The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Perhaps more CO2 is good for us > Comments

Perhaps more CO2 is good for us : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 12/12/2012

Greener plants using less water and capable of feeding the world's multitudes - surely that is good news?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
Nice one, but it will go straight over the heads of the Green Believers, for whom 'climate change' is not really a scientific issue but a religious one. Like all Western religions Greenism is based on sin and guilt -- the sin in this case being that of making and retaining wealth -- and like all Western religions it requires a satisfying Apocalypse in which the wicked will repent as they burn for their misdeeds. And like all Western religions, it allows pardons for imaginary guilt to be bought via the transfer of large sums of money.

Suggesting that capitalism might be good for plants and animals as well as humans -- no, sorry, it's not going to run. It just doesn't have that winning tone of self-righteous denunciation.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 6:17:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's right Jon J - if you can't be bothered to actually argue your point just label the opposing view a 'religion'. Lazy.

There has been some research showing that under increased atmospheric carbon grain crop yields increase but the protein level in the grain decreases, also that 'Koala' eucalypts change under increased carbon dioxide and become unpalatable to koalas. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens on a global scale, but I think the problem will be the destruction of crops due to more extreme weather rather than whether or not they grow well under increased carbon. Is there evidence that the increased production will keep up with demand caused by increased population? Or that we will actually bother to grow more food at all? The land deal with China in the Ord suggests not - they are going to grow sugar cane.
Posted by Candide, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 7:01:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The real question is, why is on-line opinion running a campaign to support climate change skeptics? And it is certainly running a campaign. Not a week goes by without at least one article (and sometimes more) supporting the skeptics. Balance is not expected. But proportion might be.
Posted by CatMack, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 7:36:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Don,

Well all things considered the AWG alarm is going to plan. Polar bears have reached record numbers, the “researcher” who wrote the dying polar bears report has been stood down. Himalayan glacial volumes are back to normal this season so the taxi driver who did the report for the IPCC has moved to a city job, global temperatures have flattened for the past sixteen years in spite of growth in CO2 emissions, Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets are doing what they have always done and sea levels are steady. How terrifying.

The warmertariat is in the process of killing off Japanese and German nuclear energy which is great, that way we get to sell more gas and coal. USA gas trading prices dropped this week by 30%. Japan, Russia, Canada and the USA have given strong endorsement to Kyoto by walking away from it. The CO2 trading markets have collapsed, NZ $2.60, UN E 5.20, EU E 7.55 (after a new cheap rights issue). The USA has a 600 year domestic supply of oil/gas and will overtake Saudi Arabia in supply by 2017.

I’d say we are on a roll but don’t tell the progressive commentariat, the poor little petals are fragile enough
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 7:43:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meanwhile this reference describes the various key outfits that comprise the professional lying machine behind the deniers and "skeptics".

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545

Such is the company (of professional liars) that the erstwhile retired professor who wrote this article keeps.

Meanwhile these words were sponataneously spoken in 1995 by a Spiritual Philosopher who was acutely aware of the world situation, and where it was heading.

There have always been insane human beings, but, in earlier times, they were not as powerful as they have become in this dark-time. It is only in this time that human beings have become capable of producing effects that can change even global weather patterns, and global ecological patterns of all kinds. But human beings have always been insane in the domain of politics. But now, in its motion into the 21st century, the insanity of mankind is influencing even the larger picture of the human natural circumstance. And THIS MUST BE CHANGED - or there is going to be a terrible, horrific calamity on Earth! Such a calamity is not yet inevitable, but it WILL occur if there is not a fundamental transformation of mankind - in its heart and mind, and in its endeavors. A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTENING of the world-process must occur, because mankind is now having a PROFOUNDLY NEGATIVE effect on the human world-process, and even on the larger natural domain of the world.

All the emphasis words are from the authors talk/essay.

A more pithy direct assessment of humankind from the above author.

The world is mad. Humankind is in a state of extreme psychosis - dont you know!
Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 7:51:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CatMac,

You said: "The real question is, why is on-line opinion running a campaign to support climate change skeptics?"

That could not be further from the truth, either on Online Opinion or on the rest of the Left wing web sites. Many of them go to the length of deleting comments that do not support the Orthodoxy. 'The Conversation', a site that is supposedly for academics, is one of the worst at selectively deleting comments that do not support their Left ideological beliefs. Attempting to shut down alternative views is rampant amongst the Left.

This article "Lend me your ears children" may help you to understand why this is happening: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/12/lend-me-your-ears-children

Are you aware just how gullible are the Alarmists? If not look at this 3 minute video of the Doha climate chat delegates and the CO2 sequestration gas masks. Do look. Most people would be surprised to see how gullible are the CAGW Alarmists we send to represent our interests at climate change conferences: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/12/lend-me-your-ears-children

Given this, don't you think it is in our nation's and the world's interest to expose what is going on - how many people have been duped by the climate change band wagon?
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 7:55:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CatMack is confused.

Balance does not mean that we have to discount empirical observation when discussing the quasi religious zealotry of warmist theory.

Carbon Dioxide does accelerate plant growth and is beneficial for food production. For the past 16 years additional atmospheric CO2 has not been accompanied by an increase in atmosphere temperature.

Proportionality would, in fact, justify far more space for skeptics as polls suggest that they greatly outnumber followers of the warmist cult. But one well informed skeptic with unassailable evidence will always trump a consensus of the ignorant.

Professor Aitkins' comments illustrate the power of the skeptic perspective in this contest.
Posted by CARFAX, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 8:27:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Daffy,

I followed your link and was disturbed to see some of the stuff upon which you seem to rely.

