Evidence disproving tropical 'thermostat' theory: global warming can breach limits for life

March 3, 2017, Purdue University
A composite image of the Western hemisphere of the Earth. Credit: NASA

New research findings show that as the world warmed millions of years ago, conditions in the tropics may have made it so hot some organisms couldn't survive.

Longstanding theories dating to the 1980s suggest that as the rest of the earth warms, the temperatures would be strictly limited, or regulated by an internal 'thermostat.' These theories are controversial, but the debate is of great importance because the tropics and subtropics comprise half of the earth's surface area, greater than half of the earth's biodiversity, as well as over half the earth's human population. But new geological and climate-based research indicates the tropics may have reached a temperature 56 million years ago that was, indeed, too hot for living organisms to survive in parts of the tropics.

That conclusion is detailed in the article "Extreme Warmth and Heat-Stressed Plankton in the Tropics during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum," published by the online journal Science Advances and co-authored by Matthew Huber, professor in the Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences Department at Purdue University and member of the Purdue Climate Change Research Center. Huber's contribution focused on climate modeling and interpreting paleoclimate data within the context of modern theoretical understanding. Part of this work was performed while Huber was also at the University of New Hampshire.

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) period occurred 56 million years ago and is considered the warmest period during the past 100 million years. Global temperatures rapidly warmed by about 5 degrees Celsius (9 F), from an already steamy baseline temperature, and this study provides the first convincing evidence that the tropics also warmed by about 3 degrees Celsius (5 F) during that time.

"The records produced in this study indicate that when the tropics warmed that last little bit, a threshold was passed and parts of the tropical biosphere seems to have died," Huber said. "This is the first time that we've found really good information, in a very detailed way, where we saw major changes in the tropics directly associated with warming past a key threshold in the past 60 million years."

The study is unique because of the quality of the geological records utilized. Geological records from the PETM are difficult to find, especially from an area of the tropics, Huber said. The research was based on a shallow marine sedimentary section deposited in Nigeria.

"We don't find 50-million-year-old thermometers at the bottom of the ocean," Huber said. "What we do find are shells, and we use the isotopes of carbon and oxygen within the shells, complemented by temperature proxies from organic material, to say something about the carbon cycle and about the temperature in the past."

Two research methods were used to judge the temperature during the PETM, one utilizing isotopes in shells, while the other examined organic residues in deep-sea sentiments. The biotic records left behind from living organisms indicate they were dying at the same time the conditions were warming.

If the tropics are not able to control its temperature and do not possess an internal thermostat, that should reshape future thinking about , Huber said.

"If you say there's no tropical thermostat, then half of the world's biodiversity—over half of the world's population, the tropical rainforests, the reefs, India, Brazil—these populous and very important countries have nothing to prevent them from warming up substantially above conditions that humans have been used to," he said.

The trends in increases in the tropics are similar to those found in other parts of the world, but other records have been very sparse and limited until now.

Explore further: Hot tropical oceans during Pliocene greenhouse warming

More information: Extreme warmth and heat-stressed plankton in the tropics during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, Science Advances  03 Mar 2017: Vol. 3, no. 3, e1600891, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1600891, http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e1600891

Related Stories

Hot tropical oceans during Pliocene greenhouse warming

June 29, 2014

The impact of the greenhouse gas CO2 on the Earth's temperature is well established by climate models and temperature records over the past 100 years, as well as coupled records of carbon dioxide concentration and temperature ...

Scientists discover that rainforests take the heat

May 30, 2013

South American rainforests thrived during three extreme global warming events in the past, say paleontologists at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in a new report published in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary ...

Recommended for you

Scientists drill to record depths in West Antarctica

January 24, 2019

A team of scientists and engineers has for the first time successfully drilled over two kilometres through the ice sheet in West Antarctica using hot water. This research will help understand how the region will respond to ...

204 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

philstacy9
Mar 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
manfredparticleboard
4.2 / 5 (19) Mar 03, 2017
Only fools demand certainty in life.
Osiris1
1.8 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2017
Nowhere in the article is ANY estimate of how high the temperature did get. Be nice if they said, say, 160 degrees, but all they mouthed was gibberish.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2017
Arguing with someone who thinks that stars are the sparkles on the cellophane that covers the world is pointless.
ncdave4life
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2017
Two thoughts:

1. I know of three of these "thermostat" theories, the oldest of which dates back to 1991:
http://www.sealev...picalsst
Did I miss any?

2. If global temperatures really rose 5°C but temperatures in the tropics rose only 3°C (both of which are by no means certain), then there probably was some sort of "thermostat-like" negative feedback mechanism at work, which reduced the amount of warming in the tropics.

entrance
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2017
I am sure that Earth has a thermostat. Otherwise a minor temperature variation would have already caused a disaster, and Earth would look like Mars. However, i believe that there could be a temperature threshold, that should never be exceeded. Our ecological system is certainly rather robust, but surely not undestroyable. I fear, that we will exceed 2 critical thresholds in approximately 4 decades. And no one knows, what will happen after this event.
zz5555
5 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2017
ncdave4life:
1. Those are all I'm aware of. They've been refuted many times over the years (e.g., https://skeptical...back.htm and https://skeptical...-30C.htm ), but like zombies they never quite seem to die. This is just one more refutation.
2. I don't know that there needs to be any negative feedback mechanism to explain the fact that global temperatures rose more than tropical temperatures. I believe Arrhenius in 1896 was the first to describe polar amplification where the warming is greater the closer you get to the poles. And that has been found to be very true: http://earthobser...id=81214 .
gkam
1.6 / 5 (12) Mar 04, 2017
I think we have destabilized a climatic stable state, and now will reap the results. They may not be favorable for Human habitat.
ncdave4life
2 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2017
zz5555, I think the word "disputed" is better than "refuted."

I haven't read Arrhenius (1896), but James Hansen claimed just the opposite for ocean temperatures in his 2009 book (p.250). He said that global warming would warm higher latitudes LESS than lower latitudes:
https://www.amazo...8192008/

Page 250 is not part of the free preview on Amazon, but here Hansen is on Letterman, plugging his book and making the same claim:
https://www.youtu...;t=7m25s

He said that the "increasing temperature gradient [between high and low latitudes] is going to drive stronger storms," as lower latitudes warm faster.

I think pretty much everyone now agrees that is incorrect. But I have yet to hear either him or any other climate hawk speculate that DECREASING temperature gradient, due to polar amplification and/or these possible "tropical thermostat" mechanisms, might make storms weaker.
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2017
zz5555, I believe that I've found the reference to polar amplification in Arrhenius, to which you alluded. You're right, he does suggest it, though his understanding was a bit different from present understanding. I put it here:
http://sealevel.i...ion.html

zz5555
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2017
zz5555, I think the word "disputed" is better than "refuted."

No, Lindzen's hypothesis has been refuted (or, he needs to do a lot more work on it and change it to match the actual data) and Eschenbach's idea has always been silly and lacking in any physical basis. The earlier work of Ramanathan & Collins also don't follow the data, so it's incorrect as well.

As for Hansen, I believe his hypothesis assumes a doubling of ice melt every 10 years, which is difficult to accept. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Hansen, but that seems a bit extreme. It's possible that he's correct, but it seems to me that if he's correct then this study is wrong. If the global temperature increases by 5C and tropics only increase by 3C, then it seems to me that the higher latitudes must make up the difference.
zz5555
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2017
But I have yet to hear either him or any other climate hawk speculate that DECREASING temperature gradient, due to polar amplification and/or these possible "tropical thermostat" mechanisms, might make storms weaker.

So I won't pretend to know what a climate hawk is, but if you're waiting for a climate scientist to make that claim, I suggest you don't hold your breath. The fact is that the temperature gradient isn't the only thing that storms depend on. Another would be the total energy in the climate available to make the storm. And that, of course, is increasing rather dramatically. In addition, it would only be very large storms that would be affected by the gradient, like hurricanes. A tornado or thunderstorm would be much more affected by the amount of heat available than the north-south temperature gradient (there's probably other important things there as well).
zz5555
5 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2017
As for hurricanes, I believe there has been some debate on what will happen with them. My understanding is that the current expectation is that hurricanes will become less frequent, but the ones that do occur will be stronger (http://myweb.fsu....2015.pdf ). And I believe there's some data to support this, but I think this is far from settled.
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2017
zz555, if you actually think that "Eschenbach's idea has always been silly and lacking in any physical basis" then you obviously didn't understand it -- probably because you didn't try.

It is very fine work, and I suggest that you do yourself a favor and try to understand it. You can thank me later.

I've not studied Lindsen's "iris," but people who I respect do respect it. (Obviously the folks at SkS are not among them, but SkS gets a lot of things very wrong.)

As for what a "climate hawk" is -- that would be you, zz. :-) Don't take it personally, please, and feel free to call me a "climate dove."

As for hurricanes & tornadoes, here are some graphs. As any climate dove can see, GHG increases are not causing worsening hurricanes or tornadoes:
http://policlimat...nths.png
http://policlimat..._ace.png
http://www1.ncdc....-EF5.png
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2017
Sorry, @ncdave, not just real interested in a psychologist's take on geophysics; Eschenbach is unqualified to express a scientific opinion on geophysics. Let's try to stick to people who actually have the training to have some idea what they're talking about, shall we?

Moving right along, Lindzen's Iris Hypothesis is, if you will, "disputed." Numerous papers have concluded that the original Iris paper overestimated the effect, one of which used Lindzen's own model. Other papers have found that rather than a negative feedback, tropical clouds form a small positive feedback. And the remainder of papers have found that it simply doesn't exist.

Besides, what's a guy who claims models don't work doing publishing work based on models? I mean, just askin'.

[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2017
[contd]
As for claims about hurricanes and other extreme weather effects from global warming, none of this is clear. The models used really don't have enough spatial discrimination to show this conclusively.

What *is* clear is that it's getting hotter and hotter, and that this is going to have a dramatic impact on the growing season in areas where most of the food is grown, on species diversity, on ocean levels, and on water availability, among other effects. The last three years are the warmest on record, and all but one of the top ten have been since the start of this century; and that single one is 1998.

I will happily source links to all the papers and research I have referred to above, if you will agree to actually read the material. And there will be tests.
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2017
Da Schneib, "It's not the things you don't know that are the problem, it's the things you know that aren't so." -Will Rogers (attributed)

I charitably assume you haven't examined the Eschenbach Tropical Cloud Feedback theory & evidence. If you had then you couldn't honestly write what you wrote.

All of CO2's supposed ill effects are hypothetical. They haven't really happened. Sea-level is rising no faster now than it was with CO2 under 310 ppmv. No loss of species diversity or water availability can be reliably attributed to anthropogenic GHGs. There's little warming in the tropics; AGW mostly just makes harsh climates slightly milder.

Anthropogenic CO2 greatly improves agricultural productivity, too. THAT is REAL and well documented.

From this chart it appears that another +2°C (+3.6°F) of warming would shift U.S. growing zones northward by less than 100 miles:
https://www.arbor...2015.png

The IPCC defines that as catastrophe. I don't. Do you?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2017
Da Schneib, "It's not the things you don't know that are the problem, it's the things you know that aren't so." -Will Rogers (attributed)
This is FUD. It's a well-known denier strategem that doesn't work against the informed. As I will now proceed to demonstrate.

I charitably assume you haven't examined the Eschenbach Tropical Cloud Feedback theory & evidence. If you had then you couldn't honestly write what you wrote.
I am as I stated uninterested in the unqualified opinions of a psychologist and massage therapist on geophysics. I charitably (or at least reasonably) assume you are unaware that you are quoting an unqualified source, because you don't know enough geophysics to tell the difference.

All of CO2's supposed ill effects are hypothetical.
Except for the last ten years of temperatures which are all from the last twenty years. I evaluate this as more FUD.
[contd]

Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2017
[contd]
They haven't really happened. Sea-level is rising no faster now than it was with CO2 under 310 ppmv.
Actually it isn't necessarily a matter of accelerating sea level rise; it's just a matter of sea level rise. More FUD, and you're starting to look dishonest since you jump to a second-order effect rather than sticking to the first-order effect which is all that's needed to show a significant problem.

