Author maarjaara – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hawkesbury_River_1.jpg
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Belinda Medlyn, a theoretical biologist with Western Sydney University, trees exposed to enhanced CO2, in the gigantic open air Hawkesbury River climate study, grow 35% faster than their neighbours in the control group.
“Either they’re getting more carbon for the same amount of water, or they’re getting the same amount of carbon but using less water.”
…
Since 2012, the researchers have pumped extra CO2into three of six basketball court-sized rings of 80-year-old bush. This has raised the CO2 concentration in the three plots to about 550 parts per million, up from the ambient level of 400 ppm.
Measurements revealed that for each unit of water absorbed, the trees in the CO2-enriched rings reaped 35 per cent more carbon than the trees in the control plots.
The abstract of the study;
Rising levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration (Ca) and simultaneous climate change profoundly affect plant physiological performance while challenging our ability to estimate vegetation–atmosphere fluxes. To predict rates of water and carbon exchange between vegetation and the atmosphere, we require a formulation for stomatal conductance (gs) that captures the multidimensional response of stomata to changing environmental conditions. The unified stomatal optimization (USO) theory provides a formulation for gs with the ability to predict the response of gs to novel environmental conditions such as elevated Ca (eCa), warmer temperatures and/or changing water availability.
We tested for the effect of eCa and seasonally varying climate on stomatal behaviour, as defined by the USO theory, during the first year of free-air CO2 enrichment in a native eucalypt woodland (the EucFACE experiment). We hypothesized that under eCa, gs would decrease and photosynthesis (Anet) would increase, but fundamental stomatal behaviour described in the USO model would remain unchanged. We also predicted that the USO slope parameter g1 would increase with temperature and water availability. Over 20 months, we performed quarterly gas exchange campaigns encompassing a wide range of temperatures and water availabilities. We measured gs, Anet and leaf water potential (Ψ) at mid-morning, midday and pre-dawn (Ψ only) under ambient and eCa and prevailing climatic conditions, at the tree tops (20 m height).
We found that eCa induced a 20% reduction in stomatal conductance under non-limiting water availability, enhanced mid-morning Anet by 24% in three out of five measurement campaigns and had no significant effect on Ψ. The parameter g1 was conserved under eCa, weakly increased with temperature and did not respond to increasing water availability.
Our results suggest that under eCa and variable rainfall, mature eucalypt trees exhibit a conservative water-use strategy, but this strategy may be modified by growth temperature. We show that the USO theory successfully predicts coupling of carbon uptake and water loss in future atmospheric conditions in a native woodland and thus could be incorporated into ecosystem-scale and global vegetation models.
Read more: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.12532/abstract
A 35% increase in growth rate, and improved drought tolerance – whats the downside?
Professor Medlyn stressed that the experiment had analysed extra CO2 only “at the leaf scale”, with more work needed to observe the effects on whole plants and communities. Hotter conditions would probably cancel out benefits of higher CO2.
According to a study in 2011, which tested the effect of hotter temperatures over a prolonged period, the result was also a substantial increase in growth rates. Obviously, if substantial warming occurs, there will be exceptions to the rule – but my perception is its getting increasingly difficult, as data from such studies is analysed, to identify a significant downside to warmer temperatures and elevated CO2.
Well that’s a surprise – not. More CO2 = more plant growth. Who could have thought of that?
Dang. You beat me to it! Are Warmists completely lacking in sense, or do they just pretend – for a large fee, of course?
Yes, nothing startling there!
Plants experiencing water stress close their stomata in response; they don’t need CO2 enrichment to get the message.
In high CO2 conditions, stomata close partially but if they close to the extent that nutrient transportation is slowed, then there cannot be enhanced growth. That is a survival mechanism, not a thriving one.
This study explicitly declines to claim reduced water consumption.
Pure desperation
“We found that eCa induced a 20% reduction in stomatal conductance under non-limiting water availability”
PS: They explicitly stated that the trees in question weren’t under water stress conditions.
“Plants experiencing water stress close their stomata in response; they don’t need CO2 enrichment to get the message.”
Wow, have YOU missed the point. Why do you think plants use all that water in the first place? The overwhelming percentage of water used by plants is lost as an unavoidable side effect of their CO2 scavenging operation. They need CO2 in bulk, yet CO2 is just a trace gas: 4 molecules out of every 10,000 air molecules. Consequently, since the aqueous based tissues of plants must sift through an immense number of air molecules searching for the extremely rare CO2 molecules, they unavoidably lose a lot of water from the tissues. The usual ratio is about 800 molecules of water lost for every CO2 molecule gained.
In your comment you have exactly inverted the causality. The stomata are only open in the first place because the plant has no other option if it is to breath-in CO2. The reason plants grow so slowly in the desert, despite plentiful sunlight, is that their stomata are essentially ALWAYS closed. Hence they cannot extract the needed CO2 and hence they cannot grow.
What enriched CO2 means is that plants can extract the life-giving CO2 that they need, with less water stress.
Not entirely accurate…most desert plants use the CAM pathway…crassulacean acid metabolism, named for the plants of the jade family in which it was first observed and described.
The keep their stomata closed during the day, and open them at night. CO2 is taken in at night and stored for use during the daytime photo period.
Jus about every waxy leaved plant uses CAM, as well as plants of the agave family, such as pineapples, and many other families…notably orchids, bromeliads, cacti, and plants such as dracaenas and sansevierias.
CO2 is stored in these as the four carbon acid called malate.
It has long been known that plants within the euphorbia genus can have CAM, in one part of the plant, and C3 or C4 in other parts.
Ditto with the few species of cacti that can get leaves at certain times.
C3 is common in the seedlings of plants that are otherwise obligate CAM.
Recent research has demonstrated that certain plants can switch between photosynthetic pathways as conditions change.
Plants are highly adaptable, and the photosynthetic and metabolic pathways of all of the many tens of thousands of different plants in the world have barely begun to be studied in any systematic way.
It is even possible that there are as yet unidentified pathways and mechanisms.
Menicholas, your response is noted, but the larger point still stands. By and large the only reason stomata ever open in the first place, is so that plants can scavenge for the trace gas CO2. When open, the plant is losing water. In the desert, water is by definition in very short supply, which means that desert plants have great difficulty keeping their stomata open long enough to scavenge CO2.
If plants had found a way to fully resolve this severe problem, there would be dense, 100 foot high forests in the desert.
TYoke October 17, 2015 at 2:57 pm
” The stomata are only open in the first place because the plant has no other option if it is to breath-in CO2.”
Well, you must have an interesting explanation of the mechanism employed by plants to draw up nutrients tens of metres against gravity without relying on evaporation from the foliage.
A description of how plants manage to maintain temperatures considerably lower than the air around them without evaporation would be fascinating,also.
You apparently want to take issue with my saying that plants close their stomata when under water-stress;
that’s not a very controversial statement. The excerpts from the study revealed that these trees were never short of water but the O/P alluded to “improved drought tolerance”.
It’s interesting to me that plants that are not hard up for water but would like more CO2 choose to close their stomates somewhat when offered exactly that which they crave. I don’t dispute it, it’s just puzzling.
Mebbe,
The principal water requirement in woody plants is replacement of water unavoidably lost in the CO2 scavenging operation.
Of course plants use water for other purposes as well. Water is required to make cellulose and sugar: 6 H20 + 6 CO2 —> H12C606 + 6 O2. As you point out, a modest amount of nutrients must also be brought from the ground. In soft non-woody plants plants, turgor is maintained only by water pressure. Also of course, some moisture is lost even with the stomata closed, simply because the waxy coatings are not 100% efficient. I’m sure there are other uses as well.
