralysis of humans in Africa last 50 years or so & for Clover in Europe means cattle feed has cyanide which doesnt affect the cattle much (yet) but ends up in the meat, its the complex compounds that have cyanide in the structure, the consequences are unknown !

We really need a lower & stable CO2 content, the startling rapid change & especially so in last 2 years will cause all sorts of unknown (classic) step change effects. Anyone who has come across control systems and 'under-damped' response knows what I mean...

@Claudius
Please please, get off the propaganda rubbish & get an education, I am a food scientist, have studied effect of changed CO2 in foods.

sig
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (21) Dec 01, 2012
The warming is global, depending on what manifestation of that warming one is looking at, the manifestations can be regional. We measure global temperatures and the measurements show warming, not cooling.
This simply isn't true. There hasn't been any global warming in well more than a decade.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (18) Dec 01, 2012
Noumenon is obviously not any sort of scientist or someone interested in truth
It takes talent and desparation to find a way of saying that carbon dioxide, of all things, is bad for plants. In fact it is suspicious that one would even study such a thing, except in manufacturing more string to add to their big ball of speculation that is AGW.
Because you feebly 'think' and you would want it to follow a linear route, doesnt mean it does. Nature is replete with exceptions, brain function is now obviously the main one !

Eg. Engines dont give more power the faster they go, they have VE issues and fail !

Plants change their complex interactions, to assume more CO2 is good as a way to avoid complex thinking makes you an ignorant idiot Noumenon and you should be ashamed to offer any comments on science based forums, go onto a religious forum where arbitrary beliefs like yours have a home, all comfortable, self referential and matches the bogan/red-necked soup from which you arose !
FrankHerbert
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 01, 2012
It takes talent and desparation to find a way of saying that carbon dioxide, of all things, is bad for plants. In fact it is suspicious that one would even study such a thing, except in manufacturing more string to add to their big ball of speculation that is AGW.


Ever heard of drowning?
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (18) Dec 01, 2012
The warming is global, depending on what manifestation of that warming one is looking at, the manifestations can be regional. We measure global temperatures and the measurements show warming, not cooling.
This simply isn't true. There hasn't been any global warming in well more than a decade.


Really, been in Perth, Western Australia, increasing temps and rising sea levels, what about tuvalu.

We live in an essentially closed system, adding hundreds of billions of tonnes of CO2 - and other greenhouse gases is obviously having an effect, studied Physics have you, done some specific heat calcs etc etc etc ?

Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (17) Dec 01, 2012
Maybe someone have a constant live link to weather data such as this: http://www.nasa.g...56236271

There are satellites that already are tracking world CO2 levels, and the levels are as can be seen from the satellite data increasing. The above video however indicates this map shown does NOT include human induced CO2, just the natural one?? - So anyone with a link to a more realistic "live" simulation.


No, you will see that the 'trough' on each case is at a higher point, the cycle is natural, the increasing base line is 'otherwise' and so far the best deduction is by human activities...
TheHealthPhysicist
2.2 / 5 (20) Dec 01, 2012
The science deniers are funny...what's next, gravity doesn't exists because we can jump?
ka_
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2012
Ok Mike, I got you, however I do not agree that the difference in the curve up is what we produce, only what we add that is too much for the world to handle and what we for sure got to stop making. I think that if we removed all human activity, then total level of CO2 should hopefully start decreasing.
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 01, 2012
Ok Mike, I got you, however I do not agree that the difference in the curve up is what we produce, only what we add that is too much for the world to handle and what we for sure got to stop making. I think that if we removed all human activity, then total level of CO2 should hopefully start decreasing.


