Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#29, Jimbellofbelmont:”Plants grown in high CO2 turn out to have much higher levels of toxins and lower nutrition levels.”
… yah, and condoms don’t reduce pregnancies.
ECA, yup. We are clear-cutting forests like theres no end to them. Increased CO2 will provide a higher crop yield and reduce the need to cut forests down to grow crops by at least 13%… even if we don’t water or feed them.
Aaaa, that works for me.
Ok, I am convinced of the goodness of increased atmospheric C02 concentration if they repeat the same experiment using people. Raise one child in 450ppm of C02 and another in 1270ppm; then, measure and compare.
If the child in 1270ppm C02 is bigger, taller and smarter then the child in 450ppm C02; I’ll gladly say, let them coal fires burn. Until then I’ll stick to my Prius Hybrid.
I suggest we start experimenting with hhopper and family.
[Yikes! – ed.]
Humans are not plants.
Co2 is a pollutant if it kills all the animals in the process, then the plants are really in trouble, no more symbiotic relationship.
My MAIN question is “WHAT ELSE IN IN THE AIR”?
we need CO2 for plants.
WE need Oxygen.. at 20% NOW.
BUT what some of you may not understand..
WE are taking O2, and burning it with C,(as in cars and Everything we do, uses OXY to explode FUEL) and getting C+O2.. Which is NOT healthy for MANY animals.
IF we can reverse the format…YOU WOULD be making BUCKS.
It was a joke in the past..
SELLING WATER, to have better tasting water.
Next is the SALE of oxygen.
YES, its already started. Oxygen bars are here.
Noname:, exaggerate much? try bringing up a generation at 500 ppm and vcompare. Then bring up a generation at 600ppm and compare, etc, etc. WE ADAPT!
simongiln re: “Humans are not plants”
…You are what you eat.
Rick, Whoever told you that CO2 is a pollutant is a whore.
If ANY of you really want to understand CO2, climate change and our food, read this. It’s the least biased paper I have come across. In fact, this paper is an excellent example of what is sorely missing from the majority of the climate science community. So, in respect for the honest scientific efforts of the writers I’m shorting my name for this post, and bowing my head.
http://fao.org/docrep/w5183e/w5183e06.htm
Put a person in a room and try that experiment and see what happens.
# 38 Skeptic,
Haha. No exaggeration, just asking for an experiment to be done.
If you are truly a Skeptic, and not another corporate shrill, you should be all for that?
May we use your offspring for these experiments?? As you say humans adapts; that is, you are human??
noname, the experiment is happening as we speak. One of our children will be publishing the first results. I can’t wait!
Have you noticed how much taller and healthier kids are these days? I don’t live in the US… 90% of the male teens here are tall 6′ and up, and fit.
No, I’m not a corporate shill. Why would I be posting on DU? LOL! I’m just a old guy with some time and a tendency to procrastinate.
Had to fix this link… it was bugging me.
http://fao.org/docrep/w5183e/w5183e06.htm
# 41 Skeptic,
Wow, good to hear your kids are thriving and doing so well.
I look forward to learning new science.
I warn you, I am a stickler on experimental protocol, using good practices like a control group and such.
#38–Skeptic==you say: “this paper is an excellent example of what is sorely missing from the majority of the climate science community”
But that paper says NOTHING about GW. what the hey? Wrong link? Was there a second page? Maybe there is a link on that page to what you found so persuasive.
What the paper says is true: “if Europe would invest more money in Africa to grow food, then Africa could grow more food.” Gee, I’d have to see the numbers to back that claim up.
http://fao.org/docrep/w5183e/w5183e06.htm
You somewhat missed my allusion to “life in a greenhouse.” Solar 1, Solar 2==we couldn’t get it to work. I think “my” linked article is right on point running down all the consequential effects that merely upping the Co2 levels cause==like the need for more nitrogen and phosphorus==all resulting from a runaway system that has to consume more and more to keep things “in balance” and that only addresses PLANTS which while important is not the only measure of progress.
I guess the oceans becoming an acid bath is irrelevant in this discussion because there are no oceans in green houses?
It’s kind of hard to know the truth when many scientists are funded from government grants. I for one do not trust the government, and therefore find it hard to trust government paid scientists who have an interest in keeping said government happy.