No loss of species diversity or water availability can be reliably attributed to anthropogenic GHGs.
It's well known that this is not a linear relationship, but an exponential one. The current mass extinction is a well-documented one; how many are due to anthropogenic climate changes? You assume none with no evidence. This is more FUD, and now you're looking really dishonest.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2017
[contd]
There's little warming in the tropics;
There's plenty of warming worldwide; nine of the ten hottest years on record are in the last twenty years. At this point, what's happening in the tropics is immaterial, and at best questionable since you present no evidence, and finally is strongly challenged by the article we are discussing right here. More FUD, and more and more the presumption of dishonesty on your part gains compelling evidence. This is standard climate science denial. You obviously have nothing of substance to offer and are depending on outmoded FUD-based marketing strategems that no one who is actually examining the evidence will give any credence to.

AGW mostly just makes harsh climates slightly milder.
More FUD. More evidence of your dishonesty. The temperature is increasing, and its effects are not linear but exponential.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2017
[contd]
We simply haven't hit the knee in the curve yet for effects; the knee was hit around the turn of the century in terms of temperatures, as evidenced by the fact that the hottest ten years are all in the last twenty. Only one is not in this century and that's 1998. The curve in the hockey stick is the knee in the exponential curve, which anyone who knows any statistics already knew. Apparently you don't know enough statistics to understand that, and I'm charitably assuming you're not outright lying.

Anthropogenic CO2 greatly improves agricultural productivity, too. THAT is REAL and well documented.
In fact, recent scientific results published on this site show that the original claims in this area are compromised when multiple generations are studied. CO₂ effects not only decrease, but lack of water, consumption of nutrients in the soil without replenishment, and increased temperature were all ignored in the original studies.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2017
[contd]
More FUD, and yet another dishonest claim to add to your tally. It's becoming pretty clear that your agenda is not to actually argue the science, but to introduce doubt about the science. It's furthermore obvious that this is because you don't have any actual science to argue. Do try to be less transparent than the average 3-year-old, please, on the science site.

From this chart it appears that another +2°C (+3.6°F) of warming would shift U.S. growing zones northward by less than 100 miles:
https://www.arbor...2015.png
Sorry, I don't accept a chart from a society that doesn't seem to have any geophysics professionals working for it as proof of anything significant with regard to geophysics. Another obvious piece of FUD. Another dishonest claim supported by nothing but your own idiosyncratic choice of sources intended not to provide evidence but to increase uncertainty.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2017
[contd]
The IPCC defines that as catastrophe.
Where? You are seriously arguing that the IPCC has cited a web site article by the Arbor Day Foundation? I'll need to see where this is cited by the IPCC, otherwise we're looking here at you making another dishonest claim, trying to spread more FUD, which seems from the evidence to have been your entire agenda the whole time.

So far every argument you have made has been dishonest. I will allow that to stand on its own in judging your credibility.
ncdave4life
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2017
I see this again and again: The most passionate climate activists claim to be filled with concern for the Earth and future generations, but they don't actually care what's true. They don't mind being lied to by people like Mann & Gleick, and when you give them good news, like irrefutable proof that higher CO2 levels don't significantly accelerate sea-level rise, and are very beneficial to agriculture, they aren't relieved.

Instead, they get angry! They refuse to even consider the evidence. They HATE hearing good news for their children's future.

Here's a superb quality European sea-level measurement record, juxtaposed with CO2. It shows no acceleration in sea-level rise in 150 years, even as CO2 went from ~287 ppmv to 404 ppmv:

http://sealevel.i...:2019/12

You'd think people who claim to be concerned about climate change would be relieved at that good news. But they aren't. It upsets them.

There's something pathological about that.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2017
I also note that @nolife doesn't seem to be unaware of the numerous papers that refute his fanboi-obsession hero Lindzen's spurious claims, since @nolife isn't asking for links to them. This indicates that he's well aware of these decisive refutations of his manboi-beloved's BS long before now and doesn't wish to see them linked here because he doesn't have any answers.

I see this again and again: The most passionate climate activists
I am neither passionate nor a climate activist.

I am merely interested in accurate information, and your FUD is *in* *the* *way*.

Now stop lying.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2017
Just for reference, trying to post FUD on the science site is unwelcome and when you do it you invite detailed evidence-based rejection. This does not require anger, just diligence. And when every single point you try to make turns out to be dishonest, it's pretty transparent. Maybe you should stick to politics sites where the checks for dishonesty aren't so rigorous and the penalties for lying aren't so onerous.
ncdave4life
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2017
I see that you read zz5555's comments about as carefully as you read mine, Da Schneib.

zz already provided those links, and they are on my web site.

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2017
After I made individual refutations of every single argument you tried to make?

This is a sorry excuse, and typical denier garbage with nothing to back it up. Go back to your rightwingnut anti-gay, anti-brown, anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-religous political site and leave science to people who at least have the intelligence to actually read some of it.

Pro Tip™: this is not a site for the hard-of-thinking to post their rants on. We're discussing actual science here, and your FUD doesn't cut the mustard.
ncdave4life
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2017
BTW, do you know who called anthropogenic CO2 emissions from blast furnace exhaust "the precious air fertilizer," and why?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2017
BTW, do you know who called anthropogenic CO2 emissions from blast furnace exhaust "the precious air fertilizer," and why?
I can't imagine caring, @nolife, since this is just more FUD. You still have no responses to the careful evisceration of your every point above. Changing the subject will not work either.
ncdave4life
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2017
Here you go:

DOI: 10.1038/scientificamerican11271920-549
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2017
@nolife, a day late and a dollar short.

What do you claim this proves? Looks like you're link-spamming, more FUD. Make a claim, hoss. Then back it up. I guarantee without ever looking that a single link neither disproves my categorical rejection of your FUD above, nor gives substantial and compelling proof that there is no global warming. This is rank obfuscation no matter what your link says.

On edit, 1920?

Really?

Really?
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2017
My expectation is that this thread will be linked again and again as a demonstration of what happens when a climate denial marcom exec meets real geophysics.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2017
Seriously, presentation of a popular science article from 1920 as some sort of evidence in a highly focused science debate in 2017?

Ludicrous. Risible. Pathetic. Pitiful. Shameful.
ncdave4life
2 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2017
Despite the similarity of names, "Popular Science" and "Scientific American" are actually two different publications.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2017
Yes, and 1920 and 2017 are in two different centuries.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2017
scientificamerican11271920
Despite the similarity of names, "Popular Science" and "Scientific American" are actually two different publications.
Still changing the subject, and also lying: SA is not a journal of record. Nor has it ever been.

@nolife is still not getting the whole science thing. Not surprising in a marching marcon martinet.
PhysicsMatter
4 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2017
All extinctions happened every time there us significant climate change but mostly to organism that are unable to relocate or adjust via evolution.

All those statistical models are so crude and incomplete that majority of results of these models are not statistically significant when extrapolated farther into the future i.e. they are highly prone to overestimate or underestimate global change attributes, as it happened before many times. But that should not invalidate general conclusion stemming from them, but not treat them as a prophetic assertions.

And hence, against many opportunistic claims, they are useless as a potential policy tools doomed to failure also for scientific reasons and for the fact that half-baked approach without deep political and social changes is futile. Since we cannot quantify and time the change, we must embrace optimal path to comprehensively mitigate most likely results and eliminate most likely contributors to the global change.

PhysicsMatter
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2017
But most of all, situation must be mitigated by deep fundamental changes in the society itself, its attitude to its material fixations. In other words, the fact is that vast majority of stuff which production likely contributes to global change is simply redundant, not necessary and mostly not even needed at all and it's a direct result of capitalistic commercial propaganda.

With global change we must change our attitudes, worldviews and social values of course after Oligarchs are gone.

The precise cause is a moot point of global change also for scientific reasons because in the only possible mathematical, statistical models of a complex system such as earth, within models of chaos and large turbulent processes causality is a very tenuous concept replaced mostly by concepts probability or uncertainty and correlation that describes the turbulent, unstable processes of transfer of energy and momentum from one dynamic local equilibrium to another.

PhysicsMatter
3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2017
As a matter of fact the supposedly observed pause or low variability of world climate and often quoted by researches may be, just may be a small pause in a greater process of change that span centuries or millenia we are not aware of. In fact we know that one such a powerful process of global change occurs as we speak for sure namely Earth's rotation axis wobbling with a period of about 60 thousands years, the astronomical phenomenon that brought us ice age and now is due to for reverse back to ice age.

I do not know if antropogenesis is a significant factor in the climate instability we are and will be facing but anyway proposed solutions have nothing to do with the real problem while may be irreversible as all real thermodynamic processes are.

And hence a global society change, equality and redistribution of wealth and smart investment into self-sustained manageable communities without profit and greed is a part of the real answer.

qquax
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 04, 2017
@Da Schneib, thank you!

A pleasure to read this thread. As a mere physicist I try to do my part, but what you do here is masterfully delivered, and with the required ruthlessness. Kudos.

Zero tolerance for anti-science. I had it with these fools.
ncdave4life
2 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2017
Yes, and 1920 and 2017 are in two different centuries.


The point is that the benefits of anthropogenic CO2 for agriculture were known by scientists a century ago. Of course there have been thousands of studies and peer-reviewed papers since then, confirming the essentials of that result: anthropogenic CO2 is dramatically beneficial for plants. It is especially beneficial for crops which use C3 photosynthesis, and for crops grown under drought stress.

Of course if the experiment were repeated today, the pile of potatoes on the right would be larger, because CO2 levels are about 33% higher, now. That anthropogenic increase is responsible for at least 15% of current agricultural production, overall. (For potatoes it's probably even more.)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2017
So have we all, @qquax. Alas, it is but the amusement of a lazy Saturday afternoon, unless we can all summon the moxie to oppose them every time they try to spout this crap.

Meanwhile, @nolife,
The point is that the benefits of anthropogenic CO2 for agriculture
have only been shown by you in an article a century old.

On Earth.
ncdave4life
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2017
qquax, if you're interested in understanding climate science, here's a good place to start, for the basics:

http://ClimateCurious.com
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2017
@nolife, LOL, seriously, now you're trolling for acolytes among physicists? Really? How amusing. Anybody who wants a load of viruses and an earful of propaganda can go visit your site; others are well advised to steer clear. Nobody needs to hear from a FUD spouting preacher.

And if you can't demonstrate it here, this is just more link spamming FUD.
ncdave4life
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2017
I wrote, "Of course there have been thousands of studies and peer-reviewed papers since then, confirming the essentials of that result..."

Da Schneib replied, "[the benefits of anthropogenic CO2 for agriculture] have only been shown by you in an article a century old."

How do you read "thousands" as one just?

Since this is new to you, Da Schneib, I suggest that you visit CO2science.org, where you can find references to thousands of relevant peer-reviewed papers. AR5 estimates that the terrestrial biosphere removes about (2.5/9.2) = 27% [p. 6-3] or 29% [Fig. 6.1] of anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the atmosphere, each year, through enhanced plant growth, because anthropogenic CO2 is "greening" the Earth.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2017
How do you read "thousands" as one just?
I don't see "thousands." How about you provide some, hopefully newer than a hundred years old?

No, there isn't any climate denial that's new to me. I get a good view of the climate cranks on the science site. I don't always take the time to smash their BS as thoroughly as yours, so thanks for that. I'm pleased to have gotten a comment from a working physicist on it.

Maybe the reason you don't have any links is you are afraid I have answers for those too. And justly afraid.
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2017
BTW, I don't think you know what "FUD" means, Da Schneib. The "F" stands for "Fear."

You are the one who is fearful of anthropogenic climate change. You've been deceived by the FUD from the climate alarmism industry. I keep trying to reassure you with evidence that there's nothing to fear from anthropogenic climate change, but you refuse to believe it.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2017
@nolife, FUD is Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, classical marcon strategies from the infancy of Microsoft. Your fear is that the corporations you represent and are paid by to post here will lose money.

