JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Gone Bezerkers. Climate change will turn humans into hobbits

Pay up, or we’ll turn you into a Hobbit! This is what our public science establishment has reduced itself to?

Science fiction writers have infiltrated universities. They’re running amok, and while it’s all very entertaining (thanks for the laughs) some poor sods (like The Express) might think this is actually science.

Mass extinction forecast with 6C temperature rise

HUMANS will have to become like Hobbits to survive the rapid climate change facing the world, a report claims today.

It says that in the past species have coped with a warming climate by turning to dwarfism.This is because food is less nutritious in a warmer world which means that species have to eat more – and by becoming smaller they can cope with food scarcity.The report published by the Climate News Network  also warns that the speed of climate change could lead to mass extinctions partly because many species, form plants to animals, will not have time to adapt.It is based on the work of an international group of 30 scientists looking at the vast fossil deposits in rock strata in Wyoming in the United States, charting the period 55 million years ago when the earth temperature rose suddenly.

One of the clues that these researchers were having a go at us is the name: It’s called the “Bighorn Basin Coring Project” but strangely it was funded by the United States National Science Foundation. Bravo to the satirists posing as scientists, they are putting on an exceptional show of pretending to believe their own material. Dead-pan to the end.

From the ClimateNewsNetwork:

In the next 100 years the combination of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increased temperature could be “catastrophic” for an overpopulated world, according to one of the scientists involved. With food supply drastically reduced, evolutionary forces suggest hobbit-sized humans who needed to eat less would have the greatest chance of survival. These findings are the work of an international group of 30 scientists looking at the vast fossil deposits in rock strata in Wyoming in the US, charting the period 55 million years ago when the Earth’s temperature rose suddenly – as it is expected to do this century.

On that occasion it took 10,000 years for the temperature to rise by 6°C. There were mass extinctions, but the timescale gave some plants and animals time to adapt and move north and south to survive. Many species evolved quickly – dwarfism being one of the most widespread and successful strategies.

What worries the scientists is that this current warming period will take as little as 200 years, if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  is correct. This gives many long-lived species, for example trees, no time to evolve and migrate.

Righto. So assuming that human civilization today is equivalent to that of miniature horse-like mammals of 55 million years ago (cue raucous canned laugh track) ... we’ll evolve rapidly into Frodo-like beings. A career in basketball will beckon for anyone over five feet!  E’Gad a terrifying prospect. I need to sit down.

Here’s a wild stab: pretend that the IPCC was not a joke, it didn’t rely on disproven climate models, and we did get a 6°C rise, even then the “hobbit” theory has a few holes.  For one, I imagine the fox-sized Eohippus didn’t have much in the way of managed agriculture, internal combustion engines, irrigation, or mass communication.  I’m guessing that our larger offspring might manage to not-die-off-before-childbearing thanks to the slight technological advantage conferred by the Neolithic, industrial and scientific revolutions.

Will farm animals shrink and plants become less nutritious?

Dr Phillip Jardine, one of the scientists involved, is a research fellow at the School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences at Birmingham University, UK. Giving a lecture at the Geological Society of London he said this period of warming, known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, led to catastrophic extinctions of life in the deep oceans, partly because of increased acidification and partly through lack of oxygen. On land many plants and animals also died out.

He said: “Even if future climate change isn’t a convincing enough argument to decrease carbon emissions, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations has a very real possibility of reducing the viability of our own food supplies, by compromising the base of the food chain for ourselves and the animals that we farm and eat.

“If we acknowledge the presence of increasing temperatures then we have an additional factor that we would expect to decrease further the size of our farmed animals, and thus the amount of food that we can take from them.”

Let’s look at the more similar warming era 0.000 million years ago known as the Green Revolution. The world has been warming for 300 years as CO2 levels rose rapidly, but farm animals got bigger, fatter, and multiplied several magnitudes.  The awful consequences of warming and all that extra aerial fertilizer meant that the human population only got ten times larger and quite a lot taller.

Yes, extra CO2 makes plants grow faster. It greens the world, and adds biomass which is carbohydrate based. Where nitrogen is limited, and fertilizer is not available, some plants will have a slightly lower protein component. Is the new terror campaign a plan to scare us into paying a carbon tax for fear we might have to eat a higher carbohydrate diet? Have I got that right?

If there was a global 6°C rise, I’m sure there would be mass extinctions, but since the evidence suggests climate models exaggerate the threat by a factor of 6 or 7, there are more pressing concerns, like why are we wasting so much money paying people in science departments to propagate ideas so weak they evaporate on contact with unfunded bloggers?

Hat tip Marc Morano.

————–

*You think I’m taking artistic license in that opening line, but Business Green asked if you want to be a Hobbit, and said “you may not have a choice”, though I suspect even they reckon this story is a bit out of hand.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.2/10 (62 votes cast)
Gone Bezerkers. Climate change will turn humans into hobbits, 8.2 out of 10 based on 62 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/by8zafk

279 comments to Gone Bezerkers. Climate change will turn humans into hobbits

  • #
    Truthseeker

    I am happy to be a Hobbit if I get to live in Bag End and have a perpetually stocked larder full of hams, cheeses, cakes and other goodies …

    What does this report and “The Hobbit” have in common? They are both works of fiction.


    Report this

    153

  • #
    Streetcred

    You can tell the effect it is having in the USA by looking at the basketball players … never seen the likes of such tall timber since CO2 began fertilising the Earth. I think that this theory has parallels with Mann’s Inverted Tiljander efforts.


