by Matt Ridley, writing in Die Weltwoche
REJOICE IN THE LUSH GLOBAL GREENING CO2 is plant food. The greening of the earth means more food for animals and greater crop yields for humans. Why is no one talking about it?
Amid all the talk of an imminent planetary catastrophe caused by emissions of carbon dioxide, another fact is often ignored: global greening is happening faster than climate change. The amount of vegetation growing on the earth has been increasing every year for at least 30 years. The evidence comes from the growth rate of plants and from satellite data.
In 2016 a paper was published by 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries that analysed satellite data and concluded that there had been a roughly 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years. The study attributed 70% of this increase to the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The lead author on the study, Zaichun Zhu of Beijing University, says this is equivalent to adding a new continent of green vegetation twice the size of the mainland United States.
Global greening has affected all ecosystems – from arctic tundra to coral reefs to plankton to tropical rain forests – but shows up most strongly in arid places like the Sahel region of Africa, where desertification has largely now reversed. This is because plants lose less water in the process of absorbing carbon dioxide if the concentration of carbon dioxide is higher. Ecosystems and farms will be less water-stressed at the end of this century than they are today during periods of low rainfall.
There should have been no surprise about this news. Thousands of experiments have been conducted over many years in which levels of CO2 had been increased over crops or wild ecosystems and boosted their growth. The owners of commercial greenhouses usually pump CO2 into the air to speed up the growth of plants. CO2 is plant food.
This greening is good news. It means more food for insects and deer, for elephants and mice, for fish and whales. It means higher yields for farmers; indeed, the effect has probably added about $3 trillion to farm incomes over the last 30 years. So less land is needed to feed the human population and more can be spared for wildlife instead.
Yet this never gets mentioned. In their desperation to keep the fearmongering on track the activists who make a living off the climate change scare do their best to ignore this inconvenient truth. When they cannot avoid the subject, they say that greening is a temporary phenomenon that will reverse in the latter part of this century. The evidence for this claim comes from a few models fed with extreme assumptions, so it cannot be trusted.
This biological phenomenon can also help to explain the coming and going of ice ages. It has always been a puzzle that ice ages grow gradually colder for tens of thousands of years, then suddenly warmer again in the space of a few thousand years, at which point the huge ice caps of Eurasia and North America collapse and the world enters a warmer interlude, such as the one we have been enjoying for 10,000 years.
Attempts to explain this cyclical pattern have mostly failed so far. Carbon dioxide levels track the change, but these rise after the world starts to warm and fall after the world starts to cool, so they are not the cause. Changes in the shape of the earth’s orbit play a role, with ice sheets collapsing when the northern summers are especially warm, but only some of these so-called “great summers” result in deglaciation.
Recent ice cores from the Antarctic appear to have fingered the culprit at last: it’s all about plants. During ice ages, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere steadily drops, because colder oceans absorb more of the gas. Eventually it reaches such a low level – about 0.018% at the peak of the last ice age – that plants struggle to grow at all, especially in dry areas or at high altitudes. As a result gigantic dust storms blanket the entire planet, reaching even Antarctica, where the amount of dust in the ice spikes dramatically upward. These dust storms blacken the northern ice sheets in particular, making them highly vulnerable to rapid melting when the next great summer arrives. The ice age was a horrible time to be alive even in the tropics: cold, dry, dusty and far less plant life than today.
As Svante Arrhenius, the Swede who first measured the greenhouse effect, said:
“By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates.”
Enjoy the lush greenery of the current world and enjoy the fact that green vegetation is changing faster than global average temperatures.
Rank heresy! Doubleplus ungood crimethink! How dare Mr Ridley point out the good side of the satanic gasses.
Amen to all of that! CO2 – the basis of almost all life on Earth and in its oceans!
Explaining this last year to a colleague in response to him asking if I were still a climate denier, resulted in him getting visibly agitated, and telling me it just could not be true. Factual contraindications to the global memes are like chemotherapy.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/5/eaaq1012
Abstract
Declines of protein and minerals essential for humans, including iron and zinc, have been reported for crops in response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, [CO2]. For the current century, estimates of the potential human health impact of these declines range from 138 million to 1.4 billion, depending on the nutrient. However, changes in plant-based vitamin content in response to [CO2] have not been elucidated. Inclusion of vitamin.
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/11/3572/pdf
An often neglected consequence of changes in atmospheric CO2 on plants is the impact on the chemical composition of plants. When plants are grown under elevated CO2, changes in their nutrient acquisition and use affect the amount of N-containing compounds in the plant, such as protein and cyanogens, thus altering a plant’s nutritional value [165,169,188,198]. Many crop plants (such as rice, wheat and potato) grown at elevated CO2 contain less nitrogen and protein (typically 7–15% less N on average) than plants grown at ambient CO2 [192,198-200]. This means that herbivores, including humans, need to consume more biomass to take in the same amount of protein when consuming plants
Typically, in animals and men, proteins aren’t lackig, execpt of some special ones, so-called essentials, which are scarce, but this is a crop-feature and not or less nutritioal-induced. This essentials have to be acquired by eating special foodstuff.
Carbohydrates are of more importance for feeding, men are typically overfeed with proteins from flesh, eggs and dairy-products.
Also are livestock on pasture, as grass contains less carbohydrates than needed; therefore the large uptake by ruminants.
Lets get this straight: CliSci claims that a slightly warmer and wetter climate, aided by increased CO2, producing a lusher environment leads to a climate that poses an existential threat to humankind? And we pay these poseurs to lie to us.
Painfully funny.
Mr Ridley conveniently omits the caveats associated with that study:
“While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.””
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
A rather contentious and tenuous statement by NASA, don’t you think? They haven’t proven CO2 to be the “chief culprit” of anything, especially melting glaciers, sea ice, rising sea levels (unless NOAA’s recent tidal data doesn’t mean anything to NASA), and more severe weather events (there haven’t been but two recent hurricanes that have reached landfall upon the United States in the last 14 years, just to illustrate one example). So I would suggest that NASA’s “caveats” to be driven by motives far more political than trying to be good scientists. They are equally good political operators, too, especially over at the Goddard Center, where James Hansen operated for years.
Of course no data is presented to support that final statement. Like everything from the climate change crew, we are just expected to take it on faith.
Please name these studies that show that carbon fertilization fades over time. Certainly greenhouse growers haven’t found any evidence of this.
Their other meme is that extra CO2 diminishes the nutritional value of vegetables. As many people have pointed out, the alarmists will grasp at any straw.
Only an academic, divorced from reality, can ignore the experience of greenhouse growers everywhere. CO2 helps the growth of plants, and there’s no evidence that their nutritional value suffers at all.
The plants get bigger, so the concentration of minerals and/or secondary metabolites per unit volume (or weight) goes down a bit.
So, eat an extra bite of broccoli, asparagus, tomato, or carrots (or if you’re a masochist, fried okra). Big deal.
Farm yields go up 14%, but nutritional content does not fall 14%. The net outcome is extremely positive.
Stromatal uptake of CO2 determines water loss. The fertilization effect will not fade.
Do weeds get 14% bigger too?
Not the ones hit with Round-Up.
Boiled okra is much better than fried! All that slimy goodness.
MarkW, did you know that the more glyphosate you use, the more resistance develops in weeds? https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/GWC/GWC-1.pdf
Absolutely correct. There was a study that showed pollen protein was less per unit volume in certain plants which led to a big scare that the bees were going to be less healthy.
The problem with that is – how much protein do the bees need? So the amount of protein still available could be in excess of what they need.
Along with the amount they feed to larva could be in excess.
I am a beekeeper and not too concerned about more and healthier plants yielding more pollen. Plus, all pollen is not created equal, so the more the better.
Ken says:
Boiled okra is much better than fried! All that slimy goodness.
Pickled okra!
Keith, so what?
If they develop resistance, switch to something else.
Farmers are a lot smarter than your average climate scientist.
MarkW: ” switch to something else”
…
Are you that clueless on how glyphosate works?
…
Tell all of us what can they switch to, and how do they do it.
MarkW: ” Farmers are a lot smarter….”
…
Yes, but are they smart enough to genetically engineer new crop varieties?
Taleb would refer to the climate scientists as ‘intellectual yet idiot’. They bear no consequences for any incorrect bull crap they foist on the public. In his latest book, Taleb refers to the requirement for skin in the game.
If a farmer makes a bad mistake, he loses his livelihood. If Dr. Mann makes a bad mistake, he can claim that he won the Nobel Prize. He’s the very definition of Taleb’s ‘intellectual yet idiot’. Based on results, I would argue that the farmer is smarter.
Keith, what does resistance to Roundup have to do with your initial comment regarding weeds also increasing due to CO2 enhancement?
You brought up the subject of Roundup MarkW.
Keith, are you actually trying to argue that once a farmer uses RoundUp, it’s impossible to switch to something else to kill weeds? Or do you believe that only RoundUp kills weeds?
How do they switch to something else? Simple, go down to the store and buy it.
Why would they need to engineer another variety? They don’t have to, the seed manufactures will do it, and are in fact currently doing it.
Poor, poor Keith, he actually isn’t able to remember what he wrote, even though it’s just a few posts above here.
Then again, Keith never had any intention of arguing honestly nor any ability to argue intelligently.
Bill T,
Scientists have long believed that bees first appeared about 120 million years ago — but previous bee fossil records dated back only about 65 million years.
Without us the Bees did well for 63 million years.
https://www.google.com/search?q=since+when+Bees+on+earth&oq=since+when+Bees+on+earth&aqs=chrome.
Ahhh, Mark W – who never provides supporting data for his assertions – calls out others. What are we up to now, Mark – 75,000 posts without a link? Hahahaha
Chris never sees what he’s paid not to see.
BTW, what does your false claim that I don’t provide links have to do with whether the previous poster supported his claims?
Or are you really that desperate to change the subject again?
Something else where nobody asked why. NASA, why are they stuffing around duplicating everyone elses “work” on climate and weather. No wonder the space program fell into a heap for decades.
Reproducibility is a mainstay of science.
Except for ‘Climate Science’.
Climate modellers can’t even replicate their own models. Every one of them is different but the average of them magically gives the right answer.
“Why should I give you the data when you aim is to find something wrong with it?” – Phil Jones, forgetting about the mainstay of science.
+100. But doubt if “Jack” gets it…..
NASA’s Mission To Planet Earth was directed and funded by Congress. As was the design parameters of the Space Launch System, also know as the Congressional Launch System.
“the Congressional Launch System”
That’s a good one, Jim! Very descriptive! 🙂
Congressional Launch System.
That’s where they shoot bundles of taxpayer money thru cannons out to their DNC contributors.
NASA overall is still doing science. I think it’s delightful that they just contradicted the doo doo coming out of Goddard when they in effect predicted cold times are coming with their prediction that Solar Cycle 25 will be comparable to the Dalton Minimum.
Matt Ridley left that out intentionally, because he knew you, or someone very much like you, would come along and reinforce the bad news narrative. You cannot throw a soft, non-dangerous nerf ball around here without hitting one of you on one of your long, long noses
accelerating the hydrologic cycle with warming also means more precipitation to further accelerate the greening and growing of crops to reduce irrigation needs from ground water (subsurface aquifers).
Win-win-win.
The socialists and their power schemes are the big losers in all this. Which is why they are fighting this with such determination and disinformation.
Just when we were beginning to believe that NASA/climate could not be any less knowledgeable they exhibit a tacit belief in Lamarckism.
Jack, for someone that likes to nitpick, this time you must surly must recognize your your one-sided hypocrisy.
The part of your reference quote “The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere…”, is complete crap. No heat is trapped in by CO2. Using this terminology confuses the stupid reader and allows the ignorant an excuse to continue in their bliss.
Now go stand in front of a mirror, look yourself in the eye, and say out loud, “I am not a hypocrite”.
That hypothesis has never been proven and is not backed by empirical data measured at any timescale. Mr. Ridley does mention it:
“Carbon dioxide levels track the change, but these rise after the world starts to warm and fall after the world starts to cool, so they are not the cause.”
That was true until the mid 18th century when we dumped 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
That carbon has always been a part of the biosphere, and life started and thrived under much higher CO2 levels. Life itself created the carbon deposits that mankind now returns to the carbon cycle.
The last time CO2 levels were this high the Arctic was ice free, sea levels about 20 meters higher, and the flora and fauna were not suitable for a human diet.
@Jack Dale,
During the Ordovician Ice Age, 440 million years ago, CO2 levels were between 8 and 12 times as high as today.
At current concentration levels CO2 has nothing to do with temperature. CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it’s effect is saturated and adding more CO2 to the atmosphere has no measurable effect.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18618-high-carbon-ice-age-mystery-solved/
The Arctic froze up when the Isthmus of Panama closed up.
There was no change in CO2 levels at that time.
Sheesh Jack, isn’t there anything you know that is complete and accurate?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18618-high-carbon-ice-age-mystery-solved/
Jack, Dale, so has your study been reproduced? No? Of course it hasn’t because it appears to be more cherry picked nonsense.
“Here we show that consistent trends in both δ13Ccarb and δ13Corg from two well-dated stratigraphic sequences in Estonia and Anticosti Island”
Two places. That’s it. And with little other study of potential reasons for the finding. That is not science. Sorry you are too delusional to understand real science.
Feel free to consult the 64 citing articles
https://www.scopus.com/results/citedbyresults.uri?sort=plf-f&cite=2-s2.0-77956913112&src=s&imp=t&sid=94546fa51e4262348d5b1cad15959b4b&sot=cite&sdt=a&sl=0&origin=inward&editSaveSearch=&txGid=01e04477518745558ae367344650b76b
new scientist, now that’s funny
“…is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years.”
The question is why have temperatures not lock-step matched CO2 concentrations. If the CO2 really is a major driver of temperature and not, for example, a response to it, why has the temperature for the past 150 years not tracked, at least reasonably, the CO2 concentration? Why is the global temperature not the highest it has been in 500,000 years? You know…basic physics and all that.
And in other news indicating that the argument is lost, China, two days ago, reversed their national policy on the burning of coal for domestic heating purposes. It was banned three years ago. Great cheers went up among the Euro-greens claiming their anthropogenic explanations were being accepted in the Far East.
Nope.
A 250 year correlation between CO2 and temperature.
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/decadal-with-forcing-small.png
The mechanism for CO2 as a GHG has been know for 2 centuries.
https://history.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
In science, correlation + mechanism = evidence of a causal relationship
Exactly Jack!
CO2 follows temperature.
Don’t think he meant that. But you’re correct and he’s wrong.
Except using carbon isotope analysis the CO2 increase can be attributed to the burning to of fossil fuels.
CO2 led temperature increases.
Jack,
From 1850 the rise in CO2 concentration is due to human emissions. I don’t deny that.
The simultaneous rise in temperature is the Earth recovering from the Little Ice Age.
Correlation (on only this timescale!) does not mean causation.
On all other timescales, the is no correlation between CO2 and temperature whatsoever.
https://holoceneclimate.com/temperature-versus-co2-the-big-picture.html
Anthropogenic carbon emissions from 1751.
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2014.ems
The industrial revolution is a nexus point.
Tom, you say: “the Earth recovering from the Little Ice Age.”
…
What is the exact physical process that is causing this?
@Keith. Sketchley
Solar activity and ocean currents. There is a perfect correlation between the number of observed sunspots and the known colder and warmer periods over the last 4 centuries: Maunder minimum (around 1750, part of the LIA), Dalton Minimum (around 1800), Glassberg Minimum (around 1900), Modern Warm Period (1930-today).
Some science for you.
“The association of the solar Maunder minimum and the Little Ice Age is also not supported by proper inspection and ignores the role of other factors such as volcanoes. ”
https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/58/2/2.17/3074082
So Tom, why is the 11-year solar cycle not reflected in the temperature record?
@Keith.,
Why should it?
Everything under 30 years is weather, not climate.
The longer sun cycles perfectly leave their mark on the Earth’s climate. 100% correlation.
Now let me ask you a question. I see you believe CO2 is the main temperature regulator. Why did the temperature decrease from 1940 until 1975 while the CO2 concentration steadily increased?
“The longer sun cycles perfectly leave their mark on the Earth’s climate. 100% correlation.”
Can we see that correlation please? Can you also provide a mechanism?
@Keith.,
400 Years of sunspot observations.
Please note there are no models involved in this. It’s all observations.
Moreover, it’s quite easy to understand. 100% of the Earth’s energy input comes from the sun, so it’s obvious that cyclic variations in the sun output affect the climate on Earth.
Solar activity varies 0.1%, hence the “solar constant”. There has been a nearly 50% variation in CO2 over the past 2.5 centuries.
Changes in insolation , not solar activity, is the outcome of Milankovitch cycles.
“Why did the temperature decrease from 1940 until 1975 while the CO2 concentration steadily increased?”
The cooling can be attributed to the massive increase in industrial aerosols from the war and post war boom. When smog from the aerosols became a health hazard, Clean Air Acts when enacted in many industrialized countries in the 1970’s. With their introduction warming returned.
The Schneider Rasool paper and predicated on increased industrial aerosols. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138
Tom van Leeuwen posts: “I see you believe CO2 is the main temperature regulator. ”
…
Please point out where I mentioned that. The problem you have is using the word “main.” That is an error on your part. I say CO2 influences temperature. There are others such as orbital cycles.
@Keith.,
Ok, my fault, I’m happy you understand that CO2 is not the main temperature control knob. So, clearly you’re in disagreement with the IPCC CO2-hypotesis and you’re in danger to be labeled a Climate Denier.
The IPCC recognizes the role of Milankovtich cycles in climate change and they identify H2O as the dominant GHG.
Now that is funny!
The last notice I had was that the IPCC blamed with absolute confidence that humans are the main reason for any temperature anomaly since 1850.
Well, that is good news! The Climate Alarm is over, they finally understand humans are not to blame?!
Please document this great news. I’m really looking forward to this.
Milankovitch cycles
https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-6.1.html
Water vapour
“As the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, water vapour plays an essential role in the Earth’s climate. ”
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf pg 666
@Jack
Good you cited Rasool and Schneider from NASA. These are the NASA guys who wrote an article in Nature, 1971 (sorry, I lost the link) stating that the CO2 greenhouse effect is saturated and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will have no measurable effect to the average global temperature.
When NASA changed their opinion on that and started to alter their data (example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tODIRhhV80), they fired these two scientists.
Your are of half-truth, mistruths and untruths.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/steve-schneiders-first-letter-to-the-editor/
Quoting Tony Heller simply makes you look like an idiot. Judith Curry did a great job of eviscerating his crap.
https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/
Ok @Jack,
I’m done with you.
Tony Heller is the one person that really exposes Government data manipulation and the misuse of Government confidence. If you don’t agree with him, just join the threads on his blog or YouTube clips.
I’m still waiting for answers to my questions, answers you’re unable to give me.
Calling me an “idiot” is just the limit. You’re wrong, you know it and all that’s left is calling me an idiot?
For, me this discussion is done. You lost. Live with it.
Regards, Tom van Leeuwen.
You quit. You lose.
BTW – I do comment on both Heller’s website and Facebook page. He once banned me for simply disagreeing with him.
I provided you with the links to the rebuttals of Heller accusations on Judith Curry’s web site. Did you bother to read them?
Heller is clueless about the parameters used to determine ice coverage; he fails to understand that defintion of ice coverage changed from 10% to 15%.
Tom van Leeuwen, what you don’t seem to comprehend is that CO2 not only explains the anomaly since 1850, it does so without it being the main “control knob” for temperature.
..
What you are unable to do is offer any reasonable explanation/cause for the anomaly since 1850 other than CO2.
PS Tom van Leeuwen
.
I visited your website, and looked at your graphic for GISP2 in Greenland.
.
You make two serious errors, first representing global climate with a single geographic location of Greenland.
.
The second error is that your graphic shows “years before now” with is misleading.
.
The GISP2 graphic should include recent temps because what you’ve posted ends in 1855
.
Here is what Richard Alley, who is responsponsible for GISP2 data, said about those who misrepresent it.
“So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response.”
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/
@Keith.,
I see you have a hard time interpreting graphical data. The graph clearly stops before reaching 0 on the timescale. Moreover, the final two centuries are colored red. So, the graph is correct.
I never say that the graph represents global data. The image clearly says “Greenland”.
Anyway, thanks for visiting my site. I hope to see you back there again soon.
proposed mechanism, one which hasn’t been proven in the real world, and is in fact contra-indicated by the data.
CO2 is not the only factor. Fore example, volcanic eruptions have a cooling effect as do industrial aerosols.
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/results-plot-volcanoes.jpg
@Jack
Thanks for fighting the good fight. These idiots will never accept the truth. You can prove it to 10 decimal places and they will deny deny deny and ask for 12 decimal places.
But, thanks for trying….
Jake-“The last time CO2 levels were this high the Arctic was ice free, sea levels 20 meters higher, and flora and fauna were not suitable for a human diet”. And of course it’s nothing like that now, proving CO2 is not the main driver. Thanks for pointing that out.
Thanks for making it clear that you have no concept of latent heat? It takes a lot of energy to turn ice into water.
Are you implying that plants evolve over time to become “acclimatized” to higher co2 levels? And the time scales would have to be incredibly short on evolutionary scales – just a couple of decades instead of tens of thousands of years.
Jack sez:
“While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants,
it is also the chief culprit of climate change.The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years.The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.””
Fixed it for ya.
If polar regions are warming faster than tropical regions, and night time temperatures are warming more than day time temperatures, we experience lower differentials. How do you account for more severe weather with lower differential atmospherics?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190528140115.htm
Absolute nonsense.
The ”chief culprit” or suspect, is innocent until proven guilty. Thus far no proof of guilt has been shown. Time to release the prisoner.
I think the issues of Gas ”trapping” heat in the atmosphere has been thrashed out here and elsewhere. At the very least, it is an erroneous term. As for conc. not seen for half a million years, …a big so what? There’s a 4.5Bn year history that shows much higher conc. We know the planet survived, we know present day levels are not an issue for us. No reason to think they will reach levels that will kill us all. Not from burning Fossil fuels anyway.
At 415 ppm CO2 versus 280 ppm pre-industrial, plant growth now almost 50% increased due to CO2 fertilization.
“Since the beginning of the industrial era, photosynthesis has increased in nearly constant proportion to the rise in atmospheric CO2”
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-05/jcu-hpa050919.php
Read past headlines.
While increased CO2 has allowed an increase in photosynthesis and global leaf area, the researchers warn that further climate change – with increasing frequency of events such as heat waves, droughts and storms – has the potential to significantly stress terrestrial vegetation and decrease production.
“It’s also important to remember that global change will manifest differently in different regions,” Professor Cernusak said.
“Our observations and modeling analyses suggest that in high latitude ecosystems it’s global warming that is driving the increase in leaf area and growing-season length.
“That’s quite different from the tropics, where our study indicates that CO2 fertilization is driving the growth in photosynthesis, while climbing temperatures can create significant stress for some plant species.”
“Our observations and modeling analyses suggest that in high latitude ecosystems it’s global warming that is driving the increase in leaf area and growing-season length.
Really?
How did Earth’s atmosphere change over time?
The change in the Earth’s atmosphere is that life caused it to change. The first living organisms probably developed in the oceans while the Earth’s early atmosphere was changing from poisonous gases into carbon dioxide. … Other organisms took nitrogen into the air.
https://www.google.com/search?q=earth%27s+atmosphere+bevor+plants+changing&oq=earth+atmosphere+bevor+plants&aqs=chrome.
Wrong Jack Dale….Carbon is not a primary greenhouse gas…Water vapor is! Water vapor both warms and cools the Earth at the same time therefore is our greatest asset to keeping the climate reasonably stable.
H2O is the dominant GHG, the IPCC recognizes that.
However it is a condensing, non-persistent, variable mixed GHG. The earth’s relative humidity has remained relatively constant of late. Something is need to raise the temperature to increase the water column. That something is CO2, a well mixed, non-condensing persistent GHG.
RSS has a concise explanation. http://www.remss.com/research/climate/#vapor
“This increase (in the water column) can be formally attributed to human-induced climate change — see Santer et al, 2007. While there is a substantial overall increase in water vapor, it is by no means spatially uniform.
Hmmm. Well. You’re obviously not a geologist. If you were, you would know that in the Jurassic carbon dioxide levels were “between” 10k ppm and 40k ppm (1 to 4%) and temperatures were about 5 degrees higher.
That’s right. The Jurassic. That period when life was at its most gigantic and most prolofific. Can you explain this?
No. I didn’t think so.
Thanks for that. It is further evidence that denisons of WUWT want to return the earth to a habitat suitable for their own kind.
Are you really of the opinion that the Little Ice Age was a good climate, and that any warming from that is a Bad Thing?
“Are you really of the opinion that the Little Ice Age was a good climate, and that any warming from that is a Bad Thing?”
I am not sure what leads you to draw that inference.
However, the LIA was the period in which the Reformation, Renaissance, The Age of Enlightenment, The Scientific Revolution, the Agricultural Revolution and the Industrial Revolution took place.
Some science on the LIA: https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/58/2/2.17/3074082
+1 Jack
Wow, you seesaw back and forth more than a drunk on Bourbon Street. Perhaps that explains you. Let me give you a sentence which, in one of your rare moments of lucidity, may wake you from this self induced zombie-ism. “Climate changes, constantly, humans are not causing it and can not stop it.” Just keep reading it, over and over, till you finally wake up to reality.
Ahhh, you really are a special kind of stupid. Please, PLEASE keep proving it!
Jack Dale July 7, 2019 at 12:43 pm
Thanks for that. It is further evidence that denisons of WUWT want to return the earth to a habitat suitable for their own kind.
_______________________________________
The denisons on WUWT do believe that Plants and Bees are real die hards.
You might what to check out what scientific evidence says about bees. Belief is for religion.
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=bees+climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1
The caveats are 1) I must mention Global Warming or I won’t get published, and 2) Studies that say CO2 fertilisation decreases over time are only in “a few models fed with extreme assumptions that cannot be trusted.”
It is clear to any unbiased person that the already present benefits of increased CO2 far outweigh the theoretical and unproven negative climatic effects. As it will take at least 10,000 years for the Antarctic Ice Cap to melt, rising sea levels does not seem to be an urgent threat. If we cannot keep ahead of 1mm of sea rises each year, we don’t deserve to survive. Any coastal areas lost to agriculture will be replaced many times over with fertile former deserts made productive by warmer, wetter longer growing seasons aided by the CO2 fertilisation effect.
CO2 is plant food – within limits. I expect those limits are those that existed for that past 800,000 years at least: 180 -300 ppm. In that atmosphere homo sapiens evolved and their food crops were domesticated.
N,P and K are also plant food. Over fertilize your lawn and it dies.
Please do not use the old “greenhouses use high levels of CO2” line. They are used to grow tomatoes, cucumbers, flowers, etc., not staple food crops.
In open environments, higher levels of CO2 result in compromised nutritional value and increased predation of food crops.
“In open environments, higher levels of CO2 result in compromised nutritional value and increased predation of food crops.” Just plain BS with nothing to back it up. Where do you get off spouting unsubstantiated crap like that? People, like Craig Idso, have actually done valid scientific experiments and research with empirical evidence contrary to your claim.
Since you asked so nicely:
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-co2-climb-millions-nutritional-deficiencies.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18375762
You are welcome.
So, the 1st study linked has CO2 at 550ppm as the level in which nutrient deficiencies are realized. Field conditions can be manipulated chemically or otherwise. The possible deficiencies are just that – a possibility.
The 2nd study focused on invasive pests (japanese beetles) and soybean susceptibility. Hmmm. Target species can be dealt with in a variety of ways.
“The possible deficiencies are just that – a possibility.”
What do you mean by “possible deficiencies” and “a possibility”? Those are the results, NOT possibilities.
Results? The results of your personal stupidity, chrissee.
Trying reading up on Liebigs Law of Minimums and it will all make sense. Plants require certain essential elements and minerals. If any of these are not provided the nutritional quality will suffer. If all are present in adequate supply the nutritional value and growth rate can both increase. CO2 is obviously one the crutial ingredients.
Yes. And it is limited by soil nutrients.
Do you have any evidence to support that, or is it just what you are paid to believe?
Yes. And it is limited by soil nutrients.
Which is why we use fertilizer. You should think before you comment.
Do you plan on fertilizing forests, savanas, etc..
If your fertilize plants with something that is already available and not a limit to growth, the plant will not benefit from the fertilizer. The Earth’s plants are obviously benefitting from increasing CO2, indicating that the low levels of CO2 were the limiting factor.
When one limiting factor is provided, the plants will be better off, and the next limiting factor will become more apparent, but the plants will still be better off. There is no negative in discovering the next limiting factor, and there is no logic in decrying the relief of the first limiting factor.
I had a crazy aunt who struggled financially, but proclaimed that she didn’t want to be wealthier because she would have to pay more in taxes. Jake Dale reminds me of my crazy aunt.
Do you plan on fertilizing forests, savanas, etc..
Your claim was that CO2 caused compromised nutritional value in food crops due to other resource limitations. To which I replied, that’s why we use fertilizer. If you want to change the subject to forests and savanas, by all means. But don’t pretend when you’ve just been made to look like an idiot due to an ill thought out comment, that the subject was forests and savannas in the first place. All that says is you think you’re arguing with someone so stupid they won’t notice. This is the second time in this thread where you’ve tried that same ignorant tactic and gotten exposed. Either have an honest discussion or don’t. Your call.
I’ve noticed that this is a very common tactic among global warming acolytes. Several of them on this thread have attempted to use it already.
Jack Dale July 5, 2019 at 7:33 pm
Yes. And it is limited by soil nutrients.
___________________________________
Plants thriving in poisonous soils:
Effects of mercury on soil microbial communities in tropical soils of French …
… in tropical soils of French Guyana | In gold mining regions, the risk of soil pollution by …
(2009) found that soil characteristics can modulate the toxicity of mercury to a soil …
http://www.proligno.ro › articlesPDF
ability of tropical forest soils of french guiana and reunion to … –
ProLigno
von A ZAREMSKI · Ähnliche Artikel
was monitored and it was found that the soil from French Guiana was more … can it be reused due to its toxicity
https://www.google.com/search?q=earth%27s+atmosphere+bevor+plants+changing&oq=earth+atmosphere+bevor+plants&aqs=chrome.
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&ei=z2MlXc6AIZGJrwS777O4Dw&q=Albania+poisonous+soils&oq=Albania+poisonous+soils&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
I had a crazy aunt who struggled financially, but proclaimed that she didn’t want to be wealthier because she would have to pay more in taxes. Jake Dale reminds me of my crazy aunt.
__________________________________
You’re crazy aunt was right,
You aren’t feasting on coins / specie, paper money or pay checks, are you.
From Smith and Myers at Nature Climate Change: “We analysed the impact of elevated CO2 concentrations on the sufficiency of dietary intake of iron, zinc and protein for the populations of 151 countries using a model of per-capita food availability stratified by age and sex, assuming constant diets and excluding other climate impacts on food production“.
So, they excluded the possibility that people would have greater quantities to eat and a more diverse diet in a warmer, richer, and more productive world.
A very convincing study to anyone except a thoughtful person.
Increased predation by insects (the PubMed reference) merely highlights the continuing need to pay attention to adaptive behavior of insects and food-plants — something farmers have been doing systematically for about 100 years or so.
The article mentions proposals to put foreign genes and promoters in plants to frustrate insect predation. The battle between insects and farmers has been on-going forever. There’s nothing new in the article.
Regarding the “nutritional deficiencies” article…
(1) 3-17% is a range of negligible to minor
(2) Plants have a long time to acclimate/evolve to rising CO2…it isn’t going to 550ppm overnight as was done in the experiments. The effect of a gradual rise to 550ppm as opposed to a shock change could be quite different.
(3)”…63% of dietary protein comes from vegetal sources, as well as 81% of iron and 68% of zinc…” – these are the nutrients you are worried about? Protein, iron, and zinc?!?!?! Just substitute a little meat, dairy, legumes, etc. This isn’t a CO2 problem. It is a poverty and diet problem.
Jack,
Common sense tells one that having 30% more of something that is slightly lower in a few micro nutrients by 7-15% means you still have more of everything, including those micro nutrients.
Let’s say you had $10,000 in money with a specifically determined ratio of pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters, dollars, $5, $10 and $20 bills. Then, I offered you 30% more money to replace it, $13,000, along with the same ratio of currency/coins…….except that there was 7% less pennies with the $13,000. You would still have more pennies than you did with your original $10,000……… + the additional amounts of everything else would be up even more than that.
The other thing they don’t address(which is a big reason for this) is the fact that bigger yields for whatever the reason(from good weather that we’ve experienced during this climate optimum, improved hybrids or additional fertilizer, whether its CO2 or Nitrogen) results in the crops with a higher uptake of micro nutrients from the soil…….so the soil becomes deficient of these micro nutrients. Farmers, need to address this by adding micro nutrients to the soil.
The solution is not to have smaller yields and lower food production so that our crops have higher micro nutrients. The answer is to use science and technology to amend the soil in order to replace what becomes deficient.
CO2 is a powerful fertilizer, just like Nitrogen in the soil is for corn. Besides managing soil nutrients, we will continue to genetically modify plants to cultivate hybrids with better nutritional content. That’s how science works.
Again, studies that tell us that the solution is to have lower yields and less food production so that the smaller crops, which feed less people will have more micro nutrients are ludicrous and clearly aimed at targeting increasing CO2 as doing the complete opposite of what it’s really doing…………..which is MAXIMIZING a plants potential.
Re Mike Maguire agreed…
Physiologically animals, such as ruminants through microflora, utilise the nutrients so available and excrete the rest.
So if there is more plant fodder they do better than when starved.
Microflora are highly adaptive.
They have been working on it since the dinosaurs.
So what’s not to like about that?
Greenhouses use more than twice the amount of CO2 that is in the air, actually around 1000 ppm.
I would suspect that if CO2 ever got to 800 ppm, plant and crop growth worldwide would increase even more substantially. – Just from my common sense and BS meter.
I notice that a lot of the old neighborhoods I used to live in (in the east coast and Midwest) seem to be overgrown with vegetation compared with 40 years ago…..
Yep! The weed growth in my garden are proof-positive. I think one of them grabbed me by the ankle yesterday.
Ah yes, ‘Fresh’ greens…
My planting in my garden diffidently grab me this week. I have several cuts and pokes to show for it. Of course I live in Arizona here what you plant to the most part, will stick or poke you if you are not careful, the all seem to have needles, stickers and thorns of various sizes. Oh by the way we had a cool summer this year we have not been in the teens yet this year, add in the nights are getting down to the seventies, so life is great.
Mark Luhmann
Arizona here what you plant to the most part, will stick or poke you if you are not careful, the all seem to have needles, stickers and thorns of various sizes.
So now we know why Texas and Arizona are known for best rawhide-and snake leather boots.
Jack – You are repeating talking points intended to mislead. There are literally thousands of studies and papers documenting the benefits of extra CO2 on virtually every photosynthesizing life form.
The “compromised nutritional value” is simply that the increase in total plant size is greater than the increase in total nutritional value. Thus, if you want to spin that result, you can say that the plants are “less nutritious.”
There has been exactly one published paper that claimed that increased predation was greater than the increase in plant growth. That, as yet irreproducible, result goes against a mountain of research. Yet, the same people who insist that a 97% consensus means you shouldn’t even listen to the minority view, cite this outlier study incessantly.
Plant uptake concentrations of nutrients, both organic and mineral are dependent on a host of factors. Availability being the essential one of course. Solubility of nutrients in the water being drawn into the roots is very variable and there is complex competition that occurs between ions that differs greatly in different conditions (pH, soil temperature, competition with other soil microorganisms, etc…etc). In other words, it’s way too complicated to determine plant nutrient uptake without doing a lot of scientific background work FOR EACH SPECIES OF PLANTS in a wide variety of conditions. A lot of this work has been done of course.
But generally, all other things being equal, if the root volume remains at a constant % of a plant’s mass, large plants and small plants absorb the same % of nutrients.
There may be instances in some species where the decrease in pH from the presence of more carbonic acid could decrease the uptake of certain nutrients, and these would tend to be those species that thrive in less acidic conditions. This is complicated by a very wide array of buffering conditions and the pH buffering capabilities of plants that differs greatly in the various plant genera.
My opinion, it’s unwise to make any general claims about nutrient density responses of CO2 fertilized plants. It is probably enhanced in some plants and retarded in others and different nutrients would show different responses.
A far bigger real problem is that we do not replace most minerals (about 80 of them) back into our soils that are extracted by the plants themselves or are leached away by rainwater (which usually holds no minersls.) Both the plants and animals require these so called micronutrients. It would be fairly easy to replace these nutrients (~once each decade).
Suggest you do a LOT more research, particularly on C3 plants. Wheat grows best at 1000-1200 ppm CO2.
When CO2 was at 220 ppm, globally, wheat in the UK stopped growing in the afternoon of optimal growing days because the local levels of CO2 dropped much lower (tends to happen when you have tens of acres of crops gulping CO2 out of the air).
If you increase CO2 and get more growth, then obviously you need to also add other nutrients for the plants to avoid compromising their nutritional values.
Reply to Jack Dale ,
The theory that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause dangerous runaway warming has never been proven .
In fact there is no proof that runaway warming could ever occur .
Show us some proof and the” 97% meme” is not proof and the ” most scientists believe” is not proof .
There is no proof
It is a belief that has been fostered with propaganda and now many people are believing it .
As the saying goes Repeat a lie enough and people will start believing that it is true .
Proof is for booze and mathematics. Science uses evidence, of which there is a whole lot in support of the conclusions of the IPCC. So much so that not one single academy of science in any country on the planet disputes their conclusions. Furthermore, not one single academy endorses the nonsense of the Heartland funded NIPCC.
To their enduring shame.
Ok, provide one solid piece of evidence.
For example, the date that polar bears became extinct or the most recent island that was drowned by rising sea levels. Maybe the names of a million or so climate refugees.
Not one single prediction from the warmers has ever occurred yet here you are staying “… There is a whole lot in support of the conclusions of the love”
The only upon conclusion that matters is the one that states that the climate is a chaotic system and as such predictions of the future climate are not possible.
Global Climate Models have successfully forecast:
That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.
The poleward movement of storm tracks.
The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.
Reply to Jack:
Jack, Jack, Jack,
It’s quite easy to ‘predict’ something that has already happened. Indeed, the GCMs are ‘tuned’ with numerous factors to follow known events . The bottom line, though, is that GCMs have failed miserably in predicting the very thing they were designed to do: predict Global Warming. Your response is like predicting an earthquake on a specific date and location, and then claiming victory because a car crash occurred there.
Models are not evidence.
Out here in the real world we see that 90% of the last 10K years were as much as 2 to 3C warmer than it is today, without the benefit of CO2. Hence the claim that it must be CO2 causing the current warmer is refuted by actual, real world evidence.
Out here in the real world, CO2 levels have been as much as 20 times pre-industrial levels without anything bad happening. Thus refuting the claim that if CO2 levels reach 2 pre-industrial levels, were all gonna die.
The “pre-industrial” period is actually the Little Ice Age. Should we stay at that temperature range? Wouldn’t a couple of degrees warmer be better?
Not if you live in a coastal region.
“Not if you live in a coastal region.”
You DO know that sea levels rise and fall constantly over geologic time, right? You DO know that there is no such thing as a static climate, right? You DO know that sea levels have been much higher just during this interglacial, right? You DO know that humans and animals are excellent at adapting, right? If you don’t know those things, there’s no point in conversing with you.
Jack writes
Which at about 3mm/year, you might expect a 25-30cm sea level rise from your birth to your death 90 years later. The thing is that over the 90 odd years, you’ll have plenty of time to step backwards away from the sea.
IMO sea level rise is a massive misunderstanding on the rate of that rise vs a human lifespan vs depreciation of coastal assets.
Even if you live in a coastal region, you have several hundred years in which to adapt.
Considering most buildings don’t last anywhere near that long, where’s the problem?
Blinded by their focus on the increase in CO2, they have apparently failed to notice that in the period 1988-2002 water vapor molecules increased more than 5 times as fast as CO2 molecules and about twice as fast as calculated from the average global temperature increase. Since 1900 WV molecules increased approximately 3.6 times as fast as CO2 molecules.
The increase in WV has contributed to warming but is self-limiting. CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
Out of what orifice did you pull those numbers?
http://www.remss.com/research/climate/#vapor
JD,
You display your ignorance!
Apparently you are not familiar with the source of the raw data used to construct that graph at that link. That graph was constructed using raw data measured by satellite and reported monthly by NASA/RSS through 2014. The raw numerical data through April, 2019 is graphed in Fig 3 at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . Although the slope for the total time period has declined a bit to 1.45% since my calculation of 1.54% was made, the change in slope in 2002-2005 has become more obvious. The slope for the period 1988-2003 is 2%. The “more than 5 times” observation is verified.
All that you needed to do was click my name to verify the numbers but instead, blinded by your pre-conceived notions, you provided an outdated link. Try to keep up.
Science uses evidence, of which there is a whole lot in support of the conclusions of the IPCC.
Where in the IPCC reports do they give any credibility to the notion of runaway warming?
They don’t. And your point?
Jack Dale July 5, 2019 at 7:15 pm
They don’t. And your point?
Well I shall repeat the thread for you and remind you. The original comment said:
In fact there is no proof that runaway warming could ever occur .
Show us some proof and the” 97% meme” is not proof and the ” most scientists believe” is not proof .
There is no proof
To which YOU replied:
Proof is for booze and mathematics. Science uses evidence, of which there is a whole lot in support of the conclusions of the IPCC.
And when I ask where the IPCC says anything in support of runaway warming you respond, they don’t, and ask what my point is? LOL.
Jack Dale “Science uses evidence, of which there is a whole lot in support of the conclusions of the IPCC. ”
There is zero science in support of the IPCC. Climate models have no predictive value.
See my seminar on the vacuity of climate models and the IPCC here.
See my demonstration of the ubiquity of pseudo-science throughout all of consensus AGW climatology, here.
Your proper response, Dale, is to get angry that you’ve been gulled, robbed, and had your best instincts abused and jerked around by a coterie of science-fakirs, green-robed thugs, and subsidy troughers.
Jack – before you blindly accept that ‘science uses evidence’ and ‘support of the conclusions of [whoever]’ you might want to look at some of the previous ‘accepted science’ that has been proven to be incorrect.
A quick Google search for “accepted science wrong” gave me:
https://list25.com/25-science-facts-that-were-proven-wrong/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/09/27/these-scientific-theories-were-accepted-once-but-were-later-proven-wrong/
https://www.buzzfeed.com/natashaumer/science-facts-you-might-have-believed-in-the-90s
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/10/21/how-science-goes-wrong
I like a quote from this one:
Yep – Newton’s Law of Gravity was supplanted by Einstein. The moon landings used Newton’s equations.
Celestial navigation is still based on the Ptolemaic models of the universe.
Yes – I understand scientific paradigm shifts. I have read Kuhn.
BTW – The Galileo of climate science is Guy Callendar.
Kuhn is wrong. I’ve been critically re-reading his book. He uses equivocal language to describe science.
From Kuhn’s description, one can’t distinguish the work of Isaac Newton’s from the work of Thomas Aquinas.
Kuhn’s equivocation is why post-modernists and other politicized academic second-raters love his work. He gave them the space to infer their subjectivist cants.
But success can breed complacency. Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying—to the detriment of the whole of science, and of humanity.
_______________________________
And science has found a technical term for that too: now we call this “the replication crisis.”
Are you aware that the “hockey stick” has been replicated over 3 dozen times by different researchers using different methodologies with different data sets.
JIm Milks keeps tabs on them: http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html
Jack Dale that is not evidence .Science uses evidence and any experiments have to be repeatable .There have been no experiments in the real world that go any way to proof that the doubling of CO2 will cause Runaway Global Warming .
It is a theory that depends on the tropical hot spot which is non existent and positive feed backs from water vapour which have also never been proved .
The so called evidence that the IPCC publishes proves nothing .The IPCC is a political wing of the UN .
I will put a question to you .If the IPCC are so worried about rising CO2 levels why are they not strongly advocating for nuclear power that is CO2 free once the stations are built .
The modern world relies on cheap plentiful energy for the well being of all the populations in the developed world .A restriction of cheap available energy across the world would cause untold harm and starvation .
Bring some proof .but there is none .It is all an unproven theory and time will tell how the largest scam ever attempted on this planet.
.
Jack doesn’t comprehend, even when he loses the argument.
Here is what the IPPC says……”IN CLIMATE RESEARCH AND MODELLING, WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH A COUPLED, NON-LINEAR, CHAOTIC SYSTEM AND THERFORE THAT LONG TERM PREDICTIONS OF CLIMATE STATES IS NOT POSSIBLE”
To which I would add…..Anyone who takes anything the IPPC concludes as being an unquestionable reality is a fool. Climate science is still in it’s embryonic stage.
Classic contextomy. Now go read the entire chapter.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-14.pdf
BTW – The IPCC does not write in all caps.
Jack? Global Climate Models have successfully forecast jacksh*t. Fed actual historical data they produce the same brainless jibberish. Just like you.
Plant bio-chemistry was set down 10’s to 100’s of millions of years ago.
Please demonstrate how you became so convinced that non-staple crops behave differently to CO2 changes compared to staple crops.
Finally, why do you insist on mis-representing studies. Yes, there was a small decrease in the percentage of some nutrients in some plants, however this was like a 10% decrease in concentration while the total mass was doubling. Your claims that nutritional value was compromised is nothing more than an out and out lie.
Optimum plant growth is around 26,5 celsius, and 1200-1500 ppm CO 2
Citation please
any scholar book on the topic of greenhouse gardening, but I´m not your mummy.
Stay ignorant if preferred.
Your assertion requires your evidence. It is a middle school concept.
Jack Dale thinks science is so “middle school”. Try a grown up argument.
Not correct at all. Gymnosperms evolved about 360 million years ago when CO2 levels were about 4000 ppm. Angiosperms evolved more recently, 100 to 200 million years when CO2 levels were about 2200 ppm. At 180 ppm, where we were about 20000 years ago we were very close to the end of life as we know it. Current CO2 levels are just beginning to reenter the safe zone.
You couldn’t be more wrong.
Plants evolved under CO2 levels of thousands per million, not hundreds, as you so erroneosuly assume.
Optimum levels for C3 plants, ie all trees and most crops, is 900 to 1300 ppm. So we have a long way to go yet,
Most of the past 800,000 years the Earth was glaciated, and hardly an idealized Eden.
For most of the 200 million years before the rapid plunge into glaciated conditions several million years ago (accompanied by a steady decrease in CO2), atmospheric CO2 was about 2,000 ppm and higher. Plants and animals of all kinds thrived, as did marine life (including corals).
The assertion that under 300 ppm is the only suitable CO2 concentration for life to thrive is pure bunk.
As for evolution of homo sapiens, that likely occurred in a rather restricted climate zone. But once that occurred, humans moved into much different climates, long before modern agriculture and technology enabled humans to live, even thrive, in essentially all climate conditions on Earth.
In the Jurassic period CO2 levels were between 4000 and 7000 ppm, and the Earth teemed with megafauna: this sort of destroys your bogus analogy with NPK fertiliser burn: clearly the Earth’s ecosystem is currently starving for the lack of Carbon sequestered in Oil, Gas and Coal deposits all over the Planet, which should be returned to the Carbon cycle.
So you want to restore the Earth’s climate to one suitable for your own kind. Homo sapiens have never had CO2 levels this high.
You really are a tiresome dolt. Co2 is plant food. Climate changes constantly, humans are not causing it and can not stop it. Hey! Don’t let reality get in the way of your religious hysteria!
I’d also suggest that all the CO2 emitted by humans gets rapidly sequestered by vegetation close to the source which is why we do not see plumes of CO2 downwind of population centres.
Instead, we see such plumes downwind of areas of sun warmed ocean.
Actually Stephen, I would like to see a visual of the plumes downwind of sun warmed oceans! Makes sense of course.
OCO 2, if you can find the data.
Using carbon isotope analysis the nearly 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the Industrial Revolution can be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.
A graphic of CO2 “plumes” disputes your assertion. https://youtu.be/x1SgmFa0r04
NASA computer MODEL …….
not observation .
Ever looked at OCO2 ?
Did you bother to read the description of the video?
“The visualization is a product of a simulation called a “Nature Run.” The Nature Run ingests real data on atmospheric conditions and the emission of greenhouse gases and both natural and man-made particulates. ”
Thanks for the suggestion. It supports my assertions.
“Carbon dioxide is the most abundant carbon-bearing gas in Earth’s atmosphere, and plays a special role in the carbon cycle. From an atmospheric perspective, sources emit or release carbon—primarily as CO2—into the atmosphere, while sinks remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Natural processes are affected by CO2, such that—collectively—CO2 emission and absorption are roughly balanced over time. Since the beginning of the industrial age, however, humans have disrupted this balance with increased use of carbon-containing compounds to provide energy for heat, light, and to meet our transportation needs and other industrial requirements.
For example, each time humans use coal or CH4 (also known as natural gas) to generate electricity, or drive a petroleum-powered car, or cut down a forest, or intentionally ignite a forest fire to clear land for agriculture, CO2 is released into the atmosphere. Unlike natural processes, these human activities absorb little or no CO2 in return and produce rapid increases in atmospheric CO2, currently adding approximately 36 billion tons of it each year. Fossil fuel combustion is the largest and most rapidly growing source of CO2 emission into the atmosphere, with global growth rates of 2.2% per year.”
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/o/oco-2
So, they “observed” the results of their “models”, found them to be wrong and simply declared they were correct in-spite of being wrong and then moved on to claim some other fantastical crap. Got it. Meanwhile, out here in reality, everyone can see their lies and just ignore them. Time to strip their funding and put it into surface to orbit lift and orbital construction programs.
You are truly aliterate.
“The visualization is a product of a simulation called a “Nature Run.” The Nature Run ingests real data on atmospheric conditions and the emission of greenhouse gases and both natural and man-made particulates.”
What part of “real data” do you not understand?
You should read also the mandate for NASA
“The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;”
https://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html
Stick to your false religion, continue to doomcry. Get yourself a snazzy hairshirt and a sandwich board sign declaring “The End Is Nigh”. Don’t forget your beggin’ cup. I’ll ‘splain it for you yet again. Climate changes constantly, humans are not causing it and can not stop it. Just read that short, succinct statement over and over and may actually wake to reality. I rather doubt it, though, tard.
Oh, and “real data”? When they falsify “data” to support a political agenda which “data” is real, sweety? Lie once and you are a liar forever.
Jack Dale,
That 2006 NASA simulation made in 2014 was based on a pure simulation of what NASA “thought” it should look like, but was utterly destroyed when the first year’s worth of real data from OCO-2 was published in 2016.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/watch-oco-2-climate-change-carbon-dioxide-environment/
What OCO-2 is now showing is huge, unexpected plumes of CO2 outgassing from the Southern Hemisphere oceans, mostly the Southern Ocean around Antarctica. What this is also telling them is most of the NH CO2 emissions are getting quickly reabsorbed by NH sinks and recycled.
IOW, that YouTube video you posted is historical junk science, it is completely de-bunked with real data on CO2 fluxes. You might as well post videos the Sun going around the Earth too, or of ships sailing off a flat Earth because mankind used to believe that stuff too.
In the cult of the Devil Gas, models always trump reality.
The NASA video is based on “real data”. Read the description of the video.
BTW from the Net Geo link- Notice the blue – lower than normal CO2 along Antarctica, all year long. Off gassing would result in red and orange.
From the text:
“Right now, about half of the CO2 humans emit gets soaked up by the land and ocean. How fast Earth warms in the future will depend in part on how fast those “sinks” fill up—a fundamental question the OCO-2 satellite is designed to help answer.”
You should also read https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/o/oco-2
The ocean is still a sink, resulting in lower pH levels.
?itok=j7_lwzQ8
To Jack Dale,
Although I agree that fossil fuel burning is the major source of increasing atmosphere CO2, measurements of the 13C/12C isotopic ratios are not the major argument. The delta 13C of natural systems (in per mil) range over about -50 (biogenic CH4) to ~+3. Between -30 and 0 are found land plants, soil CO2, atmospheric CO2, limestones, volcanic CO2, and not least fossil fuels (at -20). Thus, the 13C/12C ratio is not diagnostic of fossil fuel.
Further the relative content of radioactive 14C (fossil fuel has none) is not diagnostic, because atmospheric CO2 (along with cosmic-ray-generated 14C) undergoes exchange reactions with other C reservoirs (oceans, plant/soil) and at rates far greater than human CO2 is added.
Jack,
What you provided is a computer simulation.
Stephen is correct. Look the the actual data/observations measuring the CO2.
Note in this first image below, the time of year, June of 2015, shortly before the Summer Solstice in the Northern Hemisphere and the point where the sun is very close to the farthest north that it will be all year and the highest angle in the sky, that warms the oceans the most at a point which is as far north as it will get in the year…..NORTH of the equator.
In June 2015, you can see the higher band of CO2 extending across the entire planet, even in places with no industry or man made CO2 emissions….NORTH of the equator:
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/o/oco-2
Note the 2nd image below was from October/early November 2014, 5 months later in solar calendar year(the previous year) with the most powerful sun, now aimed much farther south in the southern hemisphere. The band of higher CO2 that extends across the entire globe is now seen to have shifted, exactly with the sun angle(which is heating the oceans below and maximizing out gassing of CO2). The band extends across areas that have no industry or extensive human caused CO2 emissions and the band is now SOUTH or the equator:
https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/pia18934
2nd photo say’s alot, I’m assuming Greenland/Iceland, Indonesia & Hawaii have more to do with natural volcanic activity, which would leave the southern equatorial regions of Sth America & Africa to large areas of forrest/jungle with minimal human habitation. But what about china, not sure it would be from made sources otherwise india would be purple😉.
And Siberia?
Polynesia is another puzzle.
Greta Thunberg can see plumes of CO2.
Voodoo quasi religious figures can usually ‘see’ what others cannot.
Just to quantify the effect, plant matter stores about 30-40 Megajoules per kG of dry mass plus it is part of a mechanism which shunts energy to the upper atmosphere in the form of the latent heat of vapourisation of water ( 2230 kilojoules per kG of water). That is a lot of energy that is NOT heating the climate.
I have always been curious about the conversion of solar energy into carbohydrates. The radiant energy is converted into a non-heat form.
How would the temperature, all else being the same, be affected as a function of delta photosynthesized mass?
The energy is stored in the chemical bonds as the plant matter is formed. It is released when the plant matter is burned whether it is straw, leaves, sticks, trunk timber in the short term or coal, oil or gas in the much longer term.
As an energy storage mechanism it is orders of magnitude more energy dense than even the latest batteries ( ~1 mJ/kG) or hydro storage for that matter.
The evaporo-transpiration mechanism is much smaller but still significant. That is why animals use it for body cooling.
Quite right Komrade:
You have homed in to a major bug in the modelled climate science due to this aspect being ignored. The models are based on the assumption that water vapor is a greenhouse gas; but this is ONLY true in the absence of phase change, which is where the Latent Heat comes into play at 2230 KJ/ Kg or 619.4 WattHrs/Kg.
As you say this energy is driven UP through the atmosphere due to the buoyancy of water vapor wrt dry air and winds up being dissipated at high altitudes and partly into space. All contrary to the GHE theory.
The result being that the net feedback of water vapor to the GHE is strongly negative as opposed to the IPCC claim that it is positive.
Overall water provides the basic global thermostatic process due to its unique properties. Very good at preventing overheating; but not so good at dealing with cooling situations. Hence more ice ages than warm periods.
The thermodynamics are all there in the workings of the Rankine Cycle; well understood by the engineers; for that is how the Hydro Cycle operates.
What I find deeply disturbing is that both the sceptics and the warmists seem to accept the theory that water, being a greenhouse gas therefore provides a positive feedback to the CO2 influence. Also I find that most papers and articles confabulate convection with water vapor buoyancy, when these two are totally different processes.
‘global greening is happening faster than climate change’
How would you know? You can measure ‘climate change?’ I expect we will have temperature readings for unicorn urine before we can measure ‘climate change.’
Huh! This is how you know. Climate Change (caused by man) is either unknown or smaller than 14% worse/better/hotter/colder/wetter/drier? Greening has increased by 14%. 14% is faster change than… you get the point.
JD: Usual pathetic stuff. We can tell the higher CO2 eras by the lower stomatal counts, but the growth rings’ increase tells the full story. Tales of ruined nutritional value come from the same fake stables as those about glyphosate.
Grain yields? Check them out please. However, midsummer frosts, having started again as of now, are indicators of your true ignorance. And the fate of deceit….. Brett Keane https://electroverse.net/
Increased food crops are more closely related to increased use of pesticide, irrigation and fertilizer; none of which is sustainable.
http://old.grida.no/graphicslib/thumbs/1805c933-493c-4b85-be16-ad06eb342332/large/global-trends-in-cereal-and-meat-production-total-use-of-nitrogen-and-phosphorus-fertilizers-increased-use-of-irrigation-total-global-pesticides-pr_ef80.jpg
Jack Dale
You have just made a good case for genetically modified crops that can be modified to use less water and become pest resistant .
There is plenty of phosphorus on the sea bed around the world but that it is forbidden to be mined
There is ample nitrogen in the air that is manufactured into urea with natural gas .
As for water the greens hate dams but they might change if they were hungry and depended on some water to irrigate their garden to feed themselves and their family .
Start thinking before you spout off Jack.
That’s happening mostly in sub-Saharan countries 🙂
All of which are highly sustainable.
I am just going to state for the record that Jack Daly has not spoken one word of truth, or uttered one single facts in this entire thread.
He is completely wrong.
Every last work of his posts are literally the opposite of the truth.
And everyone but a bunch of lying hypocrites knows it.
I don’t see anything posted by Jack Daly.
Jack Dale July 5, 2019 at 4:13 pm
Increased food crops are more closely related to increased use of pesticide, irrigation and fertilizer; none of which is sustainable.
______________________________________________
ALL of this is sustainable as long as nature sustains us.
The warmistas claim that eventually crop yields will drop and only stuff like poison ivy will flourish…
That’s the ticket to the White House!
Why no one talks about it? Because it goes against the alarmists’ self-loathing cause: they are looking for something, anything that would ease their personal guilt that in itself has nothing to do with the climate but everything to do with their personal history and character.
Scratch almost any greenie (except, maybe, apparently idiot children), and you’ll reveal a person who cheated his wife, abandoned his or her children, did something shameful that makes him or her wince and grab the last straw that helps to feel better about self.
Does “unearned moral superiority” fit the bill?
It works for unfortunates suffering from inferiority issues.
The caveats you mention were written by Samson Reiny, a PR flack at NASA (excuse me, Editor/Senior Outreach NASA Earth Science. On second thought PR flack is more accurate). Ridley is reporting on the paper, not the PR flack’s comments on the paper, including the flack’s obligatory obeisance before the throne of CAGW. By the way, the paper, not the flack, says 8% of the greening is due to “climate change.” I guess that means now we’re up to 78% of the greening coming from the combination of CO2 and the climate change it is supposedly causing. Climate change, there’s just no limit to the good it can do.
The only documented climate change is a slight warming and an associated minor increase in precipitation. That, added to increased CO2 levels (the major greening driver), has caused the 30-year greening spurt.
Its amazing that the only documented impacts of CO2 is positive, while all the propaganda is about speculative harms. If the American public ever realize the extent this scam, there will be political hell to pay. Too bad all the money we are and will be wasting.
When I mentioned global greening on another website, the response was that it reduces the Earth’s albedo as the areas above the Arctic Circle green up. It therefore it will cause some increase in temperature. Is this the sound of straws being grasped or is it a valid point? Is there any literature on this?
Ah yes, because the ice, which reflects sunshine will be replaced by grass and trees that absorb it. Save the whales I understand, but save the ice?
Of course it is all much more complicated than that. First of all, as ice melts, it exposes water. Water has a low albedo at noon, but close to sunrise and sunset, the albedo is quite high. Then there’s night time. Exposed water presents a warmer surface to space than does ice, so it radiates more energy, a LOT more energy, to space than ice and snow. Then there’s the issue of fresh snow versus snow that’s been collecting dust and dirt and can wind up with a very low albedo, even when compared to grass and trees.
There’s no definitive answer to this one, you can find papers that support any conclusion that you want. But if losing the ice caps causes albedo to drop to very low levels, then one has to ask the obvious question. Why is hot house earth so rare and temporary in the geological record while ice ages dominate?
Maybe, Depends on what the increased vegetation replaces.
Plant albedos range across about 10% (forests), to 10-20% (meadows, crops, savanna), to 25-30% (deserts, dry soil). Oceans are about 8% albedo, whereas most forms of ice and snow are greater than 35% albedo.
Why…I recall back in the Carboniferous, my gosh how fast trees would grow!
Will the rabid alarmists now start screaming hysterically-Global greening, global greening- we’re all going to be overgrown. They always remind me of a child chucking a tantrum running around in a soiled diaper.
Bullshit. Milankovitch explained the cause of the glacial cycle in 1920. It was confirmed in the 1970s. Properly understood, orbital changes explain very well glaciations and interglacials. Magic CO2 and magic dust are consequence of the orbital cycle, not cause.
Co2, its a good thang.
The timing of Homo sapiens conversion from a largely hunter-gatherer, small tribal banded cultures to agrarian-pastoralism, larger social structures with the exit from the last Ice Age was of course not a coincidence.
Vaclav Smil writes very clearly and lucidly about this subject of energy density revolutions fundamentally altering human societies in his book, Energy and History. I highly recommend it.
Each level of energy revolution to a higher energy density brought about an entirely new level of food energy availability to humans, and resulting social restructuring. An energy transformation-driven restructuring that continues to this day in the 3rd World today. And with the greening world of enhanced levels of CO2, C3 grain crops can begin to reach fuller potential. More grasses can be grown for higher density pastoralism (animals for diary and invaluable meat proteins).
The Left frequently now points to diminished micro-nutrients in CO2-enhanced grown crops. That is true, because the CO2 is turned to sugars, and the sugars then to starches and cellulose, which with more starting CO2 now leads to more calories per mass with the same absolute amounts of micro-nutrients. But the world faces a caloric shortages, not a micro-nutrient shortages.
That is because long before climate change was debated or CO2 rise was significant,i.e. the 1920’s it was realized that wheat flour needed micro-nutrients (iron + the B vitamins, thiamin, niacin, riboflavin and folic acid primarily, but also calcium in some cases) fortification. Thus wheat flour has long been “enriched” in North America since 1941. This lack of micro-nutrients in essential un-enriched grain foods (breads) is and has been easily corrected, and has zero to do with climate change alarmism about “reduced” micro-nutrients. It has long been a nutritional requirement for healthy development in children, even adults.
Furthermore, everyone hates the idea of “bush meat” harvesting (monkeys, primates) in Africa and the cutting of rain forest to turn to charcoal for cooking, yet it is the Greens who are now fiercely resisting the rest Africa joining in on the energy revolution. They are too blinded by an ideology to see the obvious.
The energy revolutions will continue because humans are an adaptable, highly intelligent, innovative creature like nothing nature has ever invented. And enhanced CO2 is part of the real green revolution of humanity march to better living standards. Only evil, power hungry wanna-be despots would want otherwise.
+100
Well, so far so good for Texas. We get our usual droughts and floods, but overall the Springs and Falls are becoming more pleasant. Probably just random variation, but it certainly is not getting worse.
I moved into Texas the Year-From-Hell, 1998. Anything seems pleasant after that summer.
Not to deny that, but the 50s were overall worse. Back then I was told that the 30s were even worse, depended in part on where you were. Some days my spoiled self wonders if my decreasing tolerance to heat is too much air conditioning instead of age.
The herbivores like it. People like the herbivores and plants. A balanced diet. And everyone and everything likes the lush environment. A climate of gaiety and fecundity. Oh, that’s the problem.
Alarmists are just like my German Shepard; he doesn’t like other dogs frolicking in the dog park. He tries to break up the active romping by groups of other dogs.
You are insulting German Shepherds. I had them for many years, and some of them were the friendliest dogs ever. It mostly depends on how you bring them up.
I have been foolish enough to click on Jack’s nutrition links before. It’s like a shell game where they are always using sleight of hand to hide the “pea”.
The articles say things like, “zinc content is 3-17% lower”, but I read further to find the total yields of the studied plants – and the papers NEVER mention total yields.
If a single stalk of rice now produces 300 grains/head instead of 200, then the total zinc available to the poor starving people eating the rice is actually increased. Their nutrition goes up not down.
Jack doesn’t know jack.
Ridley says “greater crop yields?”
…
First of all, there are too many confounding variables to attribute increased yields to CO2. For example, increased CO2 increases weed growth negating any yield increase in planted crops.
…
Most crop yield increases are due to irrigation, breeding, fertilizer and pesticides.
And the Thread’s Palm-To-Face-Plant Award goes to ….. Keith Sketchley! Nobody has attributed increased crop yields to CO2 fertilization effects alone.
Increased CO2 makes plants use less water as the stomata stay open for shorter periods for gas exchange, reducing tranevaporespiration.
Google it: C3 CO2 stomata
Evapotranspiration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evapotranspiration
In whatever world Keith lives in, apparently farmers aren’t smart enough to figure out how to handle weeds in their crops.
Oh sure, Keith. All the endless plant trials increasing CO2 while holding other variables constant & then showing significant increased growth don’t mean anything. It’s all just too darn confounding….
Are you a plant-hater?
Should say “Global Greening is Happening While Climate Change is Still a Pigment of Their Fraternization!”
Plants also have a positive precipitation feedback from transpiration and aerosols – which in turn could act as a negative temperature feedback. CO2 helps cool the planet.
Who can take tomorrow – add some CO2- make it rain profusely so the chlorophyll then blooms – The Carbon Man – Oh the Carbon Man can- The Carbon man can -when he brakes the bonds created -during million sunny days when human beings were just shrews —- The carbon man can -take the “climate change” , and turn it into sunny visions – end alarmist contradictions- feed the poor as moral mission.
Feed the Plants. Feed ’em! They feed us… and all the other animals on the planet.
Triffids feed on us…
Ah yes – Triffids. Science fiction that is hazardous to the blind and gullible, just like ‘Catastrophic Climate Change’!
For a farmer with a full cab on his haylage chopper, a field of triffids would be a good day for making hay! Science fictionally speaking, that is.
It’s easy to overlook the obvious. Jack Dale said nothing out of the ordinary about the results of the hoo-ha we are mired in. All of his remarks are reasonable; he also didn’t complain about the current results. Nor did he predict the end of the World from either view of the current nonsense. Much adoo about nothing. Sounds about right to me.
WTH?
His comments were reasonable, and completely wrong.
Of course that doesn’t matter to his co-religionists.
Leftist CAGW zealots always downplay the huge benefits of higher CO2 levels because this reality destroys the doom and gloom predictions of the disconfirmed CAGW scam.
We should be ecstatic we’ve enjoyed 0.85C of global warming recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 (of which CO2 contributed around (0.4C) , and the huge increase in crop yields, extended growing seasons, less crop frost loss, healthier oceans, and increased plant drought resistance we’ve enjoyed.
Leftists have been brainwashed into believing CO2 is an evil and dangerous pollutant which must be eradicated, which, ironically, would be an extinction event…
From the article: “In 2016 a paper was published by 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries that analysed satellite data and concluded that there had been a roughly 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years. The study attributed 70% of this increase to the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The lead author on the study, Zaichun Zhu of Beijing University, says this is equivalent to adding a new continent of green vegetation twice the size of the mainland United States.”
end excerpt
and from a previous WUWT article:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/04/how-trees-could-save-the-climate/
Reforest an area the size of the USA
The researchers calculated that under the current climate conditions, Earth’s land could support 4.4 billion hectares of continuous tree cover. That is 1.6 billion more than the currently existing 2.8 billion hectares. Of these 1.6 billion hectares, 0.9 billion hectares fulfill the criterion of not being used by hu-mans. This means that there is currently an area of the size of the US available for tree restoration. Once mature, these new forests could store 205 billion tonnes of carbon: about two thirds of the 300 billion tonnes of carbon that has been released into the atmosphere as a result of human activity since the Industrial Revolution.”
end except
My question is: How much carbon is stored by the 14% increase in vegetation growing on the Earth currently?
Here is an ancient, but still relevant folksing:
GREEN GROW THE RUSHES, O
I’ll sing you twelve, O
Green grow the rushes, O
What are your twelve, O?
Twelve for the twelve Apostles
Eleven for the eleven who went to heaven,
Ten for the ten commandments,
Nine for the nine bright shiners,[b]
Eight for the April Rainers.[c]
Seven for the seven stars in the sky,[d]
Six for the six proud walkers,[e]
Five for the symbols at your door,[f]
Four for the Gospel makers,
Three, three, the rivals,
Two, two, the lily-white boys,
Clothed all in green, O[g]
One is one and all alone[h]
And evermore shall be so.
The question I have is: Which digit applies to Moonbat?
Least anyone forgets, the predictions of catastrophic global warming are not based on the warming directly due to the CO2 greenhouse effect, but upon the dodgiest of all science- feedbacks.
50 years ago starvation was a big problem. Now we have a lot of more people and hunger has mostly disappeared. CO2 and genetically modified crops may have something to do about increase of harvests.
More plqnt life also means more co2 converted to o2, thus increasing the supply to boost the recovery of the ozone layer…
Of course a cooling mesosphere also boosts the supply of atomic O falling back into that layer as well….
As the ozone layer recovers, more uvb will be absorbed there and less by the oceans….
Except that the increase in CO2 is accompanied by a decrease in O2.
http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/
Burning of fossil fuels takes O2 from the atmosphere as it adds CO2
Burning of fossil fuels takes O2 from the atmosphere as it adds CO2. – – >
By burning fossil fuels, O2 is displaced from the atmosphere by adding CO2.
Und das ist gut!
LYRICWIKI
Extrabreit:Es Tickt
https://youtu.be/luNLm3JfGmA
Es Tickt
This song is by Extrabreit and appears on the album Ihre Grössten Erfolge (1980).
Wenn ich vollgedröhnt bis oben
Mit reichlich Kaffee obendrauf
Alle Antennen rausgezogen
Durch Nachmittagsstraßen lauf’
Die Nerven fangen an zu sirren
Ein G.T.I. fährt mich fast platt
Ich höre Glas und Blicke klirren
Ich lebe in dieser Stadt
Oh, die Stadt ist ‘ne Ruine, die schon bröckelt
Die Stadt ist eine Bombe, die noch tickt
Ich sehe Menschen an den Ecken warten
Daß man ihnen Feuer gibt
Ah, die Stadt ist ‘ne Ruine, die schon bröckelt
Die Stadt ist eine Bombe, die noch tickt
Ich sehe Menschen an den Ecken warten
Daß man ihnen Feuer gibt
Sie steh’n im Vakuum der Haltestelle
Kinder rotzen über Bäume
Die CB-Funker fordern mehr Kanäle
Einkaufstüten platzen wie Träume
Oma kauft ‘ne Tiefkühltruhe
Bis oben voll und kein bißchen satt
Jetzt im Moment klaut einer Schuhe
Ein kleiner Aufstand findet immer statt
Die Stadt ist ‘ne Ruine, die schon bröckelt
Die Stadt ist eine Bombe, die noch tickt (Tick-tack)
Ich sehe Menschen an den Ecken warten
Daß man ihnen Feuer gibt
Global greening by higher CO2 levels sounds wonderful. I guess we have nothing to worry about after all. The billions of people that will be displaced by rising sea levels and extreme heat will be happy to hear that green pastures await them in welcoming countries.
Whoa! Easy on the Klimate Koolade pal. Try some nice Red Rose reality tea instead.
If stuff is growing more quickly won’t it increase the frequency of forest fires?
Feed the trees, man.
I really think we should refer to Jack, Keith and Chris by their real names ……. Walt, Larry and Igner.
The big question is, who is Mom and why has she sent her boys here?
When a Web-site is having an impact on the bottom line of a scam, a professional hit squad is employed to counter the sites impact. You can not converse with them they are not interested in your opinion they are simply here to mislead any new viewers attracted to the site. New viewers can influence the scams ability to rope in new members and reduces their ability to grow their scam.
OK, thought it was not possible to have a higher opinion of the readership of WUWT! Have to reassess, a subtle yet poignant Futurama reference changes the Game. Bravo, good sir, bravo and hussah!
Wow. I have not seen a seen and heard such an erudite comment since I left junior high school. It is right up there with “Your mother wears army boots.”
But when both you and your arguments lack substance, this all you have left.
Jack Dale,
Upthread you said: “Using carbon isotope analysis the nearly 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the Industrial Revolution can be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.”
I am not exactly sure what you mean by “directly attributed”. NOAA estimates the δ13C of burning fossil fuels as -28 per mil (in contrast to oceanic emissions at -9.5 per mil). The decline in atmospheric δ13C reflects a 13C/12C ratio of the incremental CO2 of -13 per mil (easy to confirm by applying the so-called Keeling plot to the actual observations). I would appreciate your explanation of your statement regarding “directly attributed”.
I will let a geologist explain it in plain language.
http://www.jamespowell.org/Stuff/Ourfault/Ourfault.html
I thought you probably did not have a clue, but thank you very much for confirming it. I gave you actual data, observations, and you respond with a Mickey Mouse graph showing that CO2 emissions (not atmospheric CO2) and atmospheric δ13C go in opposite directions (mostly, but not all of the time). That’s a geologist’s idea of a scientific proof?
Compare this map to the one in the article above from an earlier map (no date available) which is in wakapedia…:
Looks good to me, a lush, growing, vibrant planet which has no problem supporting the Human Race and all its varied animal and plant species.
Only problem I can discern is our failure to irrigate the desert regions. Not a problem! Once we round up the greentards and put them into forced labor camps to achieve that goal, we, the Human Race, will be back on track to expand off this “delicate” ball of dirt into the surrounding regions of our Solar System and then out into the closer galactic regions, and so on and so on. And the greentards will earn a place for their grandchildren in the Human Race’s advance. Their very labors will feed, clothe, house and educate them to be actual, useful Human Beings, instead of the oxygen and resource wasting parasites they currently are.
Does this REALLY need a sarc tag? Of course greentards will never be actual, useful Human Beings. Humans can dream though. Can’t we? Or has the Democrat Party made that illegal, too, just as giving birth to Human babies is being made illegal in New York State, California, New Mexico, Washington State, etc etc. When will the Human Race rise up and wipe this leftist, anti-human cancer from our species?
At 415 ppm CO2 versus 280 ppm pre-industrial, total effect is now almost 50% more biomass due to CO2 fertilization.
“Since the beginning of the industrial era, photosynthesis has increased in nearly constant proportion to the rise in atmospheric CO2”
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-05/jcu-hpa050919.php
Roots of plants grow deeper with higher CO2 so can cope better with drought which is why gas is pumped into certain glasshouses. The issue which is ignored is the increase in photosynthesis by phytoplankton.
You guys know that the greening story has been debunked a gazillions times, right?
Studies have proven the greening to be a myth The relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and plant growth is far more complex than you guys intentionally misrepresent.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3115.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/08/30/1606734113.full.pdf
Maybe you have made that assertion “a gazillions times” right? The links you provide do no such thing.
The atmosphere of the Cretaceous had 6-7 times the CO2 what it has to day. Over the last 600 million years the Earth’s climate has been warm, humid and with higher than today’s CO2 levels. Over the last 2.5 million years , there has been tens of ice ages , followed by warm interglacial periods. We are in a warm inter-glacial period and about 1000-1500 years overdue for an ice age.
Add on-
Agriculture yields are up-
https://ourworldindata.org/yields-and-land-use-in-agriculture#yields-since-1960
poverty has decreased-
https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts
Life expectancy has increased-
https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy
Deaths from weather related disasters have declined-
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/natural-disaster-death-rates?time=1900..2018
If global warming is happening faster than why we are not taking… effective steps in implementing the initiative for faster recovery of the planet.