If you have scientific data to post on the science site, bring it. We're all waiting. And you're evading.

Now bug off back to your white supremacist site, climate troll.
ncdave4life
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2017
How do you read "thousands" as one just?
I don't see "thousands." How about you provide some, hopefully newer than a hundred years old?


Since climate alarmists are so very fond of cherry-picking, here's a study of the benefits of elevated CO2 for cherries:
http://onlinelibr...26.x/pdf

Is there some other crop you'd like to know about?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2017
climate alarmists
See there? Classic climate troll.

With a cherry-picked single-generation study, from 20 years ago, as predicted above. With no accounting for soil nutrients or water supply, as predicted above. Typical climate denial complete with cherry-picked evidence.

Observers please note that we're no longer arguing about the Iris Conjecture, and no longer actually debating whether it's getting warmer, and no longer presenting evidence (and we never did) about whether CO₂ is increasing. Now it's about FUD and cherry-picked "evidence." And nutjob science conspiracy theories.

Dude, you're done here. Unless you'd like to bring some more old cherry-picked studies for me to destroy.
ncdave4life
2 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
BTW, you must be quite young. The term "FUD" predates Microsoft by many years.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2017
BTW, you must be quite young. The term "FUD" predates Microsoft by many years.
Obviously younger and smarter than you, grampy.
ncdave4life
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2017
The dramatic benefits of CO2 fertilization for potatoes and cherries have not changed in the years since the studies were done.

You've seen that elevated CO2 is hugely beneficial for those two crops. I could post many different studies, for many different crops, but it is obvious that you won't be satisfied with any crop that I pick. So why don't YOU pick a crop?

Just pick one at random, any reasonably important crop.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
Next dishonest climate troll maneuver: shifting the burden of proof.

You claim it, you bring the papers, I'll shoot them down. Good luck with that, grampy @nolife.

Try to find something that doesn't ignore water and soil nutrients, grampy @nolife. Good luck with that too.

You know, you could just search on this site and find the study that knocks your BS into a cocked hat, but you don't have the courage. Go ahead, post your FUD. It's already been refuted and I know where.
mtnphot
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
Not sure why the discussion of CO2 uptake by the biosphere, when the permafrost in the arctic is melting with the potential to release CO2 accumulated prior to the last ice age along with increased levels of methane which which is about 18 times worse as a greenhouse gas. You need to look at the big picture.
Unless you live under a rock, the evidence of climate change is all around you.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2017
Not sure why the discussion of CO2 uptake by the biosphere, when the permafrost in the arctic is melting with the potential to release CO2 accumulated prior to the last ice age along with increased levels of methane which which is about 18 times worse as a greenhouse gas. You need to look at the big picture.
Unless you live under a rock, the evidence of climate change is all around you.
Nice. Don't forget the topical study published last month on this site about GHG emissions from small ponds. ;)
ncdave4life
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2017
Don't worry, Da Schneib. I want you to know that I will not make age an issue in this conversation. I am not going to poke fun at your youth and inexperience.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2017
And I won't poke fun at your age, Alzheimer's, and inflexibility, grampy @nolife.
ncdave4life
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2017
Next dishonest climate troll maneuver: shifting the burden of proof.


I'm not shifting the burden of proof, Da Schneib. I'm accepting it. You pick the crop. I'll cite the studies, for the crop that YOU pick.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2017
I'm not shifting the burden of proof
Just pick one at random, any reasonably important crop
Now stop lying, or worse yet forgetting what you're talking about Alzheimer's grampy @nolife.

I might actually believe you have senile dementia if you didn't lie so consistently, always on the same side.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2017
Meanwhile, I note that I never claimed Microsoft invented FUD; I just pointed out they used it in a pretty famous incident well known among computer science professionals.
ncdave4life
2 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
mtnphot wrote, "permafrost in the arctic is melting with the potential to release CO2 accumulated prior to the last ice age along with increased levels of methane which which is about 18 times worse..."

Actually, an increase in CH4 level has about 45x the warming effect of an equal increase in CO2 level, not just 18x.

CH4 from permafrost is a positive feedback, too. But according to the latest research, the effect is small, and likely to remain so.

Also, the avg lifetime of atmospheric CH4 molecules is only about a decade.

References:
http://onlinelibr...534/full
http://www.nature...338.html
http://onlinelibr...9292/pdf
https://wattsupwi...release/
http://www.sealev...ane.html

CH4 matters little, because the amounts are tiny, and its effects are transient.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2017
Alzheimer's grampy @nolife ignores the recent physorg post that shows that ponds on the melting permafrost generate GWGs at an unprecedented rate, forming a positive feedback: https://phys.org/...ate.html

Meanwhile, lying grampy @nolife lies again, this time about methane: https://en.wikipe...missions
ncdave4life
2 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
How about wheat?

http://www.scienc...13002074

Findings:

+39% improvement in grain yields of well watered and fertilized spring (cv Katepwa) plants grown from seed to maturity in controlled-environment growth chambers under continuous non-acclimated conditions (NA, 20/16°C, day/night air temperatures)

+57% improvement in grain yields of well watered and fertilized winter (cv Norstar) plants grown from seed to maturity in controlled-environment growth chambers for 75 days under cold-acclimated conditions (CA, 5/5°C, day/night air temperatures), and thereafter under non-acclimated conditions (NA, 20/16°C, day/night air temperatures)
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2017
Compared to NA counterparts, CA winter cereals exhibited a 30–40% increase in light and CO2-saturated rates of photosynthesis at both ambient and elevated CO2.
"Both ambient and elevated CO₂."

You're lying again, Alzheimer's grampy @nolife.

Moving right along, you still haven't made a single serious refutation of any point I made above, and now you're trying to shift the goalposts to CO₂ fertilization with no more proof than you had before. Once you present one of the credible CO₂ fertilization papers I'll happily post evidence to refute them, but you don't actually appear to be able to find any of them.

Incompent Alzheimer's grampy @nolife.
ncdave4life
2 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
How about white pine trees?

http://harvardfor...1997.pdf

+29% increase in total biomass, with +325 ppmv extra CO2.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2017
How about white pine trees?

http://harvardfor...1997.pdf

+29% increase in total biomass, with +325 ppmv extra CO2.
1997 was 20 years ago; more shifting the burden of proof. You're still #globalwarmingfailing Incompentent Alzheimer's grampy @nolife.

Yay, I made post #69! Thanks, grampy!
ncdave4life
2 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
"Compared to NA counterparts, CA winter cereals exhibited a 30–40% increase in light and CO2-saturated rates of photosynthesis at both ambient and elevated CO2." / "Both ambient and elevated CO2." You're lying


You are confused, Da Schneib. "CA" means "cold-acclimated" and "NA" means "non-acclimated." They tested both. Both did much better with more CO2.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2017
You are confused
Climate trolling detected. Raise deflector shields and arm phasers and photon torpedoes.

"Both did much better" directly contradicts "Compared to NA counterparts."

You're lying again, #globalwarmingfailing Alzheimer's Incompetent grampy @nolife.
ncdave4life
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2017
Prof. Freeman Dyson is America's most illustrious living scientist. He took over Albert Einstein's old job, at Princeton. He says, "about 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO2 we put in the atmosphere."
http://pages.cite...5u9a2fex

That's a conservative estimate because, Prof. Dyson told me, "I like to be more cautious in my public statements."

I'd say "at least 15%," for two reasons:

a. Bunce (2012) found that the Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) methodology results in an underestimate of agricultural productivity improvement from higher CO2 level, as also explained by Prof. George Hendrey.
http://pages.cite...6l1c4vft

b. As decades pass, natural selection causes plant phenotypes to adjust to environmental changes, enabling them to better utilize higher CO2 levels, compared to what shorter-duration studies measure.
ncdave4life
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2017
Do you like rain forests? Then be grateful for anthropogenic CO2! If CO2 were still at 0.03% instead of the current 0.04% of the atmosphere, we'd need 18-25% more land under cultivation, just to maintain current agricultural output. If ALL the world's rain forests were put under cultivation, that would almost, but not quite, make up the deficit.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2017
First I will note that the current article does not have anything to do with the supposed and conjectural rejected CO₂ fertilization effect, which Alzheimer's incompetent liar grampy @nolife first raised in order to avoid responding on the massive failure of his manboi lover Lindzen's claims about some sort of "thermostat" in the tropics that will magically stop global warming.

Second, I will note that on this site, within the last month, compelling evidence has been presented that the conjectural rejected CO₂ fertilization effect has nothing to do with CO₂ since water and soil nutrient effects were ignored.

Do you like rain forests?
Don't really care about your latest attempt at FUD. Noticed you didn't deny it's FUD. I don't think any serious response is required until you admit the intellectually bankrupt methods you are attempting to use and getting caught at over and over.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
Only fools demand certainty in life.

LOL
The jackass brays. The next time you are about to cross the street please do us a favour and DON'T make certain that bus is coming at you.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2017
#1 climate troll on the site, @boracle, weighs in on the sinking ship. Looks like Alzheimer's grampy @nolife is sinking faster now.
Whydening Gyre
3.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2017
Wow! The oppositional parleigh in the room is at crescendo levels!
I love it!
I should 5 all of Dave's comments just for giving DS a platform...:-)
(I know, I know - excessive verbiage...)
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2017
Let it run. Amusing consequences may result. ;)
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
Let it run. Amusing consequences may result. ;)

I am greatly amused already...:-)
Fived you both for the last 2 hours...
On entertainment value alone....:-)
(Makes the Crown even SMOOTHER...)

Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2017
You shouldn't encourage it.
Whydening Gyre
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2017
You shouldn't encourage it.

Where's the entertainment value in that...:-)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
Entertainment isn't everything. It rather reminds me of cock or dog fighting.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2017
You shouldn't encourage it.

Where's the entertainment value in that...:-)

Kinda harks back to my comment in another thread about chaos and pattern recognition...
Entertainment isn't everything. It rather reminds me of cock or dog fighting.

Which is sort of what it is - and a necessary mechanism in reaching an eventual correct conclusion to a particular subject...
Viva "chaos"!
Whydening Gyre
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2017
You and Dave shouldn't be one ing each other, you should hi-five each other on for the stimulative responses...:-)
And thanks to you both for the engendered (in me) knowledge...
ncdave4life
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2017
Da Schneib wrote, "...conjectural rejected CO2 fertilization effect has nothing to do with CO2 since water and soil nutrient effects were ignored."

You must surely know that's nonsense. So why do you write such things? I've told you where to find citations of thousands(!) of peer-reviewed papers, published in a great number of academic journals, documenting the effects of CO2 on nearly all important crops (and many other plants). Few of those studies "ignored" water and soil nutrients -- as you would know if you'd bothered to read even the ones that I've linked to so far. Many, many different growing conditions have been studied, and many interactions with other factors.

The proof is as compelling as anything in biology: additional CO2 is highly beneficial for most plants, under most growing conditions.
gkam
2 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2017
ncdave, those tests showed many plants do not do better with more carbon dioxide.
snoosebaum
3.3 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
Discovered my local welding shop sells 50K /month of CO2 in big carboys to greenhouses , so i guess its bad for plants eh? Here is their number u can ask them, Western Gasco 604 756 2139
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2017
Why don't you stop looking at individual items and search the literature? Many plants suffer if the root crown gets too much carbon dioxide. Perhaps it has to do with effects on the biota which help fix nutrients for the plants.
Whydening Gyre
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2017
Why don't you stop looking at individual items and search the literature? Many plants suffer if the root crown gets too much carbon dioxide. Perhaps it has to do with effects on the biota which help fix nutrients for the plants.

Kinda like humans and alcohol, eh?

Resume building, George? Bet you had a job somewhere working with this...
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2017
No, I read news of science.

Do you envy those who can work in different fields successfully?
rodkeh
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2017
Just more imaginary and unsubstantiated fear mongering!
Computer models are a dine a dozen and not one of them is worth the price!
ncdave4life
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2017
gkam wrote, "ncdave, those tests showed many plants do not do better with more carbon dioxide."

