Story submitted by Stephen Rasey
On July 12, I wrote a comment cautioning not to underestimate the Gore Climate Reality event scheduled for Sept. 14, 2011. Mixing metaphors, I said that this was an “All In” bet and that this was Gore’s D-Day.
Pickett’s Charge from a position on the Confederate line looking toward the Union lines, Ziegler’s Grove on the left, clump of trees on right, painting by Edwin Forbes via Wikipedia
A better analogy is that this is Gettysburg, July 3, 1863. Al Gore’s Climate Reality is “Pickett’s Charge”: thousands of troops, marching in formation in the open field, supported by the artillery of the internet and mass media, bent on destroying the deniers that stand in the way of themselves and Washington D.C.
Today we are engaged in a great Civil War of testing whether our nation, or any nation, conceived in liberty and individual freedom, can long endure the calls to “save the planet” through strong government and world government to better control the use of energy, land, and air by constraining the freedom of its subjects.
Back in late-June 1863, Robert E. Lee carried with him knowledge of a letter from Jefferson Davis dictating terms of peace to Lincoln. It was Lee’s strategy to bring the Union Army of the Potomac into the open, destroy it, and then march on Washington. The Letter would be delivered to Lincoln and hopefully end the war.
Today, Al Gore carries with him the plans for the IPCC Rio+20 Sustainability Agenda. The “Climate Reality” Charge is to bring “denier’s” out into the open, destroy them, and carry the momentum into Rio meetings in June 2012 and Washington for the Nov 2012 elections. The green energy carpetbaggers are already among us. After a Rio recharged by a Gore victory, there will simply be more of them acting without restraint.
The critical question is, “Is there a strong enough opposition standing between the Charge and Washington, D.C.?”
Today, my answer is, “No, the skeptic’s are not yet strong enough.” Skeptics are more of a disorganized guerrilla force of sharp-shooters. (Of course, I could be completely wrong and I’m just blowing the cover of an entrenched ambush.)
I do not think skeptics can field an army; it is not in our individualistic nature. But that does not mean we cannot prepare the battlefield. We know from which direction they will come. We know the type of ammunition they use – much of it is blanks – false, misleading statement, but full of fire, smoke, and noise. The skeptics artillery of web sites can be zeroed-in. Counter their arguments before they have the opportunity to fire theirs. We can field forward observers, and squads armed with facts and backup.
We must make it obvious to all observers the skeptics’ side in the climate debate is fighting against slavery of billions of people. I’m willing to help as a defender of freedom. It will take some organization.
Who are our, Buford, Reynolds, Chamberlin, and Hancock?
In what may be a related action, Anthony Watts has asked readers to find quotes for “ice free Arctic by the year xxxx”. This is the kind of preparing the ground and zero-in we need to do now in advance of September.
We know who the CAGW leaders will be. Find every false, misleading, scary, idiotic, non-scientific statement they have made in the past twenty years. Create an index by name with pages listing those statement with links to the source. Keep it factual. Let their own words come back to haunt them.
We know the basics of their arguments and lines of “evidence”. Cross reference each of the statements above with the type of evidence.
How can we efficiently do this without a Wiki? A Wiki would only be vandalized. We also want an efficient division of labor. I don’t suggest we eliminate duplication, but let’s avoid quadruplication. Somewhere we should start a list of the Whos and Whats to research. Volunteers can comment that they are searching sources X over dates Y-Z and will report back in 48 hrs. Someone will have to organize it.
In the responses to Anthony’s plea for help, many people provided links without helpful context and additional information about Who, When, What and Where. We can do better. But the response has been helpful showing that Anthony (and other moderators) could delegate research work to the readership of the blog and they can do more target location and synthesis.
Is there a simple six column Excel format OR six element Text format we could use to make a table driven content page work?
Person, Topic, Date, Link, Quote, Comment and Context
Or
[P] Person(s)
[T] Topic
[D] Date
[L] Link
[Q] Quote
[C] Comment
To focus on the “Gore Climate Reality Event” gives it standing, credence that It does not deserve. Only the scientific questions do. Only the scientific truths, constantly challenged by skepticism based on “real” data, that all the algores of the world are trying to bugger for their financial and political advantage, deserve the primary attention of scientific “warriors”. If this is to be an orderly project, then I suggest the following. The science, the scientists, then all those giving false witness, in order of potential influence on a wide audience.