One use that you mentioned is wide of the mark. It is true that evaporative transpiration cools the plant but unless water is unlimited that would be an insanely wasteful use of a highly limited resource if that were the sole OBJECT of the evaporation. That one is merely a correlation. When plants actively transpire they are cooler. That doesn’t mean that plants transpire in order to cool. Plants have an immense surface area, and keeping their mass materially cooler by evaporation would thus be prohibitively expensive if that were the only point of the water loss.
You have mis-understood if you think I’m disputing that plants close their stomata when under water-stress. Of course they do. I said that explicitly at several points. Again however you seem to regard the CO2 scavenging question as somehow disconnected from water use, when the relationship could not be more intimate.
Your last comment is that “It’s interesting to me that plants that are not hard up for water but would like more CO2 choose to close their stomates somewhat when offered exactly that which they crave.” Presumably you are referring to this sentence in the abstract: “We found that elevated CO2 induced a 20% reduction in stomatal conductance under non-limiting water availability.”
That observation is not hard to understand. All it means is that under non-limiting water availability the plant has been getting all the CO2 it can use, low levels of CO2 or high. With higher CO2 levels, the plant needs to transpire less to get that complement of CO2. If you are in an O2 enriched atmosphere you will breath more slowly and more shallowly. Same thing. This actually reinforces the point above. More CO2 means less water use by the plants.
TYoke October 17, 2015 at 9:09 pm
You’ve gone from
“” The stomata are only open in the first place because the plant has no other option if it is to breath-in CO2.”
to “Of course plants use water for other purposes as well.”
mebbe, I’m going to guess that you actually believe those two statements to be contradictory.
That’s right, MarkW, I do.
Perhaps, because I have an idea about HOW plants USE water.
Here’s a hint; the foliage at the top of a 100′ tree does not wait for nutrients to diffuse up from the roots.
water is, itself, a nutrient.
Photosynthesis is just a conspiracy theory.
Gold speck is that with carbon uptake increased, we see a negative feedback.
We are approaching Peak Tree. If Paris succeeds and CO2 drops below 200ppm Woods Hole will become… just a hole.
Well some people calling themselves scholars must have been sleeping or absent from lessons when teachers in early grades told them about Photosynthesis
Where have all the money gone?
I just read this in The Australian under the header ‘Trees reap benefits of Climate Change’.
The end statement not in parenthesis reads ‘Hotter conditions would probably cancel out benefits of higher CO2’.
Now the geographical area tested is one of the most humid around where I live.
According to global CO2 driven climate change theory we should be getting more water vapour in the atmosphere.
If this theory were correct I would have thought that with increasing temperature, humidity and CO2, plants would flourish in such greenhouse conditions, the purport and consequence of AGW theory.
So this report is a mix of empirical science, which supports the hypothesis that CO2 is a good plant food and its increase benefits plants and therefore many animals and;
speculation that this is ephemeral because ‘hotter conditions would probably cancel out benefits of higher CO2’ at best an unsupported hypothesis.
Perhaps one could do another experiment and heat plots in smaller sectors, increase CO2 and feed in the hypothesised humidity of AGW theory and see if the plants thrive.
Then we will have moved from empiricism to more speculative theory to empiricism.
Its time to do more real science to resolve the unknowns, rather than speculating about them as revealed truths.
You don’t need increased H2O from greenhouse theory. Just burn some hydrocarbons. At the very least you get CO2 and H2O. I believe plants fail to thrive without suitable amounts of both – sandy deserts don’t have a lot of H2O or plant life.
Just where do you think all the hydrogen and carbon in fossil fuels came from? Spontaneous generation? Transmutation? Out of the air (mostly) it came. Back into the air it goes, when you recombine it it with oxygen (from the air, usually).
Plants need both hydrogen and carbon, at the very least. Deprive their environment of either one, and you get – no plants. You might care to speculate how you intend to survive when you have rid the Earth of all plant life by removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Or maybe just removing enough to wipe out all the unbelievers, so that Warmists can sit around starving in the freezing dark? How much CO2 do you want to remove from the atmosphere? How many people have to die before you’re happy?
Do let me know.
Cheers.
We’re only talking of a few degrees warmer (not “hotter” – that’s alarmist language) and I think this experiment has been done. Now let me see, do plants grow better in rainforests (warm, humid) or in places like Canada, Scotland, Northern Russia (generally cooler on average). I shall have to go and check (if I can get a grant and expenses). Note all these places have similar CO2 levels.
SteveT
These days, alarmists would settle for another degree to define ‘hotter’. Two degrees above that of the Little Ice Age is what they are talking about!! Two degrees above that datum and we would probably have the equivalent of the Roman Warm Period. I don’t use the mealy word “optimum” because this is a way to avoid using the word ‘warm’ to describe earlier periods, although optimum does suggest that such times are beneficial, I would say.
Just travel for a while in mountainous terrain. I have travelled on all the paved roads in British Columbia. This province has everything and is the only place in Canada to have fig trees and almonds. The atmospheric Co2 has been described as “well mixed”. Therefore the only reason for the very different climate zones at equal latitude and altitude ( from rain forests on the islands to desert in the Fraser, (Watson Bar is a nearly plantless dust desert)) is moisture. Even here in Victoria there is a vast difference in climatic zones in a space of 20km. Ripley’s had a good story about Sequim in Washington where the rainfall changes dramatically over only a few miles. The forest changes dramatically there also.
“Perhaps one could do another experiment and heat plots in smaller sectors, increase CO2 and feed in the hypothesised humidity of AGW theory and see if the plants thrive.”
That experiment is called a greenhouse. Ask any grower. They inject CO@ to get 1200 ppm by the way.
And 35% more CO2 will be neutralised by about 1’C temperature rise. What evidence do they have for that, apart from the beliefs of their new warmist religion!
Pure nonsense.
Whoever wrote that has no idea what they are talking about.
You do not even need to be a botanist or grower to know that everything grows faster in hot weather, and in the tropics.
As long as there is sufficient moisture, hotter is better.
Which is precisely what would be expected on a planet that has almost always been warmer than the current temperature regime.
Even in dryer climates, all one needs to do is add some moisture to the soil, and entire desert states will become lush and green and blooming within days…even as the rain stops and temperatures soar once again.
Anyone who has ever been to the desert after a period of rain knows this.
Many tropical species will cease growing entirely if the soil temp drops below key levels…typically 72-75 F or higher.
A farmer from Iowa once told me that when temperatures get up near 100F, you can practically hear the corn growing.
Of particular benefit in areas where reduced rainfall effects can be offset by better use of what water there is available. I’m thinking Western Australian wheat belt.
“Obviously, if substantial warming occurs, there will be exceptions to the rule – but my perception is its getting increasingly difficult, as data from such studies is analysed, to identify a significant downside to warmer temperatures and elevated CO2.”
From the article you posted: “Professor Medlyn stressed that the experiment had analysed extra CO2 only “at the leaf scale”, with more work needed to observe the effects on whole plants and communities. Hotter conditions would probably cancel out benefits of higher CO2.”
So she does say hotter conditions will likely cancel out these benefits. Another downside is drought. Australian researchers analyzed the heat wave of 2013 and found it was virtually impossible that heat wave would’ve occurred without the contribution from today’s higher CO2 levels: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-07/record-heat-virtually-impossible-without-climate-change-report/6077634
Well at least according to Will Steffan………..”That’s conclusive evidence in my view that human driven emission of greenhouse gases were the primary cause of 2013 being the hottest year on record [in Australia]”
To misquote Mandy Rice-Davies……..He would say that wouldn’t he
Anyway it wasn’t the hottest for Marble Bar …average maximum of 35.2C for 2013 compared with 37.1C in 1944
” …conclusive evidence in my view…”
This laughable phrase is warmista jackassery at it’s most succinct.
Conclusive evidence is not a matter of point of view.