That's not true. virtually all C3 plants (which includes most important crops) do much better with extra CO2. C4 plants also generally benefit from extra CO2, if they are under drought stress. Since most important C4 crops are grown where drought is a threat, that means, practically speaking, most C4 crops also benefit from extra CO2.

gkam continued, "Many plants suffer if the root crown gets too much carbon dioxide."

That's also untrue. I'm aware of one outlier study which found that some plants, if starved for nitrogen, see negative effects from additional CO2. Of course, that's a very artificial situation for agriculture, because a nitrogen shortage is such an easy problem to solve: either add fertilizer, or rotate with nitrogen-fixing legumes.

The vast majority of studies have found that extra CO2 is very beneficial to most crops under real-world conditions.
ncdave4life
2 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
rodkeh wrote, "Computer models are a dime a dozen..."

Would that it were so. Climate computer models tend to be enormous, and enormously expensive.

GISS's ModelE2 consists of about a half-million lines of moldy Fortran code, which it is safe to assume nobody actually understands. They've got so many fudge factors, "knobs" and pseudo-random number generator calls in there that they can make it do just about anything at all, but it doesn't in any sense represent an understanding of the Earth's climate system. You can read about it here:
https://www.giss..../modelE/
rodkeh
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2017
Would that it were so. Climate computer models tend to be enormous, and enormously expensive.


Quite true, my metaphor was mean to suggest that there are very many computer programs out there, so many that they should be sold for a dime a dozen.
The vary notion that temperature data, which is dependant on a plethora of variables (all of which have nothing to do with climate), can be in any way representative of climate, is quite simply, stupid in the extreme!
ncdave4life
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2017
I wrote, "...a nitrogen shortage is such an easy problem to solve: either add fertilizer, or rotate with nitrogen-fixing legumes."

BTW, nitrogen-fixing legumes also benefit greatly from additional CO2.

Crimson clover:
http://citeseerx....type=pdf

Soybeans:
http://citeseerx....type=pdf
rodkeh
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2017
nc dave wrote,
BTW, nitrogen-fixing legumes also benefit greatly from additional CO2.


CO2 is a blessing and a gift and the more CO2 we can produce the better for all life on this planet. If we can eradicate this AGW farce and boost CO2 levels to 1000 ppm or more, we just may be able to thrive in the future, even with 9 billion living souls.
manfredparticleboard
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2017
Yes CO2 does help some plants grow faster...until it get's too hot over summer or the rain became too erratic or only daisys were left, or the pollinators are dead or...

Sorry, you look confused? Oh didn't anyone explain to you that climate dynamics and living systems are very complicated?
rodkeh
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2017
CO2 helps not only to feed plants but also reduces the plants need for water, so even in warmer and dryer conditions, CO2 is always a benefit!
CO2 is a gift and a blessing and we need to produce as much as we can, as fast as we can, if we are going to be ready for the coming population boom.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2017
I see little point in arguing with someone who makes things up to suit themselves.
manfredparticleboard
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2017
Plants love phosphorus too, how about I store some of the white variety at your place so you can appreciate the nature of 'dangerous unintended consequences'.
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2017
nc dave wrote,
BTW, nitrogen-fixing legumes also benefit greatly from additional CO2.


CO2 is a blessing and a gift and the more CO2 we can produce the better for all life on this planet. If we can eradicate this AGW farce and boost CO2 levels to 1000 ppm or more, we just may be able to thrive in the future, even with 9 billion living souls.

Rod,
you do realize that at some point it becomes too much, don't ya?
Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2017
Plants love phosphorus too, how about I store some of the white variety at your place so you can appreciate the nature of 'dangerous unintended consequences'.

Just remember that storing it next to the oxygen is an "accident" waitin' to happen...
(Reminds me of a Farside comic...)
manfredparticleboard
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
I was thinking about storing about a pound of it in a fishbowl under gasoline, on the top of a stack of chairs in the middle of the room. Then tagging one of the kids and say " You're IT!" then run.

Larson enough for ya?
rodkeh
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2017
you do realize that at some point it becomes too much, don't ya?


And what level is that?
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2017
I was thinking about storing about a pound of it in a fishbowl under gasoline, on the top of a stack of chairs in the middle of the room. Then tagging one of the kids and say " You're IT!" then run.

Larson enough for ya?

Trouble brewin'...
manfredparticleboard
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2017
you do realize that at some point it becomes too much, don't ya?


And what level is that?


Oh wow, he doesn't get it. AT ALL.
rodkeh
1 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
Oh wow, he doesn't get it. AT ALL.


So you have no idea, just making stuff up like a typical AGW fear monger.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2017
I was thinking about storing about a pound of it in a fishbowl under gasoline, on the top of a stack of chairs in the middle of the room. Then tagging one of the kids and say " You're IT!" then run.

Larson enough for ya?
lets just to go all "nature's way" :

be safe! you should be using diesel !!

make sure there is a sh*tload of powdered magnesium and aluminum and metal oxides in the bowl above the diesel too (the weight holds the diesel down plus we all know that recycling is good for the plants and planet)

if you happen to spill any diesel it would be bad for the plants! so lets add some fertilizer to it! fertilizer is good

everyone knows fertilizer is good for plants!

so if we should mix some up in the diesel to eliminate the toxicity of the diesel and insure it doesn't cause an ecological nightmare of a problem with the soil, we should be OK!

... those fuel spills are bad for the environment, you know!
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2017
you do realize that at some point it becomes too much, don't ya?

And what level is that?

Actually, a good question...
Answer, I don't know.
I don't have access to enough data to point it out exactly, I don't think anybody REALLY does, at this point. But we know it's there. So, modeling assists in making educated "guesses" as to where we are in the loop. And... Remember that all the variables in a group are subject to their own variations, as well.
And common sense tells us that too much of a good thing is, well, not so good...
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
CO2 is a gift and a blessing...
@rodkeh
CO2 is a pollutant too
https://www.epa.g...overview

i've linked these studies to you before regarding CO2, but you refused to read them. mind you, this is validated science, not pseudoscience political crap like your post above:

Lobell et al. 2008, Luo 2009, Zhao and Running 2010, Challinor et al. 2010, Lobell et al. 2011, Free-Air CO2 Enrichment or "FACE" experiments/studies, Leaky et al. 2009, Long et al. 2006, Ainsworth 2005, Morgan et al. 2005, Cure and Acock 1986, Leaky et al. 2006 (a FACE study), Crafts-Brandner & Salvucci, 2000, Salvucci et al. 2001, Stöcklin and Körner 2002, Norby et al. 2010, Larson et al. 2010, Bloom et al. 2010, Taub and Wang 2008, Zhu 2005, Högy et al. 2009, Zavala et al. 2008 and Eastburn et al. 2010, Peñuelas and Estiarte 1999, Ziska et al. 2005, Stiling and Cornelissen 2007, Gleadow et al., 2009a and Gleadow et al. 2009...

all show you are ignoring reality for a delusion
rodkeh
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2017
Answer, I don't know.

And common sense tells us that too much of a good thing is, well, not so good...


Commercial greenhouses tell us that levels greater than 1300 ppm are beneficial. Considering that it has taken over one hundred years to raise CO2 levels a meager 100 ppm, common sense tells us that it is unlikely we could ever produce enough CO2 to be a threat to anything.

You are just speculating on imaginary threats and fear mongering like the rest of the your AGW ilk!
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2017
@rodkeh cont'd
Commercial greenhouses tell us ...beneficial
now, those referenced studies above are just some of the studies i've linked on the CO2 issue with plants

more importantly, some of them make the same claim that you are making about CO2 being beneficial to plants... but where you get screwed up is this: they state it is under controlled circumstances and short periods of time (meaning: greenhouses and single growing seasons)

included in those above are continued studies on the same topic that show the problem in the long term as well as other influences not addressed by the first studies, but being observed in nature

so again, you want to think CO2 is good because you're ignoring the overwhelming evidence to the contrary

you will likely make the same stupid claim about pre-human history and plants now (like you did before) so i suggest you at least read the above studies and learn why CO2 is a threat
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2017
Commercial greenhouses tell us that levels greater than 1300 ppm are beneficial.

And that is a "constrained" system. We can't "control" Earth, yet, due to the huge number more (variable) data points contained in that geometrically larger system.
It's all about scale.
You are just speculating on imaginary threats and fear mongering like the rest of the your AGW ilk!

No, I don't like "threats". I like "data points" (a company I worked for at one time...) and their probabalistic trajectories.
So, tell me again - how have I been "fear-mongering"...?
Interesting in that it can only be done to those that are fearful...

rodkeh
1 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
And that is a "constrained" system. We can't "control" Earth, yet, due to the huge number more (variable) data points contained in that geometrically larger system.
It's all about scale.

Complete and utter hogwash! We don't need to control the Earth, it has had much higher CO2 levels than that in past epochs and everything still thrived.
Just more of your unfounded speculation and fear mongering!

malapropism
5 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
@ncdave4life
BTW, you must be quite young. The term "FUD" predates Microsoft by many years.

Actually, it seems to depend on how the term is defined.

If by the full phrase of "fear, uncertainty and doubt" then, according to Wikipedia (not necessarily an exact source, I realise), at least sometime during 1920 (the citation is given as, "Caesar Augustus Yarbrough, The Roman Catholic Church Challenged, p. 75. The Patriotic Societies of Macon, 1920.")

However, if you mean the actual "FUD" acronym terminology, then the same Wikipedia article registers the first known common usages of that particular three-letter acronym for this phrase as being for marketing and sales purposes around or during 1975 (citation is: "Clothes, Volume 10, Issues 14-24", Clothes, PRADS, Inc., 10 (14-24): 19").

For the record, Bill Gates founded Microsoft in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on April 4, 1975.

Minor edit for a typo,
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
It's all about scale.

Complete and utter hogwash! We don't need to control the Earth,

True, Earth does a pretty good job on her own. Usually with a much vaster swing of the extinction event pendulum...
So, if we want to maintain any sort of consistent survival rate of our species, we will...
it has had much higher CO2 levels than that in past epochs and everything still thrived.

Indeed it has. But lest you forget, ice ages resulting in lowered CO2 in between those epochs.
Just more of your unfounded speculation and fear mongering!

Not at all. Just analysis of all the variable data point collections using OTHER data point collections as reference.
Once, again - Only the inadequately informed (by circumstance or by choice) can be convinced to fear via mongering...
Take up a little ball-room dancing with your mate. Or take up an instrument... You'll begin to feel the symmetry...:-)
malapropism
5 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2017
Earth ... has had much higher CO2 levels than that in past epochs and everything still thrived.

Yes, for example during the Carboniferous. But then again, at the time apparently there were millipedes the size of Monitor lizards and spiders a big as dinner plates. I, for one, wouldn't want to live in that sort of thriving environment.
Just more of your unfounded speculation and fear mongering!

Isn't the issue more one of risk? In 200 years this will all be known with certainty however right now there is evidence indicating that there may be a problem. If true, it is a very serious problem but one that we are able to do something about. This problem will manifest most significantly for your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren; don't you therefore feel it is appropriate to do what can be done to mitigate this risk?

(If your answer is "no", in all seriousness, I ask, do you have car, house, or life insurance? If so, why? You don't believe in risk.)
rodkeh
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2017
(If your answer is "no", in all seriousness, I ask, do you have car, house, or life insurance? If so, why? You don't believe in risk.)


I have auto insurance because it is required by law.
ncdave4life
Mar 05, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2017
Earth ... has had much higher CO2 levels than that in past epochs and everything still thrived.

Yes, for example during the Carboniferous. But then again, at the time apparently there were millipedes the size of Monitor lizards and spiders a big as dinner plates. I, for one, wouldn't want to live in that sort of thriving environment.

C'mon.... Where's your sense of adventure...:-)
Estevan57
5 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2017
Just for kicks and edumacational purposes:

https://phys.org/...ity.html
https://phys.org/...ide.html

There is a limit to the beneficial effect of C02 for every plant. They are all different.