The first thing to leap out was the expression “overwhelming consensus”. This is pure hype because there can be no such thing. The expression “Overwhelming Consensus” is strictly speaking a redundant expression since a consensus is by definition a general agreement. Great for getting people like you excited though.

Consensus was developed by the Quakers originally, but similar principles have been used since pre-history.

Interestingly, every definition makes it very clear that consensus has absolutely nothing to do with facts, data, research, or reality. It is simply an expression of group solidarity, belief, sentiment, general agreement, opinion and feelings.

“group solidarity of belief or sentiment”, “general agreement or accord”, “general or widespread agreement (esp in the phrase consensus of opinion”, “agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole” and “the feelings of most people”.

If the cornerstone of your belief system is based upon consensus you’ve been had in a very big way. This could be because you don’t understand English; you do not believe the widely published text book definitions or you just can’t be bothered to look it up.

The UN’s application of Agenda 21 has been a long road. The decision making based upon consensus has this to say;

“Since unanimity may be difficult to achieve, especially in large groups, unanimity may be the result of coercion, fear, undue persuasive power or eloquence, inability to comprehend alternatives”.

There you have it, not my words, officially you are the victim of a fear campaign and you are unable to comprehend alternatives. But we deniers have always known this.

Daffy, you had better read this again just to make sure you understand these official definitions.
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 9:02:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I note the "It's not bad" myth is number three on the Skeptical Science top ten.

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm

Peter Lang,

Here's some news on one "skeptic" and his antics at Doha:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/12/06/monckton-banned-un-climate-process-offensive-stunt

(Don't forget to click on the video :)
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 9:14:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi CatMack, I have just done a quick check and for the articles listed on the most recent page of http://onlineopinion.com.au/section.asp?name=environment, which is our environment section, there are 7 articles to do with global warming and only 2 are skeptical. If we're running a campaign then it is the other way, and I'd better balance it up.

Of course you get skeptical articles here because OLO isn't left-wing, or right-wing. It has an enlightenment view of life that only through the clash of ideas can truth emerge.
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 9:16:37 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Finally, someone who as least concedes that additional atmospheric Co2, is accompanied by a greening planet!
It's called the greenhouse effect!
This is why Co2 is referred to as a greenhouse gas!
And yes, there is an increase in rainforest species at the top end.
Someone finally realised they are not fire tolerant and stopped tying to burn them.
Moreover, tropical rainforest, in large enough lumps creates its own micro climate rain events and recharges monsoonal rains.
If we simply were to allow these tropical rainforests to spread southward, the monsoons would also spread further and further south.
[To the benefit of all Australians,all of who, live on the driest inhabited continent in the world.]
However, plants are by and large somewhat similar to humans?
Increase their temperature, such as would occur in a greenhouse, and they compensate, by giving off more moisture!
This is also called the greenhouse effect.
And the additional atmosphere moisture traps more radiant heat, given atmospheric moisture is a most effective thermal blanket.
And sometimes the difference between a relatively mild overcast night and a freezing cold starry one, that freezes the water in the pipes, even at subtropical latitudes!
Satellite surveys, over two decades, have demonstrated beyond doubt, that the ice is melting at an alarming rate; and the glaciers are retreating at an increasingly rapid rate.
And yes, it's not a constant, but the overall trend line is.
As the ice melts less radiant heat is reflected back into space; and instead, is absorbed!
Adding to and accelerating the greenhouse effect.
A mad Nero fiddled while Rome burned?
It's not a good example to follow, especially when we can employ the precautionary principle, in a way that expands opportunity, wealth and job creating, endlessly sustainable economic growth/poverty reduction.
That's the only up side and where we, all of us, ought to be focusing our intellectual skills and erudite acumen.
Obtuse obfuscation serves nobody!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 9:25:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CatMack
Online Opinion has always run articles handed to it - there's never been any other agenda. Its one of the few sites in Australia where there is a genuinely mixed debate. The problem you have is that some of those articles are skeptical and so you don't agree with them.

Daffy Duck
Come now, that is over the top conspiracy stuff even from you. One of the major problems in this debate is the obvious disparity in funding between the two sides, with the all the funds flowing to the global warming side and the skeptics getting peanuts. The obvious source of funds would be the energy companies, but apart from routine donations to various think tanks and the like ($200,000 here, $100,000 there) which they've always done, they haven't bothered with the debate at all. But then we've been in a resources boom for most of the debate period.. the coal companies have had more business than they can handle and oil prices are through the roof. They haven't needed to bother at all.

The fact that the under funded skeptics have made such inroads into the work of very well funded global warming scientists tells us something about the underlying worth of the theory.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 10:14:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dry ice, solid Co2, is obtained through very simple fractional distillation. Every gas has a different freezing or liquid to gas, melting point.
There was a time when our freezers, kept our ice cream from melting, just through the presence of dry ice.
Dry ice placed on fallow ground in glass houses, would remove most pest species?
Even the extremely hardy cockroach, can't breathe pure Co2 and survive, even at hibernation temperatures.
And intense cold, assists the soil to rid itself of some unfriendly pathogens, and aids the conversion of vegetable/animal waste into safe compost.
If you were to lay a few dozen blocks of dry ice inside and through your house, just before you go on holiday? When you returned, say two weeks later, there wouldn't be a live bug left to bite you or Fido.
Forget the chemicals and their residue?
Concentrated Co2 could be piped into a greenhouse, post pollination, where it would, as alluded to in the article, assist plant growth, all while eliminating predatory pests.
We could make better use of dry ice in the transport industry. Not too many bugs would survive and live on to become feral pests, if containers, shipping holds etc, were routinely stacked with blocks of dry ice.
If you aim three different coloured lasers at a particular point, that spot will almost immediately reach sub zero temperatures. [QUI]
Perhaps we could utilise this technology, to make dry ice at home.
And wouldn't some of that be handy, when the next summer storm takes out the power, and the food in the fridge starts to spoil?
Yes perhaps a little more Co2, in solid form, would be good for us?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 10:20:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon,

The only inroads achieved have been in the area of affecting public perception. Right-wing think tanks funded by vested interests target this area. It's all about protecting the status quo.