If it is a matter of point of view, it is opinion, not evidence or conclusive.
The phrase itself is an oxymoron.
Chris, I truly wonder what it must be like to inhabit the mind of someone so gullible and credulous.
So taken in by the religion that one loses the ability to remember what words even mean.
Incredible.
Menicholas, thanks for the detailed scientific refutation you just posted. Impressive stuff indeed.
You call me gullible and credulous, I’d rather be that then ignore a mountain of evidence. You do realize, by the way, that it’s not only the majority of climate scientists, the majority of governments, and the majority of scientific organizations that believe AGW is real. It’s also the world’s largest companies, even including traditionally very conservative companies like Walmart. It also includes the 3 largest oil companies – Shell, Exxon and BP. On your side you have a few mostly retired scientists. How many companies can you point me to who say that AGW is not real or is too small to worry about? How many leaders? Abbott just got kicked out by his own party and replaced by Turnbull, who believes AGW is real. Harper of Canada will be the next to go, if pre-election polls are accurate. Hmmm, who will that leave? Oh, yes, Putin – OK, he’s in your camp.
What mountain of evidence? It only exists in your mind. And it wouldn’t take much to fill up that space.
As to your claim that politicians all over the world support the myth of catastrophic global warming, of course they do. Politicians always support any plan that will give them more money and power.
Well, let’s just rewrite the text books…they are woefully out of compliance with the science of corporate opinionating!
Chris —
If Prof. Medlyn predicted further studies would likely show even greater benefits from CO2– she would get no further funding for her studies.
As to the study that says it would be virtually impossible for the heat wave of 2013 to have occurred without the contribution from today’s higher CO2 levels — such heat waves have occurred many many times in the recent and distant past.
And global temperatures have been constant for the last 18+ years. So a global warming that is not currently occurring somehow added heat to a local heat wave? And you believe crap like that? Hey, let me tell you tales about the vast stretches of unexplored rain forest that exist in the Australian outback. And about the river that runs through it that is mightier than the Mississippi.
Eugene WR GAllun
Eugene, do you have evidence that Prof Medlyn’s funding would be cut off?
As to your point about heat waves, the fact that heat waves have occurred in the past does not refute their conclusions. When heat waves happen, there is a cause(s) that can be identified. The study looked at the possible natural/non CO2 related possibilities, and concluded there was a one in 13,000 chance the heat wave would have occurred given the specific conditions at that time. Saying heat waves have occurred in the past in no way refutes their analysis.
Global temps are increasing, look at Bob Tisdale’s monthly post and the degrees C per decade for the various data sets.
I don’t think concerns about future income prospects if you publish a politically inconvenient result are unreasonable, given the hysterical response to the attempt to establish Lomborg’s “consensus centre” in an Australian University.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/08/proof-positive-that-the-university-of-western-australia-is-an-intolerant-organization/
Climate research isn’t the only field where scientific field where the grant funding system may have become dysfunctional. Lee Smolin, one of the giants of modern Quantum Physics, makes a strong claim in his book “The Trouble with Physics”, about the funding and career difficulties physicists face if they attempt to question String Theory.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/12/the-trouble-with-physics-another-branch-of-science-captured-by-groupthink/
Eugene, please can I add another paragraph to your reply to Chris.
Chris, you do know that it doesn’t matter how many or who or what support your theory, it only takes one fact to disprove it and you admit there are many that dispute what is claimed
“You do realize, by the way, that it’s not only the majority of climate scientists, the majority of governments, and the majority of scientific organizations that believe AGW is real. It’s also the world’s largest companies, even including traditionally very conservative companies like Walmart. It also includes the 3 largest oil companies – Shell, Exxon and BP. On your side you have a few mostly retired scientists.” Being a majority does not make them right.
You do realize, by the way, that they have no evidence and an awful lot of vested interest in what they BELIEVE . Unlike the retired scientists who are scientists by definition and more importantly, being retired, can say what they think without fear of retribution (unlike people like Phillipe Verdier).
SteveT
Steve, there are people who disagree in many areas of science. We don’t wait until we have 100% concurrence from all scientists before taking action. Did you know that when the Surgeon General’s Report came out on the dangers of smoking in 1964, only 25% of doctors thought smoking was bad for people. 25%! Should the Surgeon General held off until there was 100% concurrence among all researchers and doctors?
As far as these groups having a vested interest, what’s in it for Walmart? If anything, their customer base is more likely to not believe in AGW than to believe in it. What’s in it for Shell, Exxon and BP?
Chris, are you really as gullible as your posts make you sound.
Over the last couple of days we have discussed a French meteorologist who was fired for questioning the corruption of science that has occurred in the IPCC process.
Dr. Judith Curry has been vocal regarding the pressure that is placed on non-tenured faculty to toe the official line on climate change.
Chris,
While you ask others for some standard of proof, your arguments are all based on the same logical fallacy, an appeal to authority. Many here could disprove most/all of your talking points with links to readily available information, but why bother? You’ve already publicly committed intellectual hari kari. If you plan to continue here, one might suggest that you get a new screen name, as “Chris” is already thoroughly discredited.
Horrors!? 25% of the Doctors enjoyed their own opinions? Based on years of direct hands on experience no doubt.
So, what is the situation now? Outside of the tyrannical nanny government and the fascist activists, smoking is still a personal choice. All of the hand waving, all of the public abuse, all of the silly nags and shrieks, smoking is still legal.
Put that in your pipe, Chris, and smoke it.
“…We don’t wait until we have 100% concurrence from all scientists before taking action…” Funny that, the fascist eco-loons and activists never wait for concurrence of scientists. Instead they fabricate nonsensical over the top authoritarian claims, “ooooh, 97.3% of falsified data…” confirms that activists are gung-ho false climate consensus.
“…conditions would probably cancel out benefits of higher CO2…”
Don’t you just love that weasel word ‘probably’?!
Not evidence, subjective opinion. Not even subjective opinion based on any evidence; just a false statement blurted in the dark based on an opinion from their .ss. But the 50,000 climate activists descending on Paris will never note the ‘benefits’, only that weasel caveat.
So Chris, what has happened since 2013? This is the same type of balderdash they have about arctic ice. They talked about the death spiral in 2007. How could it stand higher today than it did almost 10 years ago. This is a painful fact that scientists are trying to ‘hand wave’ away. And how can Antarctic ice have been increasing since satellite measurements in 1979 in a warming world.
You ask how come all these scientists and companies are in on the warming if it ain’t so. Simple, the UN wants to have a world government of unelected “elites” of the marxy persuasion and as for governments, they want to tax the hell out you for CO2 and they provide the billions for ‘researchers’ to support this nonsense. You are either a knowledgeable complicit ideologue or a useful idiot. You certainly can’t claim to be a critical thinker when you are being fed stuff like warming will make it colder and drier will make it wetter. It hasn’t warmed at all for almost two decades!! and some of your scientists and even the IPCC are looking for what is causing the ‘hiatus’ – why global warming has stopped. How come such a thing can take such ‘knowledgeable scientists by surprise.
I don’t want to be too tough on you because, really, only 5-10% of people actually think and analyze, not just follow. The Soviet Union had only a small minority of very brave dissidents and, unless you are a totalitarian, it means that these few were right and the rest of the herd were wrong. Did you know when Einstein came up with his general relativity, the vast majority of scientists rejected it. A book was written by them:
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/2eyfsq/til_when_einstein_was_told_of_the_publication_of/
Would it surprise you to learn that it was ‘commissioned’ by Hitler (government). In his world view, he didn’t want a Jew having such superior intelligence – that was reserved for Aryans. Am I getting through to you Chris? I give you all this on the off chance that all you need is a bit of education and that you aren’t just a useful idiot.
