http://www.purgit.com/co2ok.html

From the standpoint of the plant kingdom, current CO2 levels are barely adequate. At the levels experience during past glacial advances (180 ppm or so) many plant species are beginning to experience CO2 starvation. If the past estimates of CO2 levels during geologic history calculated by Scotese and Bernier, 2001 are correct, the atmospheric CO2 levels present when gymnosperms and angiosperms evolved were approximately 3000 ppm and 2500 ppm respectively. This might explain why most commercial greenhouse artificially increase CO2 levels to 1000 to 1500 ppm to increase productivity.

Was there AGW going on in the past? Did we stop it somehow?

GW (no A) was going on from the 1920s to 1940s. And, of course, the Medieval Warm Period. it looks as if it was PDO that stopped it this century and major solar minimums 600 years ago.

I do not recall having read this anywhere. Has it occurred to anyone before to ask this question?

Don’t forget the MSM GCM:

X=Global Warming
Everything = X
Anything = Everything
X (Anything and Everything) = X (Global Warming)
Therefore: Shut up and go away.

The word “return” tends to imply that we used to have longer growing seasons. Was there AGW going on in the past? Did we stop it somehow? Just curious.

;-)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm

If only we knew people who have recently proved the opposite.

John M Reynolds

REPLY: It seems they looked at the wrong particles. This is the telling quote:
“For example; sometimes the Sun ‘burps’ – it throws out a huge burst of charged particles,” he explained to BBC News.

“So we looked to see whether cloud cover increased after one of these bursts of rays from the Sun; we saw nothing.”

Of course he likely wouldn’t. Cosmic rays are orders of magnitude more energetic than sun driven partcles. Svensmark’s theory is about Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR), not protons or other sun emanated particles which are typically lower in energy.

Svensmark said as a quote: “Terry Sloan has simply failed to understand how cosmic rays work on clouds”

We’ll see how it shakes out.

Al (Get your carbon credits here!!!!) Gore wants to control how much energy you and I are allowed to use. No matter whether it’s from solar at my house or oil from Kuwait. So he’s found a boogie man called global warming. He’s found a few scientists who are looking for research dollars to live on and a bunch of bureaucrats that can be lead around by the nose at the UN to blame the whole deal on the USA. Guess the scientists that are getting the research grants don’t really need the money. The scientists that point our the shoddy research are getting blackballed left and right. So don’t claim it goes both ways. The research money is being thrown at the AGW people, not the ones who are debunking it.

So by Al’s rules, when things get hotter, it’s global warming. When things get colder, it’s global warming. If rainfall is low, it’s global warming. When rainfall is high, it’s global warming.

Global warming will make the 2007 hurricane season one of the worst on record. Gee, I don’t remember anything about last years hurricane season except the couple storms that did occur brought some much needed rain to Florida and the Carolinas.

Al told us the sea ice between Greenland and Canada is GONE. Except after this winter it’s further south and thicker than it’s been in years.

Now they’re complaining about the trees blooming early. Well, through the global warming lens, what else could it be. Look through the scientific lens if you want that answer.

I’m pretty sure that Al recently claimed that sunspot activity doesn’t affect earths temperature. But there was a study posted here recently where the data doesn’t support his hypothesis. Not to mention that the hypothesis doesn’t make any logical sense anyway.

Al claimed on 60 minutes that non-believers in AGW are on a level with flat earth proponents and folks who think the moon landing was staged. It the typical ploy of claiming that “everyone knows” that x is true. If you say it long enough people start believing you.

Al Gore is a charlatan. When is the world going to wake up and realize we been taken for a fool?

With 55, and counting, badly located recording stations documented so far, the data that is being used to justify global warming, not to mention man made global warming could be said to be less than authoritative.

And my point is that the plants don’t lie. It doesn’t matter what any recording station records, when the plants show spring hitting 8 hours earlier every year for the past 30 years. It’s only a 30 year trend, but the plants don’t lie.

Of course, the plants may not know that the recording stations get the wrong temperature. So, if you can just get the message to the plants and let them know, maybe they’ll stop blossoming earlier every year, growing farther north every year, and acting as if the climate were changing. You may have greater powers of persuasion with plants than farmers and God, since you seem to know so much more about the climate than they do.

Be my guest.

REPLY: You should ask the plants if they’ve seen a trend like this before, and what happened afterwards. If they are incapable of lying, I’m sure they’ll tell the truth, unless they are a particular set of Bristlecones that speak in tongues and have a bad translator.

So has anyone taken the 500+ stations that have been reviewed and adjusted them for the step change and rerun the data? I’m a relative rookie around here, so I may not have seen the post.

Obviously it would be better if all 1221 results were in, but it would still be interesting preliminary data.

I’ll admit, some of the science content makes my head spin and gives me a headache, but you don’t have to be a genius, to realize that the main voice for AGW happens to have started a company that sells carbon credits. And he’s a politician.

Speaking of carbon credits, has anyone else heard about fidelity credits? If you want to cheat on your wife and your conscience is bothering you, you can send me $50/credit. I certify that I have never stepped out on my wife. We’ve been married for almost 25 years.

If only people were as stupid about fidelity credits as they are about indulgences, I mean carbon credits.

With 55, and counting, badly located recording stations documented so far, the data that is being used to justify global warming, not to mention man made global warming could be said to be less than authoritative.

The data is flawed, and should be adjusted.

If you aren’t at least open to the concept of global warming being proven by using junk science then your basing your beliefs on ideology, and “Al Gore said so”. Are you looking for the truth, or out to fulfill an agenda?

REPLY: Actually there are many more than 55, these are just the ones I chose to highlight See this:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/over-500-ushcn-stations-now-surveyed/

http://atmoz.org/img/douglas_az.png

But your cause is lost. You have no way of telling the local vegetation that the temperature changes are not happening. Douglas was included in the change in climate zones noted by USDA some years back. If only you could talk to each of those plants . . .

ROTFL!!

Anthony, thanks for not deleting Steve’s story. that’s one for the archives.