Peer review is important...I get the impression that this article is attempting to diminish its role in promoting good practice.

...and what is it about the "skeptic" camp who don't seem to know which tack to take..."There's NO such thing as AGW, (but if there is, then its obviously good for us)"

If I was you guys, I'd pick a trajectory and stick to it.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 10:27:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CatMack haven't you noticed the three articles, written by students attending the Do Ha Ha picnic, in the last couple of days?

All these articles written by kids. I wonder if they are trying to justify the money wasted on their trip, or are simply misguided disciples of the new religion.

I wonder if the adults are backing away from having their name associated too deeply with global warming? Perhaps they sense a waining star, that will only harm, rather than enhance the careers involved with it, hence less articles except for the hangers on.

Rhrosty where did you find that lot? It is as out of date as a T model Ford. Do try to keep up mate. It has been snowing everywhere, the ice is growing again.

As for rain forest expansion, we had best go sharpen the axe. They are difficult things to get a feed from. It takes 25 acres of them to feed a man, where as 25 men can be fed of one acre of intensive agriculture. Yes they are pretty, but only in their place.

Interestingly, satellite evidence tells us that there are over twice as many trees in Oz now, than at white settlement. That is expanding rapidly, as old farmers watch their properties go back to bush, when maintenance of them becomes too hard, & kids today won't work that hard for too little return.

How about another helping of bark stew mate?
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 10:37:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The same Spiritual Philosopher wrote these lines in 2008 while simultaneously describing the then world situation (of which he was acutely aware at a feeling level) as easily the worst in human history.

The current pseudo-system is no longer tolerable - and it never was viable. Nevertheless, those who are currently in power have not yet become entirely inclined to deal with the signs of global systemic breakdown. Many continue to pretend, for example, that - even while the Earth is daily becoming more and more overwhelmingly polluted - there is some necessary (and action-preventing) controversy to be engaged relative to whether global warming is a reality or not (or, otherwise, humanly caused or not). Nevertheless, the evidence is now irrefutable - the Earth IS being polluted, always more and more, by HUMAN causes.

The human causes of Earth-pollution (which results in global pollution, global warming, and extreme weather) are a global projection of the politically and corporately propagandized and controlled pattern of individual self-indulgence in the "good-life" of un-regulated and boundless consumerism. Which everywhere resullts in disease, psychological extremes, unbearable stress-patterns, and every mode of otherwise avoidable suffering and agony and casual industrial scale death.

Indeed, altogether, the present-time, and future threatening global and collective situation is both dark and insane - a global madhouse of mutual threats, and whole nations in clans of tribalized power, competing with one another like rival street gangs, always "protecting" nothing more than their will to never-ending self-indulgence and self-glorification.

Such by the way is the world-view that both Quadrant and the IPA promotes, while all the time pretending otherwise. And simultaneously bemoaning the collapse of old-time Western "values" and its now archaic entirely tribalistic religion.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 10:39:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
He says "Dr Idso's survey is there for all to read. 'Has it been peer-reviewed?' you ask. No, he tells us.

So why not?

Aitkin himself admits "Peer review ... is effectively a statement that the paper in question looks interesting and has no obvious faults."

That's half true. _Sometimes_, it is more than that.

Meanwhile, given the sort of nonsense that scientists (particularly, perhaps, those wedded to a particular point of view) are capable of producing (see *), peer review is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for a paper to deserve to be taken seriously.

(*) see http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/mathematical_analysis_of_roy_spencers_climate_model
Posted by jeremy, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 10:57:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
catmack's comment about censorship and restriction on freedom of speech is part of the Zeitgeist that accompanies this current government and the global lie of AGW.

catmack, he/she/it, fits right in with the Finkelstein mindset that the yobs, the punters, the hoi poloi aren't up to intellectually understanding the CRISIS of AGW and so must be censored in both what they say and what they hear other people say.

It is not the first time this arrogant attitude has been here; there was a major dummy spit some time ago:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580

But then Hamilton has form:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/29880.html

And this is the point; AGW supporters are losing this argument/debate despite vast, disproportionate and obscene funding and political patronage, general media support etc, because the science of AGW is WRONG.

That is the point; but being unreasonable, being believers AGW supporters cannot accept that and now are reverting to type; censorship and oppression.

catmack's comment is typical.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 11:26:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's a little more information on Craig Idso.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Craig_Idso

cohenite,

I see you're still attempting to make the science a 'class' issue...good luck with that.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 11:38:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I tell you what Poirot, you just don't get it do you? Idso does a literature review and instead of looking at the literature he reviewed you try to cast doubt on his abilities. The papers that he has reviewed are all peer-reviewed, so there's not even that nit to pick really.

And what he finds is not surprising because those who've been paying attention to the debate know that plants respond positively to CO2 and need to use less water at elevated levels of the gas.

It is also uncontroversial that the earth is at the lower end of CO2 concentrations in its entire history.

So what is your problem with the fact that on the basis of this we're unlikely to be facing climate Armageddon?
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 12:06:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's not get too precious, Graham.

All seems to be fair in love and war in this debate.

I don't see you criticising cohenite in his linking to Clive Hamilton's piece on OLO. He did that to provide a bit of "background" to the debate - as I did by linking to the Sourcewatch piece.

If I do it, apparently it's a matter of "...[I] just don't get it..."