Did you know that when the Surgeon General’s Report came out on the dangers of smoking in 1964, only 25% of doctors thought smoking was bad for people. 25%!
Chris, can you tell me where these figures come from? Most of us old geezers will tell you that it was generally known long before 1964 that smoking was bad for you. The 25% claim raises the red plausibility flag. Perhaps the figure came from a tobacco industry source?
Criss — you are amazing.
The Climate Of Fear
Do I have evidence that Prof. Medlyn’s funding would be cut off?
Do you mean things like the firing of editors who published skeptic papers? Things said in the Climategate E-mails? Universities trying to run skeptics off campus? Calls by university professors for Rico laws to be used against skeptics? A senator seeking to investigate a researcher who wrote something about climate the senator did not like? Only professors with tenure being willing to speak out against the warmist mafia? Fear generates silence and there is a climate of fear on our university campuses.
Global temperatures have been increasing since the end of the little ice age. I am sure someone could create a computer model that demonstrated that there would only be a 1 in a 1,000,000 chance of the 2013 heat wave occurring if the the little ice age had not ended.
So, I repeat again, a global warming that has not been occurring for 18+ years somehow added heat to local conditions and created a heat wave?
The models have never been right about anything — why do you fill your brain with their nonsense?
Criss, your heroes are all frauds. Grow up.
Eugene WR Gallun
Chris, Chris, Chris, **sigh**
You seem to have a very tenuous grasp of logical deduction.
If the 25% of Doctors were right and the 75% of doctors were wrong about smoking,
then logically the 3% of scientists are right and the 97% of scientists are wrong about AGW!
Your logic torpedoes your argument, silly.
Touché, Richard…well done!
Chris, your arguments are getting demolished because everyone here sees that you couldn’t change your mind even if a new Ice Age caused glaciers to cover Chicago a mile deep again. You simply cannot see anything but your own belief.
You talk about ‘evidence’ as if it’s something other than your opinion, and the opinions of people who personally benefit from the man-made global warming scare. But they don’t have anything more than flimsy evidence, which is contradicted by the fact that global warming stopped many years ago — and that is also something you just cannot accept. Even the IPCC admits to what they call the “pause” (their way of admitting that global warming has stopped).
You’re always quoting ‘evidence’, which doesn’t withstand even mild scrutiny. But whenever someone asks climate alarmists like you for a measurement of AGW, you typically deflect onto something else.
See, Chris, there are no measurements of AGW. By that I mean empirical, testable and replicable measurements that quantify the percentage of AGW out of all global warming.
If you think AGW exists (I do), then the only reason there aren’t any measurements must be because AGW is so minuscule that with current instrumentation, AGW is simply too small to measure. Any tiny AGW signal gets lost in the background noise.
Therefore, AGW is a non-issue, Chris. It doesn’t matter. At all. There is no crisis, there is no reason to worry, and all the wild-eyed arm waving over something so minuscule as AGW is a complete waste of energy, time and money.
If I am wrong, Chris, produce a measurement of AGW that is acceptable by all sides of the debate. It must quantify the amount of warming attributable to human CO2 emissions, and it must be verifiable, testable, and replicable.
If you can produce such a measurement, you will have also solved the problem of the climate sensitivity number: how much global warming will result from 2xCO2? Currently, that number ranges anywhere from 6+ºC, to 0.00ºC. Some scientists even say that CO2 has a net cooling effect.
With such wide disagreement, it’s clear that nobody knows what the sensitivity to CO2 is. That’s obviously because we can’t even measure the amount of global warming due to man-made and natural CO2 combined. So far, CO2=AGW is still nothing more than a conjecture; an opinion. Really, a it’s a belief. Because no one can measure it. It is just an assertion, nothing more.
I have a dilemma, Chris: why am I explaining this to you? Nothing will change your mind, because your belief is not based on logic, reason, evidence, facts, or measurements. ‘Dangerous man-made global warming’ is your new eco-religion, and if that glacier descends on Chicago, you will have plenty of ‘reasons’ why it was caused by man-made global warming.
In most of the world much increased growth will result from an increase of temperature of several degrees. In the UK we would be much better off with an increase of at least 10 degrees.
I wish it was 10c higher today, been sat at this bloody show all day, with a blanket over me legs & my winter coat on, wish I’d got a wooly hat too!
“Hotter conditions would probably cancel out benefits of higher CO2.” Without evidence – that is called supposition.
That is called ” Looking for my next influx of grant money so I can do the experiment the way I should have done it the first time ” !!!!
You claim that, “Putin – OK, he’s in your camp.”
Strange then, is it not, that the official propaganda channel “Russia Today” pumps out daily AGW scare, extreme weather, anti-fracking and pro–renewables junk, produced by the western eco-left. Do you think that Putin and the Kremlin have no influence over their own broadcaster?
So why are they actively promoting the message that you promote?
If you don’t watch Russia Today, then you should look up their output on climate and environmental issues.
I think that you will find that you will support almost everything they have to say on the topic.
ironically, the message transmitted is almost precisely that which you summarize in the comment in which you claim that Putin is somehow in our camp.
Pure comedy…keep up the good work. Putin is enjoying every bit of it.
Could it be possible that Putin would be happy if the West self-destructs?
Say it isn’t so!
“he heat wave of 2013 and found it was virtually impossible that heat wave would’ve occurred without the contribution from today’s higher CO2 levels”
I guess they mean like the Federation drought from 1895 – 1902, when most of the highest temperatures in Australia were really recorded.
And of course one might like to look at UAH for Australia to see that 2013 was nothing out of the ordinary at all.
http://s19.postimg.org/va65su3ar/UAH_Aust2002.jpg
Never mind the real temperature trend – what do the computer models tell us?!!
Wow, Australia never had droughts before. Who knew?
Actual scientists are quick to state that it is impossible to tie any weather event to CO2. However charlatans will quickly jump at the chance to do just that.
And the willfully ignorant will lap it up.
Please don’t be too hard on Chris. he/she is just working to the best of his/her abilities.
Chris at 11:13 pm:
?w=450&h=206
“Australian researchers analyzed the heat wave of 2013 and found it was virtually impossible that heat wave would’ve occurred without the contribution from today’s higher CO2 levels …”.
==========================
It wasn’t a “heat wave” …
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/australia/2013-hot-summer/australia-uah-summers.jpg
… until the BOM did some adjusting:
Chris.
A simple example (not scientifically supported I’d say but pretty universally accepted) is that once upon a time everyone on the planet (ie. 100% concurrence) believed (“knew”!) that the Earth was flat… Eventually a few “enlightened” scientists discovered a different truth and after a long period of controversy and goodness knows how much persecution, hatred & general angst the vast majority now believe that in fact it is not flat….
Fascinating also to future historians and scientists will doubtless be that we are also in a similar situation wrt human diet/nutrition – what is healthy to eat…. Thanks to a worryingly similar pattern of bad science promulgated by Billions of $$$ of vested interests probably the majority of people in the Western World still believe strongly that Saturated Fat & Cholesterol are unhealthy!
I’d seriously be interested in your stance on that Chris. Do you believe what most of us have been taught from birth that Fat & cholesterol are bad for us?
Cheers
L
The ancient Greeks “knew” the world was a sphere, and in fact calculated the actual diameter of the Earth to within a few percent using a pole and a hole on the ground.
It was never universally thought the Earth was flat…this is a myth.
Mariners knew from watching objects disappear over the horizon that the world was not flat, as did anyone who observed carefully from a high vantage point such as a mountain top.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
I look forward to reading the full story in The Washington Post or New York Times.
40 years ago very few wanted to live in the Hawkesbury because it was too hot in summer (regular days over 40C) and [too] cold in winter (down to -7C). Recently (past 15 years I’ve lived here) those temperatures have narrowed. Maybe because there has been a huge amount of building residential property with even more in the pipeline and the reduction of farming land. The average rainfall is between 750-900 mm per year.