Bobbo, we already live in a crappy greenhouse… and it just may be becoming a better greenhouse overall.
Re: “But that paper says NOTHING about GW.”
It doesn’t? Look at the title.
“Originated by: Natural Resources Management and Environment Department
Title: Global climate change and agricultural production. Direct and indirect effects of changing hydrological, pedological and plant physiological processes.
I directed you to part 4 because it has most to do with this topic… the video of plants in a CO2 environment. The paper is huge… 13 parts… and is thorough and fair and actually has pragmatic solutions to problems. Read part 3. Did you know that increased CO2 will make the soil more fertile?
“Conclusions:
Some major and widespread soil changes expected as a result of any global change are positive, especially the gradual increases in soil fertility and physical qualities consequent on increased atmospheric CO2 The increased productivity and water-use efficiency of crops and vegetation, and the generally similar or somewhat higher rainfall indicated by several global circulation models, not fully counteracted by higher evapotranspiration, would be expected to lead to widespread increases in ground cover, and consequently better protection against runoff and erosion. …”
So there’s another few plusses on the side of CO2. And you thought they were all negative. Tch, Tch.
Your link went nowhere in particular. Try again?
You keep wanting to change the subject, but in consideration of this potentially going on forever, let’s stick to the topic at hand, and I’ll be happy to talk about oceans when the DU gods post something relevant. mmmK?
G’night.
#46–Skeptic==When I click on your link, it takes me to the FAO hompage with the header of:
Economic crisis threatens Europe’s progress on hunger – action needed
Looking at the available links on that page, your paper is not obviously referred to.
While I enjoy a full range of disagreement from quibbling and nitpicking (eg–YOU) to identifying wholesale stupidity (eg-BM-BB), I also enjoy learning something new myself and being corrected.
Hard to do when the links don’t work?
What you see in the video is called CO2 Fertilization and is also used in aquarium to ensure that the aquatic plants don’t die from lack of CO2, especially in hard water. Similarly around under water volcanos you can find high amount of algae growth due to minerals and high CO2 and acidity levels. It is the same concept used for biofuels 2.0 where CO2 is pumped into ponds of water to increase algae growth, to then be converted into biodiesel. Carbon dioxide is already increasingly used in greenhouses as the main carbon source for Spirulina algae.
After reviewing all the entries to date #8 wins as the most intelligent thing on this post.
Re Bobbo#47…Those buggers! I deleted my browser cache and tried the link and it didn’t work for me either. LOL. This is too funny… and I’ve had this link for some time too.
Here’s the back door way in.
use the search feature on the home page… the one we’ve been redirected to. Search this phrase:
Global climate change and agricultural production
Choose the top result. Then click on table of contents. and you are in. It’s actually called a book, but is a compilation of 13 very well done papers.
The facts are nothing to quibble about. Individually all the details like the false reports on Polar bears, and the false reports on CO2 effects on agriculture, and as you will find out soon enough, the misleading and inadequate reports on ocean acidification, all add to the whole. And the whole is mostly speculation… not science by any stretch. Please take the time and read the reports on agriculture that I’ve indicated. There are a lot of scientists involved and a lot of science was done. This isn’t the work of a crackpot.
I guarantee you that the IPCC and any of their contributing climate scientists will NEVER EVER refer to any of the positive aspects of these reports. They have been duly ignored, as all of the other non-alarming and contradictory science has. I hope I can open your eyes a little.
Maybe my link will work:
http://fao.org/docrep/w5183e/w5183e00.HTM
first impression: amusing you rebuke one UN committees modeling work based on another UN committees modeling work.
How do you tell which UN modeling work is more believable, more or less valid? All to the point that once again, modeling is not proof/modeling is by definition Manipulation?
Too many weasel words to give comfort. I think we should remain skeptical==of the doubting/not convinced but short of adamant against the contrary kind.
Ahhh–I see my link doesn’t work either.
Must be some tricky coding there. Looks like the UN doesn’t want its public website to be easily available to the public. I wonder why that is?
I see a few people didn’t pass Grade 8 science class.
Bobbo, re: “How do you tell which UN modeling work is more believable, more or less valid? All to the point that once again, modeling is not proof/modeling is by definition Manipulation?”