Sorry, mate....for stepping on toes. Perhaps in future, I'll keep my nose out. After all, there are enough amateur commentators on this site to keep things rolling along for yonks.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 12:22:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot
As I pointed out earlier, the status quo is the green orthodoxy. That is predominant at the moment, and that is where all the funding is going. The right wing think tanks you decry have made very little impression on that status quo.

Daffy Duck
.. makes the same error in pointing to the IPA and Quadrant with their tiny budgets, while overlooking the hundreds of millions going to the likes of Greenpeace and many billions in grant funds going to scientist world-wide to investigate global warming. No wonder they don't want to say its all a waste of time..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 12:26:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's the snark that means nothing that annoys me. Just by linking to something from Source Watch you imply that there's something shifty about his research instead of dealing with the research.

There's no similarity between your link and Cohenite's, so I'm not sure what your point is there.
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 12:29:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whether you believe in AGW or not, humanity's development consists in an accelerating movement from situations of scarcity, to technological innovation, to increased resource availability, to increased consumption, to population growth, to resource depletion, to scarcity once again, and so on.

Climatologists, like most scientists, are not normally given to ranting about falling skies; most normally prefer to remain in their laboratories or in the field gathering data and adding their observations and results to an ever growing library of information.

They do not like to, in the main, and are not normally that good at giving interviews to the media or presentations to committees. This is odd, considering the growing number of climate related scientists and specifically climatologists who are speaking out about global warming and its dangers.

I personally would like to see some sort of de-carbonisation carried out. Unfortunately, and necessarily, this experiment would be short-lived, undertaking the experiment would quickly run afoul of the very thing which prevents us from implementing it in the first place; the human instinctual drive to grow without limit.

The great tragedy of the human condition is that we cannot figure out who we are and why we do what we do. In short, humans, for the most part, are completely immersed in their own importance and the need for more and more of whatever ‘floats their boat’. If humans could see themselves from the "outside" as it were, there would be perhaps a very small chance that they could “overcome their instincts with their intelligence”.

Unfortunately humans are “intrinsically incapable of taking the large leap toward self-knowledge”.

Unfortunately most "scientists" will never see any hope of rapid de-carbonisation of the global energy supply as it would ultimately lead to economic dissolution on a vast scale, and no human being, outside the few people who are yelling for the end of industrial civilization, is going to be happy with that outcome.

As such I think this entire argument is moot.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 1:21:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, I have just taken a little bit of a random sample on Idsos website, and already I have some concerns.

This is by no means a systematic sampling, just the first random one I clicked on.

On this page:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/e/ecosystem14.php

He describes 2 results from the same experiment, so i thought, ok let's take a look at that paper (Norton et al 1999).

I cannot find on the site where the list of papers used is. Could someone please direct me to the reference list?

Tracking down the Norton paper via google and search terms provided yields this paper (you may need subscription to view):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2435.1999.00006.x/full
"Effects of Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) on experimental grassland communities. L. R. Norton, L. G. Firbank, H. Blum Functional Ecology June 1999"
Anyways, nowhere do the numbers provided by Idso match the numbers in the paper, and this was a first random sample.
Also one of the species looked at showed DECREASE in biomass under CO2 compared to ambient, but nowhere on Idsos site can I see that being discussed.

No wonder it isn't published as a peer reviewed paper, the editors/reviewers of a journal would be obligated to check that much of the review matched the actual papers it refers to, as well as making sure there was a complete reference list so as to be able to easily check.

On a first check, this 'review' seems pretty poor Don, but I know you probably couldn't detect it.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 1:45:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoff of Perth,

"I personally would like to see some sort of de-carbonisation carried out. Unfortunately, and necessarily, this experiment would be short-lived,"

Why do you say that? Do you not realise that we could largely decarbonise electricity globally - and reduce CO2 emissions from energy by about 50% by that act alone - if the 'Progressives' stopped blocking progress?

Do you not realise 'Progressives' have been blocking progress for 50 years. If not for that, global CO2 emissions now would be about 10% to 20% lower than they are and we'd be on a fast track to reduce them substantially over the next few decades. Instead, we have a long slow process ahead to catch up for 50 years of delays. And the same people - the so called 'Progressives' - are still delaying progress.

Would you like to visit the alternative? Follow the comments from here http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/01/open-thread-weekend-4/#comment-273000 to the end of the comments under 1.4
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 1:53:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy's right. 'Fact checking' is not only the responsibility of authors, but also of editors.
Posted by qanda, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 2:13:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HOLLY CRAP! that's HERESY! Must be a misogynist!
Posted by Peng, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 3:03:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Try this Bugsy. http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/greening/references.php

It was under references in his index.
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 3:11:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And where is Norton et al. 1999 in that list Graham?
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 3:15:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By the way the author of the quotes I posted also pointed out that humankind needs to rapidly wean itself off of a carbon based "economy".
Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 4:08:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,

Very true: Norton et al (and it appears, editors) are M.I.A.

--

CatMack,

There's a significant difference between "environment" and AGW.
Mainstream media and blog sites have difficulty "balancing".
If they were to truly represent mainstream science, it would be skewed 98:2 in favour of AGW proponents.
Suggestion: disregard the spin (from extremists on both sides).

--

Poirot,

"Snark" maybe, justified nonetheless.

--

Anthony Cox (cohenite)

There are more important things in life.

--

Barry,

Must be cathartic admitting you're a "denier".

--

Everybody,

Wishing you all a joyous festive season and a very safe and healthy 2013.
Posted by qanda, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 6:27:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter you stated:

"Why do you say that? Do you not realise that we could largely decarbonise electricity globally - and reduce CO2 emissions from energy by about 50% by that act alone - if the 'Progressives' stopped blocking progress?"