Mike Masson was particularly good at explaining this.
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2017
Captain Stumpy wrote, "CO2 [is] beneficial to plants... [only] under controlled circumstances and short periods of time (meaning: greenhouses and single growing seasons)."

That's just plain wrong. Thousands of studies have shown that extra CO2 is highly beneficial to most plants in a wide variety of real-world circumstances. The exceptions are few and mostly contrived: e.g., C4 crops which never experience drought stress, or some plants when simultaneously subjected to severe shortages of other nutrients.
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2017
Corn (C4) & sunflower (C3) both benefit substantially from extra CO2, when under drought stress:
http://www.agricu...0023.pdf
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2017
Captain Stumpy wrote, "CO2 [is] beneficial to plants... [only] under controlled circumstances and short periods of time (meaning: greenhouses and single growing seasons)."

That's just plain wrong. Thousands of studies have shown that extra CO2 is highly beneficial to most plants in a wide variety of real-world circumstances. The exceptions are few and mostly contrived: e.g., C4 crops which never experience drought stress, or some plants when simultaneously subjected to severe shortages of other nutrients.

But, Dave.... They ALL have a point of saturation where CO2 is no longer a benefit...
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2017
But, Dave.... They ALL have a point of saturation where CO2 is no longer a benefit...

And, not to mention, other effects at differing scalar levels. IE; heat retention...
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2017
There is a limit to the beneficial effect of C02 for every plant. They are all different.

Mike Masson was particularly good at explaining this.
Nice job, @Estevan. These are the links I was holding back, and never used since the troll just started lying.

@nolifedave has Alzheimer's and isn't ever going to "get" any real science. It thinks it gets to vote on reality.
manfredparticleboard
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2017
'Just more of your unfounded speculation and fear mongering'

It's this accusation that gets me? Terrorists are a real threat to America! That's fearmongering. Changing the climate where predicted damaging effects are manifesting themselves already. These changes are part of a large and complex feed back mechanisms that have the very real possibility to become more unstable and lead to more economic, social and biological losses than we can predict. That's not fear mongering it's a rational response to a threat. And in case you need further hand holding, the stakes are high.

To overlook this as some overblown political agenda needs a really deep seated irrational fixation on something, either philosophical or ideological but not rational.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2017
That's just plain wrong. Thousands of studies have shown that extra CO2 is highly beneficial to most plants
@ncdave4life
well thanks for sharing your opinion - perhaps you should go back and re-read what i said and then read the references i left which explain it far better than the limited 1K char box?

point being: a greenhouse is a controlled environment so it is not necesarrily going to have the exact same results as the earth (as Whyde noted, and as the studies discuss, and as Estevan57 notes)

another point is the Chemical Responses & Nutrition issue, which is why i posted the references above
IOW - not my opinion, but rather validated science. keyword = validated

so instead of saying i'm wrong, perhaps you can show the studies that refute the validated studies i referenced?

thanks

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2017
@ncdave4life cont'd
The exceptions are few and mostly contrived:
this is confirmation bias on your part

for starters, here are some references that are not few, nor contrived, and some are part of long term FACE studies

Stöcklin and Körner 2002, Norby et al. 2010, Larson et al. 2010, Bloom et al. 2010, Taub and Wang 2008, Zhu 2005 (good one to read), Högy et al. 2009, Zavala et al. 2008 and Eastburn et al. 2010, Peñuelas and Estiarte 1999, Ziska et al. 2005, Stiling and Cornelissen 2007, Gleadow et al., 2009a and Gleadow et al. 2009b

now, those deal specifically with chemical responses and nutrients

and it's not about just a few plants (like just corn; sunflowers)

so like rodkeh, you are ignoring the rest of the science you don't want to see simply because corn did well in a test?

why is that?

you really can learn about the topic (not just about one or two plants)
i suggest using google scholar instead of some biased political site
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2017
Whydening Gyre wrote, "They ALL have a point of saturation where CO2 is no longer a benefit"

For C3 plants that point is typically around 1500 ppmv, wwhich is 1100 ppmv higher than current outdoor average ambient CO2 level. We have no prayer of ever getting near that level, outdoors. We've only manged to add about 120 ppmv so far.
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2017
manfredparticleboard wrote, "predicted damaging effects are manifesting themselves already."

No, they aren't. Sea-level rise is not accelerating. Storms aren't worsening. Droughts aren't worsening. None of the ills predicted by climate hawks have come to pass.

manfred continued, "large and complex feed back mechanisms... [which] have the very real possibility to become more unstable"

No, they don't. You can learn about climate feedbacks work here:
http://sealevel.i...cks.html

manfred continued, "very real possibility... [of] more economic, social and biological losses than we can predict. That's not fear mongering it's a rational response to a threat... the stakes are high."

That's textbook, baseless fearmongering. There's no scientific evidence to support it.
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2017
Cap'n Stumpy wrote, "read the references i left which explain it far better than the limited 1K char box."

Links, please.

Stumpy wrote, "point being: a greenhouse is a controlled environment so it is not necesarrily going to have the exact same results as the earth."

Eh? "A greenhouse?" Haven't you read any of the papers to which I've posted links? MANY of the studies are NOT done in greenhouses.

Stumpy wrote, "another point is the Chemical Responses & Nutrition issue."

I've no idea what you mean by "chemical responses," but I know climate alarmists are very fond of the finding that wheat protein (mostly gluten) content declines when wheat is grown under high CO2. But they rarely quantify it. Here's a source which does:

"depending on variety, wheat grown under elevated CO2 was generally one to 1.5 per cent lower in grain protein content than its equivalent grown under ambient conditions."
http://archive.is...-425.116

That's pretty minor.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2017
@ncdave4life
Links, please
Google scholar is your friend
why keep repeating them for deniers to ignore? i can understand if this was your first week or so, but you've been posting here since 2010
I've no idea what you mean by "chemical responses,"
Even within a specific type of photosynthesis—indeed, even within a specific species—the positive responses to enhanced CO2 can vary widely. Nutrient availability in particular can greatly affect a plant's response to excess CO2, with phosphorous and nitrogen being the most critical (Stöcklin and Körner 2002, Norby et al. 2010, Larson et al. 2010). The ability of plants to maintain sufficient nitrogen under excess CO2 conditions is also reduced for reasons not fully understood (Bloom et al. 2010, Taub and Wang 2008).

It has also been found that excess CO2 can make certain agricultural plants less nutritious for human and animal consumption. Zhu 2005
-ss

2Bcont'd
ncdave4life
2 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2017
Cap'n Stumpy wrote, "...not just about one or two plants..."

Maybe you didn't read the earlier comments.

So far, I've linked to studies about the effects of add'l CO2 on:
Potatoes (plus cauliflower, castor, tomatoes, cucumbers, lupines, and barley)
Cherries
wheat (plus rye)
white pine trees (plus two other tree species)
Crimson clover (plus soybean, sorghum & wheat)
Round-up Ready soybean
Corn
Sunflower

I even offered to Da Schneib:

"I could post many different studies, for many different crops, but it is obvious that you won't be satisfied with any crop that I pick. So why don't YOU pick a crop? Just pick one at random, any reasonably important crop... I'll cite the studies, for the crop that YOU pick."

(Da Schneib replied with insults.)

Additional CO2 is very beneficial to most crops in a wide variety of real-world circumstances. The exceptions are few and mostly contrived.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2017
@ncdave4life - cont'd
but I know climate alarmists are very fond of the finding that wheat protein (mostly gluten) content declines when wheat is grown under high CO2
and i've noticed that deniers like to completely ignore approximately 90% of all the science studies regarding AGW, CO2 or global warming because their political site says it can't be true

where have i once mentioned wheat protein?
But they rarely quantify it. Here's a source which does
and i presented sources above as well

your point is that your one source refutes multiple sources?

or are you being selective in your material and accepting only what you want to believe over what is being proven?

have you actually got the point yet?

a singular study in science isn't a scientific fact unless it's validated
it's better than belief or hearsay, but ... understand what levels of evidence means?
That's pretty minor
see validated ref's above, then get back to me
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2017
Cap't Stumpy, I've given you LINKS to a long list of peer-reviewed papers. I ask for the same courtesy from you.

"Larson et al. 2010" is not a reference. If you search for it in Google Scholar you'll get over a million hits.

If you've actually read or even skimmed the papers you're citing, you'll have links for them, or at least DOIs. The fact that you refuse to provide real citations suggests to me that you don't have them, because you haven't actually looked at the papers in question.

(That might help explain why you are so confused, too.)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2017
Maybe you didn't read the earlier comments
@ncdave4life
maybe you didn't read any of my references?

scratch that - i know you didn't read any of my references
"I could post many different studies, for many different crops, but it is obvious that you won't be satisfied with any crop that I pick
1- i am not DS

2- you are ignoring a lot of information

3- until you can prove my references are invalid with equivalent studies, then you're pretty much saying something like the following:
owning a garage makes you a Toyota. show any garage and i'll show you how a toyota will fit in it
Additional CO2 is very beneficial to most crops in a wide variety of real-world circumstances. The exceptions are few and mostly contrived
and not only did i prove this wrong, i showed where it's limited

this is no different than the iodine argument - because it's useful under [x] circumstances, it's always good

it's wrong, and blatantly so
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2017
"Larson et al. 2010" is not a reference. If you search for it in Google Scholar you'll get over a million hits.

If you've actually read or even skimmed the papers you're citing, you'll have links for them, or at least DOIs. The fact that you refuse to provide real citations suggests to me that you don't have them, because you haven't actually looked at the papers in question
@ncdave4life
let me be perfectly clear about a few things:
1- i've repeatedly linked these papers all over PO - you could probably google PO and get the links

2- the fact that you simply google Larson et al. 2010 speaks volumes about your lack of scientific literacy, or perhaps other issues?

it is a choice for you not to read or find the studies

more to the point: any idiot talking about plants, CO2 and such would add that to the search parameters unless they really didn't want to address the points

so i could use the same argument against you regarding "confused"

-till tomorrow-
xponen
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2017
Crops indeed benefit from higher CO2 concentration, but our climate is adversely effected by a higher CO2 concentration. We want a better crops but we don't want to change our existing climate.

Hopefully, GMO crops will be able to concentrate CO2 from atmosphere by itself, and we could use technology to sequester CO2 from atmosphere to stop climate changes.

Those are the facts and those are the solution.
xponen
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2017
Bad argument is:
Saying CO2 is good for crops so Global Warming is incorrect, or saying CO2 is not good for crop and so Global Warming is correct.

Spin & political propaganda of both side....
manfredparticleboard
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2017
"That's textbook, baseless fearmongering. There's no scientific evidence to support it."
Thats whats called a lie. http://nca2014.gl...s/coasts particularly the rise in water temperature and species movement. https://www.clima...atwaves/ https://www.ft.co...bba42e51]https://www.ft.co...bba42e51[/url] https://www.ft.co...bba42e51]https://www.ft.co...bba42e51[/url]
Despite even these obvious examples I'm sure you and the other hardcore believers in good news and sunshine will just say " no it's not. " and continue to cite Watts' cherry orchard of selected facts.
Davy_Crockett
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2017
"..All of CO2's supposed ill effects are hypothetical. They haven't really happened…"

Well then you've got to ask yourself one thing. Do I feel lucky? Well do you, punk?

"…when you give them good news, like irrefutable proof that higher CO2 levels ... are very beneficial to agriculture, they aren't relieved…" Ha Ha Ha. Are you for real?

Yes CO2 is good for plants, sure - up to a high level and then the benefits plateau, and thereafter decline. Still, it's like saying you can lose weight by taking amphetamines.

The other widespread bad effects way out-weigh the marginal benefits to plants when it comes to CO2 waste. Problem is, it's there "forever" and it accumulates.
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2017
I wrote that manfredparticleboard's claim of a "very real possibility… [of] more economic, social and biological losses than we can predict… the stakes are high" is textbook, baseless fearmongering, and there's no scientific evidence to support it.

manfred quoted a fragment, which deleted WHAT I said is fearmongering, and replied, "Thats whats called a lie."