Ah sorry my mistake re video, I only saw the first animation, not the second, too busy on the phone, watching and typing. I do see your point, the final animation would have been better had they comparatively shown that level attributable to the CO2 baseline suggested in the previous animation...

btw: I think we should consider blaming all the climate change deniers for forcing the government to put up expensive satallites to confirm previous data re AGW, if they accepted it on the balance of probabilities we could all save some money ;-)

Nah, I think thats the best thing Nasa has done, more kudos to those that dont assume but actually go to the trouble to check,

Cheers
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (27) Dec 01, 2012
It takes talent and desparation to find a way of saying that carbon dioxide, of all things, is bad for plants. In fact it is suspicious that one would even study such a thing, except in manufacturing more string to add to their big ball of speculation that is AGW.


Ever heard of drowning?


Since CO2 comprises around 0.04% of the atmosphere, and only about 3.9% of that is due to man, and of that around 40% is absorbed by natural sinks.... I doubt that plants will drown in what is other wise essential to them, on account of us.
ka_
2.4 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2012
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) project is not there yet as the first satellite failed during launch. The project site is . Their news section have some interesting info and videos - the scheduled launch for the satellite OCO2 will be in the middle of 2014 .
Wish such a satellite was already there, maybe some of the data is regularly captured by some non-dedicated satellite currently?
I look forward to when we really do get such live world-wide CO2 maps - I expect the data to be quite similar to what is already modeled, though we might hope for a few surprises. For sure the discussion will move towards more concrete ways to reduce our CO2 footprint!
ka_
2.8 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2012
The links disappeared probably because I used brakets, they where supposed to be:
OCO project page: http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov
Launch date for OCO-2: http://www.jpl.na...2012-206
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (18) Dec 01, 2012
This simply isn't true. There hasn't been any global warming in well more than a decade.
Really, been in Perth, Western Australia, increasing temps and rising sea levels, what about tuvalu.
As I said above: This is an example of what's wrong with the AGW crowd. Global warming is global, except when it isn't. Then, all of a sudden, it's about a REGIONAL anomaly.

Does this mean discussing the European cold snap proves global cooling is the case? Why wouldn't this be equally as valid?

We live in an essentially closed system, adding hundreds of billions of tonnes of CO2 - and other greenhouse gases is obviously having an effect, studied Physics have you, done some specific heat calcs etc etc etc?
The data is readily available. There's been no global warming in well more than a decade:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (18) Dec 02, 2012
ubavontuba doesnt get it
Does this mean discussing the European cold snap proves global cooling is the case? Why wouldn't this be equally as valid?
Of course it wouldnt be valid due to the underlying reason Europe & north east coast of USA is warmed by the atlantic conveyor, which distributes a tremendous amount of heat from tropics.

Heat transfer current is threatened, currently in a metastable state & further heat/fluctuations could make it collapse entirely.

In Perth, Western Australia, not far from Antarctica, there is more cold water being distributed along the western sea areas, water is colder in regions this has placed constraints on the amount and timing of rainfall.

Global heating of the biosphere results in antarctica (& Greenland) shedding more ice as cold water thus affecting their regions, there might be more snow but the mass of ice lost is far greater.

When you understand the anomalies, they are consistent with AGW.

Get an education please.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (21) Dec 02, 2012
ubavontuba offered a link with dubious displays
http://www.woodfo...dcrut4gl/from:2002/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend
There is something wrong with the site maths, a sine test shows a straight line decline, from the same site this is rather telling:-

http://www.woodfo...dcrut4gl

There are other sites which also show warming, just like the link above from 'your' reference, is there something wrong with you ubavontuba ?
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (18) Dec 02, 2012
Noumenon still doesnt get it
I doubt that plants will drown in what is other wise essential to them, on account of us.
Although many wont drown in CO2 (or water for that matter unless near coastal areas) as you imagine, some will be rather less useful as food crops due to the plants change in equilibrium and some could be rather more poisonous.

Its unsettling to find a major food crop for livestock starts to produce more cyanide !

Head in the ground there Noumenon ?

We are already seeing pressure on food prices and this is indicative of several issues along the chain from crops to consumers.

The most disturbing issue is the *rate* of CO2 increase which along with a general rise has step change effects upon many plant growth processes so many changes may take years to observe and even longer to connect and rationalise with the complexity of causal relationships.