Still a beautiful place to live though.
Remove the double ‘in summer’ please 🙂
Question : How much of Trenberth’s “missing heat” could be hiding, in the form of reduced CO2 in the biosphere? Alternatively, what amount of biomass would hold the amount of heat (in the form of potential energy) that Trenberth is missing?
Extra Credit : How much “missing” heat is likely tied up in the incremental increase in accumulated sequestered deposits of dead biomass (future fossil fuel) that would have resulted since 1950 due to the process described in this article?
Extra Extra Credit Are the trees adhering to the Cobb Douglas production function when it comes to water and CO2 ? if so could we determine the relative price the trees would pay for these inputs assuming the trees were rational and had some money?
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cobb+douglas
I suspect that the trees and even many rocks are more rational than warmistas writing conclusions.
Although certainly not as cash bloated as the average grant-lard fattened “climate scientist”.
What does CO2 reduce to?
Carbohydrates (initially). Chemical reduction is the opposite of oxidation. This reduction reaction is endothermic (consumes heat), or more accurately converts heat into potential chemical energy which is stored until it is converted back into heat, or in the case of an automobile, a combination of heat and kinetic energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
Lee, chemically speaking, reduction is the opposite process as oxidation. Since CO2 represent oxidized carbon (in the 4+ oxidation state), reducing the carbon in CO2 might result in CH4, methane, in which each carbon atom is in the 4- oxidation state.
I find it helpful to think in terms of the bonded state of the valence electrons in an atom. Which way are these electrons getting “pulled, and how hard, within the bond (not textbook, just a handy mental tool)? Oxygen being one of the most highly electronegative elements, and hydrogen less so. Remember, electronegativity (generally) increases as one goes up and to the right on the periodic table.
http://www.chemhume.co.uk/ASCHEM/Unit%201/Ch3IMF/Images%203/electronegativity_values.jpg
WTF is a theoretical biologist?
There are thousands of academic titles these days. It doesn’t matter what the title is or how relevant the title is to the real world outside of academia, as long as the funding rolls in.
@Stephen Richards
October 17, 2015 at 1:11 am
One that has trouble with reality…Probably due to to the “heat wave would’ve occurred without the contribution from today’s higher CO2 levels … per Chris above at October 16, 2015 at 11:13 pm
The Hawkesbury, of course, is the home of the serial idiot Tim Flannery, whose statements that eastern Australia would never again see proper rainfall (because of climate change) was the inducement for knuckle-dragging politicians to waste several billion dollars on desalination plants (now mothballed).
The man is a proven menace.
She could have saved the Aussies a shed load of money from 2012 to date by just talking to a commercial greenhouse grower of any crop you care to name.
Will her next project be round versus oblong wheels for transport?
What on earth merits her title of professor?
“Hotter conditions would probably cancel out benefits of higher CO2.”
As the whole tree or plant has indeed been also measured to the extent that water uptake is performed by the roots and water transported all the way to the leaves. There is a huge opportunity for negative effects to be imposed. And clearly there are no negative effects in this transport chain. Remember, roots depend on nutrition from the leaves to be able to do all of that water uptake and transport.
The quote above should have at least said, “might” and not “would probably.” But, it’s their money phrase, “More funding please, we have sacrificed this study on the alter of global warming funding.”
By writing a paper full of assertions based on observations, and then tossing in an unsubstantiated claim about heat they have sacrificed their scientific integrity as well. This is the price one must pay to remain in the good graces of the peer review clique and the grant issuer’s club.
Perhaps she was hoping to get a negative result of her experiment and the tossed-in negative was all she could do? This is Australian academics you know. They don’t tolerate dissent. Bjorn Lomborg’s policy research ‘chair’ at Western Australia U was cancelled because of his common sense on the subject, and remember Australia prides itself on the work of John Cook, Lewandowsky, Chris Turney of the Ship of Fools voyage (he got an award for it!!), etc. Ozzie academia (and politics) will take a generation and more to repair after the collapse of the CAGW disgrace.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-08/bjorn-lomborg-uwa-consensus-centre-contract-cancelled/6456708
https://ca.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=C111CA662D20141029&p=chris+turney+ship+of+fools
I used to love the Ozzie attitude and color. I met many on my 1960s, couple of year odyssey through Europe and found their in-your-face, iconoclastic good humor and don’t-give-a-damn approach very charming. I can’t imagine any I met ever becoming such milquetoasts of climate political correctness.
Brothers and sisters to the yanks in the pioneering spirit and the “let’s just shut the f**c up and get ‘er done” attitude. But, the world is getting too small these days and the Monroe Doctrine ain’t keeping the bad influences away anymore.
The study demonstrates the positive effect of CO2. By itself this is not news, I suspect the purpose was to quantify the effect so it can be incorporated into predictive models. The throw away line about the possibility that it would be off-set by an increase in temperature is to placate her warmist colleagues who would otherwise brand her a denier and cast her into the wilderness.
David, a good thought and quite possible. Perhaps the only way for a pragmatic scientist who wants to keep working!? I certainly would not rule that out. So it will be interesting to follow her future work and see which way the winds of global climate blow for her ehhh!?
The Monroe Doc. Please everybody shut down the sides of,if ,what and ! No one can prove this is all about man made global warming. I ‘m soooo tired hearing about the health of the planet by fools that want to take away money for their benefit.(THE U.N.)Why are the most divided country’s political enemies try to take on unicorn’s, because you can’t find them or stop them from dying off.Life and liberty is wrong in their eye’s and power to stop life,thought,and freedom is the problem.They need a boggey man to succeed.The will of “man” is being knocked down by fools in charge. Get them out of power.Vote them out!
As CO2 levels get higher, plants reduce the size of the stomata used to absorb the CO2. As the stomata gets smaller, the plants then lose less water due to evapotranspiration (the amount of water that the trees lose due to evaporation).
So, for a given amount of precipitation, the plants can grow more productively.
If drought conditions occur, the plants will be able to grow just as well as they would have if the CO2 levels were lower and precipitation was normal.
So, it is both the CO2 and the water availability which work in concert here. As long as it rains, the plants are substantially more productive.
Now go back to the ice ages, when CO2 was very low and rainfall was very low. The C3 bushes, plants and trees basically died back to nothing except in the areas which had very high rainfall (tropical rain forests and even these reduced in size by two-thirds or more).
The C4 grasses are able to grow (at a reduced rate) in low CO2 and low rainfall so the rest of the planet became grassland, tundra, desert or glacier. Our ice age ancestors lived through a planet which had no trees. That wouldn’t be much fun today, with 6.5 billion more people on the planet than during the ice ages. There is only so many grassland herbivores to go around.
It’s clear that CO2 concentration is limiting plant growth when soil water, nutrient supply and air humidity are not.
The idea that plants with abundant water can afford to squander that resource in order to access more of the limiting CO2 is sensible, but it raises the question of why a modest increase in CO2 concentration prompts a reaction that is in the direction of reducing CO2 intake, even while water remains plentiful.
Because a plant has no idea when it might rain again, and so the default state is to only use what water is needed?
A plant which sucks up and transpires water when it is not required risks drying out the soil in which it sits, running out of water completely, and dying.
You might just as well ask why a person or any other animal does not drink water whenever it sees it, whether or not it needs any.
That’s all well and good but, very probably, the plant doesn’t have many ideas about lots of stuff.
In the meantime, it does know that it would like more CO2, that it’s getting plenty of water, and the sun is shining, so why would it actually act against its own immediate best interests?
We don’t know that plants experience anxiety about the future but we do often see them react very promptly in the face of adversity. It is not my impression that plants are shrinking violets; they will give it a go any time.