I have no problem with your statement, unfortunately we are still consuming approximately 84 million barrels of oil, primarily for transportation uses and this figure (based on the EIA and IEA) is projected to increase to 105 Mbd or thereabouts by 2030, give or take a couple of years.

Notwithstanding the unlikelihood of us ever achieving this level of fossil fuel (oil, NG, cheap liquid) levels, one should still be concerned about the level of pollution this extraction and use may potentially result in.

Given recent projections on conventional oil transportation 'rates' I would suggest that any projections out to 2030 are just that, projections and highly unlikely to be achieved. I believe economic growth, if you want to call it that, will have long disappeared by then and we will all be living in a much more different world.

AGW is unlikely to reach the levels the so-called 'alarmists' claim for one simple reason, there is not enough 'conventional oil' left at an economic growth price to sustain current economic forecasts into the distant future, let alone 2030.

We are on the cusp of a great economic catastrophe and very few people seem to see the writing on the wall.

Much of the argument outlined above will be irrelevant given our realistic economic future lying ahead.

Get ready for a significant financial and economic storm in 2013, (debt and credit) in the real world do not equate to real growth and the price of 'conventional oil' will be the limiting factor.

Cheers

Geoff
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 8:53:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoff raises the Peak Oil issue; that bike don't run anymore:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4422156.html
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 11:17:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice to see you back in the fold of the Cornucopian’s Cohenite!, your reference states:

"Moreover, the International Energy Agency (IEA) recently predicted that the amount of oil that is technically recoverable in the United States (mainly in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming) is 1.442 trillion barrels, and this mainly includes technically recoverable oil from shale. That amounts to over five times the reserves of Saudi Arabia and is close to the total world proven oil reserves in 2011."

Well gosh, let's not forget the US and Canada have yet to produce one litre, let alone on gallon of fuel grade petroleum from 'Shale Oil'.

The entire argument on tight oil is a Ponzi scheme and has been proven as such by so many factual scientific arguments that your post is irrelevant. No wonder BP, Chevron and so may other large energy corporations are bailing out of this ridiculous energy field.

I would think that one should look at references like this, including the graph on page 8, which by the way is now 4 years old and the extrapolation made is even more evident given recent BP and IEA/EIA data that adds to the problem underlining your assumption:
http://www.eia.gov/conference/2009/session3/Sweetnam.pdf and a multitude of addition expert, 'peer reviewed' scientific documents including: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-12-03/commentary-identifying-the-oil-we-re-most-worried-about , so don't give me that crap about peak oil being a non-issue, get with the program and realise we have a real, global energy issue that is being swept under the carpet, one your 'legal' brain seems unable to comprehend and the most basic of physics, like depletion and flow rates from refineries.

No wonder you are so fervent in your support against AGW, you, like most cornucopian stalwarts can't see the wood for the trees, what's left of them anyway.

Enjoy your overdue retirement, I have greater faith in the youth of today who, to some degree, retain the ability to have an open mind and one not blinded by complacency and a realism based on facts that is now indisputable at so many levels it is laughable and you still dare to question the real science.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Wednesday, 12 December 2012 11:49:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoff, like all alarmists, you are a pessimist; this is not like the ant and grasshopper parable, with sceptics being the grasshopper acting like drunken sailors spending the resources of the planet.

In actual fact the drunken sailors are the alarmists like the IPCC and every government which supports AGW shovelling out money out the door which will leave debts for generations.

The best statement on the resources and resource use on the planet is Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist; but really if you are determined to expect the worst in the face of cogent evidence then off you go and sulk in the corner and leave the rest of us alone.

Bugsy's gotcha with the Norton 1999 paper is hilarious and typical of the alarmists. Norton is like many papers I have read by alarmists who are basically scientific honest and show their results, but can't accept them and then try to explain them away.

Norton says this:

"Despite increases of between 15 and 25% under fumigation, in terms of both total biomass and the biomass of four out of five species, it was impossible to detect a significant effect of CO2. This may reflect an actual lack of response to elevated CO2, or may result from the lack of statistical power owing to low numbers of replicates."

And then this:

"Certainly in the experiment reported here, it appears that intrinsic variability was more important than the effects of CO2, despite differences of between 15 and 25% between fumigated and control rings"

Anything but CO2!

Anyway there is ample evidence that overall, despite issues with N2 in particular, that extra CO2 is a boon to plants and crops:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/person/3960/Morgan223.PartonNewPhytologist.pdf

http://www.timcurtin.com/images/Climate_Change_and_Food_Production.pdf
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 13 December 2012 8:52:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoff of Perth,

I agree that peak oil is a problem but unfortunately it is not going to reduce our emissions of CO2. The know reserves of fossil fuels is 4 to 5 times greater than the amount we can risk burning if we are to keep the increase in global temperatures below 2C.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719?page=2

The idea that "perhaps more CO2 is good for us" reminds me of the amputee who told me he was saving a fortune on shoes
Posted by warmair, Thursday, 13 December 2012 9:17:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair, since humans breathe in air with a concentration of CO2 of ~390 ppm and breathe out air with a CO2 concentration of ~ 4000 ppm, why don't you, Geoff and like minded people solve the problem by holding your breath?
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 13 December 2012 9:30:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apparently this is the future for oil extraction:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/athabasca.php

"Because it takes energy to mine and separate oil from the sands, oil sands extraction releases more greenhouse gases than other forms of oil extraction....the equivalent of 86 to 103 kilograms of carbon dioxide for every barrel of crude produced. By comparison, 27 to 58 kilograms of carbon dioxide is emitted in the conventional production of a barrel of crude."