Unfortunately, even if industrial output dropped 50% a great deal of locked up CO2 and methane will be released.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (18) Dec 03, 2012
Global heating of the biosphere results in antarctica (& Greenland) shedding more ice as cold water thus affecting their regions, there might be more snow but the mass of ice lost is far greater.
This is arm-waving nonsense. If there is an acceleration in the melting of the ice, there has to be a corresponding acceleration in the sea level rise. Where is the corresponding sea level anomaly? Perhaps you think the ice mass simply disappears?

When you understand the anomalies, they are consistent with AGW.
To what anomalies do you refer?

Get an education please.
I suggest you follow your own advice.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2012
ubavontuba offered a link with dubious displays

http://www.woodfo...dcrut4gl/from:2002/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend


There is something wrong with the site maths, a sine test shows a straight line decline, from the same site this is rather telling:-

http://www.woodfo...dcrut4gl


Idiot. It's designed that way to show the trend line function. Didn't you notice the start and end points differ? The square wave pattern shows an opposite inclination. Does this mean the site is biased low, now?

There are other sites which also show warming, just like the link above from 'your' reference, is there something wrong with you ubavontuba?
Funny then that you didn't provide any.

Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (17) Dec 03, 2012
ubavontuba is clearly a simpleton
.. shedding more ice as cold water thus affecting their regions, there might be more snow but the mass of ice lost is far greater.
..corresponding acceleration in the sea level rise. Where is the corresponding sea level anomaly?..
Sea level rise isnt uniform, if you do look at the recent satellite data there is an increase in rate of sea level rise but its spread over a very large area *and* subject to local currents and mildly chaotic earth's rotation. It takes a while to do the integration, the earth is large and it takes a while for new equilibrium conditions to be establish and in so doing there will be chaotic effects. Clearly you have no training in combinatorial complexity re foundation of sciences...

ubavontuba has short term memory issues
When you understand the anomalies, they are consistent with AGW.
To what anomalies do you refer? Such as those raised by you, local cooling due to global warming, regional cold water !
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2012
The most disturbing issue is the *rate* of CO2 increase which along with a general rise has step change effects upon many plant growth processes so many changes may take years to observe and even longer to connect and rationalise with the complexity of causal relationships.
Like flora and fauna haven't thrived during periods of significantly higer CO2 concentrations and global temperatures, in the past.

Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (18) Dec 03, 2012
ubavontuba just doesnt get it
Idiot. It's designed that way to show the trend line function. Didn't you notice the start and end points differ? The square wave pattern shows an opposite inclination. Does this mean the site is biased low, now?
There are several issues with the site:-
1. The provenance of data
2. The method of compilation
3. The default conditions
4. Any sort of calibration test

I never said 'bias' you did. The site needs work if it is to be in any way authoritative or even useful.

I dont need to provide any reference for warming, you offered a link and I brought it to your attention it has problems, who is the idiot & simpleton ?

If you find a link that shows warming I will be just as analytical however, in terms of local issues there are multiple places where sea level is rising, when properly integrated (remember that from school) it clearly shows rise due to:-
a. Thermal Expansion
b. Increased water mass

Also Greenland is rising ie. significant loss of ice
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2012
ubavontuba is clearly a simpleton
ooh... a personal attack. Should I be impressed?, now?

Sea level rise isnt uniform...
What a bunck of arm-waving quackery. It appears you're just making it up as you go along.

Why don't you show us some references?

ubavontuba has short term memory issues
Are personal attacks all you have? Grow up.

To what anomalies do you refer? Such as those raised by you, local cooling due to global warming, regional cold water !
More arm-waving (no context or reference). Good show (not).

VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2012
"is there something wrong with you ubavontuba ?" - Mike Massen

UbVonTard is a chronic liar who regularly posts denialist claptrap here Mike.

He is chronically found to be cherry picking his data and claims that doing so constitutes a valid scientific argument.