““Find every false, misleading, scary, idiotic, non-scientific statement they have made in the past twenty years.”
1) Begin with the truth, not with algore, with the science, sub-research area, by sub-research area, Summarize the data, and possible interpretations. After this, list the “deniers” of “scientific reality” along with their stupidities. I would turn the “epithet” “denier” back on them. They are denying (or altering, even more serious) the scientific data or possibilities. “Skeptic” is a useful term for all scientists, as is “Realist”, so long as it is not reified.
2) Next the scientists by their stature in their discipline (what do they claim? how do they know — or do they — the science they are professing? what evidence, authorities do they use? in what ways are these claims false? who pays their salaries and who gives them the grants on which their claims are based?)
2) Next amateurs, “lay” scientists – algore thinks he qualifies, as do most of those on IPCC reports — who profess scientific credentials (what do they claim? what is false? where do they get their evidence? what is their source of remuneration? does it come from “green” activities?)
3) next owners of “mass media”, the “mass” to be defined by some basic circulation, readership numbers (who are they? how is their publication, and their financial empire, tied to green money? what do their publications claim? (I think it is important to notice whether or not their viewer-, reader-ship is declining or increasing, as also their profits. In other words, does giving “false witness” lead to their downfall? Then let them be hoist themselves on their own petard. WUWT readers only need to go to war when there is necessary. Otherwise, let them sink into their own slime.)
4) NGOs, including all those once-upon-a-time-in-a-land-far-far-away wonderful “environmental” groups. Similar questions
5) Heads of regulatory agencies in the relevant countries. Similar questions
6) Political leaders (I put heads of regulatory agencies ahead of political leaders because it seems that in the U.S. the EPA is a government unto itself with the ability and freedom to wreck state economies and individual businesses.)
8) Heads of crony corporations
9) Science advisors for elementary and secondary education on the federal and state levels. Approvers of basic text books.
10) Science reporters including website owners. (This last category, website owner, should find an appropriate level according to audience and influence, e.g., WUWT)
11) All others
Global Warming was a proposed business which failed in achieving “global governance” after Climate Gate, so it has been complemented with a variety of new ideologies having the same goal: From the fight against obesity to marriage as an “obsolete institution”; all deeply affecting individual freedom.
However, I prefer considering God as the “ultimate conspirer” , who inevitably will succeed in the end, and not clowns who think themselves the saviors of humanity. The best we can do is just to ignore them; they do not worth our attention.
This public approach of collating statements seems to smack of research by consensus and reminds me of the very public search for communists which resulted in a black list.
Rather, the research group should agree on a null hypothesis and then proceed to test it. A very public survey (what have you read about predicted ice free Arctic conditions?) was sent to us, and we provided our input. Bad form. Private emailed correspondence instead of a public posting should have been used. The data should then be examined by the research group in a private setting (no public list of names please), publish the results, and then make the raw data and code available.
One further comment. No statement based on a gray paper should be used. Else we are no better than the last IPCC report. Statements of predicted ice free conditions should only be lifted from published, peer reviewed research (with the warning that climate scientists seem to be okay with quoting gray papers and personal correspondances in their published articles). A reference to gray paper statements can certainly be made in the opening segments of the final paper. That statement should also include why such quotes were NOT used in a gold standard article.
On the other hand, if the purpose of an article is to collate gray paper and media statements, you should exclude peer reviewed research articles where such statements are made. Indeed, by separating the subjects thusly (gray/media papers from research papers), you open the door for two substantial and corroborating papers that have both teeth and muscle.
But let’s do this privately via email or snail mail.
GaryP says:
July 17, 2011 at 7:19 am
Video of some idiot saying, “Energy prices will necessarily skyrocket.”
I believe this is the correct analysis. Science can be debated endlessly. Paying your bills at the end of the month cannot.