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/essick-photography

(No doubt all that is good news for my vegie patch)
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 13 December 2012 9:43:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's not much I can add, but perhaps I should reiterate that the references in Idso's paper are at the bottom of the file, there are 450 of them, most are from academic journals, or the IPCC, or textbooks, and they seem OK to me. He may be a loony or in the pay of an evil monster, but it doesn't seem so from the long paper, which is academic in form and content. He is a PhD level scientist, so I guess he knows about how to do all this.

I took particular notice of the ones about Australia, and again, they looked kosher to me. If people think there is something shoddy about an aspect of the argument or evidence, then for goodness sake find the shoddiness and tell us what and why. That way we can argue about something important.

I find argumentum ad hominem immensely boring. To me it suggests the person doing it has no real interest in the substance of the argument.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Thursday, 13 December 2012 9:48:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let me for the record state that I have no interest in the Norton et al. 1999 paper, or what it states. What it states doesn't matter, it may be the truth,whatever- that's irrelevant.

What is relevant is that Idso runs a 'database' of results, in this database are references to papers that he has extracted the information from, but no links to the actual paper information that enables tracking. I have found WITH A RANDOM SAMPLE OF ONE, that the information he has extracted is not always correct.

There may be references in the paper that Don Aitken refers to, but they don't contain all the references that Idso has used for his 'database'.

Don also says:
"I took particular notice of the ones about Australia, and again, they looked kosher to me. If people think there is something shoddy about an aspect of the argument or evidence, then for goodness sake find the shoddiness and tell us what and why. That way we can argue about something important."

Look kosher to you? What do you mean? That they exist, or that they look like Idso collated the information from them properly and interpreted it correctly ? Yes, I think there is something shoddy going on from my one random sample, it may have been an honest and isolated mistake, but what are the odds that the first random hit produced such a result?

But I got to tell you, I will not go through everything that Idso has done to find the shoddy bits, that's what peer review is for FFS. You're better than this Don.

As for cohenites "Anyway there is ample evidence that overall, despite issues with N2 in particular, that extra CO2 is a boon to plants and crops" may be true, but certainly not for ALL plants and crops. Where is the discussion on that?

Don also states:"He [Idso] is a PhD level scientist, so I guess he knows about how to do all this."

So are all the climate scientists you choose to ignore and disagree with Don.

And so am I.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 13 December 2012 10:21:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy, yours is typical behaviour in this debate I'm afraid. You pick on a reference that is not in the paper under discussion, say that it has been incorrectly reported, and therefore, because of one "mistake", the whole lot is negated.

At the same time you're prepared to overlook all sorts of misstatements of fact from the catastrophist side, such as the claim that cyclones and hurricanes are expected to increase in frequency and severity.

Why don't you deal with the paper that Don actually cites and tell us where it is wrong? And by that I mean substantially wrong. Not that he may have got a decimal point wrong somewhere or another.

The case that more CO2 is good for plants, at least up to 1000 ppm is pretty solid. Afterall, that is why hothouses introduce CO2 to plants - because they like it.

Are you disagreeing with this proposition? If so, say so, and cite your proof (peer reviewed of course, seeing you insist that is the only proof that counts).
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 13 December 2012 10:49:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grahma,

No doubt, you'll tell me off for this as well. Nevertheless, there's obviously a huge question on confirmation bias in anything Craig Idso authors, He appears to be fairly intimately connected with many instituions who reject the scientific consensus on global warming.

Surely the antecedents of the person at the centre of this article are relevant to current discussion?

http://www.desmogblog.com/craig-idso

http://heartland.org/craig-idso
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 13 December 2012 10:59:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY:"You pick on a reference that is not in the paper under discussion, say that it has been incorrectly reported, and therefore, because of one "mistake", the whole lot is negated."

Actually Graham, this is not what I am saying at all! I am saying that the case for ignoring peer review is not supported and that peer-review, while not perfect nor any guarantee of correctness often picks up these dodgy mistakes. Idso is NOT peer reviewed, so who's to know? Do I want to spend my time looking for all the mistakes in his work? For WHAT? What is the benefit to me? The credit for discrediting non-peer reviewed work? How professionally satisfying that would be.
As a PhD level 'scientist', he should have the decency to put his proverbial nuts son the table of peer review.

I don't 'overlook' the catastrophism or mistakes, they are picked up quite well by many in the blogosphere, why do I need to add my voice to them? I see them and say ok, theres a mistake buggaluggs101 has pickup it up, so what?

I think the distinction needs to be made between C3 and C4 photosynthetic systems and what that actually means for plant growth and changes in ecosystems. While Idso acknowledges they exist he does not tell us that they actually react differentially to higher CO2 levels , nor discuss what that means for ecosystems and crop diversity etc. On the whole, it doesn't seem to move beyond 'plant growth increases and this is good' .
This is an example of an actual laboratory that actually do look at that and explain the difference in photosynthetic systems:
http://serc.si.edu/labs/co2/index.aspx
http://serc.si.edu/labs/co2/c3_c4_plants.aspx

And they have a reference list of research that they have actually done and had peer reviewed.
How about that?
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 13 December 2012 11:58:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot says:

"Surely the antecedents of the person at the centre of this article are relevant to current discussion?"

And links to a smear site.

In respect of the link to Desmog rubbish it is asserted there that Heartland received funding of $67 million.

Perhaps desmog gets its information from Peter Gleick the disgraced liar and thief:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/03/update-on-fakegate-what-we-know-so-far/

Anyway sans a criminal conviction or a public record of fraud and lying all evidence is treated, or should be treated on its merits not its source.

The irony here of course is that criminality and a public record of lying lies entirely on the pro-AGW side:

In respect of criminality the FOI request made against the UEA CRU was illegally refused:

http://www.panopticonblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Keiller-v-IC-and-University-of-East-Anglia1.pdf

In respect of lying and fraud the emails show conclusively that climate scientists are connivers, prepared to usurp process, restrict access and prevent contrary views, regardless of their scientific merit.