Interesting take Bill & the right way to think about it! Matching what we know (or think we know) of the past to what we know (or think we know…) now – ie. Science…
” Our ice age ancestors lived through a planet which had no trees.”
Say what? I am fairly certain that this is incorrect.
Many trees have seeds which cannot survive drying out.
If they ever all died for any sustained period of time, they would be extinct.
Mangoes are an example which comes to mind right away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recalcitrant_seed
On CO2 emissions:
We got the 30 day R&R for re-upping for a year. Went to Aussie land, got to see the E’t Ta Ma pub out in the sticks aka outback no where, and got invited to high speed water skiing contest on this river.
There was some big time carbon emissions from those ski boats and huge amounts of beer required.
CO2 ruled the day.
The only surprise in this study is the near linear relationship in growth versus CO2 (35% vs 38%). Many other studies of enhanced CO2 in greenhouses show less of a gain, and is species dependent, but they also show plants use less water with enhanced CO2.
CO2, the life-giving gas, not “Carbon Pollution”. A Limerick – and explanation.
What then is this “Carbon Pollution”?
A sinister, evil collusion?
CO2, it is clean,
Makes for growth, makes it green,
A transfer of wealth, a solution.
http://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/
Next Ice Age is on the way !!
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/10/16/giant-hole-in-sun-is-50-earths-wide.html?intcmp=hpff
Bring in the kittens and break out your mittens!
It’s gonna be a cold one…yepper.
So, “the proof is in the pudding”, …. enhanced CO2 (550 ppm), hotter average temperatures and sufficient H2O ….. greatly enhances the growth rate of plants.
And you know what, ….. the greatly enhanced growth rate of plants will also “trigger” a greatly enhanced population growth rate of animal species. And as the populations of herbivore species increase, …. so will the populations of predator species increase.
Therefore, greatly enhanced CO2 (1,000 to 2,000+ ppm) and hotter temperatures …….. will “trigger” a greatly enhanced population growth of both plant and animal species.
And just the opposite is true. A drastic reduction in CO2 (<1,000 ppm) and cooler temperatures …….. will “trigger” a drastic reduction in population numbers of both plant and animal species ….. with some species going extinct during the mass “die off”.
Now the reason for my above commentary has to do with …. the demise of the dinosaurs …. which simply may have been “triggered” by climate change …… rather than a “cosmic calamity”. To wit:
Now, on the following graph, ….. please note the CO2 ppm quantities and average temperatures from 250 mya to 50 mya.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Both CO2 ppm quantities and average temperatures had increased dramatically @ 250 mya … but the CO2 started decreasing @ 150 mya …. and was <1,000 ppm @ 50 mya.
Something to think about, Cheers
According to your theory, CO2 levels had been dropping for 80 million years, Then suddenly, practically overnight, 90% of plant and animal species disappear, and it’s just coincidence that this disappearance happened at the same time as a massive asteroid/comet strike?
“…coincidence that this disappearance happened at the same time as a massive asteroid/comet strike?”
And, do not forget, the nearly simultaneous eruption of one of the greatest flood basalt outpourings in the history of the Earth, the Deccan Traps.
Which, BTW, was not only nearly simultaneous, but very nearly antipodal to the bolide impact site at Chicxulub. At that point in time, the subcontinent of India was moving northward through the Central Indian Ocean at a rapid clip (tectonically speaking), and was very close to where one might expect the shock wave from the bolide impact to come to a focal point and deposit a tremendous amount of energy.
Many have pointed out that the placement was likely not precisely antipodal, but the vagaries of the internal density of the earth, including possible irregularities in the various boundary layers, and possible deflection by core anomalies, and the recently thought of (by me) possibility that the bolide was spinning rapidly upon impact and that considerable “English” may have affected the path (Anyone who shoots pool knows what happens when a cue impacts the cue ball off center, and that a spinning cue ball imparts spin energy to any object ball it strikes, and affects rebound angle on striking a cushion) and focus of the shock wave.
These two incredibly rare events occurring by random chance, in such a temporal proximity and spatial relationship, strains credulity (mine anyway) past the breaking point.
@ MarkW
There is an ole saying that …… “One should put brain in gear before putting mouth in motion.”
First of all, ….. @ 150 mya …. minus ….. @ 50 mya ….. equals 100 mya …. that the CO2 proxies as denoted on the cited graph shows that atmospheric CO2 was in decline.
And secondly, anyone that would infer or imply that a “100 million years long event” was akin to an event that occurred “suddenly, practically overnight” …. only did so to garner attention for them self because of their lack of anything intelligent to contribute to the conversation.
And thirdly, the cited time period of “150 mya to 50 mya” is not inclusive of any of the four (4) major Mass Extinction events, to wit:
1. The Ordovician-Silurian extinction occurred about 439 million years ago when global temperatures drastically decreased
2. The Late Devonian extinction took place somewhere around 364 million years ago when the atmospheric CO2 drastically decreased from 4,000 to 400 ppm.
3. The Permian-Triassic extinction happened about 251 million years ago when both atmospheric CO2 and global temperature had drastically decreased to present day (21st Century) levels.
4. The End Triassic extinction, taking place roughly 199 to 214 million years ago can not be directly correlated with a drastic decrease in either CO2 or temperatures.
And it is not surprising that the claimed 5th Mass Extinction event, the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, is denoted to have occurred about 65 million years ago ….. because that would have been at the “tail end” of the aforesaid 100 million years long event of decreasing CO2 ppm. [Source reference: http://www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org/overview.html ]
Those individuals that are afflicted with an NIH mindset are usually always highly critical of any “new ideas” and most all “original thinking” if said ideas or thinking are contrary to what they were nurtured to believe is “science fact”. ………………. [Not Invented Here]
Sam: I could say the same to you. The claim was that the drop in CO2 caused the death of the dinosaurs.
As to the rest of your post, if you like showing off your limited knowledge, then don’t let me stop you.
Menicholas: Another possibility is that the energy from the impact was concentrated in a large area when it got to the other side of the earth, and just broke out where the crust happened to be the weakest, not necessarily at the exact anti-pode.
Yes, Mark, good point.
@ MarkW
1st of all, it t’wasant a claim, …. it t’was a hypothesis …. based on the proxy determined evidence that four (4) of the five (5) Mass Extinction events all occurred when or after Global Average Temperatures decreased below 20 degrees C ….. and/or …. atmospheric CO2 ppm decreased below 2,000 ppm as per the above graph denotes.
Getta clue, the dinosaurs had to eat to survive. And given the fact that CO2 is at the “tippity top” of the “food chain” for all animal and plant life on the earth … and thus it should be obvious to even the learned disabled that the populations of most all life forms will easily flourish, as well as greatly increase in numbers, in physical sizes and/or evolve into new species whenever Average Temperatures are @ or above 17 degrees C ….. and/or atmospheric CO2 is greater than 1,500 ppm. (aka: the Cambrian Explosion)
And whenever atmospheric CO2 starts decreasing …. then the “die off” of plant life begins. And when the plant life begins “dieing off” …. then the animal life follows suite …. with the species with the largest individuals being the 1st to go extinct.
And that is exactly why the proponents of CAGW will be guilty of “mass murder” of the human population ….. via their demands that atmospheric CO2 be decreased to their assumed pre-industrial level of less than 300 ppm.
Those individuals whose forte’ is “mimicry”, …. seldom if ever possess the mental attributes that are necessary for the comprehension or understanding of the “nature of knowledge/intelligence that is prerequisite for original thought, logical reasoning or intelligent deductions”.
I cant help noticing that there is an apparent correlation between CO2 and temperature, the stuff of warmist theory. On the other hand there seems to be a mixture of leads and lags that might suggest that we should look for the cause elsewhere.
“theoretical biologist”?????
Why wouldn’t they put a ‘real’ biologist on the job!! At least she should have been accompanied by a theoretical chemist and theoretical forester. The ‘descriptive’ sciences and social sciences always feel the need to add something extra sciency to their titles.
What’s the go with the Deccan Traps Menicholas?
The go?
If you are asking what the connection is between the Deccan Traps and the dinosaurs, the answer is that the Deccan Traps are offered as an alternative explanation for their extinction. The large scale and long term outpourings are said by some to have changed the climate of the Earth so drastically as to cause the mass extinction event.
I happen to believe that the traps and the Chicxulub event are in fact not two separate and unrelated events.
The Chicxulub bolide caused the traps.
“If you are asking what the connection is between the Deccan Traps and the dinosaurs, the answer is that the Deccan Traps are offered as an alternative explanation for their extinction. The large scale and long term outpourings are said by some to have changed the climate of the Earth so drastically as to cause the mass extinction event.
I happen to believe that the traps and the Chicxulub event are in fact not two separate and unrelated events.
The Chicxulub bolide caused the traps.”
Makes sense – thanks for that…. Yes, pretty coincidental timing – the Réunion plume & Chicxulub event & poor old Dinosaur demise….. For sure a 10km diameter ball of rock travelling at goodness knows what velocity slamming into one side of our big mud ball may well have caused a few permutations such as the Réunion plume…. & who knows what other, yet to be discovered/documented “flow on” (pardon the pun) effects….
“Hotter conditions would probably cancel out benefits of higher CO2.”
They just HAD to throw that in. Of course it’s pure speculation and has nothing to do with the experiment being discussed, but in order to protect their reputations they had to conclude with a statement that despite what this study found, more CO2 is bad for us.
The only reasonable explanation for such a canard, in my estimation.
“Hotter conditions would probably cancel out benefits of higher CO2.”
This statement, as written, cannot be shown to be false. It depends on the magnitude of “hotter”. It is certainly true in the case where “hotter” means 100 C hotter.
LOL.
True.
But at a value of temp where one could make such a conclusion (such as 100 degrees) the “probably” part of the statement becomes false.
So it cannot be shown to be rue either. It is a throw away assertion…baseless and without foundation using the data presented in the paper.
I could show, in a lengthy treatise, how much better my life would be if I met the shapely wonder women super model of my dreams, found out she is rich to boot, and absolutely smitten by me on top of it all…and then conclude by saying that having her mom as my mother in law would probably cancel out any benefit to my life.
But such a conclusion would, IMO, be equally ludicrous, baseless, and just plain dumb to say.
Basically, they have ruined a good piece of research with a whole heap of unfounded speculation, just to suck up to the AGW meme.
Science, ruined by anti-science.
The Shukla Boomerang is slowly spreading !!!!
http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/31056194:sncMMSmND:m:1:752120182:442627543BD67BFDF6F2887D303F8495:r
Looks like the ‘binding tape’ of the legal system sticks better to him than it sticks to the tattered and torn envelope of science he’s trying to repair with it.
It is RICOcheting all over the place!
I’m beginning to think skeptics are pun machines.
Good one!
The irony is that CO2 is a “Green Machine”. But I’d thought that fact was already well known, even if not widely advertised. According to the satellites, the earth has greened with increased atmospheric CO2 (and slightly elevated temperature) much faster than determined farmers can clear-cut the Amazon rain forests. A fossil plant a day keeps starvation away!
Stop this ” Global Warming Crazy Grazy Train “…Vote Ted Cruz !!!
Correction !!
Stop this ” Global Warming Crazy Gravy Train “…Vote Ted Cruz !!!
Sorry !!
So in other words we should flog this to the California legislature and have them mandate climate change in order to preserve coastal redwoods.
That shoul
The US knew this about trees 2 years ago. In some trees it also helps them fight off disease, so healthier forests. I suppose funding is now needed to study every tree species on earth.
Chris (above) brings up tobacco/smoking and I’m so sick of hearing it because it’s all they got. He and his ilk conveniently overlook the science that said fat is bad, cholesterol is bad, coffee is bad, only to have conventional wisdom overturned. The fat is bad science was also based on cherry picked data, was used to create policy, and probably did more harm to people than good.
So no offense Chris, but take your smoking meme and stuff it.
His defenses…have gone up in smoke !!!!
Maybe Chris can tell us all how many cigarettes it takes to “cause” cancer?
Warmistas are all experts on carcinogenesis, so it should be a no-brainer for him.
100% nailed it NancyG22! Bad science propagated by vested interest….a sad scenario for modern science… However, thanks to the transparency provided by the internet and the “Wisdom of the Crowds” I hold strong hope for the truth to rise like a Phoenix!
@ NancyG22
The following commentary was excerpted several years ago by me …. from one of the American Cancer Society’s websites, …. which you might find interesting, to wit:
And the CAGW “fear-mongering” of today is simply a repeat of the anti-tobacco “fear-mongering” of yesteryear.
Has anybody ever seen an apology for the great transfats scam that though exposed and vilified still rolls on.
Today’s Daily Telegraph (UK) has an article by Ken Thompson (in the aftermath of the VW diesel emissions row) about a Cornell study published in Nature in 2003 which found that cottonwood trees grew twice as big in cities as in rural areas, not because of higher CO2 levels or UHI effects in cities, but because city sites had lower levels of ozone, to which plants are very sensitive, than rural ones. This was thanks to the action of NO – nitric oxide, “which is more abundant in urban areas as a result of traffic fumes. So although less ozone may be produced in the country, it persists for far longer, because the clean air doesn’t contain the chemicals that would destroy it.”
Reblogged this on "Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising… and commented:
CO2 is Good for our Environment…Improves tree growth, and drought tolerance.
Interestingly the Hawkesbury is one of the Australian sites that has empirically refuted the prediction by Professor Flannery that the ground would evaporate off the water and the dams would dry out.
As the local Biologists are interested in testing CO2 effect on plant growth it would be a good place to test AGW theory on say 2C rise and CO2 fertilisation on plant growth, with added humidity, so important to global warming theory.
Without the added humidity of the theoretical climate models, CO2 cannot significantly warm the planet.
Such empirical work would allow sober assessment of the core claims of CO2 driven AGW theory and its consequences.
Reality always trumps theory as the recent topping of Warragamba Dam indicates.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/warragamba-dam-expected-to-spill-as-residents-brace-for-flooding/story-e6frflp0-1227500545331
Increased CO2 improves ALL plant growth.
Duh!
Since I only know what I read, let me quote a few sources that I value:
“The fundamental reason why carbon dioxide abundance in the atmosphere is critically important to biology is that there is so little of it.
A field of corn growing in full sunlight in the middle of the day uses up all the carbon dioxide within a meter of the ground in about five minutes.
If the air were not constantly stirred by convection currents and winds, the corn would not be able to grow.”
Vaclav Smil: ENERGY AT THE CROSSROADS: GLOBAL PERSPECITVES AND UNCERTAINTIES,
MIT Press, 2003
Patrick Moore: Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
2015 Annual GWPF Lecture
http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/
And this humdinger: In an interview published in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 14 November 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, said “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…. one must say clearly that de facto we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy…. One has to rid oneself of the illusion that international climate politics have anything to do with environmental concerns.”
With David Archibald’s comment on it: “Global warming did serve a couple of useful purposes. The issue has been a litmus test for our political class. Any politician who has stated a belief in global warming is either a cynical opportunist or an easily deluded fool. In neither case should that politician ever be taken seriously again. No excuses can be accepted. “ They will all shortly be on display in Paris.