The USA and the EU are having serious economic problems with unemployment and debt. You cannot hope to solve tomorrows problems if you cannot solve today’s problems. How can anyone have faith that politicians can fix the climate 100 years in the future when they cannot fix the economy today?
Fix unemployment. Fix the debt. So long as the government is mortgaging our children’s futures under a mountain of debt, the children are effectively being sold as economic slaves. What is going on in Washington right now is simply a debate over the price, how much money will the government get to spend in return for selling our children’s futures.
Isn’t this Al Gore’s real message? That we should save the planet at all cost, even if it means Slavery for our children and their children after them. That nothing, even Slavery is more important than Climate.
Wrong metaphor, if Gore is Lee. Foragers or even slave hunters would fit better.
Gore is his own most dangerous adversary. Even the green hornets have been moving away from him in recent years. What can a scientific illiterate amass together that could lead us into enslavement. A bigger and better Inconvenient Truth (this has turned out to be inconvenient mainly to himself)? What does he have that can sway billions? He thinks when making gingerbread a lot of money can substitute for the ginger. I think a database that connects AGWers who schmoozed with Gore in the past says all you need to say.
My personal strategy in real life is to just drop remarks like “It’s not warming” when someone brings up the Global Warming scare story. Or “The Sahel zone is greening” when someone goes into a dystopian breakdown about desertification. People will look at me frustrated because i just interrupted their downfall fantasies but i will provide links if asked; and they usually have never before seen the actual data, satellite pictures or statistics as all they usually get is lies by the MSM. And normal people are actually thankful for such information; they are not the indoctrinated KoolAid drinkers you would expect, say at GISS.
And that’s all you need to do. Tip: When looking for a source of data to bolster your argument, go to images.google.com (their search parsing is better than Bing when you use longer phrases) and enter the coordinate descriptions of your desired graph, like “olr versus co2” or the likes. You get a whole lot of charts this way. Use the images as the key for your search. It’s quicker than wading through mountains of websites.
As for Gore’s offensive, i don’t think he can even rally much of the MSM around him these days, they’re busy with the various currency crises.
@ur momisugly Dave Brittania says: July 17, 2011 at 6:35 am
“I know it is counter intuative to us reasonable folk but maybe we should take a leaf out of the oppositions book. Noisy demo’s,shrill headline grabbing soundbites and the boycotting of firms who pander to this eco-bullcrap.”
This is exactly the wrong approach. This approach is begging for the skeptics to get labelled and smeared as irrational, unscientific political actors.
But then that’s just what many skeptics are … irrational, biased, ignorant and politically motivated.
The true enemy of the US people is the State involvement in regulating the lives and businesses of people. This fight is not about science – but about control of other human beings. If you play the political game, go for the jugular – abolish the EPA, restore the Constitution, Nullify federal laws, restore sound money, etc.
John F. Hultquist says:@ur momisugly July 17, 2011 at 12:34 am
“I suggest each person prepare a short and well stated letter to you local and state officials . . .”
We tried that already. Here in Solano County I went beyond the letter writing and spoke at the county supervisors meeting the day they voted on the “Climate Action Plan” and sea level rise mitigation program. Of the five supervisors, three were already skeptical, one was swayed by my presentation on sea level rise (that it was unlikely it would rise 10″ in the next 90 years, let alone the “conservative” 55″ rise expected in the report). The fifth supervisor was already in the AGW tank and stupidly so — so much that she was laughed at openly in chambers, even by fellow supervisors! But they passed the Climate Action Plan unanimously anyway. Why? —under threat of litigation by Jerry Brown’s minions (the Brown Shirts), like they did to Stockton, CA, in 2008.
We must realize (and quickly) that it is not a battle between good science and bad science. Rather it is a global Progressive Collectivist movement committed to Social Justice/Environmental Justice and all the nefarious meanings those code words represent. The PC’s are simply using AGW as a scare tactic in their political dogma. They are effectively using the principles of Group Think, crowd psychology, and propaganda. Those techniques are quite effective. Glittering generalities, universal appeal, ad hominem attacks, and logical fallacies are all tools used effectively by the likes of Algore. Yes, we know he is wrong in truth and rotten to the core, but he is effective in convincing the masses and leading the cult. Try talking with the cult members and supporters of AGW. They parrot the talking points, but once you engage them and they discover you understand the science better than they do, their eyes glaze over and they terminate the conversation with a parting shot that we just don’t understand.