Do you ever read anything? I’m beginning to wonder. The papers I referred you to rely on actual testing on actual soil and plants, with very little… if any… modeling. I believe you are simply a denier, too lazy to do the work of sorting out the difference.
HEY!!–they never tested the whole earth atmosphere having xxx parts per million co2. If you want to talk about small closed systems, then the effects of co2 on GW can be ABSOLUTELY proven too. Ever see that balloon ==one with normal atmosphere and the other with extra co2? Extra heats up faster and hotter than the normal==GW proven. And where does the extra co2 come from? Thats right==from us.
So, you either got small scale closed experiments or modeling.
Did I read the footnotes in the links to the links? No.
Am I skeptical of AGW modeling?==Yes. Am I even more skeptical, even doubting, of AGW deniers? Even moreso.
How many balls can I juggle in the air at one time? 2. While both take practice, thinking isn’t juggling.
Bobbo, just read. They tested all over the world. I’m not even going to try and explain the difference in complexity between the areas of arable land on the surface of Earth … 2 dimensional by comparison to the entire 3-D atmosphere of Earth where only modeling can ever hope to unravel the mysteries. You should be able to figure that out for yourself.
Bobbo, everyone knows CO2 is a greenhouse gas by now, and I’ve never denied that fact. However, the effects of CO2 on climate can never been directly observed, and the net amount of heating to Earth, caused by CO2 as measured by radiative forcing, is inaccurate by up to 6X due to a hefty dose of insufficient data on other positive and negative feedback gases alone. But you fall for the balloon trick. Sad.
Heh, heh. Well, I agree==in a sense. My first dose of skepticism arose when I read ((but was what I read true?)) that the early round of models did not include the effect of water vapor which is about 90 something per cent of the greenhouse gases. the models were rightly criticized so they added water vapor ((as you say many factors there with counterposed heating and cooling effects, how to measure them, calculate their effect at different latitudes, time of year, Coriolis effect, blah, blah, blah)) and lo and behold==the models came out the same as when they didn’t include water vapor.
THATS enough to make someone “skeptical.”
but you interest me. True, the balloon demonstration is not as complicated as Mother Earth but my own point was that it was NOT VALID, so I don’t see what I fell for. MY POINT was that my balloons were as valid as your greenhouse experiments. IE–NOT VALID.
Does a good skeptic see the obvious errors in someone else’s arguments and then fail to see the same error in his own?===or is something else going on????
Bobbo, re:”Does a good skeptic see the obvious errors in someone else’s arguments and then fail to see the same error in his own?===or is something else going on????”
First, i wasn’t referring to water vapor at all, but the fact that adding water vapor to the mix…. the most potent greenhouse gas… made no difference at all? really? what are the odds in that? But lets set that aside for later…
The balloon experiment was contained, the greenhouse was contained. That’s where any similarity stops. Plants and soil can be directly observed, tested and repeated by anyone to get the same results… all factors accounted for because of the simplicity of the 2-D environment and our extensive agricultural knowledge of thousands of years. The effects CO2 in the atmosphere is probably a trillion (conservative) times more complicated, can’t be directly observed, tested and repeated by anyone to get the same results (thus modeling as the only recourse), and can’t be assured that all contributing factors are accounted for (that’s why modeling fails), and the science is a toddler by comparison to agricultural science.
Like night and day. Why can’t you see the difference?
Skeptic–as I too often post, valid analysis lists the differences as you limit your conceptual universe to, AND THEN analyse the dimilarities====wait for it====and then weigh and measure, compare and contrast the similarities and differences to see what is more important. Course, none of that philosophical meandering is necessary if there is any actual “proof.” Argument is the default position when there is no truth, just belief/best guess. Belief systems are monopolar such as your own. Best guesses are acute exercises in information and expertise such as I use and place before you ……
Yes–greenhouses are almost identical to balloons. Closed, limited, artificial. You actually admit this when you say its a 2-d environment ((not at all true except for your conceptual approach)) compared to the much more complicated atmospheric co2.
Can you see that?
Bobbo, you,ve said nothing relevant or even useful to further the discussion. It’s like I’m talking tho an Evangelist. I state provable facts and you talk philosophy. I can see there is no convincing you, no matter what the proof, no matter what the evidence. So you go ahead and believe the popular illusion of consensus, as is your god-given right, and I’ll continue to see through the ruse as clear as glass.