    Report this

    123

    • #

      Gee, think the decrease in plant protein might be gradual. You have brains but just refuse to use them, right? Google a bit about increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and lower protein content of food and think just a bit about the implications.


      Report this

      445

      • #

        Maxime, so all those Greenhouses who increase their Co2 levels to way beyond what will ever be experienced by AGW are producing plants with substandard protein content??


        Report this

        261

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Maxine…

        What ever you may have read on the internet… Real life Greenhouses use CO2 concentrations up to 4x current atmospheric levels as per the following.

        Whoops 1000 to 1500 ppm for maximum results vs 392ppm in the atmosphere…

        Carbon Dioxide Enhancement

        The introduction of supplementary carbon dioxide into the greenhouse has been found to significantly increase the yields of greenhouse tomatoes and other vegetables. Supplementary carbon dioxide is most effective on days when the greenhouse has been shut up for several days with no ventilation. Maximum results can be achieved by injecting 1000-1500 ppm CO2 into the greenhouse using propane burners or other CO2 generators.

        Heaps of CO2 Enriching equipment for the keen Gardner…

        Carbon dioxide enrichment has proved to be a very important element in growing a healthy indoor garden.

        Plants are keenly sensitive to CO2 variations and optimum values should be constantly monitored and controlled.

        Then there is Plug & Grow…

        When plants appeared and evolved on Earth, it is known for a fact that carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration was much higher than it is now. Then, the CO2 concentration was certainly above 1000 parts per million (ppm). Actually, the average CO2 concentration in outdoors air is about 400 ppm on the planet (not really true at your location). Thus, plants enjoy and are stimulated by breathing air with a higher CO2 concentration. That’s why so many indoor gardeners enrich their garden with CO2 during photosynthesis to supply the plants with this essential building material. Through photosynthesis, the carbon in CO2 is extracted and takes part in the building of leaves, stems, flowers and fruits. Proper CO2 concentration from early growing to fructification allows for faster maturation and larger yield.

        The benefits of CO2 enrichment are to reduce the time from seedling to harvest, and generally accelerate growth and augment crop yield. Plants also better resist some pests like moulds. Rutgers University compared Romaine lettuce grown outdoors and in a climate controlled greenhouse with CO2 enrichment. The results were clearly to the advantage of the indoor greenhouse grown lettuce. Romaine lettuce grown outdoors reached ready-to-market maturity in 62 days. In the greenhouse under a well controlled climate and CO2 enhancement, lettuce heads were ready-to-market in 48 days: a clear gain of 14 days to get to harvest. Also the greenhouse yield weighted 33 % more than field grown lettuce heads. Yield quality was more uniform and greenhouse heads were paid a higher price.

        Maxine – try looking at what real commercial operations are doing – note that what they do has to work, and they have to produce a product that people want – or they go out of business.

        As opposed to government grant fuelled scientists who have to produce fiction to meet the needs of the desired scary narrative.


        Report this

        240

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Hi Maxine,

        You need to consider what you are saying – it’s not backed up by honest inquiry.

        Go to the real world, and look at what real people are doing in there work places to see what works and what doesn’t.


        Report this

        131

      • #
        ColdOldMan

        You are JoBrighton and I claim my $5.


        Report this

        80

        • #
          AndyG55

          “You are JoBrighton”

          I can’t see any form of “bright” in this one.

          It is a thick as several planks !!!


          Report this

          50

          • #
            ColdOldMan

            You’d need to spend some time on James Delingpole’s threads on the DT to get the joke. We had a vitriolic banshee very much like this one (same obnoxious, patronising tone) until she got banned.

            If it is she, the worst is yet to come.


            Report this

            20

      • #
        Ace

        Or in your case Maxine, just quitwith the Gurggling and think!


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Any Hobbit could outthink you, Maxine. Get yourself a life!

        Come to think about it, I’d trade you for even the most scatterbrained Hobbit the Shire ever produced. They had (and probably still have) a little common sense.

        Do get yourself a real life.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        “The problem with quotes from the Internet is they are very difficult to verify”
        Abraham Lincoln


        Report this

        50

  • #
    Dave N

    Of course, dinosaurs were quite tiny due to the much, much warmer climate than we have now. It seems the Bighorn project is suffering from Littlebrain syndrome.


    Report this

    261

    • #

      The subject of Jo’s joke is increasing CO2 adversely affecting plants by reducing their nitrogen uptake. That means less protein. That means we have to find sources of nitrogen to fertilise our fields with so higher food costs, collapse of natural systems and so on.

      I think it is a very bad taste “joke” myself. GHG concentrations are increasing, not even is that disputed here, so these effects can be expected to be showing up soon, now the melting of methane clathrates under and around the Arctic is happening.


      Report this

      228

      • #
        AndyG55

        “That means less protein.”

        Eat more meat, and nuts and legumes, etc etc etc.

        and above all.. DON’T PANIC!!! there is nothing untoward happening to the climate !!!!!!


        Report this

        121

        • #

          Eat more meat—from animals fed with protein– deficient plants? Lack of thinking there!

          What you can do in a greenhouse—feed more nitrogen fertiliser—is hard, expensive to do in the broad acres. This “CO2 is plant food and greenhouse keepers increase CO2 in their greenhouses” schtick never had any validity applied to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Lazy thinking, wishful thinking. There is nothing good that comes from increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere!