Ansel Adams once told me that “contrast is the fundamental element of perception.” We skeptics need to put good science, observation, and reason next to the many absurd notions of AGW and through that contrast, reveal how the entire movement is simply a Progressive agenda to redistribute the world’s resources though climate policy.
rbateman says:
July 16, 2011 at 11:02 pm
“Al might find himself pre-empted by events that are actually important.
Besides, you know what effect he has on our weather. We certainly don’t need that.”
Look at the SOI. It will stay cold until maybe Christmas. Then it will become milder. (Assuming that as usual the inverted SOI is a leading indicator by 7 months for global temperatures)
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/leyland/soi-global-temps-jan2011.pdf
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/soi30.png
Gettysburg. A good analogy I suppose. But like all analogies, its not the full story.
I have spent the last 15 years deploring the warmistas use of politics, spin and systematic character assassination. I still deplore it. I wish you well but I wont take part
dont fight fire with fire
we must fight fire with water. trust in the scientific method
EO
Pamela Gray,
I don’t get where you’re coming from. This isn’t a hunt for people with warmist views, it’s an attempt to show that self-advertised warmists often talk nonsense. The comparison with the “search for communists ” seems bogus to me.
And I have no idea why this project should be done in private. This is the internet age. Why we should shy away from openness in this instance is a mystery to me.
I also don’t get why we should make a distinction between blatant nonsense in peer-reviewed papers, or blatant nonsense spoken in a press interview. The idea is to allow us to easily point to the nonsense – whether the nonsense was finely etched on gold tablets, or scribbled on the back of a cigarette packet isn’t the issue.
Dear Stephen –
May I suggest you are confusing the scientific and political battlefields. The tide in the scientific war has turned against the Warmists, the rest being only a matter of time. On the political battlefield, the Warmists have tacitly admitted defeat, and are only fighting for scraps on a few domestic fronts (having clearly lost the international war). The main danger, as I see it, is that the Global Warming movement has been so successful over a period of decades, that it is sure to be repeated in spades, in other fields.
You missed our biggest weapon – reality. First off, the science of AWG is busted. What you need is a complete list of all the ways it is busted, from faulty or missing error budgets, to faulty statistics to 3 decades of satellite data showing nothing.
Whenever a model output is presented as fact, have the real data there in hand to show the fallacy.
I have yet to see any argument or new study requiring more than a days effort to collate the existing contrary real world measurements.
Now if Anthony or others which to collate the existing studies and arguments into a DB that can be queried to pull those which debunk a certain dimension or claim (e.g., those that debunk tree rings with regard to paleoclimate, or those ice core data which debunk the claim CO2 drives temperature as opposed to the other way around) that would be a great idea. A simple idea.
All you need is the 10 core claims of AWG, and then create a link between any given contrary study and the claims it debunks.
The problem on both sides is we don’t have a complete view of the argument. We need:
(1) The 10 or so core unproven assumption AWG relies on.
(2) The 3-5 top competitive theories to AWG
(3) And then the data base of studies and how they prove or disprove AWG or the 3-5 competitive theories
When compiled into a single resource, this will dispel the mythology of ‘settled’ science and expose (and educate) everyone to the wondrous complexity of the problem space, as well as the realistic time it will take to unravel this.
I would truly enjoy setting up such a resource. It is very similar to what we do for NASA and its science all the time. Collect the information and make it available. There is no more powerful tool against misinformation and mistake.
I’m reading a book review written by Andrew Revkin this morning, in which he makes the tired old claim that an “overwhelming majority of scientists agree that….humans are exerting a growing and potentially calamitous influence on climate.”