That's a "strawman" - editing what I said, to criticize what I didn't say, because that's easier than criticizing what I actually said.

Manfred then posted 2 working links (and a broken one), neither of which support his fear of "more economic, social and biological losses than we can predict."

It's ironic, on two levels:

1. He denies fearmongering, but in the same breath cites the Obama Administration's notoriously fearmongering "globalchange" climate propaganda site.

2. He engages in dishonest strawman argumentation, while leveling a (false) accusation of dishonesty.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Particleboard!
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2017
Davy_Crockett wrote, "when it comes to CO2 waste... it's there 'forever' and it accumulates."

Incorrect. In fact, over half of anthropogenic CO2 emissions each year are removed from the air by the biosphere (mostly "greening") and the oceans. It is easily calculated that if anthropogenic CO2 emissions ceased today, CO2 levels would DECLINE at an initial rate of about 2.5 ppmv/year. (That rate would diminish with time.)

He also wrote, "other widespread bad effects way out-weigh the marginal benefits to plants of CO2…"

Also incorrect. The benefits of extra CO2 to plants are not "marginal." More often than not they are VERY dramatic.

That's been known by scientists for a century. It's why Scientific American called anthropogenic CO2 from blast furnace exhaust "the precious air fertilizer," way back in 1920. Here's the article:
DOI: 10.1038/scientificamerican11271920-549

In contrast, the "other widespread bad effects" are, thus far, just hypothetical.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2017
It really boils down to the effect of heat (a "byproduct" of oxygenation process)...
(like how I tied that together?)
In the larger picture, an insulating blanket of CO2 constricts the volume of free O2, increasing it's availability for all the biological processes which are, in essence, little heat generators which then feeds back to raise the overall temp a little more. And so on, til so much is bound to carbon (CO2), insufficent free O2 is available to continue the process...
Easy bonding properties (valence shell alignment) makes Carbon an Oxygen (also an easily bonded element) hungry whore...
Whydening Gyre
Mar 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2017
That's been known by scientists for a century. It's why Scientific American called anthropogenic CO2 from blast furnace exhaust "the precious air fertilizer," way back in 1920. Here's the article:
DOI: 10.1038/scientificamerican11271920-549

A hundred year old article as a reference?!? You need to expand your current reading list...

In contrast, the "other widespread bad effects" are, thus far, just hypothetical.

Not hypothetical. Constructive understanding and inclusion of all the various probabalistic players.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2017
The benefits ... dramatic.
@ncdave
sigh
1- The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors-ss
2- "Despite the many assumptions and uncertainties associated with the crop and climate models used (SOM Text S5), the above analysis points to many cases where food security is clearly threatened by climate change in the relatively near-term" - Lobell et al. 2008
i will be posting more from Lobell et all 2008 in a minute

3- "Owners of industrial greenhouses who purchase excess CO2 also invest considerable effort in keeping their plants at optimum growing conditions, particularly with respect to temperature and moisture. As CO2 continues to change the global climate, both of these variables are subject to change in an unfavorable way for a certain species in a certain region (Lobell et al. 2008, Luo 2009, Zhao and Running 2010, Challinor et al. 2010, Lobell et al. 2011)"-SS
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2017
@ncdave contld
That's been known by scientists for a century. It's why Scientific American called anthropogenic CO2 from blast furnace exhaust "the precious air fertilizer," way back in 1920. Here's the article:
DOI: 10.1038/scientificamerican11271920-549
really?
in 1920 they also still had people arguing for Aether... do you really think science hasn't learned a little about CO2 since then?

i mean... really! that is the stupidest argument i've ever read!

https://www.youtu...t5ibfRzw

so, using that same argument, if i posted an article from a science journal from, say, the 1600's, talking about the best scientific way to determine a witch for prosecution, then it's validation that magic exists, right?

sheesh... that was pathetic, man... really pathetic
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2017
@ncdave cont'd
more from Lobell et al
Impacts will likely vary substantially within individual regions according to differences in biophysical resources, management, and other factors. The broad-scale analysis presented here was intended only to identify major areas of concern, and further studies at finer spatial scales are needed to resolve local hot spots within regions. Consideration of other social and technological aspects of vulnerability, such as the existing adaptive capacity in a region or the difficulty of making adaptations for specific cropping systems, should also be integrated into prioritization efforts.
http://science.sc...607.full

so just my first reference and initial study point has determined your argument stands on shaky ground...

do you really want to continue argument that CO2 is great for all plants and beneficial to us?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2017
ncdave
additional CO2 is highly beneficial for most plants, under most growing conditions
really?
The 2004 season had ideal growing conditions in which the crop did not experience water stress. In the absence of water stress, growth at elevated [CO2] did not stimulate photosynthesis, biomass, or yield. Nor was there any CO2 effect on the activity of key photosynthetic enzymes, or metabolic markers of carbon and nitrogen status. Stomatal conductance was lower (−34%) and soil moisture was higher (up to 31%), consistent with reduced crop water use. The results provide unique field evidence that photosynthesis and production of maize may be unaffected by rising [CO2] in the absence of drought. This suggests that rising [CO2] may not provide the full dividend to North American maize production anticipated in projections of future global food supply.
Leakey et al (ref'd above)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2017
@ncdave said
...just hypothetical
really?
While photosynthesis of C3 plants is stimulated by an increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, photosynthetic capacity is often reduced after long-term exposure to elevated CO2
-Arp
The amount of nectar per flower [by elevated CO2] was significantly reduced (!) in the other forbs. ...However, S. columbaria and C. jacea produced significantly less total sugar under elevated CO2.
...the total of amino acids produced per flower was reduced in all non-legumes. In addition, the amino acid composition changed significantly in all investigated species except for C. jacea. The observed effects are unexpected and are a potential threat to flower visitors such as most butterflies which have no alternative food resources to nectar. Changes in nectar production due to elevated CO2 could also have generally detrimental effects on the interactions of flowers and their pollinators.
Rusterholz & Erhardt
should i continue?
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2017
I wrote to gkam, "virtually all C3 plants (which includes most important crops) do much better with extra CO2. C4 plants also generally benefit from extra CO2, if they are under drought stress. Since most important C4 crops are grown where drought is a threat, that means, practically speaking, most C4 crops also benefit from extra CO2."

Capt'n Stumpy then quoted an unlinked source saying, "photosynthesis and production of maize may be unaffected by rising [CO2] in the absence of drought."

Maize (corn) is, of course, by far the most important C4 crop. So thank you, Capt'n Stumpy, for unintentionally confirming what I wrote: Corn benefits dramatically from extra CO2 in drought years, and is not harmed by it in other years.

Since drought is always a threat for most corn farmers, overall, extra CO2 is very helpful.
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2017
But no thanks, Stumpy, for selectively editing the abstract of Rusterholz 1998, to distort its meaning. Such behavior discredits climate alarmists.

The full abstract listed improvements in nectar production from some plants, and reductions in nector production from others. You deleted the former and kept the later, to mislead readers.

Such selective editing is disreputable. Editing the SAME abstract for the OPPOSITE slant results in this:

"Effects of elevated CO2... were investigated in [5 important nectar plants for butterflies]... Elevated CO2 significantly enhanced the development of flower C. jacea. B. officinalis flowered earlier and L. corniculatus produced more flowers under elevated CO2... The amount of nectar per flower was not affected by elevated CO2 in [2 of the 5 species]. Elevated CO2 did not significantly affect nectar sugar concentration and composition..."

Is that why you don't link to your sources? So readers won't notice your distortions?
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2017
Whydening Gyre wrote, "In the larger picture, an insulating blanket of CO2 constricts the volume of free O2, increasing it's availability for all the biological processes which are, in essence, little heat generators which then feeds back to raise the overall temp a little more. And so on, til so much is bound to carbon (CO2), insufficent free O2 is available to continue the process..."

Well, that's a first. Climate alarmists warn of lots of imaginary calamities, but you're the first I've encountered who worried about running out of oxygen.
ncdave4life
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2017
CORRECTION & THANKS:

I wrote, "The term 'FUD' predates Microsoft by many years."

As malapropism pointed out, that is incorrect. Microsoft was founded in 1975, and adopted the name "Microsoft" (with no hyphen) the following year. The Term "FUD" was coined as a reference to IBM's heavy-handed sales tactics against Amdahl, apparently around 1974 or 1975. Amdahl was founded in 1970, began presale marketing of its first computer in 1973, and finally introduced its first computer in 1975.

Ref: http://bitsavers....1973.pdf

So "FUD" obviously did not predate Microsoft by "many years" -- maybe not even by many months.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2017
Whydening Gyre wrote, "In the larger picture, an insulating blanket of CO2 constricts the volume of free O2, increasing it's availability for all the biological processes which are, in essence, little heat generators which then feeds back to raise the overall temp a little more. And so on, til so much is bound to carbon (CO2), insufficent free O2 is available to continue the process..."

Well, that's a first. Climate alarmists warn of lots of imaginary calamities, but you're the first I've encountered who worried about running out of oxygen.

Not worried. Ij's just the mechanic of it in a simplified form...
I realize that it is a cascading process. However, it doesn't take long once sufficient temp is reached to become ignitve. And then CO is created, binding up even MORE Oxygen, reducing it's availability even further (and quite rapidly, I might add...)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2017
@dave
o thank you, Capt'n Stumpy, for unintentionally confirming what I wrote
1- it was not unintentional
2- if you would read the other referenced material you would understand why i posted that
3- ignoring science because you found a singular point that you don't understand while believing that it somehow supports your bias is called pseudoscience at best, but can really be called delusional

the reason i posted the above is so that you would be able to find the other sources - i noticed you refused to actually make any argument that refutes the other references

why is that?
still don't want to address them?
or is it just because you don't understand how they're related?
But no thanks, Stumpy, for selectively editing
for a point
i wanted to point out to you that making false claims and generalising based upon your ignorance and interpretations isn't the same thing as making an argument from fact or science

that should have been clear

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2017
@dave cont'd
to distort its meaning
i did no such thing
i included those points because you've been ignoring that part of the studies you read
you have the "everything is rosy" perspective because you don't understand what you're reading
i can prove it:
Since drought is always a threat for most corn farmers, overall, extra CO2 is very helpful
of course, you ignore the threat of heat (a known product of excess CO2)
so you're saying that CO2 is good for drought, but ignoring the heat damage that it will do to various plants?
Hmmm....

.

so lets be perfectly clear - you want to argue how correct you are but only when you think you can argue about the semantics of how something is posted?

.

tell you what, how about you just read this: https://skeptical...nced.htm

then write/post a rebuttal with the same level of evidence and references

we can then compare your argument

ok?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2017
@ncdave4life
last post for now
So "FUD" obviously did not predate Microsoft by "many years" -- maybe not even by many months.
glad you brought this up again
lets look at the meaning - wiki should be an OK ref for that
Fear, uncertainty and doubt (often shortened to FUD) is a disinformation strategy used in sales, marketing, public relations, talk radio, politics, religious organizations, and propaganda.
https://en.wikipe...nd_doubt

this is exactly what you are doing above
you're attempting to mislead the science into a rosy-eyed delusion regarding the benefit of excess CO2 - based upon what?

considering your source of watts and others (etc) then we can see that you're essentially making their arguments, forgetting that they're also refuted directly by the science and that they are cherry picking, ignoring data and worse

so are you posting propaganda, politics, religion, sales or marketing?
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2017
Stumpy wrote, "you ignore the threat of heat (a known product of excess CO2)... you're saying that CO2 is good for drought, but ignoring the heat damage..."

That's because it's negligible. For proof, compare this map of where corn is grown in the USA:
https://www.usda....2014.pdf

...to this map of growing zones:
http://sealevel.i...8pct.png

As you can see corn is a major crop in zones 4 through 8. That's a 40 °F range of annual low temperatures. AGW could at most change U.S. temperatures by 2-3 °F.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2017
@dave
For proof, compare .. in the USA
for reality, please note that you're ignoring the global temperature rise of AGW

AGW is a global phenomena and FACE is also being done globally, internationally and not specific to a single nation or area

so you're cherrypicking data to prove your bias
just sayin'

.