          Report this

          011

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Maxine says…

        GHG concentrations are increasing, not even is that disputed here, so these effects can be expected to be showing up soon,

        You have measured, empirical proof of net positive feedbacks to increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere?

        Please name the instruments used.

        Please name the scientific papers.

        Thanks

        Cheers ExWarmist


        Report this

        91

      • #
        meltemian

        http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/our-co2/

        Just to put things into proportion Maxine, a basic lesson in the different quantities of man-made CO2 as against the rest.


        Report this

        10

        • #

          But that presents the CO2 concentrations as static, meltemia. We all know—even Jo has posted graphs of increasing GHG concentrations (usually to cherrypick a period where temperatures and GHG concentrations are temporarily moving in opposite directions)—that CO2 etc are increasing in concentration in the atmosphere. That increase is due to us.


          Report this

          17

      • #
        Ace

        Dont blame Maxine shes just reGooglitsting sub-protein junk-science shes been fed at an alarmistweb-site.

        G.I.G.O

        This is the problem for most well-meaning bright people. Even a clock that works perfectly when fed the wrong inputs will never tell the correct time.


        Report this

        20

      • #

        Maxine, from the studies I;ve seen the “reduction” in protein appears to be just a dilution effect — a slight change in the ratio. CO2 is the limiting factor for many plants, and when it’s increased they grow faster building more carbohydrate. If Nitrogen is limited, some plants will have the same amount of N as before, but they’ll have more C. As far as humans are concerned, it’s a bit of a yawn. Humans eat a range of Carbo to Protein that varies hugely. It’s not like we die if protein content drops a few percent, (as long as it doesn’t go over 35%). In any case, it’s not hard to change our diets to compensate. Most of us could eat slightly less bread and slightly more eggs/milk/fish/lentils. Yes, it would theoretically affect the poorest of the poor, in which case the best thing we can do for them is to increase their wealth. Lets help them get clean affordable energy, so they can afford protein based foods. The worst thing you can do is keep them in poverty.

        Right now, I don’t think too many Nigerians are worried that their bread might have a lower protein quotient in 2050. The poorest of the poor need our help, not our waste-of-time CO2-reduction-religion.


        Report this

        263

    • #
      ExWarmist

      That occurred to me too…

      Mind you there was fauna at both ends of the size scale, and frankly a modern blue whale scopes quite well with many dinosaurs for size.


      Report this

      51

  • #
    The Black Adder

    Will Peter Jackson direct the upcoming movie…

    ‘The Planet of the Hobbits’

    Complete with final scene of the Statue of Liberty covered in Hobbits….

    Sigh!!


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Mattb

    So jsut last week there was a thread about how we’ll evolve our way out of it, but since the evolution experts think we’ll evolve in to hobbits suddenly evolution is not to be trusted?


    Report this

    616

    • #
      llew Jones

      Perhaps even more amusing than the half witted or possibly hobbit “scientists” is the “powerful climate news machine” Climate News Network which consists of 4 (four that is) ex-journos staff”. They’ll elucidate the issues not only for journalists but also for the scientists and all for free.

      “About Us”

      “Welcome to The Climate News Network, the free, ready-to-use factual service that brings you the latest news of climate change science.

      We help both scientists and journalists to overcome the difficulties they face in reporting the vital facts about climate change. Building on our contacts and experience, we offer science an unbiased window to the world, while for journalists we offer news stories about climate change where the implications are spelt out explicitly and authoritatively as context and comment.

      Using trustworthy sources and straightforward language, we provide journalists with the stories they need in a ready-to-use form which they can use as it stands or adapt to their own circumstances. Our stories are typically about 600 words long. The service is entirely free of charge.

      It is run by four volunteers, all veteran journalists who have covered climate change for many years for leading British newspapers and broadcasters and are now freelancing. We have set up The Climate News Network because we are convinced that:”

      http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/about-us/


      Report this

      60

    • #

      To think some poor shire has elected its idiot to council.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Do you think that the future direction of evolution is “in principle” predictable?

      Given the reliance on the interaction between mutation and environmental circumstances, which can include abrupt changes – I doubt that it can be reliably predicted.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Perhaps as a nonlinear chaotic system were recurrent solutions (big Sabre cats) operate as strange attractors and keep recurring in the evolutionary record.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      connolly

      Matt for the catastrophist shrieker it has a Darwinian epiphany. Hobbitt sized body for the small mind.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    I agree. Science fiction writers have infiltrated universities.

    They receive research grants and tenure for successfully “spreading the word” of impending disaster.

    Nikita Khrushchev was very confident of success when he proclaimed in 1956: “”We will bury you!” (“Мы вас похороним!”) Russian

    Regretfully,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo


    Report this

    81

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Living in air-conditioned comfort, the army of priests called government grant scientists will be the giants among pygmies?

    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/04-01-2013/123380-global_warming-0/

    “What better way to staunch protests at worsening economic and life conditions than to make it feel like an honourable job/duty of the people to save “Gaia”. At the same time, they used this “science” as a new pagan religion to further push out the Christianity they hate and despise and most of all, fear. Gaia worship, the earth “mother”, has been pushed in popular culture oozing out of the West for a better part of the past 1.5 decades. This is a religion replete with an army of priests, called Government Grant Scientists.”