It seems to be assumed that plants (trees) obtain the majority of needed CO2 from the air. Is there any evidence this is so? I’m curious if plants could actually be getting their CO2 from the water. Given cold water absorbs CO2 with abandon. Green houses where CO2 is added by burning methane would have a lot of water condensate on the inner cover which would be full of CO2 dripping on the plants and absorbed through the roots. Just curious.
It is not assumed, it is a matter of detailed study and careful measurements, going back well over 100 years.
I had to reread your post Harry.
Are you really wondering if there is “any” evidence that plants obtain the majority of their CO2 from the air?
Seriously?
You might want to go into the field of climate science…you seem eminently qualified, having little or no awareness of a vast body of accumulated knowledge, wisdom and learning.
Sorry to seem cruel, but that is a rather silly question, considering that anyone who is commenting here could easily do a quick search and get enough material to read to keep one busy for thousands of years.
Google photosynthesis carbon dioxide air: 1,240, 000 results in .48 seconds
photosynthesis carbon dioxide experiment: 483.000 results in .42 seconds
Etc…
BTW, aquatic plants get CO2 from the water in which they are immersed…but it still enters the plant through the leaves.
In fact, water on leaves slows diffusion enormously, such that tropical plants have mechanisms to shed water from the foliage, and almost all plants have the stomata on the undersides of leaves.
Finally, the solubility of CO2 in water at room temp is about a gram and a half per liter. So, if a plant was waiting to get CO2 through it’s roots, it would have to go through a lot of water to get enough CO2 to do much growing.
I was simply asking. I looked at your searches and neither produced a single study on the first 3 pages.
And a million plus hits in google do not equal a single quality study that addresses the question at hand. I’ll assume you don’t know of one. I don’t either and thus I asked.
You note room temp water holds ~ 1 gr CO2 in 500ml. or .2% CO2 by weight.. That looks like CO2 is an order of magnitude greater in water. Perhaps more since ground water is typically cooler than room temp.. It is also known that plants use a lot more water than is directly used in photosynthesis. So if the stomata are busy spewing out water vapor like little fire hose nozzles, how would that assist in their intake of CO2 ? Wouldn’t they need to filter about 2500 air molecules to get one CO2 molecule? Wouldn’t that be tough to do if the stomata’s primary function is to exhaust water vapor? Like I said, just curious.
Good question.
Plants immersed in water produce half of the world’s oxygen. Plants can get CO2 from water.
When they do that they sequester carbon, derived from the water, to form of essential nutrients for consumption further up the food chain.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/chlorophyll.html
President Obama will order their extra-legal killings to appease and succumb his … “sexual desires”.
Ha ha
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Yet another example of how increasing CO2 (aka “plant food”) is actually good for the Earth, the cult of Climastrology notwithstanding.
Howard.
Apologies. If you were simply asking, I can give you a simple answer.
Plants do not acquire a significant portion of the CO2 they use for photosynthesis through the roots.
It enters through the stomata of the leaves.
This plant doesn’t have stomata:
http://dinoera.com/sites/default/files/stylites_andicola_03_cc.jpg
======
Functional stomata are absent in submerged aquatic plants and in non-vascular land plants (for example, mosses) which are normally covered by a water film. Although it is now clearly established that some aquatic plants assimilate large amounts of CO2 from the sediment via roots, terrestrial plants are thought to assimilate only insignificant amounts of CO2 via this path*. Here we report on a terrestrial plant, Stylites andicola, which lacks stomata and is unable to exchange gas with the aerial atmosphere. Rather, it derives nearly all of its photosynthetic carbon through its roots. In addition, this species possesses characteristics of crassulacean acid metabolism.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v310/n5979/abs/310694a0.html
======
* see: “Plant response to irrigation with water enriched with carbon dioxide”
Thats absolutely fascinating. Makes you wonder how many other plants this uptake mechanism has been missed, particularly plants growing in carbon rich soil such as arctic peats.
Write it up, send it to Anthony as a new story – http://wattsupwiththat.com/submit-a-story/
We tested for the effect of eCa and seasonally varying climate on stomatal behaviour, as defined by the USO theory, during the first year of free-air CO2 enrichment in a native eucalypt woodland (the EucFACE experiment). We hypothesized that under eCa, gs would decrease and photosynthesis (Anet) would increase, but fundamental stomatal behaviour described in the USO model would remain unchanged. We also predicted that the USO slope parameter g1 would increase with temperature and water availability. Over 20 months, we performed quarterly gas exchange campaigns encompassing a wide range of temperatures and water availabilities. We measured gs, Anet and leaf water potential (Ψ) at mid-morning, midday and pre-dawn (Ψ only) under ambient and eCa and prevailing climatic conditions, at the tree tops (20 m height).
I think she got off the wrong intergalactical interchange, If anyone can please translate only this one paragraph, I’d appreciate it ( don’t make it much longer than 45 pages please). To me? Let nature do it’s thing, and a bit more CO2 would help, ask any greenhouse operator ( his livelihood depends on it).
The quest is on. I’m learning more about Stoma and CO2 and it looks like the science may not be quite as settled as could be assumed. I’m now looking for a study involving feeding a plant carbon 13 in the water and exposing the leaves to the atmosphere and then measuring the plant’s 13/12 ratio to learn how much of the CO2 is derived from ground water vice air. It seems logical this has been done. I simply haven’t found the study. BTW the Wikipedia entry on stoma is very good despite recent ClimateChange speculation. Using the ref table is more useful and the google.
Two other items. I’m assuming significant ground water CO2 is the result of cold rain having absorbed CO2 on its way to the ground. Also the mechanics of CO2 absorption via the Stomata continue to puzzle me. Most Stomata are on the underside of the leaves. Stomata exhaust a large amount of water vapor which is considerably lighter than air. Thus what forces cause the lighter water vapor to travel down and out of the stomata and allow large quantities of heavy air to travel up into the stomata so that the rare CO2 can be absorbed?
Several questions and observations:
– Can it be assumed that any CO2 that finds it’s way into plant cells will then make it’s way into chloroplasts and be used for photosynthesis. The answer to this seems reasonably certain to be yes.
– How selective are roots to various molecular, ionic and atomic species? Not sure. Water is thought to almost always enter the root hairs by simple diffusion across an osmotic gradient. There is some speculation that under dry soil conditions, roots may be able to expend energy to absorb water against the osmotic gradient. Minerals are absorbed via an active process that does require an expenditure of energy. mycorrhizal mycelium aids absorption in something like 90% of plants. The relationship is not always entirely symbiotic. In some cases, mycorrhiza is thought to be somewhat parasitic.
– Under acidic soil conditions, solubility of CO2 in water is increased, but in basic conditions (sweet soil), it is greatly diminished. Many soils are on the alkaline side. The increase in solubility in acidic conditions is one reason why carbonate tends to precipitate out when groundwater is exposed to air, as in caves or toilet tanks, etc.
– Under conditions of high humidity, near or at 100% which is nearly continuously at times in places such as rain forests, and especially in cloud forests, what happens to transpiration? It drops to near zero.
And yet these are places where plants are known to grow rapidly and photosynthesis is proceeding quickly.
– The capillary action in xylem cells depends on these tubules being packed end to end with water. In tall trees, capillary pressure alone is insufficient to force water to the leaves…it is only the vacuum suction effect that pulls water up from the roots as it evaporates out of the leaves. Would dissolved gases in the xylem hinder or interrupt this process?
– The details of the physiology of non-vascular and aquatic plants is almost certainly different in many ways than that of terrestrial vascular plants.
– Considering that there are detailed studies of the particulars of every strand of silk and kernel of grain in such plants as corn, makes me think that such studies as you are asking about have long since been done.
Prior to the advent of modern climate science, most things were actually verified by physical experiments prior to being asserted as being true.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
CO2 is an essential plant nutrient.