This it seems to me is emblematic of the kind of thing we’re up against. Revkin’s a smart guy. I also presume he’s honest. So how can he make such an unequivocal statement? Where is his data? It just strikes me as at the very least, unfounded.
I just don’t get this kind of stuff.
Anyone?
I thing a different approach would be for a well healed individual to retain a team of lawyers and scientist to prepare a libel defense for publishing the following full page statement in all of the nations major newspapers on the same day.
“Albert Arnold Gore Jr. has lied and perpetuated lies about Global Warming and Climate Change.
Albert Arnold Gore Jr. if you think that the above statement is libelous then sue me, otherwise shut up and stop lying about Global Warming and Climate Change”
Then wait.
A good start would be a referenced list of AlGorisms circulating around blogsville. Such as his statement about the temp of inner earth being millions of degrees. Public ridicule is the only way to beat this guy.
Don’t fool yourself. This has been in the works for at least a year. Two months ago I learned that my former company, which has a Gore minion leading it’s sustainability/social responsibility department, has a video coming about saving the planet. Coincidence? I don’t think so. The rolling stone article was the first salvo, which fortunately did not go over well. But the article’s content and tone are indicative of what to expect. I agree with the comment to fight fire with water or at least high density foam, to smother the false claims and hyperbole to come.
I think Al Gore’s ‘Choose Reality’ will turn out to be a non-event. The MSM in my neck of the woods (Denmark/Germany) haven’t even bothered to mention it.
Folks,
I don’t see Stephen Rasey’s idea as being an attack on Al Gore, or making a “list” of warmists. The idea is certainly prompted by Al Gore, but the idea is to have an easy way to document and respond to scare tactics and discredited science dressed up as being factual. Who said what and when is tangential to that, and the information base that would result would be highly usefull to dealing with lots of warmist propoganda, not just Al Gore’s.
Most of the public are unaware the basic facts concerning CO2. CO2 is essential for life on this planet. In the geological deep past the planet has been cold when CO2 levels were high and warm when the CO2 levels where comparatively low. In the deep geological past CO2 does not correlate with CO2 levels. The paleoclimatic data does not support the extreme AGW hypothesis. (See figure 4 that shows past ice epochs compared to atmospheric CO2 levels.)
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full.pdf+html
Atmospheric CO2 was prior to anthropological increases at the lowest level in 500 million years. See figure 4.
All of the data indicates planetary cloud increase or decrease to resist a forcing change. CO2 only absorbs specific frequencies overlapping with water. The CO2 greenhouse affect saturates. Higher and higher levels of CO2 has less and less warming effects.
If additional CO2 atmospheric cause minor rather than extreme warming one of the three legs is removed from the extreme AGW stool.
Increased atmospheric CO2 is definitely beneficial to biosphere.
Plants eat CO2. C3 type plants respond to increased CO2 by reducing the number of stomata on their leaves which reduces water loss due to transpiration. An optimum atmospheric CO2 level for plants is around 1200 ppm to 1500 ppm.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090218135031.htm
Published today in Nature, the 40 year study of African tropical forests–one third of the world’s total tropical forest–shows that for at least the last few decades each hectare of intact African forest has trapped an extra 0.6 tonnes of carbon per year.
The reason why the trees are getting bigger and mopping up carbon is unclear. A leading suspect is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere itself, which may be acting like a fertilizer.
African forests have the highest mammal diversity of any ecosystem, with over 400 species, alongside over 10,000 species of plants and over 1,000 species of birds. According to the FAO deforestation rates are approximately 6 million hectares per year (almost 1% of total forest area per year), although other studies show the rate to be half that (approximately 0.5% of total forest area per year). The African Tropical Rainforest Observation Network, Afritron brings together researchers active in African countries with tropical forest to standardise and pool data to better understand how African tropical forests are changing in a globally changing environment.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments
http://www.co2science.org/subject/t/summaries/transpiration.php
Transpiration
Transpiration – Summary Most plants respond to increases in the air’s CO2 content by displaying reduced stomatal conductances, which typically leads to reduced rates of transpirational water loss. This water savings often results in greater soil moisture contents in CO2-enriched ecosystems, which positively feeds back to increase plant growth. In this summary, we review a few papers that treat various aspects of this phenomenon.