Traditionally he pulls up temperature series that are only a few years long, and having endpoints selected to the month in order to produce a time series that shows a decline in temperature, when an unbiased trend shows the exact opposite.

And when his deceit is exposed, he waits for a couple of days, and then posts the same lie, over and over and over again.

I have never encountered a Conervative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar like UbVonTard.
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (17) Dec 03, 2012
ubavontuba mumbled yet again
The most disturbing issue is the *rate* of CO2 increase which along with a general rise has step change effects upon many plant growth processes so many changes may take years to observe and even longer to connect and rationalise with the complexity of causal relationships.
Like flora and fauna haven't thrived during periods of significantly higer CO2 concentrations and global temperatures, in the past.


Sure, flora may well thrive however, the plants equilibrium can so easily change so its not edible any more !

But sadly missed the point - its the *rate* of rise that is significant and troubling, before a new equilibrium is reached there will be chaotic effects !

Did you not understand some food crops are starting to produce cyanide as the plants have more energy/fuel to put into protection !

Did you not read, we are facing a food crisis if trends continue, do some food chemistry and biology,

ie. Get an education, please.

And Urgently.
VendicarD
4 / 5 (8) Dec 03, 2012
I have posted links to graphics showing the acceleration in sea level rise at least a half dozen times, and UbVonTard has responded to those plots, indicating that he has seen them.

Yet he still continuest to repeat the same lie, long after his original lie has been exposed, again, and again, and again.

"If there is an acceleration in the melting of the ice, there has to be a corresponding acceleration in the sea level rise." - UbVonTard

UbVonTard clearly has a mental disease.
VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2012
It is difficult to understand how someone with such apparent ignorance as UbVonTard, manages to feed itself, however, UbVonTard's behaviour is more readily explained as classic Conservative Dishonesty rather than pronounced ignorance.

"ubavontuba is clearly a simpleton" - Mike

UbVonTard simply doesn't live in the reality based community.

He lives in a Conservative La-La land where truth is what he wishes to believe rather than what is empirically demonstrated.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2012
ubavontuba vainly suggested a dialectic
Sea level rise isnt uniform...
What a bunck of arm-waving quackery. It appears you're just making it up as you go along.
So you therefore counter, suggesting sea level rise must be uniform ?

In your mind why would this have to be the case ?

Do you now understand the earth's rotation is mildly chaotic, which means there is no day that is exactly the same length ?

Earth's orbit is also subject to chaotic influences.

Earth is also putting on weight, mass from space and it isnt necessarily spread evenly.

All of the above plus sea currents also subject to chaotic influences result in non-uniform sea level rises and local dips.

When you integrate there is an overall rise.

Cant you see that ?

There are many places ubavontuba you can get an education re chaotic influences and sea currents, its not my job to educate you.

What is your scientific and educational background ?

Especially so in issues of combinatorial complexity and logic
kochevnik
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 03, 2012
Ubavontuba has been repeatedly reeducated about the Atlantic conveyor. Despite this he's more comfortable keeping his head buried in warm, methane-rich environments.
What is your scientific and educational background ?
I asked him before. No response. Self-educated by trolling for his boss, no doubt.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (15) Dec 03, 2012
ubavontuba just doesnt get it
Apparently, the fault lies with you.

There are several issues with the site:-
1. The provenance of data
2. The method of compilation
3. The default conditions
4. Any sort of calibration test
Try doing a little research. All of these issues are addressed on the site.

I never said 'bias' you did. The site needs work if it is to be in any way authoritative or even useful.
Actually, it's commonly used and it's accurate and useful. That you don't recognize it demonstrates your own ignorance.

I dont need to provide any reference for warming, you offered a link and I brought it to your attention it has problems,
More arm-waving nonsense. That you dislike it doesn't mean a darn thing.

who is the idiot & simpleton?
It appears you are.