.

as for the rest of your post

- i am going to ignore you for the moment until you can provide a refute, using the equivalent science, studies and all, for the following: https://skeptical...nced.htm

i have a reason for this: you've historically ignored valid and validated science for the sake of your own beliefs, while utilisting cherry picked data for bias confirmation

considering your watts (etc) references above and argument from cherry picked data, sources... this means you want to argue from bias and belief, not overall science

so... refute the above link & all references within with equivalent evidence

TIA
manfredparticleboard
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2017

http://www.abc.ne.../8332740

https://www.clima...atwaves/

https://www.thegu...eensland

And you want more CO2, does Watts have paper citing more CO2 is good for fruit bats as well? Getting a denier to admit they might have it wrong is like chasing a greased pig.
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2017
Unfortunately, SkS is not a trustworthy source. It is John Cook's project. He's a blogger with a bachelor's degree, and he censors his blog to stifle contrary opinions, and says so, right on his site:
https://www.skept...cy.shtml

SkS has nothing resembling balance. It reports only cherry-picked studies, and even promotes the discredited "97% consensus" myth (and John Cook has ignored my emails about it).

Literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies refute SkS's spin. The indispensable http://co2science.org site catalogs them.
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2017
Cold or hot weather can be rough on almost anything, including bats. But, overall, bats seem to be doing just fine, particleboard. The biggest problem for bats is often diseases.

I didn't find a lot of graphs of bat population trends, presumably because nobody is really worried about them. But here's one for the UK:
http://jncc.defra...age-4271

In some cases, large bat populations might not be a good thing:
http://www.cam.ac...-viruses
howhot3
5 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2017
Give it up @nodave. Admit it, your a lost cause denier goon with some odd political agenda. Good try though, now go home and tend to your tomatoes in your greenhouse. They'll do fine at 1300ppm CO2. (It's not called a green house gas for nothing!).

@Dr Schneib, Captain, Waylan, Particleboard you made this comment section worth a read. Let me also complement the contender, @nodave who said;

In some cases, large bat populations might not be a good thing
I AGREE 100% Just imagine the effects an outbreak of rabid bats would have? Oh wait; that has already happened...
https://wwwnc.cdc..._article
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2017
howhat3 wrote, "your a lost cause denier goon..."

The correct word is "you're," not "your."

BTW, if you're ever interested in learning something about climatology, here's a good place to start:

http://www.climatecurious.com/
howhot3
5 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2017
howhat3 wrote, "your a lost cause denier goon..."

The correct word is "you're," not "your."

BTW, if you're ever interested in learning something about climatology, here's a good place to start:

http://www.climatecurious.com/


And duhhhh brainiac, Just my mind thinking too fast. But since you want to trade URLs, here is mine;

https://www.co2.earth

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2017
[q... @Dr Schneib, Captain, Waylan, Particleboard you made this comment section worth a read. Let me also complement the contender, @nodave...
Who's Waylan...?
howhot3
5 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2017
[q... @Dr Schneib, Captain, Waylan, Particleboard you made this comment section worth a read. Let me also complement the contender, @nodave...
Who's Waylan...?

I'm Busted... you man. Whyden.., Waylan,,, See previous comment about mind thinking too fast...

Would you like a URL too?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2017
{q]
... @Dr Schneib, Captain, Waylan, Particleboard you made this comment section worth a read. Let me also complement the contender, @nodave...
Who's Waylan...?

I'm Busted... you man. Whyden.., Waylan,,, See previous comment about mind thinking too fast...
Would you like a URL too?
Usually I get Willie (Nelson) or George (Carlin), Waylan (Jennings) is a new one...
(Smack) Sure!
Are they anything like Triscuits?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2017
Unfortunately, SkS is not a trustworthy source.
@dave
ok, i did not ask for your opinion about SS, nor did i ask for your opinion about cook

what i said was, and let me re-quote it
i am going to ignore you for the moment until you can provide a refute, using the equivalent science, studies and all, for the following: https://skeptical...nced.htm
...
refute the above link & all references within with equivalent evidence
let me explain what that means, since you are obviously backpedaling on your argument and see that you're proven wrong

what it means is this: i've gone through that particular link
i've checked the references for that link i gave you
i've validated that the link isn't making any unsubstantiated claims and that it isn't misrepresenting the science

what you now need to do is:
prove it wrong with science

not whine and complain about the site author

if ya can't then it proves you got no chops in this discussion
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2017
@dave cont'd
He's a blogger with a bachelor's degree, and he censors his blog to stifle contrary opinions, and says so, right on his site
so what?
when you're inundated by paid shills, trolls, religious nutters and idiots regurgitating political or other bullshit while refusing to accept anything resembling actual science then you have the right to ban those idiots

it's not a sex forum, nor is it a newspaper attempting to draw public funds or commercial interest with distribution
those rules for moderation are valid and in use by so many sites it aint funny... so why are you not denigrating SciForums or Cosmoquest? or other moderated sites with the same rules?
Literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies refute SkS's spin
then it should be a cakewalk to refute that link i left you, right?

after all, if the science in it is wrong, & there are thousands of refuting studies...

this is where you get to the nut cutting, bubbette

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2017
BTW, if you're ever interested in learning something about climatology, here's a good place to start:

http://www.climatecurious.com/
@dave - last post

if you want to learn about science of any type, you should head straight to the source. of course, that means learning a little about science first...

so...

here is a far, far better site to learn about science, climate or otherwise: https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

not only is it free, but it's almost the exact same course you would take if you paid
(minus some homework, research and certain other stuff - of course, you can do that as well if you also hit the suggested linked sites for help and social learning with peers taking the same course)
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2017
Even though Mr. Cook has been known to dress up as a NAZI (I have no idea why), the customary abbreviation for his misnamed "skeptical science" site is SkS, not SS.
https://thelukewa...cook.gif

Thanks for the link, though.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2017
@dave
Even though Mr. Cook has been known to dress up as a NAZI
what does this have to do with the science in the link i left you?
does it in any way invalidate the science?

nope
the customary abbreviation for his misnamed "skeptical science" site is SkS, not SS
and the customary argument for science is source material (as in studies)

the link i provided has a sh*tload of source material that validates the claims made in the SS link

the best you can do regarding that link and refuting the science within it is claims about cook and Godwins law?

really?

just for the record, there are also pics of prince harry dressed as a nazi - does that make him one?
nope

it makes it a costume worn for whatever reason, good or bad

so what?
who cares?

it is irrelevant
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2017
hey @ncdave4life

when ya get done refuting that above link and all the studies within it with the "Literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies refute SkS's spin", maybe you could read this link: https://phys.org/...ure.html

"You cannot look at just one effect in isolation, such as photosynthesis, and make a determination of how it will affect global crop production," Zhuang says. "There are both direct and indirect effects, and both should be considered."


so my questions are simple:
1- if there are "Literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies refute SkS's spin", then where is your refute

2- if CO2 is so good for plants, why is the radiative forcing and CO2/WV cycle so bad for the planet and growth of plants?

3- have you read any other sites other than your biased sources?
(meaning - have you tried reading the journals and source material and not biased interpre
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2017
Stumpy wrote, "why is the radiative forcing and CO2/WV cycle so bad for the planet and growth of plants?"

That's gibberish, CO2 is very good for plant growth, and the Water Cycle is a major negative (stabilizing) climate feedback mechanism.

The water cycle is a classic phase-change refrigeration cycle, like the Freon refrigeration cycle in your refrigerator: Water evaporates at the surface, absorbing "Heat Of Evaporation" (evaporative heat loss). Because the molecular weight of water vapor molecules is just 18 (compared to 28 for N2), moist air is lighter than dry air (contrary to intuition). So the moist air rises to mid-troposphere, where the water condenses into clouds, releasing the heat it had absorbed at the surface.

This process is the most important way heat is removed from the Earth's surface.

Evaporative cooling is expected to increase with higher temperature, because warmer water evaporates faster, accelerating water cycle cooling: a negative feedback.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2017
@dave
i just proved you very wrong - twice

for starters, plants don't exist in isolation - nor does the global ecosystem exist in a controlled atmosphere you can moderate
"You cannot look at just one effect in isolation, such as photosynthesis, and make a determination of how it will affect global crop production,"
DOI: 10.1002/2016GL071733

then i also provided you a link with multiple studies that prove you wrong by addressing all the relevant issues
https://skeptical...nced.htm

that article is clearly worded & referenced validated studies - not claims - to make a point
so you say there are
Literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies refute SkS's spin
but your argument is simply to post
That's gibberish
then you make another CLAIM

so, you can't provide refute for the link?

why is that?

why are you trying to distract from the point with NONE of your "Literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies" ??
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2017
Stumpy, I can't like to ALL of the thousands of papers, but you well know that I've ALREADY linked to papers documenting the benefits of add'l CO2 for:

Potatoes (plus cauliflower, castor, tomatoes, cucumbers, lupines, and barley)
Cherries
wheat (plus rye)
white pine trees (plus two other tree species)
Crimson clover (plus soybean, sorghum & wheat)
Round-up Ready soybean
Corn
Sunflower

I even offered to Da Schneib:

"I could post many different studies, for many different crops, but it is obvious that you won't be satisfied with any crop that I pick. So why don't YOU pick a crop? Just pick one at random, any reasonably important crop... I'll cite the studies, for the crop that YOU pick."

(Da Schneib replied with insults.)

Additional CO2 is very beneficial to most crops in a wide variety of real-world circumstances. The exceptions are few and mostly contrived.

If you doubt that, then what major crop do you think is an exception?
Zzzzzzzz
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2017
Delusion breeds desperation. ncdave, your need to validate your delusion ha has desperation written all over it.
By the way, your arrogant claim to be able to teach someone about climatology doesn't pass the laugh test......
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2017
@dave
I can't like to ALL of the thousands of papers, but you well know that I've ALREADY linked to papers documenting...
1- smacks of desperation, as Zzzz noted
2- you're backpedaling

like i said already: when you claimed there are "Literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies refute SkS's spin"

and then i said "then it should be a cakewalk to refute that link i left you, right?"

then that means you should provide the empirical evidence that refutes the linked published article that is supported by the studies that i provided

now, considering you're not actually producing any argument that refutes the studies linked in that post i gave you...

then in a nutshell (emphasis on nut) - you don't' want to read the refuting evidence, so you will concentrate on what you want to believe in

confirmation bias and delusional belief due to refusal to acknowledge evidence

that's religion, not science
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2017
@dave cont'd
I even offered to Da Schneib
i am not DS - so quit distracting from the point or the science
thanks
(Da Schneib replied with insults.)
1- DS is not in our conversation
2- your argument with DS is not the same as with me, and you're the one saying you have "Literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies refute SkS's spin"

so, where is your comprehensive refute?
ah... right...
[crickets]
Additional CO2 is very beneficial to most crops in a wide variety of real-world circumstances
proven false by my link - you don't want to read the evidence, that is on you
but that only proves my point about confirmation bias and delusional beliefs, doesn't it?
especially since you can't provide said comprehensive refute...

given that you didn't like my above references - any other excuses for not providing said comprehensive refute?
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2017
Stumpy, the refutation is the thousands of studies of the effects of CO2 on specific plants, showing how much extra CO2 benefits those plants under various circumstances.

I've already given you links to a half-dozen or so such studies, but you seem to have already forgotten them. (Uh oh! They say the mind is the 2nd thing to go.)

if you REALLY believe that there is ANY major crop for which additional CO2 is NOT beneficial, then please name it.

