The IPCC’s Latest Climate Hysteria (ethic, politician, flag, community)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know how people read that study...and concluded it said elevated CO2 was bad for plants...
...they said "They found that carbon dioxide at higher levels than today (400 ppm) did not significantly change plant growth"
"A new study by scientists at Stanford University, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, tested whether hotter temperatures and higher carbon dioxide levels that we’ll see post-2050 will benefit the kinds of plants that live in California grasslands.... They found that carbon dioxide at higher levels than today (400 ppm) did not significantly change plant growth,..... while higher temperatures had a negative effect"
but they did say it made the C3 plants they were studying more drought tolerant.....
"The shift of maximum NPP
to drier conditions under elevated CO2 (Fig. 3) is consistent with
improved water-use efficiency in plants with C3 photosynthesis
growing under elevated CO2"
I don't know how people read that study...and concluded it said elevated CO2 was bad for plants...
...they said "They found that carbon dioxide at higher levels than today (400 ppm) did not significantly change plant growth"
"A new study by scientists at Stanford University, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, tested whether hotter temperatures and higher carbon dioxide levels that we’ll see post-2050 will benefit the kinds of plants that live in California grasslands.... They found that carbon dioxide at higher levels than today (400 ppm) did not significantly change plant growth,..... while higher temperatures had a negative effect"
but they did say it made the C3 plants they were studying more drought tolerant.....
"The shift of maximum NPP
to drier conditions under elevated CO2 (Fig. 3) is consistent with
improved water-use efficiency in plants with C3 photosynthesis
growing under elevated CO2"
...the people growing marijuana in greenhouses would disagree with them
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Inc...or-plants.html An argument, made by those who deny man made Global Warming, is that the Carbon Dioxide that is being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. Their argument is based on the logic that, if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.
However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an older, wiser saying that goes, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, taking four is not likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick.
It is possible to help increase the growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions, inside of greenhouses. It is based on this that 'skeptics' make their claims. However, such claims are simplistic. They fail to take into account that once you increase one substance that plants need, you automatically increase their requirements for other substances. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will have an increase in deserts and other arid lands which would reduce the area available for crops.
Plants cannot live on CO2 alone. They get their bulk from more solid substances like water and organic matter. This organic matter comes from decomposing plants and animals or from man made fertilizers. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth?
What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general? The following points make it clear.
1. The worse problem, by far, is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. However, soil conditions will not necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.
2. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? Rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2).
On the other hand, as predicted by Global Warming, we are receiving intense storms with increased rain throughout of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately, when rain falls down very quickly, it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it builds up above the soil then floods causing damage to the crops. The water also floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean carrying off large amounts of soil and fertilizer.
3. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to be constantly producing artificial fertilizers from natural gas which will eventually start running out. By increasing the need for such fertilizer you will shorten the supply of natural gas creating competition between the heating of our homes and the growing of our food. This will drive the prices of both up.
4. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.
5. When plants do benefit from increased Carbon Dioxide, it is only in enclosed areas, strictly isolated from insects. However, when the growth of Soybeans is boosted out in the open, it creates major changes in its chemistry that makes it more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows.
...until climate scientists can explain why there's no such thing as run away global warming..why it gotten just so high, stops, and goes the other way......they can't explain global warming
I already know what type of human you are but this shows everyone else, especially if they failed to see obvious signs of your disingenuous posting behaviors.
Government scientists who get paid to study man’s impact on the climate say that man’s actions impact the climate. I’m not impressed. I remember when they said that NYC would be under water by now. I always ask, so I’ll ask again and know that I won’t get an acceptable answer. Someone post a study using the scientific method that shows a cause an effect relationship between CO2 and global warming. Explain how, if CO2 has a direct particle to heat trapping ratio as Gore and other “hockey stick” global warmers contend, the Earth remained the same temperature for over the last decade despite increasing CO2 levels (and that's even using the numbers they got caught cooking in climategate.)
Government scientists who get paid to study man’s impact on the climate say that man’s actions impact the climate.
Oil and Gas who pay BIG money to hush the real data and contribute millions to climate denier politicians and mouth piece pawns are much more trustworthy. Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
I’m not impressed.
No one cares what you're impressed with. We care about scientific data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
I remember when they said that NYC would be under water by now.
Well whoever "they" are who said this I can assure you is not affiliated with climate science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
I always ask, so I’ll ask again and know that I won’t get an acceptable answer.
You mean you won't get the answer that you want to hear that confirms the ignorance you want to believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
Someone post a study using the scientific method that shows a cause an effect relationship between CO2 and global warming.
Why don't you stop being intellectually lazy and go look it up yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
Explain how, if CO2 has a direct particle to heat trapping ratio as Gore and other “hockey stick” global warmers contend, the Earth remained the same temperature for over the last decade despite increasing CO2 levels.
Are you serious? What kind of question is this?
Go back to school and take a course in physics and chemistry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
(and that's even using the numbers they got caught cooking in climategate.)
Stop spreading ignorant MYTHS! People who do this only show others how gullible and misinformed they are. It shows intellectual laziness through parroting misinformation.
A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists.
The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigor and honesty are not in doubt, and their behavior did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.
Climate deniers are so desperate that they stoop to stealing emails and then proceed to quote mining these emails.
You need a lesson on how low the climate deniers will go to try and mislead the facts. These folks are the lowest scum on this earth.
Oil and Gas who pay BIG money to hush the real data and contribute millions to climate denier politicians and mouth piece pawns are much more trustworthy. Right?
No one cares what you're impressed with. We care about scientific data.
Well whoever "they" are who said this I can assure you is not affiliated with climate science.
You mean you won't get the answer that you want to hear that confirms the ignorance you want to believe.
Why don't you stop being intellectually lazy and go look it up yourself.
Are you serious? What kind of question is this?
Go back to school and take a course in physics and chemistry.
Stop spreading ignorant MYTHS! People who do this only show others how gullible and misinformed they are. It shows intellectual laziness through parroting misinformation.
A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists.
The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigor and honesty are not in doubt, and their behavior did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.
Climate deniers are so desperate that they stoop to stealing emails and then proceed to quote mining these emails.
You need a lesson on how low the climate deniers will go to try and mislead the facts. These folks are the lowest scum on this earth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.