In a review of studies conducted over the prior decade, Pospisilova and Catsky (1999) compiled over 150 individual plant water use responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. They found that elevated CO2 increased rates of net photosynthesis in about 85% of the reported studies, while reducing stomatal conductances and rates of transpiration in approximately 75% of the cases analyzed. Consequently, atmospheric CO2 enrichment increased plant water-use efficiency in more than 90% of the experiments that were conducted; and it reduced total water uptake in more than 50% of the studies, while slowing the development of water stress as indicated by plant water potential data. As a result Pospisilova and Catsky concluded that plants growing in future atmospheres of higher CO2 concentration “will probably survive eventual higher drought stress and some species may even be able to extend their biotope into less favourable sites.”
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#f1
For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness. The increase in yield of tomato, cucumber and pepper crops is a result of increased numbers and faster flowering per plant.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3Y-4N6FNPR-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1133437266&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=602850a304857db4767613a021735d61
Impact of elevated CO2 and temperature on rice yield and methods of adaptation as evaluated by crop simulation studies
But increases in the CO2 concentration up to 700 ppm led to the average yield increases of about 30.73% by ORYZA1 and 56.37% by INFOCROP rice.
http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm
Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses. CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or four times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and improve plant will quality.
Carbon dioxide is an odorless gas and a minor constituent in the air we breathe. It comprises only .03% [ 300 parts per million, or PPM] of the atmosphere, but is virtually important to all life on this planet!
Plants are made up of about 90% carbon and water with other elements like nitrogen calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus and trace elements making up only a small percentage. Almost all the carbon in plants comes from this minor 300 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air.
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full.pdf+html
Atmospheric CO2 was prior to anthropological increases at the lowest level in 500 million years. See figure 3. Plants eat CO2. C3 type plants respond to increased CO2 by reducing the number of stomata on their leaves which reduces water loss due to transpiration. An optimum atmospheric CO2 level for plants is around 1200 ppm to 1500 ppm.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090218135031.htm
Published today in Nature, the 40 year study of African tropical forests–one third of the world’s total tropical forest–shows that for at least the last few decades each hectare of intact African forest has trapped an extra 0.6 tonnes of carbon per year.
The reason why the trees are getting bigger and mopping up carbon is unclear. A leading suspect is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere itself, which may be acting like a fertiliser.
African forests have the highest mammal diversity of any ecosystem, with over 400 species, alongside over 10,000 species of plants and over 1,000 species of birds. According to the FAO deforestation rates are approximately 6 million hectares per year (almost 1% of total forest area per year), although other studies show the rate to be half that (approximately 0.5% of total forest area per year). The African Tropical Rainforest Observation Network, Afritron brings together researchers active in African countries with tropical forest to standardise and pool data to better understand how African tropical forests are changing in a globally changing environment.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments
http://www.co2science.org/subject/t/summaries/transpiration.php
Transpiration
Transpiration – Summary Most plants respond to increases in the air’s CO2 content by displaying reduced stomatal conductances, which typically leads to reduced rates of transpirational water loss. This water savings often results in greater soil moisture contents in CO2-enriched ecosystems, which positively feeds back to increase plant growth. In this summary, we review a few papers that treat various aspects of this phenomenon.
In a review of studies conducted over the prior decade, Pospisilova and Catsky (1999) compiled over 150 individual plant water use responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. They found that elevated CO2 increased rates of net photosynthesis in about 85% of the reported studies, while reducing stomatal conductances and rates of transpiration in approximately 75% of the cases analyzed. Consequently, atmospheric CO2 enrichment increased plant water-use efficiency in more than 90% of the experiments that were conducted; and it reduced total water uptake in more than 50% of the studies, while slowing the development of water stress as indicated by plant water potential data. As a result Pospisilova and Catsky concluded that plants growing in future atmospheres of higher CO2 concentration “will probably survive eventual higher drought stress and some species may even be able to extend their biotope into less favourable sites.”