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Gary Mount

    Let us imagine a scenario (to make the math easier) where the quantity of food we grow is more than double because of the increased CO2, but the nutritious content is only 95% what it otherwise is when only half as much food could be grown with the given inputs.
    You have 2.1 times as much food x 95% nutrition and end up with twice as much nutrition overall available to the population, though each individual has to eat slightly more. Its a quantity trick when the alarmists state that food is less nutritious but leaving out the part where there is much more nutrition available overall. As stated in this article “we might have to eat a higher carbohydrate diet?”.


    Report this

    92

    • #

      You are a total idiot! Read up on the importance of protein in plants! For one thing—no seeds!

      [-------------unnecessary ad hom please avoid or be snipped - Mod]


      Report this

      328

      • #
        llew Jones

        Here’s a bit on the effect of extra CO2 from San José State University:

        “The Direct and Indirect Effects of Increased
        Carbon Dioxide on Plant Growth”

        The Direct Effect of an Increase in CO2

        Over the years there have been numerous laboratory experiments which conclude that increases levels of CO2 result in increased plant growth no matter how that plant growth is quantified. Sylvan Wittwer in Food, Climate and Carbon Dioxide tabulates the results. He observes

        The effects of an enriched CO2 atmosphere on crop productivity, in large measure, as positive, leaving little doubt as the benefits for global food security …. Now, after more than a century, and with the confirmation of thousands of scientific reports, CO2 gives the most remarkable response of all nutrients in plant bulk, is usually in short supply, and is nearly always limiting for photosynthesis … The rising level of atmospheric CO2 is a universally free premium, gaining in magnitude with time, on which we can all reckon for the foreseeable future.

        The quantification of the enhanced growth due to higher levels of CO2 has been given by H. Poorter in an article in the journal Vegetation:

        More here:

        http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm


        Report this

        130

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Hi Maxine.

        Do you have a link to empirical evidence that backs up your claim – or do you like wailing like a 3 yr old in every post you make?

        Credibility rating = 0 at the moment.

        However your warmist credulity rating is quite off the scale…


        Report this

        180

        • #

          Yes, never–warmist, I have. If you read any scientific papers at all to do with the effect of increased CO2 you will read of the lower uptake of nitrogen. Cannot make protein without nitrogen. Seeds are high in protein.

          Grade 9 science.


          Report this

          01

          • #
            AndyG55

            “Grade 9 science.”

            Ok, well done, but now you need to do a bit more learning.

            See if you can manage grade 10..

            come back in 3-4 years. !!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Maxine says…

            Yes, never–warmist, I have.

            [1] If you have, it’s a mystery, as you have not provided the links to the specific papers that you claim that you have read that back up your assertions.

            [2] You continue to imagine that you can read other peoples minds and know there pasts, which is simply a bizarre superstition on your part.

            [3.a] Yes – I was a Warmist – I believed in Paul Ehrlichs predictions of over population, I believed in CAGW until 2008. My transition from Warmist to ExWarmist took 6 months from start to finish. And was fundamentally based on the realisation that the CAGW community is practicing a bastardised scientific method that proceeds by “science by omission” were any refuting evidence is simply ignored, hidden, or downplayed to protect the central hypothesis of CAGW.

            [3.b] Given the presence of a corrupted and bastardised process/method framework – what hope is there that any of the published results will be valid.

            If you read any scientific papers at all to do with the effect of increased CO2 you will read of the lower uptake of nitrogen. Cannot make protein without nitrogen. Seeds are high in protein.

            Grade 9 science.

            Llew Jones has provided you with one link above, and here is a second link also from Llew Jones on this post.

            However – given your stubborn refusal to admit refuting empirical evidence into your considerations – in line with the CAGW communities practice of “Science by Omission” – I have few hopes that you will actually read the published scientific literature on Llew’s provided links, lest it interfere with your zealous beliefs in the superstitious dogma of man made global warming.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Jaymez

            We are not talking about the absence of nitrogen Maxine. You need to show evidence of where seed production would cut out to be convincing. However, lets say all the fanciful forecasts came true, so for the sake of the argument we’ll pretend the falsified models are correct and we did achieve a 6C warming; as Jo points out, humans wouldn’t be sitting back twiddling their thumbs. It would be a relatively simple matter to increase nitrogen uptake through GM engineering in critical food-crops. I mean, while we are in the realms of science fiction.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Geoff Sherrington

            Conventionally, but with a deal of variation depending on purpose, the laboratory plant is cut into parts and weighed green. It might be analysed for some components at this time, but often it is not. More usually, the plant material (roots, shoots leaves etc) are dried below 100 deg C so that they can be properly mixed and ground and a sub-sample taken for analysis, a process we used to name homogenisation before that became sinister. This allows for replication of the experiment, with replication being confirmation of results by repreated application of the method. (Replication is a newish word in climate studies). It also allows content to be expressed on a constant dry weight basis. Naturally, the drying method is replaced by another if the substance being investigated is degraded by drying or mild heating.
            So, a basic question from your contentions is this: Is plant material, when yield is enhanced by CO2 enrichment, higher or lower in protein expressed on a basis after removal of most original water?
            I’ve personally performed thousands of analyses by the Kjeldahl wet chemistry method that measures total nitogen after sulphuric acid digestion. It is a substitute for protein estimation in plants. To which method do you refer for the analysis of protein? Have you ever done it at the bench, yourself, and explored its accuracy and limitations?


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Streetcred

        Mark Twain said, “Never fight with a pig or argue with a fool.”

        You fit into both categories ‘Maxine’ … strange, a bloke taking on a feminine persona, don’t you think ?