By Poirot's standards there would be very few climate scientists standing; but that doesn't matter to Poirot because the nefarious actions of the pro-AGW scientists is forgiven by their 'noble cause', saving the world from AGW.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 13 December 2012 12:05:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

If I link to the affiliations of those who reject AGW, what's the problem?

Pointing out these affiliated institutions and individuals shouldn't be reason for skeptics to declare unfairness in debate. I would have thought the skeptic camp would hold these institutions and individuals in high esteem and, therefore, be quite happy that they are recognised.

Merely putting the information on affiliations out there isn't a form of disparagement - it's a form of clarity.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 13 December 2012 12:13:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Merely putting the information on affiliations out there isn't a form of disparagement - it's a form of clarity.<<

Clarity? Well that's an interesting way of putting it.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Doesn't matter if Idso is President of the Flat Earth Society: hanging out with people who are wrong about some things - even if they are laughably wrong - doesn't weaken someone's arguments.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 13 December 2012 2:31:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony Lavis,

I didn't say it did weaken his argument.

(I reject your assertion that I attacked Craig Idso's character or personal traits)

Bugsy seems to have found a flaw, and is wary of those who would diminish the importance of peer review, as am I.

cohenite,

I put up a link to the Heartland Institute to balance the one I put up to desmog....I take it the Heartland one was A-okay, because you didn't criticise that.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 13 December 2012 2:48:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite Says
"since humans breathe in air with a concentration of CO2 of ~390 ppm and breathe out air with a CO2 concentration of ~ 4000 ppm, why don't you, Geoff and like minded people solve the problem by holding your breath?"
I say
Since all the CO2 I breath out recently came from plants this does not increase the amount of CO2 in the air. On the other hand the co2 from fossil fuels comes from plants that grew 10s or 100s of millions of years ago. The isotope of carbon in CO2 tells that the origin of the increased levels of atmospheric CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

A quick calculation for you
typical breaths per min = 12
typical human exhales 1/2 a litre of per breath
Air breathed out is 4% CO2
Therefore one human exhales =0.04 grams (2g/L x .04 x .5L) per breath

Therefore in 24 hours one person exhales 24 X 60 X 12 X 0.04 grams= 692 grams
world's population is 7 billion in 24 hrs humans exhale 483,840 tons of CO2.
CO2 emitted from fossil fuels, industry and land clearing is about is about 35 billion tons annually or 96 million tons daily. so breathing works out at about 1/2 percent of the our daily emissions. It would seem that if we want to reduces our emissions of CO2 reducing our use of fossil fuels is more practical than your suggestion of not breathing.

I do not dispute that adding CO2 to the air generally increases plant growth but this is on a par with statements like crashing your car saves fuel. The net benefit of adding CO2 to the atmosphere for plants is so heavily outweighed by the negative impacts to the climate that no one who understood the science would advocate such a crazy idea.
Posted by warmair, Thursday, 13 December 2012 3:40:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok, so I took on board suggestions that I should look at the review paper under discussion and Dons suggestion that if I thought that there was "something shoddy about an aspect of the argument or evidence, then for goodness sake find the shoddiness and tell us what and why. That way we can argue about something important."
So, my second foray into 'mini-reviewing' Idsos work by random sampling didn't really go so well either. My methodology:
I looked for one of the first instances where he quotes a "%" figure from a paper and then I thought I would track down that paper and see if he interpreted it correctly. It turns out that it was Lin et al. (2010) on page 7, which is a meta-analysis of 127 studies.

Well, he scored ok for at least transcribing the figures correctly, but there is no evidence that he actually read the paper beyond the abstract, as all the quotes are directly from the abstract. If he read the paper he would have found that some plant types don't do so well from warming. If you are a leguminous or spore plant, you're not keeping up with the Joneses as it were. Lin et al. actually discuss this and include conclusions that "Dependence of the terrestrial plant biomass responses to warming upon PFTs [Plant Functional Types], geographic and climatic factors as well as warming magnitudes will have consequent influences on community composition and structure, vegetation dynamics, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in a warmer world. "

This is also in the abstract but is completely missing from Idso's "review". The ecology will change significantly in a 'greener' world, and it is difficult to tell whether this is good or not, as some plant species will definitely decrease, as others increase, which will have consequences for the animals that live on them and the food chain. Idso never really seems to get past the "greener is gooder" type of reasoning. And this is only random sample #2.

Wow, I can only guess what will happen in my next random sample.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 13 December 2012 4:06:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's likely it is Providence supplying for the needs of the poor, population is reaching a peak then will decline in middle of century around the time global cooling begins, and food for the developing world is a necessity. God loves his children.

Matt 9: “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

Undeclared animosity toward God explains most of the ideas given prestige by the liberal ruling class. They're able to use any old flimsy screen to conceal their naked lust for power these days we are so much a flock of sheeple
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 13 December 2012 4:12:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair your calculations about howmuch human exhalation contributes to CO2 levels compared with fossil fuels may be a bit off:

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/

This calculation shows human breathing contributes as much as 8.9% as fossil fuel. Which is why AGW believers want fewer humans I suppose.

Bugsy: your critique of Norton [1999] linked to good old Dr Bert who says this:

“The response of the wetland to elevated CO2 has been increasing over this long period, rather than decreasing as many would have predicted”

And then uses that to assume that vegetation will cease to be able sequester the extra CO2 from AGW!