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#f1
For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness. The increase in yield of tomato, cucumber and pepper crops is a result of increased numbers and faster flowering per plant.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3Y-4N6FNPR-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1133437266&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=602850a304857db4767613a021735d61
Impact of elevated CO2 and temperature on rice yield and methods of adaptation as evaluated by crop simulation studies
But increases in the CO2 concentration up to 700 ppm led to the average yield increases of about 30.73% by ORYZA1 and 56.37% by INFOCROP rice.
http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm
Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses. CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or four times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and improve plant will quality.
Carbon dioxide is an odorless gas and a minor constituent in the air we breathe. It comprises only .03% [ 300 parts per million, or PPM] of the atmosphere, but is virtually important to all life on this planet!
Plants are made up of about 90% carbon and water with other elements like nitrogen calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus and trace elements making up only a small percentage. Almost all the carbon in plants comes from this minor 300 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air.
Andrew30 says:
July 17, 2011 at 9:14 am
“Albert Arnold Gore Jr. has lied and perpetuated lies about Global Warming and Climate Change.
Albert Arnold Gore Jr. if you think that the above statement is libelous then sue me, otherwise shut up and stop lying about Global Warming and Climate Change”
Oh, that’s good. Koch brothers anyone?
Stephen Rasey
I think I’ve got a pretty good idea of what you are trying to do. At day’s end, you are looking for a way to make crowd sourcing of rebuttals to warmist propoganda efficient to gather, search, index, and be made available to others easy, efficient, and effective. I think you have a number of challenges to consider:
o standard formats for something like this will likely be cumbersome as there will be a tremendous number of situations in which the standard just doesn’t allow for the unique needs of the specific topic at hand.
o horespower; you’ll need lots of it. gathering the data is one thing, making it available to millions of people to search and cross reference quite another thing.
o keeping it current; corporations fall into this trap all the time. They embark on a grand plan to document (for example) everything there is to know about their customers (in order to serve them better). The data becomes stale faster than it can be gathered. AGW arguments evolve daily, and rebutting any given one is frequently more complex that can be captured in a few sentences, and so the rebuttals ALSO have to evolve and be kept current.
o context, context, context!; the same arguments mean different things to different people. CO2 is logarithmic for example. That means one thing to physicists and engineers, another thing to warmists, and another thing to high school students.
For what it is worth, I suggested this same sort of idea a long time ago, hence my support for it. Also, I think writing custom code or spread sheets won’t get you to where you want to be. I think leveraging infrastructure that already exists and is low cost makes more sense. In other words, why create something when you already have a great tool that can be used instead? Its called WordPress.
I’m time limited right now as I have some RFP deadlines staring me in the face, but if you’ll drop an email my way it might be easier to discuss that way. david.hoffer AT mts.net
My current view is that good science and the truth will not be enough to shut down the likes of Al Gore and all of his sycophants. They have bundled “global warming” along with other popular causes into a religious belief system. They believe by faith and probably will take this faith with them to the grave. The way I think we combat this dangerous religious fad is to volunteer in the local schools and help with the science programs. Either give after school science classes and/or just help out existing programs. You’ll likely discover that “science” in the public schools is being taught by people with degrees in literature, english, etc. The obligatory posters of polar bears and seals grace the science buildings and algores “An Inconvenient Truth” is considered one of the building blocks of the curriculum. We need to be in that world to help ensure that bad science is removed and good science and good scientific practice is the basis upon which curriculum is built.
It ‘s critical that school children are taught what science is and the way that good science is done. This gives us a win – win, especially here in the US where we urgently need to upgrade our public school systems and do a better job teaching science and math. A educated citizen is less likely to be taken in by religious fads and bad science. The battle now is for our children and grand children and their success in competing with better educated children from other parts of the world.
R.Gates MUST be a comedy writer. I have NEVER read anything that made me laugh SO hard. It brought up so many memories of things like Gore buying ocean front property, leaving his lights ON during “earth hour”, family money from oil AND tobacco, leaving the limo running during his “save the planet” vomitting. I mean the list of hypocrisy is incredible. Gates just HAS to be on our side, …….