        Report this

        121

        • #

          Strange? You obviously never saw pantomine or Monty Python.

          In a week where the BuMet had to add two new colors to its temperature map, for 50–54°C talking about global cooling is loony toon stuff.


          Report this

          05

          • #
            AndyG55

            Kindy colouring school strikes again !!

            They learnt 2 more colours…….. Pretty !!!


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Jaymez

            Maxine see 6.1.2.1.3 based on those records and the claim By BOM that we have just hit an all time high of just 50.7C, then maybe we have to accept cooling. It’s a lot cooler than 57.2C or 160 consecutive days over the old century mark!

            But seriously, do you really think a record temperature at one point in the planet at one point in time supports any argument for man made global warming? If so what do you say about the hundreds of people dying from the record cold temperatures in Moscow, Siberia and India over the last couple of weeks. Should the northern hemisphere be using that as evidence they are entering an ice age?


            Report this

            00

        • #
          michael hart

          “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.” attributed to Robert Heinlein. :)


          Report this

          10

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Maxine, you are a total idiot! Read up on the way all plant (and animal) life flourished in pre-historic times with much higher levels of CO2. Plenty of seeds to go around it would seem.

        [------unnecessary ad homs will be snipped in future ---Mod]


        Report this

        140

      • #
        sophocles

        Maxine:
        70 million years ago, the CO2 level in the atmosphere was approximately 2000 ppm.
        70 million years ago, T-Rex reigned supreme as the world’s largest carnivore. How come? Because:
        70 million years ago, T-Rex dined upon even larger, huge, herbivores, over four times T-Rex’s size.
        70 million years ago, herds, yes, herds of these huge herbivores grazed on the plants and thrived

        Fast Forward (have you found the button?) to today: CO2 is 391ppm, the world’s largest herbivore is the African Elephant, which is tiny when compared with those large dinosaurs:
        – The high CO2 levels 70 million years ago meant plants grew fast enough to feed those big ones.

        – The present level of atmospheric CO2 restricts their growth to such low rates they can only feed relatively tiny heffalumps.

        Animals evolve in size to the limitations of their food supply. Given the size of the monsters from 70million years ago—those enormous bones were driven by gigantic muscles of pure protein—the plants produced more than adequate protein, carbohydrates, and roughage, sufficient to feed huge herds of these huge herbivores for millions of years.

        Show me the signs of protein deficiences in those beasts.


        Report this

        160

        • #
          Grant (NZ)

          So what you are saying is that we are currently growing crops that are much punier and slower growing than at other times in history with higher concentrations of protein (due to a concentration effect). Increased CO2 in that atmosphere will result in greater plant growth rates, more vegetation and a slight dilution in protein.

          In other words crops today are unusual rather than normal.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        You are a total idiot!

        I would not advertise your total stupidity so loudly and publicly if I were you!

        You’re getting quite belligerent lately, Maxine. Don’t you know that you can catch more skeptics with empirical evidence than you can with hysterical blustering?

        Oh! I forgot; you don’t have any evidence, do you?


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Geoffrey Cousens

        Silly Maxine;if atmospheric C.O.2 were halved,nothing would grow.Go back to school and learn about photosynthesis.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    handjive

    It took the Russians to put it so eloquently in english:

    ❝ The US alone spends $7 billion each year on warming “studies”, which is, in truth, nothing but a huge money laundering operation,
    as no real science is conducted and vapid alarmist reports the only product generated.

    Quite so.


    Report this

    161

    • #

      Garbage. You are just too uneducated to read and understand them and too frightened to think of the consequences, which have destroyed a lot of peoples houses and businesses lately.

      I would not advertise your total stupidity so loudly and publicly if I were you!


      Report this

      331

      • #
        AndyG55

        “I would not advertise your total stupidity so loudly and publicly if I were you!”

        Yet you advertise your own stupidity, always !!

        Typical far left manic loonie-bin, “do as I say, not as I do.”


        Report this

        141

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        Maxine,

        When you’re not too busy with making your home brew you might find the time to study this:-

        http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate2.htm#global_cooling_heat-wave
        Does global cooling cause heat-waves in summer? A vexing question.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        AndyG55

        And yes, we had figured you had finally finished year 10 (how many repeats?)
        .. and now you know EVERYTHING !! ;-)

        But please don’t skite about it !!! Makes you look VERY SILLY !


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Streetcred

        I’ll wager that most of us here are academically, and experience wise, educated well in excess of you, ‘Maxine’. I’ll give you mine … undergrad in science and postgrad in management, published, 35 years on the job.


        Report this

        92

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          BS and MS, Computer Science; nearly 46 years on the job; taught college level for 17 years.

          But I think it’s not just credentials that make the difference. Somewhere along the line we all learned to ask critical questions and not be satisfied until we get to the bottom of an issue. Education helps enable that critical thinking ability but apparently doesn’t guarantee it.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Maxine says …

        Garbage.

        [1] Specifically – What mistakes do the pravda article and the Tim Blair article make such that they are “Garbage”. You have refuted nothing here. : Opportunity to score = 1, actual score = 0.

        You are just too uneducated to read and understand them and too frightened to think of the consequences,

        [2.a] You claim that handjive is uneducated and incapable of understanding the content of the articles that he links too, which is a simple adhom attack built on the unsubstantiated claim that you make at point [1] above. : Opportunity to score = 2, actual score = 0.