The 2nd Dr Bert link, which attempts to find a problem in the difference between C3 and C4 vegetations response to extra CO2, is just wrong. Did you even read the peer reviewed links I supplied before? The 2nd one said this on page 1110:

"Corn, sugarcane, sorghum, millet, and some tropical grasses use the C4 pathway, so named because the first products of photosynthesis have four carbon atoms per molecule. C4 plants also experience a boost
in photosynthetic efficiency in response to higher CO2 levels, but because there is little photo-respiration in C4 plants, the improvement is smaller than in C3 plants. Instead, the largest benefit C4 plants receive from higher CO2 levels comes from reduced water loss. Loss of water through leaf pores declines by
about 33% in C4 plants with a doubling of the CO2 concentration from its current atmospheric level.
Since corn and other C4 plants are frequently grown under drought conditions of high temperatures and limited soil moisture, this superior efficiency in water use may improve yields when rainfall is even lower than normal” (Wittwer, 1992)."

Your complaint about people not reading their references appears to be a problem with you as well.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 14 December 2012 7:48:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite, could you please at least have the decency to put some water on that lettuce before you savage me with it?

A couple of points:
-I did not give a critique of Norton et al 1999. I have been giving micro-critiques of Craig Idsos work. Norton was merely an example (the FIRST random sample!) of how Idso doesn't maintain a database that is to be scientifically trusted.
-Good old Dr Bert is merely an example of people who conduct scientific research and experimentation on the nuances of the carbon cycle and its relation to ecology. Your critiques of his work are irrelevant and quite frankly would be insulting to a scientist, because your 'refutation' is a quote from a footnote in a Tim Curtin document published in Energy and Environment, which itself was originally from Wittwer (1992), which was published Policy Review (hint-NOT a scientific publication)! Oh and Good Old Time didn't even have the decency to reference the full and correct title of Wittwers paper.

In twenty years the arguments haven't changed, and you guys don't seem to like the primary research literature, you keep quoting review documents that were written by people with the same point of view, many of which are not reviewed, except perhaps by a copy editor.
And you think that I have a problem with not reading references?

Oh pulease.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 14 December 2012 10:00:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite says
warmair your calculations about howmuch human exhalation contributes to CO2 levels compared with fossil fuels may be a bit off:

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/
_______________________

I checked up to find the problem the method above is correct but he uses a figure of 24.136 gigatonnes for annual fossil fuel emissions based on 2007. The figure I use used was 35 gigatonnes based on 2010 which I obtained from the same source as your link above used.

I also made a mistake in that I lost a zero on the CO2 emissions by humans breathing the correct figure would appear to be around 5%.
I don't mind admitting when I make a mistake after all many years ago I thought that human emissions of CO2 would not be on scale large enough to have a global climate impact. The sad part is that fossil fuel emissions are rising by about 2% a year so even if we all could stop breathing in about two and half years our efforts would be eliminated.

While it is an interesting calculation it does not alter the fact that a reduction of 5% in emissions could easily be achieved by simple measures such as improving efficiency, nor does it alter the fact that the burning of fossil fuels is adding a massive unnatural load to the carbon cycle.
Posted by warmair, Friday, 14 December 2012 10:11:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I did not give a critique of Norton et al 1999"

Granted, but as you say, you used Norton [1999], as the first randomly selected reference, to beat Idso around the chops for misquoting the point of the Norton [1999] paper; I was showing you that Idso did not misrepresent Norton [1999] but, as a lot of papers by pro-AGW scientists do, when they find something which contradicts AGW, is hedge or qualify, or in Norton[199]'s case, almost repudiate their own findings.

As for Dr Bert, do you deny the footnote in Curtin's paper? Perhaps a better way of putting it is that C4 plants are relatively independent of CO2 levels while C3 do benefit, and that if extra CO2 does cause hotter dryer conditions [which is unlikely since there will be more water around] then C4 has the mechanism for coping for that as well; this is fairly uncontroversial and has been around for a long time:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC542335/pdf/plntphys00135-0088.pdf
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 14 December 2012 10:46:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Bugsy, are you saying that the evidence is actually that there will be less plant growth overall with increased CO2? Or is it just that some plants will benefit disproportionately? So we'll find it easier to grow potatoes, but no easier to grow corn?
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 14 December 2012 10:46:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite, no, not misquoting the 'point' of Nortons paper, as Idso doesn't actually quote anything from Norton et al, although he uses it as a reference in his 'database'. The numbers don't match the publication. That is what you call a RED FLAG.

I don't deny the footnote in Curtins paper, but it is a simplistic and one-sided observation i.e. greener=gooder

Graham, no again, what is it with you guys and thinking that if someone disgrees then they think the direct opposite?

Yes, some plants benefit disproportionately, and not all plants benefit. Some plants, such as spore-formers have been shown to have less growth, but on average most plants may have more. This does not necessarily translate into what you would think of as 'productivity' though, as fruit and yield have not been measured so much, and weeds will also benefit, as will insect pests.

Stop thinking so narrowly, i.e. just about crops, disproportionate growth and even growth retardation for some, will change ecosystems independently of cropping systems. Whether that is a 'good' thing or not will not be resolved by a greener=gooder attitude.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 14 December 2012 11:40:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Came upon this article on the complexities of plant biology and future adaptation to a world with enriched CO2 levels.

http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/fertilizationeffect/
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 14 December 2012 7:53:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given Don's relative silence on the subject, I take he still believes that Craig Idso is doing a bang up job.

I guess the argument can be made that you can defend the use of one-sided non-peer-reviewed self-published internet literature if it "looks ok" and matches your political prejudices.

But that still means that in scientific publication circles, Idso's 'reports' are in the same category as the Greenpeace literature claiming that all the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2030.

Maybe you actually aren't better than this. My mistake, carry on.
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 17 December 2012 11:32:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy