From the Chicago Field Museum Climate Exhibit: CO2 makes Poison Ivy grow. Yes, but what about the millions of other plants in the biosphere that is booming? What about agriculture? I really resent this sort of one sided presentation foisted on children that won’t know any better.
Watch this YouTube video showing how a Cowpea plant responds to increased CO2 levels. Most any plant will react in much the same way:
And it gets worse.
Kids can now buy Carbon Credits at the museum from the flatlining Chicago Climate Exchange, which Gore and Pachauri are advisers for.
They may as well just throw their money down the toilet as CCX is now in EPIC FAIL mode. Sure, take money from the kids, why not?
The months of flatlining at the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) should be a hint to the rest of the world that carbon trading is dead. Time to take it off life support. Even at 10 cents a ton, nobody wants it. At it’s peak in July 2008, it traded for $7.50 per ton of CO2.
Chicago Climate Exchange close on June 30th, 2010 – click for source
See who is on the CCX advisory board here
And there is lot’s more. How ’bout that Malaria Myth?
The Field exhibit promotes the theory that global warming will cause increased
incidence of malaria. Thatʼs a powerful scare story – global warming, then malaria in
Chicago. In the early days of settlement there was a lot of malaria in the Midwest.
According to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy:
Willis F. Dunbar in “Michigan: A History of the Wolverine State,” writes that the disease “was so prevalent that it was rather unusual to escape it.”
According the Paul Reiter, a malaria expert, malaria was a serious problem in Britain during the very cold period in the 1600ʼs known as the little ice age. Malaria, called ague, was mentioned 13 times in Shakespeareʼs plays.
Experts on malaria and other mosquito borne diseases have been fighting a losing battle with global warming believers. The idea that global warming will promote malaria is too good a scare story to let the facts get in the way. Nine malaria experts published a letter in the June, 2004 Lancet with the title: “Global warming and malaria: a call for accuracy.”
Above: Malaria endemicity in 1900 (a, top) and 2007 (b, middle) by increasing severity category. The difference in endemicity (c, bottom) from 1900 to 2007 indicates worsening malaria in red areas and improvements in blue (Gething et al., 2010).
If you give this issue a moment of thought, this result should be obvious. Of course malaria is not as bad now as it was 100 years ago. Global health interventions have reduced the problem significantly.
We covered it here on WUWT.
Gore, like the Field Museum, still pushes the factual errors associated with this. See here.
You can read all about the Chicago Field Museum Climate Exhibit in a July 5th walk through report (PDF) by Norman Rogers of www.climateviews.com who has now earned a place in my blogroll. Some of the other exhibit photos are similarly stunningly stupid.
h/t to Tom Nelson
Folks just to let you know “Yes Butt” who is supposedly green, and liberal-minded, labels hard-working American wheat farmers as “WASPS.”
Prejudice…is prejudice….in any form.
Take your paranoid schizt elsewhere.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I just stopped by one of the many local growops.
The CO2 system is set at 1200 ppm.
Can’t hear any growth creaking, though. Ventilation system is a bit loud.
Water makes poison ivy grow.
Sun makes poison ivy grow.
Dirt makes poison ivy grow.
Evil water.
Evil sun.
Evil Dirt.
Must be regulated by Lisa Jackson. Justice must be done. Money must be redistributed to deserving inner-city poor…..or something like that.
Yes but: July 18, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Well what an amazingly ecophysiologically ignorant set of comments. Increased atmospheric CO2 will have unpredictable impacts on many species – what we have here is primary school level sceptic trivialisation.
Well, what an amazingly supercilious and ecohubristically ignorant comment. An appeal to higher intelligence fallacy, with you self-assigning as the higher intelligence, then blowing your credibility with talking points and buzzwords.
Higher CO2 may increase plant biomass, but many plant species (including many that are essential for human food production) will increase toxin (chiefly cyanide) producion while reducing protein content. Not a very good trade-off.
REPLY: and your citations for that increased cyanide production are…? And while you are at it, explain why greenhouses used for commercial production use CO2 enhancement at 1200ppm – Anthony
Yes but: July 18, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Savanna woodlands are incredibly important biomes across the world for beef cattle production and native animals. Woodland thickening or shrub encroachment is well demonstrated across southern Africa, the southern USA and Australia at least. To date from changes in fire regime and grazing but being added to each day by CO2 fertilisation of C3 natural woody species of trees and shrubs.
Your ecophysiological ignorance is showing. Shrub encroachment results when cattle *don’t* browse in the woodland margins, and shrub encroachment gives native animals *additional* feeding areas and cover. Woodland margins are just about the optimal habitat for browsing herbivores.
So CO2 lovers want to choke out productive savannas with native woody weeds?
Nope. But that doesn’t happen when wildfires burn back shrub encroachment. But then, you folks don’t *like* wildfires, because they cause *ahem* increased CO2.
And there is a great deal of work on increased risk frost injury from increased CO2 as well. At least get yourself up to date with a robust discussion of the issues on an evidence-based science site.
Got any links? And kindly don’t mention skepticalscience-dot-com and “evidence-based” in the same sentence.
CO2 does make plants grow better – however there is substantial subtlety in the effects. C3 will respond differently to C4 species.
A substantial subtlety is an oxymoron. And kindly explain how a carbon molecule responds to a *plant*, and what’s earth-shattering about it?
The London Science Museum at one stage held an AGW exhibition which was also giving a gross alarmist picture, but then made the mistake of holding an internet poll entitled “Prove It”, and were embarrassed by a strongly negative public reaction. (and I leave out how they tried to modify the results!)
Subsequently, they changed their public attitude, such as reported here;
London Science Museum goes climate science neutral
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62N0ZH20100324
Here is more general commentary that also includes a brief reference to the Science Museum’s reluctant change in attitude
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/earth/25climate.html?_r=1
How can similar pressures be brought on to the Chicago museum?
Perhaps these cyanide citations like these ginckgo may have alluded to ?
Gleadow RM, Evans JR, McCaffrey S, and Cavagnaro TR, (2009). Growth and nutritive value of cassava (Manihot esculenta Cranz.) are reduced when grown at elevated CO2. Plant Biology Published Online: Aug 6 2009 doi:10.1111/j.1438-8677.2009.00238.x
Gleadow RM, Edwards E. and Evans JR (2009) Changes in nutritional value of cyanogenic Trifolium repens at elevated CO2. Journal Chemical Ecology 35, 476–47.
All depends on the plant – by now it should start to dawn on those who are observant that CO2 fertilisation is not a simple matter. And speaking of matter – like cassava tubers being less?
Frost injury under extra CO2
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119116276/abstract
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303072651.htm
The aiming of misinformation at children has been going on for as long as Man has included ‘formal’ education in his agenda. There have always been sceptics, too, including teachers and parents who used the ‘official’ line as a starting point to get kids to research whatever topic they are studying and examine the ‘authorities’ on any topic for veracity by applying properly sceptical thinking.
As an example, most kids in the developed western world are taught that Wilbur and Orville Wright were the first to invent and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine. When kids do the research on this topic, they are always amazed to find that this is factually incorrect and that a number of heavier-than-air flying machines flew publicly in America and in other parts of the world before the Wright brothers flew in front of actual witnesses.
Wise teachers and parents know that their kids will be targeted by all kinds of snake-oil salesmen as they go through life; those same wise teachers and parents use blatant bad science, such as the current examples, and other malign misinformation as an oportunity to enrich the understanding of kids and to ensure they become free thinkers who are able able to use research and reason to come to sound conclusions for themselves. Some parents and teachers also drink Koolade of various flavours, which can be a problem.
I dislike conspiracy theories, but the ‘dumbing down’ of science and other curricula in schools and colleges over the last couple of decades seems to be aimed at making it easy for kids (and adults) to believe the unbelievable.
Yes but: July 19, 2010 at 2:05 am
Perhaps these cyanide citations like these ginckgo may have alluded to ?
Quite possibly, but it’s a non-issue. Cooking breaks down the HCN in the tubers and leaves, and *nobody* eats raw manioc. And it’s a lousy source of protein to begin with — it’s all starch, although it’s got a load of vitamin C.
As for plant susceptibility to frost under increased CO2 conditions, the author in your first link says:
“Growth under elevated [CO2] promoted spring frost damage in field grown seedlings of snow gum (Eucalyptus pauciflora Sieb. ex Spreng.), one of the most frost tolerant of eucalypts. Freezing began in the leaf midvein, consistent with it being a major site of frost damage under field conditions.”
If the seedlings were “field grown” they were, by definition, grown in the open and exposed to the atmosphere. However, in order to grow them under elevated CO2, they would have had to have been grown in greenhouse-type enclosures. Which means they couldn’t have been field grown. Which means they either did not raise them under conditions of elevated CO2 or they took plants raised in a greenhouse and exposed them to the elements — and it’s a big surprise that they got frostbite?
This statement in your second link has nothing to do with an increase in CO2 affecting plant susceptibility to frost:
“Widespread damage to plants from a sudden freeze that occurred across the Eastern United States from 5 April to 9 April 2007 was made worse because it had been preceded by two weeks of unusual warmth…”
A warm spell followed by a cold snap killed off new growth. It’s happened in the past, it’ll happen again in the future, and increased CO2 had nothing to do with it.
I remember that 5-9 April 2007 “sudden freeze,” incidentally — it dumped four inches of sleet and freezing rain on my house. But I’m sure *that* had no effect on the plants…
If one really wanted to go to the bottom with the Malaria question one could research the large Malaria archives of the League of Nations (which are largely forgotten these days). The organization made massive investigations of the Malaria situation of the world and have collected records dating back to the mid 18th century.
http://www.who.int/library/collections/historical/en/index4.html
I went to the Biosphere 2 site near Tuscon a few years ago and was treated to a big dose of the same sort of nonsense pretending to be science. At least they weren’t selling carbon offsets.
Here’s an idea: Sell offsets by having people hold their breath.
Ref – Alexander K says:
July 19, 2010 at 2:14 am
_____________
Ditto!
Down here we got a place called Ditto Landing. It was named after a NASA rocket scientist, one of the first, he ferried folks back and forth across the Tennessee River. That was back in the days when NASA used barges; about 200 years ago. Anyway, things weren’t too much different than, except that there were a lot less folks around, and a dollar was worth a heck of a lot of money.
Oh! Nearly forgot. And people who played tricks on other people (especially children), and lied, and cheated, were treated to a new suit of tar and feathers and a ride out of town on a special conveyance called a rail. If it was really serious, they usually ended up in an unmarked grave or found themselves face down in the Tennessee and going to New Orleans by way of Cairo (pronounced Kay-ro).
What’s the point of all this? Some people haven’t changed a bit. But most people have. The modern, hippie, do your own thing, don’t rock the boat culture is a real bummer. When folks have no rules of common decency and ethics, there’s only chaos. I guess that’s why many, today, say ‘Life’s a riot!’ and Ph.D’s are a dime a dozen.
Who knew we’d run out of tar and feathers? Or forget how to use them?
Bill Tuttle – However, in order to grow them under elevated CO2, they would have had to have been grown in greenhouse-type enclosures.
– what utter tosh. Look up FACE and open top chambers !
Yes of course one cooks cassava – but if you like more HCN great ! And the extra HCN is at the expense of less tuber weight ! Great result for the 3rd world.
And this is merely “a” result. Many species, but not all, respond similarly.
As for the last citation – yes indeed indicating the interaction between AGW and atmospheric CO2 “Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are believed to reduce the ability of some plants to withstand freezing, and the authors of the BioScience study suggest that global warming could lead to more freeze and thaw fluctuations in future winters.”
You can easily Google cold or frost injury and increased CO2 effects in a number of plant species.
But Wattsup continues with its simplistic view of a cow pea seedling in 1200 ppm CO2 !! Come on – is this science?
REPLY: And you continue with your simplistic view that CO2 has a linear heating effect on the atmosphere, and is the only forcing, this is science?
Yes but says:
July 18, 2010 at 8:15 pm
So a warmer Canadian border with more CO2 – yep probably means more wheat for northern US/Canadian wheat belt. A drier Australia with more CO2 = less wheat. Who wins who loses !?
What you conveniently neglect to mention is that with greater C02 levels, plants’
water-use efficiency rises, greatly increasing their ability to withstand drought. So, it’s definitely a win-win for mankind. You also assume Canada will become warmer and Australia drier. Sorry, but Alarmists’ predictions have a poor track record, and are not based on reality, but on their precious GCMs.
But then again God probably favours WASP American wheat farmers eh? Maybe there’s a conspiracy and the CIA already know that – which is really why CO2 is being allowed to increase uncontrollably. (I read it on the internet! 🙂 ).
When your arguments become idiotic straw men such as the above, your entire credibility is damaged, and it exposes you as nothing more than a CAGW/CC troll.
“Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are believed to reduce the ability of some plants to withstand freezing, and the authors of the BioScience study suggest that global warming could lead to more freeze and thaw fluctuations in future winters. ”
>> Yes but says:
July 19, 2010 at 2:05 am
Frost injury under extra CO2
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119116276/abstract
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303072651.htm <<
From your reference, there are those words 'believe', 'suggest', and 'could.' I love how the CAGW true believer quotes a basically religious treatise as proof.
"Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are *** believed *** to reduce the ability of some plants to withstand freezing, and the authors of the BioScience study *** suggest *** that global warming *** could *** lead to more freeze and thaw fluctuations in future winters. "
Bruce Cobb says:
July 19, 2010 at 8:03 am
“[…]When your arguments become idiotic straw men such as the above, your entire credibility is damaged, and it exposes you as nothing more than a CAGW/CC troll.”
If this is the same Yes But that posts on JoNova, he’s got little to lose.
I was going to address R. Gates’ claim of ocean acidification being tied to AGW initially…
My response would have been that ocean acidification is one (potential) result of CO2 increase, whereas global warming is another (potential) result with only limited interaction between the two. Showing one does not prove the other.
However, he went on to say this in a later post:
R. Gates says:
July 18, 2010 at 11:19 am
So I guess the oceans are getting less acidic by his statement? I’m confused as to what he’s arguing now.
-Scott
>> R. Gates says:
July 18, 2010 at 11:19 am
BTW, here’s a great article on the general increase in ocean pH, and some other little nuggets of information. Ocean acidity discussion is on page 9. <<
You seem to be a reasonable person. Do you really buy their graph which shows the change in pH of the oceans to within +/- 0.02 between 1700 and 1990? Do you really believe the pH of the oceans was known to that accuracy in 1700? To me it just proves that the whole slide show is full of baloney.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/CI-oceans.pdf
What a novel idea! I could tell the kids to be careful not to spill their drinks because they contain H2O, which has been shown to benefit the growth of poison ivy!
Yes but: July 19, 2010 at 7:02 am
Bill Tuttle – However, in order to grow them under elevated CO2, they would have had to have been grown in greenhouse-type enclosures.
– what utter tosh. Look up FACE and open top chambers !
Geez, calm down, before you hurt yourself. An open-top enclosure *is* a greenhouse-type enclosure. It’s designed to limit air circulation around the plants *and* prevent excess heat from building up.
Yes of course one cooks cassava – but if you like more HCN great ! And the extra HCN is at the expense of less tuber weight ! Great result for the 3rd world.
As I said, cooking *detoxifies* the cassava, and the amount of excess weight of HCN you’re screaming about is in parts per *million*. Do you have any idea how *small* 40 – 60 ppm is? And drop your phony internationalist concern for the Third World — you’re not fooling anyone here.
And this is merely “a” result. Many species, but not all, respond similarly.
Name some.
As for the last citation – yes indeed indicating the interaction between AGW and atmospheric CO2 “Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are believed to reduce the ability of some plants to withstand freezing, and the authors of the BioScience study suggest that global warming could lead to more freeze and thaw fluctuations in future winters.”
Bogus. “…are believed…suggest…could…” You claimed it was a study *showing* an increase in plant susceptibility to frost damage with an increase in CO2.
You can easily Google cold or frost injury and increased CO2 effects in a number of plant species.
I can easily Google “megalodon survives in the Marianas Trench” and get the same number of hits with the same level of credibility.
But Wattsup continues with its simplistic view of a cow pea seedling in 1200 ppm CO2 !! Come on – is this science?
We’ve gone way past that. You’re the only one stuck on cowpeas here, but since you ask the question, yes, it is science. And better science than a paper full of “…are believed…suggest…could…may…”
Bill – that would be the Google facility sceptics never use – it’s called “Google Scholar” – it brings up information on what we call “peer reviewed papers”. It’s in that little arrow tag above the search space called “more”.
The cassava issue is the lower weight. So sceptics would like lower yields of cassava as valuable energy is spent making HCN ?
And sceptics will be advocating poisoning livestock too with clover producing more HCN and less protein under high CO2.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19352773
We’ll add that to lower protein yields in wheat.
A nice brave new world with more cyanic plants, less protein, less tubers. Sound great.
“An open-top enclosure *is* a greenhouse-type enclosure. It’s designed to limit air circulation around the plants *and* prevent excess heat from building up.’ SO ?? There’s this thing in what we call “science” where one compares a control with a “treatment”. i.e. ambient CO2 vs increased CO2
How utterly hilarious that sceptics all line up for a 1200ppm CO2 cow pea. Pullease guys ! I prefer 2000ppm. You can never have enough.
REPLY: and just what evidence do you have that sceptics “never use Google Scholar” I use it daily, trying to find papers that aren’t including with the breathless press releases. Stop making up things for which you have zero evidence – Anthony
<b.Yes but : July 19, 2010 at 1:12 pm
The cassava issue is the lower weight. So sceptics would like lower yields of cassava as valuable energy is spent making HCN ?
Again, we’re talking parts per million.
And sceptics will be advocating poisoning livestock too with clover producing more HCN and less protein under high CO2.
I’ll see your evil AGW CO2 and raise you — surprise! — natural variation.
Studies on Variability in White Clover: Growth Habits and Cyanogenic Glucosides
JOANNA FRASER and JERZY NOWAK
Plant Science Department, Nova Scotia Agricultural College Truro, Nova Scotia, Canada B2N 5E3
[Extract from the introduction] Growth habits and cyanogenesis were studied in a field experiment with white clover (Trifolium repens L.) cv. Huia. Eighty control plants propagated by seeds, and 80 clones of an in vivo selected variant were examined in mid-late August and late September.
[Extract from the conclusion] The response to the environmental changes, regarding cyanogenesis, appear to be genetically determined. My emphasis.
http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/61/3/311
Also available from the Oxford University Press.
Didn’t need Google Scholar to find it, either — just a matter of scanning for institutions with a reputation for scholarly work and integrity.
Did anybody else notice, behind the big leaf, that big red sun, on the display? As a big notice of the underlying cause of global climate and life on earth?