        [2.b] and then imply that you can read his emotional state over the internet. Which is just plain silly. : Opportunity to score = 3, actual score = 0.

        which have destroyed a lot of peoples houses and businesses lately.

        [3] Which is not the least bit relevant to anything that handjive provided in his comment or the content of your own comment. So your guilty of complete irrelevance here. : Opportunity to score = 4, actual score = 0.

        I would not advertise your total stupidity so loudly and publicly if I were you!

        [4] Now the fangs come out, and you attempt to scare the proverbial out of handjive with a combination adhom/threat made complete with a final exclamation mark! : Opportunity to score = 5, actual score = 0.

        So Maxine – how did you fare – 5 attempts at making some sort of impact – but each of your attempts fell flat, and you score a big fat zero matched perfectly by the amount of logic and empirical evidence to be found in your comment.

        If you want to do better than 0 – you will have to start using actual logic and empirical evidence to reflect the objective reality that we all live in.


        Report this

        160

      • #
        MudCrab

        No Maxine,

        we have a Carbon Tax now so any bush fire is completely non global warming related.

        Julia saved the world so we don’t have to.

        (Must… Not… Tease… Troll…. Oh sod it :D )


        Report this

        50

  • #
    Catamon

    One of the clues that these researchers were having a go at us is the name: It’s called the “Bighorn Basin Coring Project”

    Bravo, this site getting back to the humour that it does so well and generally consistently!

    Maybe “Bighorn Basin Coring Project” was selected so it would appeal to the Tea……partiers?? :)


    Report this

    412

    • #

      Do you have a clue what the “boring” refers to? Drilling cores is what. Geez!


      Report this

      119

    • #
      AndyG55

      ps.. have you got over you Nepeta cataria overdose yet ?

      Certainly doesn’t look like it. !

      You have got to try to be more careful !


      Report this

      52

      • #
        Ian H

        Wikipedia is your friend. Thanks for the informative diversion.

        Did you know that the active ingrediatent in catnip, Nepetalactone, is a mosquito and fly repellent ten times more effectively than DEET, the active ingredient in most insect repellents? The only reason it isn’t used in insect repellents is because its physical properties make it less suitable for application to the skin. And of course you would also get mugged by overaffectionate cats.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    AndyG55

    Hilarious to the max….

    But gee, they will have to lower the height of basketball hoops !!!

    No more records set for the 100m.. oh woe is us !!!!!!!

    Sauron.. come back ! Save us from these manic warmist loonies !!!


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Catamon

    Sauron.. come back ! Save us from these manic warmist loonies !!!

    Hah! Always thought AngryG55 had a bit of the wobbly goblin in him and we all know how that finished up when he met up with the Dwarves. :)


    Report this

    29

    • #
      AndyG55

      Don’t let the sun come up on you. Trolls are not very bright, are you Cat.!


      Report this

      41

    • #
      AndyG55

      And how can I possibly be angry when your moronically idiotic posts make me laugh at you so much.

      We know you are here just to make people laugh at you.. that is what clowns are for ! :-)

      But you DO need some new material, starting to get boring, like Max-thing.

      Tell you what, you should take a 2-4 week break to think up something new that you can humour us all with.

      But don’t take the Nepeta cataria with you. :-)


      Report this

      11

    • #
      Catamon

      Angry, just a question. How old are you really?

      Your writing style and the really, quite puerile attempts at what you obviously consider abuse, are indicative of about 14 to 16, probably male, and with a few, well, boy issues.

      Anyhow, i’ll continue with my sometimes lame attempts at humour among the congenitally grumpy true disbelievers, particularly when the OP really, invites a bit of tongue in cheek. XXX :)


      Report this

      23

  • #
    ROM

    What worries the scientists is that this current warming period will take as little as 200 years, if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is correct. This gives many long-lived species, for example trees, no time to evolve and migrate.

    Something I have never given thought on!
    What type of locomotion would migrating trees develop and how fast would they be able to move?
    What would the local trees have to say about it when those tree migrants arrived from parts unknown and demanded space, light and nutrients?
    Imagine some poor bird arriving back at his or her nest with all her nestlings in it only to find their particular tree had just up and left for parts unknown.
    Oh! the horror of it all!
    And trees can float but can migrating trees actually swim as well otherwise they might need an Indonesian fishing vessel to get to where they are migrating to.


    Report this

    100

    • #

      Plants migrate via their seeds, that too hard for you to work out?


      Report this

      121

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Easy,

      The trees will evolve into Ents and walk to where they need to go.

      The climate scientists will evolve into High Elves (Wise, Beautiful, and Long Lived….) with he most top notch becoming Istari (wizards).

      The mass of humanity will become hobbits…

      Miners will become Dwarves…

      Us sceptics will unfortunately be relegated to Orcs, Goblins, etc…. outcasts and non-conformers…

      However – the trolls will still be trolls… as they have already evolved…


      Report this

      80

      • #
        AndyG55

        “as they have already evolved”

        DEVOLVED !!!

        Maybe once, a long time ago , they were human..

        but the power of the IPCC has mutated them into something truly GHASTLY !!!!


        Report this

        31

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Evolution isn’t directional…

          We are not evolving to some “higher” lifeform, nor do we represent a “higher lifeform”.

          This is not to bag humans – I love being human and deeply value the human experience – but evolution is driven by reproductive fitness to a given set of environmental circumstances and the presence of other competing lifeforms.

          There is no “direction” to it.

          Human Intelligence is an anomaly, being fast, attractive, stealthy, strong, thick skinned, poisonous, being able to fly, or swim, or successfuly able to parasitise other lifeforms, or have huge numbers of offspring have dominated the evolutionary path as tactics over intelligence.


          Report this

          31

      • #
        Ace

        But seriously….THAT is pretty much what LOTR says. Well, the movie anyway (I dont have time to waste reading thatshite, as a 12 year old I felt insulted to be given The Hobbit to read in school). Basically, the evil Saruman and his hordes are shown as the party of INDUSTRY (the Orcs are manufactured out of the Earth). All furnaces andcauldrons and that crap. Whereas the wise and willowy white hats liv in bucolic hovels and feast on pansies.

        How obvious does a “sub text” have to be before it pokes the viewers eye out?

        Plonkerin crap movie in any case.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          JCR

          There was a book written as a response to LOTR, based on the idea that history is written by the winners. Called “The Last Ring Bearer”, it is translated from the Russian. It takes the line that Sauron et al represented the progress of engineering, science and medicine, while the wizards, elves etc represented the oppressive aspects of ignorance and superstition. It’s free (probably in response to the notoriously litigous Tolkien estate) and available for download. It seems the elves used sophisticated poisons on their arrows, for instance. :-)


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          I can understand your inslut with the obviousness of the message. But have you considered the time inwhich J.R.R.Token lived?

          His message was actualy about war. And there is a lot more to the man and his background than your indicating that you understand.

          The message may be simple, but the background to how the story got written and when, has far more to it than your realising.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          ExWarmist

          ACE.

          The human capacity to read a specific meaning into a given narrative is extensive.

          There are multiple frameworks of meaning that can be overlaid onto LOTR. The one that you point out is but one of many.

          Other options include, but are not limited to the following.

          [1] The work is a study on both the corrupting influence, and lust for power as dominance over others. The One Ring is a symbol of the lust for power as it corrupts all who come into contact with it, even to see the ring is to fall under it’s influence.

          [2] The work is a study in racial politics, between normal men, the subhuman Orcs, goblins, etc, and the superhumans such as Aragorn (Numenor), the Wizards and the Elves. Where the final superiority of man is revealed by the ascension of Aragorn to a position of rulership in Gondor, and the annhilation of the subhumans as any sort of organised community.

          There is more than one interpretation that will fit the narrative.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Ents, ROM, Ents. They will have to learn from the Ents. I think I know some Hobbits who could introduce a few selected specimens of the most desirable trees to an Ent who could get them started.

      See Maxine, it’s already taken care of. :-)


      Report this

      10

  • #

    It has been shown that increasing CO2 levels does lead to lower nitrogen intake, less protein available. Pampered greenhouse plants might benefit from a whiff extra CO2 but other plants will be poisoned by it.

    I don’t think that is anything to make jokes about.

    Yes, agriculture, fertilisers might keep food plants going, meanwhile other plants gradually suffer—and that will impact on agriculture. Marine plant life likely will suffer the same fate, imperilling marine protein.

    At a time when high temperature records are being set, when huge numbers of bushfires are out of control can we at least not talk anti–scientific bullshit?

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs43.pdf


    Report this

    219

    • #

      What ‘huge number of bush fires out of control’ are you referring to? I note they seem to be occurring in places where back burning has been essentially stopped dead by rabid Green’s…

      Remember: If you don’t manage the land, it will manage you..

      Also despite the increase in Co2 we have had globally a mass ‘greening’ of the world in terms of observed plant mass from satellites. The reference on this isn’t to hand – but should be easy enough to find.

      Also I seem to remember that the current level of Co2, until the recent increase, was dangerously close to the low end of the Co2 concentration which plants STOP working at. I think if it have halved again all plant life on the planet would have stopped…


      Report this

      102

      • #

        Plant mass, you reckon? Show me! Then show me these plants do not have lower nitrogen uptake. Quality v quantity to put it at a level you *might* understand.


        Report this

        117

        • #
          Grant (NZ)

          Maxine. It is not a matter of lower nitrogen uptake. It is a matter of dilution i.e. the same amount of nitrogen is taken up but because the plant is bigger and growing faster the nitrogen is diluted. You will also find that the same quantity of protein is being synthesised – just more dilute.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Hi ecoGuy, who said…

        Also despite the increase in Co2 we have had globally a mass ‘greening’ of the world in terms of observed plant mass from satellites. The reference on this isn’t to hand – but should be easy enough to find.

        The link that you seek is here

        They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.

        Quickly Maxine – look away, the science in the link above might be damaging to your zealous beliefs in your superstitious dogma.


        Report this

        80

    • #
      Louis Hissink

      It has been shown that increasing CO2 levels does lead to lower nitrogen intake, less protein available. Pampered greenhouse plants might benefit from a whiff extra CO2 but other plants will be poisoned by it.

      The evidence for which is?

      You might study that diagram showing atmospheric CO2 content versus geological time, and then see if your statement needs redrafting.


      Report this

      90

      • #

        I linked to and commented on a paper to that effect. What Jo is trying to “ humorously” downplay is that very decrease in nitrogen intake. If you can’t think at least READ!


        Report this

        018

        • #
          Louis Hissink

          I did, it says no such thing.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Hi Maxine,

          As Louis has done – I have also read the BOM article that you provide as a link above, which is choc full of information on the recent heatwave.

          But it has nothing to say about nitrogen intake.

          Perhaps you would like to clarify what you are trying to say?