(I think what you're looking for is a C4 crop which is never affected by drought. There might be such a crop, but I don't know what it is, and I'll bet you don't either -- certainly not a MAJOR crop.)
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2017
@dave
the refutation is the thousands of studies ...
that is just my point - i provided you with said studies that refute your claim from those very "thousands" of studies

but you can't provide studies to refute that posted link i gave you

so if there are thousands of studies supporting your position, why can't you refute the link with equivalent evidence?

i will give you some reasons why:
1- you're not reading everything
2- cherry-picking and ignoring facts
3- your perspective comes from a biased source and not the science, so you're ignoring the rest of the studies and evidence so you can cling to a belief

it really is that simple - and it's also something that is well known: http://journals.p....0075637

https://arstechni...nformed/

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2017
@dave cont'd
I've already given you links to a half-dozen or so such studies, but you seem to have already forgotten them
nope - i am pointing out that clinging to singular points while ignoring the whole picture is really, really stupid

and you are ignoring the whole picture while clinging to singular points

that was the reason i linked the SS article and explanation
if you can provide a comprehensive refute of that link, then you will be on scientific ground

you can't because you are cherry-picking data points from biased political sources to focus on a small corner of the picture while ignoring the blatantly obvious rest of the picture
if you REALLY believe that there is ANY major crop for which additional CO2 is NOT beneficial, then please name it
if you really believed that CO2 was so beneficial to everything you would put a plastic bag over your head

same argument as yours - it makes no sense
especially in light of the big picture

2bCont'd
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2017
@dave
(I think what you're looking for is a C4 crop which is never affected by drought. There might be such a crop, but I don't know what it is, and I'll bet you don't either -- certainly not a MAJOR crop.)
no, that is not what i am looking for

you are blatantly misrepresenting even the gist of the argument which is clearly stated

let me spell it out for you yet again:
you are ignoring the big picture and focusing on a single point
i've repeatedly said that - remember this?
"You cannot look at just one effect in isolation, such as photosynthesis, and make a determination of how it will affect global crop production,"
DOI: 10.1002/2016GL071733

what i want from you is:
1- a comprehensive refute to the SS link, with equivalent evidence (including validated studies)
2- the big picture with equivalent evidence

i can't be more clear
so either you're intentionally using strawman and red-herring to distract from the point or you're illiterate...
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2017
You can say that again!
@hat
erm...
ok?

i am not DS

??

ncdave4life
1 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2017
It is impossible in 1000 characters to address all the nonsense in Nuccitelli's botched SkS article, but his misinformation about F.A.C.E. is particularly glaring. E.g., this:

"Only recently have researchers begun to... turn their attention to outdoor experiments. Known as Free-Air CO2 Enrichment or "FACE"..."

"Only recently?" Actually, we've had F.A.C.E. studies since the 1980s.

"FACE studies are therefore superior to greenhouse studies in their ability to predict how natural plants should respond to enhanced CO2 in the real world..."

That's backwards. The problem with F.A.C.E. experiments is their unnaturally large fluctuations in CO2 levels. Bunce (2012) found that the Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) methodology results in an underestimate of the agricultural productivity improvement from higher CO2 level:
https://link.spri...2-0041-7

It's explained by Prof. George Hendrey here:
http://pages.cite...6l1c4vft
howhot3
5 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2017
The dim bulb that is @dave4-stupid exclaims!
That's gibberish, CO2 is very good for plant growth, and the Water Cycle is a major negative (stabilizing) climate feedback mechanism.

Prove it! You make these crazy claims like you know what your talking about without proof. I, for one, would like to see your proof that CO2 is "good for plant growth". Who first demonstrated that science? How do you know it's true?
Just the basic stuff.

But on analysis and thought, aren't most of your ideas just complete fallacy that is deluding you to think your doing something "good" and self-rewarding?

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2017
@Cappy is kinda off my list these days, but no, we're not the same person. He thinks differently than I do and pursues different evidence, but we both come to the same conclusion. Must be scary for a person in full climate denial.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2017
@dave
It is impossible in 1000 characters to address all the nonsense in Nuccitelli's botched SkS article
so no, you can't do it then
but his misinformation about F.A.C.E. is particularly glaring
blatantly false claim
"Only recently?" Actually, we've had F.A.C.E. studies since the 1980s
oh wow... from blatantly false claim to misrepresentation and strawman!
that was actually funny!
for starters, the whole quote is this:
Only recently have researchers begun to pull away from these controlled settings and turn their attention to outdoor experiments. Known as Free-Air CO2 Enrichment or "FACE", these studies observe natural or agricultural plants in a typical outdoor setting while exposing them to a controlled release of CO2, which is continuously monitored in order to maintain whichever ambient concentration is of interest for the study
1- time is relative

2- if you want to play the misrepresentation & lie game instead of science, goto watts

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2017
@dave cont'd
(FACE) methodology results in an underestimate of the agricultural productivity improvement from higher CO2 level:
you're doing it again
you're focusing on one detail and refusing to look at everything and all the results combined

"You cannot look at just one effect in isolation, such as photosynthesis, and make a determination of how it will affect global crop production," DOI: 10.1002/2016GL071733

if the whole of your argument is to completely ignore the reams of studies that prove you wrong just so you can say CO2 is good for you, then you will learn nothing at all about climate, physics or science in general

it aint about confirmation bias- the only thing you're presenting
it's about all the data combined (especially WRT climate science)

so quit ignoring the rest of the data and concentrating on just the singular results that have been refuted by the overall data in that link

unless you can refute the overall data with equivalent studies
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2017
@dave perhaps you should read this
The majority of these conclusions have come from studies of individual species grown in controlled environments or enclosures...

While the conclusions from these experiments form the basis for our knowledge of plant physiological responses to elevated [CO2], there are serious potential limitations to using enclosure systems when studying the effects of elevated [CO2] on plants
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01224.x

this is what you're doing as well - you're focusing on what you want to see because you don't want to know WTF the other studies say because they challenge your worldview

you can't assume that because [x] plant does well with CO2, then the results of Lacis et al will prove to be irrelevant

this was my point of linking the SS article - it is not a singular study, nor is it focused on one set of data points, and it included the beneficial effects of CO2 as well as the negative effects
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2017
howhot3 asked, "I, for one, would like to see your proof that CO2 is "good for plant growth". Who first demonstrated that science?"

The first published reference that I know of was in Scientific American, in 1920. (There were also several other articles in other publications over the next couple of years.) Experiments with carbon dioxide enrichment showed that CO2 from blast furnace exhaust gas could be used to increase various crop yields by from 100% to 300%. Scientific American called anthropogenic CO2 "the precious air fertilizer." Crops tested included tomatoes, spinach, castor oil plants, potatoes, lupines, and barley.

Here's a copy of the article:
http://www.sealev...ion.html

Note the additional related information at the bottom of that page, after the article.
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2017
I think someone already pointed out that citing studies from 1920 does not enrich your argument.


Don't be silly, Hat1208. I just answered the specific question which howhot3 asked.

However, I also mentioned the references/links at the bottom of that page, which will lead you to lots of modern studies.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2017
@dave
However, I also mentioned the references/links at the bottom of that page, which will lead you to lots of modern studies
Hmm... that sounds familiar

I also referenced a link that had a sh*tload of modern studies, including some that you are citing about how great CO2 is, and that link makes a very specific point, using validated scientific studies, that your narrow-minded focus is delusional and completely irrelevant as it dismissed thousands of studies you didn't like because they prove you wrong in your worldview

and all i asked in return was for you to refute that link with equivalent evidence - to which you can't because you think it's too much data to present (i managed it - why can't you?)

at this point one would wonder why you're backpedaling (i don't - i know why)

it's simple, and my point is simple
you want to focus on the twin rails, & that's fine... but if you do, you're liable to completely miss the train that is going to hit you
ncdave4life
2 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2017
Stumpy, I already explained a couple of the very glaring errors in Dana Nuccitelli's SkS article, and I already gave you links to two authoritative references to prove it. But evidence doesn't matter to you.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2017
@dave
I already explained a couple of the very glaring errors in Dana Nuccitelli's SkS article
no, what you did was make a false claim that segued into strawman misrepresentation to distract away from the point...

then you backtracked and focused instead on a singular point that isn't the issue

from the beginning above: i made a point that just because CO2 can be plant food under certain circumstances, it doesn't mean it's beneficial to the environment because (as noted) it's a pollutant

you argue it's food

i argue that you are ignoring the Chemical Responses & Nutrition issue, envirmonmental impact, and everything else (including saturation point and upper limits) because you want to believe in watts and your other biased political news outlets

so you focus on a singular set of points - the plant CO2 food issue...
While ignoring every other point that is particularly important to the overall issue

that is flat out delusional

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2017
@idiot dave cont'd
But evidence doesn't matter to you.
actually, evidence is all i am worried about
in fact, if you could prove your argument with evidence and refute the science, i would be bound to follow said evidence to the conclusions it presents

the problem is that you can't produce evidence to support your claims because, and this is important to remember:
1- you keep arguing the wrong point (you seem to have your blinders on and focused on CO2-plantfood issue)

2- you don't want to read any other reference i left which invalidates your claims

3- you are (literally) incapable of seeing any evidence that refutes your beliefs
(you've validated that more than a few times above - http://journals.p....0075637 )

so you feel free to continue your argument and i will continue to point out that you're ignoring all the evidence because you're a conspiracist or religious (which i think should include political) whatever
ncdave4life
1 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2017
Do you even know what a "strawman" is, Stumpy?

I quoted misinformation in the Nuccitelli SkS article which so impressed you. I explained how it was wrong, and cited two authoritative sources proving it.

And you don't care.

No less than America's most illustrious living scientist, the man who took over Albert Einstein's old job at Princeton, says, "It's certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation. About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it's a real plus to burn coal and oil."

But you don't care.

I gave you links to peer-reviewed papers about studies of many different plants, and showed you where to find THOUSANDS more, showing the great benefits of higher CO2 levels.

But you don't care.

You so love trouble that you prefer lies to truth, to avoid good news.

How much pain have cost us the evils which have never happened!"
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Apr. 8, 1816
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
@dave
Do you even know what a "strawman" is
are ya illiterate?
lets see:
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent
my argument from the beginning was that, like iodine, just because it is good in one way for life doesn't mean we should allow it to pollute the environment. You're not considering anything like: saturation, upper levels, environmental impact, heat, nutrition, CO2/WV and much, much more as noted in my references and above (repeatedly)

so, yeah... i know you're making the strawman argument b/c you are giving the impression of refuting my argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by me

kinda making yourself look like an idiot now, dave... perhaps you should stop while you're dug so deep?

oops... guess not...

2Bcont'd

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2017
@dave
I quoted misinformation in the Nuccitelli SkS article
no
actually, you made a blatantly false claim based upon your opinion of what was written which i proved was such
I explained how it was wrong
i just re-read your post three times and from what i can tell, you are misrepresenting what was said as well as misinterpreting what was written in the SS article

also note, it is mostly irrelevant considering that you're still focused on CO2 food rather than actually presenting any refute for the rest of the data which supports the SS article

It's like saying "i proved that because VW cheated on one car emissions, then the electric vehicles produced by VW are putting out diesel emissions far above what is legally controlled"
No less than America's most illustrious living scientist, the man who took over Albert Einstein's old job at Princeton, says
strawman
there are still scientists that believe in god - does that make god real?
nope

2Bcontd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2017
@idiot denier cont'd
But you don't care
i care about the evidence - i do not care about your strawman arguments or people's opinions
your scientist quote doesn't mention anywhere the limits, saturation, nutrition, environmental, weather or any other known additional effect of CO2 which is the argument above

perhaps this will help you: http://www.readingbear.org/

I gave you links to peer-reviewed papers about studies of many different plants, and showed you where to find THOUSANDS more
strawman and distraction from the point
1- google scholar has 100K that prove your argument invalid considering the point isn't the benefit of CO2, but it's limitations and all the other additional effects

2- you keep harping on this one point - are you in a cult?
You so love trouble that you prefer lies to truth, to avoid good news
ah - that is right out of the xtian handbook, so it must be a cult!
http://journals.p....0075637

manfredparticleboard
3 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2017
@davenolife

Pawned!
Capn' and DS, keep fighting the good fight, idiot delusions will not go unchallenged!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.