If you find a link that shows warming I will be just as analytical however,
You mean you'll wave your arms then, too?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (15) Dec 03, 2012
I have never encountered a Conervative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
LOL. I was just beginning to wonder if Mike was a new AGW spambot, when out pops our resident AGW spambot! Coincidence?

Hey Vendibot. Have you figured out what "it's" means, yet? LOL.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (15) Dec 03, 2012
ubavontuba mumbled yet again
Arm-waving seems to be you M.O..

Sure, flora may well thrive however, the plants equilibrium can so easily change so its not edible any more!
This may have some slight merit for a very few select species (cassava, specifically - which is already so full of cyanide it's already dangerous!), but it's not generally proven to be a concern. And the benefits to food production far outweigh the costs.

But sadly missed the point - its the *rate* of rise that is significant and troubling, before a new equilibrium is reached there will be chaotic effects!
Weather is chaotic, by nature.

Did you not understand some food crops are starting to produce cyanide as the plants have more energy/fuel to put into protection!
They already produce cyanide, and detoxification is a simple process.

Did you not read, we are facing a food crisis if trends continue, do some food chemistry and biology,
Food production is generally rising.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (15) Dec 03, 2012
I have posted links to graphics showing the acceleration in sea level rise at least a half dozen times, and UbVonTard has responded to those plots, indicating that he has seen them.
LOL. Vendibot still thinks its graphs showing steady sea level rise, are significant. LOL.

And, it apparently doesn't understand the concept: "corresponding"

Hey Vendibot, can you read dates yet? LOL.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (15) Dec 03, 2012
ubavontuba vainly suggested a dialectic
Sea level rise isnt uniform...
What a bunch of arm-waving quackery. It appears you're just making it up as you go along.
So you therefore counter, suggesting sea level rise must be uniform?
The mean sea level rise is the issue.

Do you now understand the earth's rotation is mildly chaotic, which means there is no day that is exactly the same length?

Earth's orbit is also subject to chaotic influences.

Earth is also putting on weight, mass from space and it isnt necessarily spread evenly.

All of the above plus sea currents also subject to chaotic influences result in non-uniform sea level rises and local dips.

When you integrate there is an overall rise.

Cant you see that?
Drivel, having no bearing on, or context in, the discussion at hand.

Continued...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (15) Dec 03, 2012
There are many places ubavontuba you can get an education re chaotic influences and sea currents, its not my job to educate you.
Says the moron who doesn't even spell properly, or use punctuation properly. LOL.

What is your scientific and educational background?
Evidence would suggest it's more comprehensive than yours.

Especially so in issues of combinatorial complexity and logic
Big words for someone who even can't keep to context. LOL.

kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2012
There are many places ubavontuba you can get an education re chaotic influences and sea currents, its not my job to educate you.
Says the moron who doesn't even spell properly, or use punctuation properly. LOL.
Maybe English is his second or third language: Something conservaturd corporatist shills never contemplate.
The mean sea level rise is the issue.
Apparently you don't know that a tsunami or tide is.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2012
Maybe English is his second or third language:
It doesn't matter. If he's going to make cracks at me about education on an English site, I have every right to point these failings out.

Something conservaturd corporatist shills never contemplate.
I wouldn't know. I vote the other way.

The mean sea level rise is the issue.
Apparently you don't know that a tsunami or tide is.
Apparently you don't know what it means to say, "mean sea level."
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 07, 2012
Maybe English is his second or third language:
It doesn't matter. If he's going to make cracks at me about education on an English site, I have every right to point these failings out.
Did it occur to you that English is a foreign language, as you're an American? I didn't know you had jurisdiction over England.

More news stories

Patent talk: Google sharpens contact lens vision

(Phys.org) —A report from Patent Bolt brings us one step closer to what Google may have in mind in developing smart contact lenses. According to the discussion Google is interested in the concept of contact ...

Wireless industry makes anti-theft commitment

A trade group for wireless providers said Tuesday that the biggest mobile device manufacturers and carriers will soon put anti-theft tools on the gadgets to try to deter rampant smartphone theft.