          Report this

          30

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Now now Maxwell.

          You seem to be getting a bit testy.

          Sound everything out, and take the big words slowly, it makes reading so much easier.

          Later when you become proficient at reading, you can start on something new , like Science.

          All the best.

          KK


          Report this

          20

    • #
      Peter Whale

      Maxine lighten up did you not see the joke in the article turning us into Hobbits. As for records look at the record snow and ice cover at both of the poles. No significant warming in the last 16years . We can all cherry pick the items we want to. The world is a better place for a little humor. Happy new year to you.


      Report this

      90

      • #

        Today jokes are falling very flat with me, OK? Time and place?

        The other day I was having a bit of fun commenting that weather is not climate then, a bit further on, saying how hot it was that day. Nobody saw the humor, BTW. Which cracked me up :)

        Lots of backburning does get done, lazy landholders don’t clear/burn. There is no increasing trend in landholder laziness noted anywhere, so the increasing size, ferocity and speed of movement of bushfires must be due to global warming!


        Report this

        125

        • #
          Farmer Doug 2

          Maxine.

          Can’t suffer that!

          You are confusing “Back burning” with “Hazard reduction”.

          Hazard reduction is not getting done because there is to much tape (green and red) so managers are discouraged. Just to make things worse there is not enough landholoders out here to burn it when the conditions are right.

          Doug


          Report this

          51

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Doug

            Max is not sympathetic to the environment.

            If he was, he would be on to politicians to lift the insane regulations on Hazard Reduction that have caused so many deaths over the last ten years in Australia.

            Farmers who attempt “hazard reduction” risk serious penalties from their Karbon lords and masters.

            All of it for a few votes.

            Just a few days ago the Tasmanian “Green Dream” was shattered with about $60 million dollars worth of damage to property and livelihoods in Dunalley.

            Overviews of the Dunalley township showed that the green strip adjacent to the safety of the water was scorched.

            max, this means that for many townspeople their only safe haven, sitting in the water under a jetty, was cut off to them.

            That waters edge green strip should as a matter of OH&S have been in a safe condition and kept that way by regular hazard reduction burns.

            It seems that the “principle of serving Gaia” is more important than human life.

            How many died in the Victorian fires?

            KK


            Report this

            81

          • #
            AndyG55

            People need to realise that the east coast of Tassie is a very low rainfall area.

            When it does rain it can grow very quickly, but generally, the vegetation is naturally very dry and highly COMBUSTIBLE !!

            It is obvious that more precautions need to be taken.

            So greenies.. get out the ******* way and let reality rule, instead of idealism.


            Report this

            31

        • #
          Ian

          Maxine you’re certainly sticking to your guns but you’re totally forgetting the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen by plants due to symbiosis with nitrogen fixing bacteria This enables them to synthesise protein (and DNA) using nitrogen from the air. The concentration of atmospheric nitrogen is about 78% compared with about 0.035% for CO2 so there will never ever be a shortage of nitrogen in the atmosphere due to increases in CO2. Important plants that do this are the legumes which include clovers, lupins and alfalfa (good for animal feed) soy (lots of protein in soy beans), peanuts and several others. So I wouldn’t worry about lack of protein. Anyway why would increased CO2 stop plants using nitrogen? It also is thought many plants used to have the ability to fix nitrogen and if things in the plant world got really tough then the ability to fix nitrogen would certainly become widespread as plants evolved and adapted to the new conditions


          Report this

          70

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Hi Maxine,

      You have proof that the climate system is governed by positive feedback amplifying the GHG warming of increasing concentrations of CO2 by a factor of 5?

      That would be necessary to get to 6 degrees warmer as predicted.

      However – you have no such proof do you?


      Report this

      110

      • #

        Melting clathrates—a tipping point as is the increasing Arctic melt. Soon GW will be runaway! I hope I will be safely and cosily dead by that time! I fear for the young ones, the babies, toddlers in my family.


        Report this

        121

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Excuse me,

          How is the “melting clathrates” a +ve feedback – please provide link to a scientific paper that provides the physical evidence.

          Note that the current warming does not yet exceed the Holocene Climate Optimum from 8000 years ago.

          So how can the “melting clathrates” be a +ve feedback – what is the mechanism for atmospheric CO2 concentration to impact clathrates in the Arctic.

          Note that the normal causal chain is as follows.

          CO2 concentration increases -> causes warming (which stopped 16 years ago) -> Warming causes other effect -> other effect amplifies (+ve feedback) or dampens (-ve feedback) CO2 warming

          The second link is currently broken – there can be no +ve feedback if there is no warming.

          No +ve feedback = no catastrophe.

          QED.

          Whatever you think that the clathrates are doing – it’s not caused by the increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere – there is simply no physical mechanism to transmit the “cause”.

          Cheers ExWarmist

          PS – Next time study your Agrippa!.


          Report this

          50

    • #

      Come on Maxine.

      You actually know the cause of rising CO2 levels.

      Don’t just talk about it.

      Actually do something.

      Just shut down those coal fired power plants.

      Don’t just waffle on.

      Get your people to shut them down, because after all, you keep telling us this is the cause of all these current bushfires, and surely that’s a drastic enough reason.

      Blah blah blah! That’s all you’ve got mate.

      Tony.


      Report this

      150

      • #

        I wish we could get some nice G3/4 nuclear power plants here and in other places where they can be safely built.

        In the meantime, the methane bubbling up to the surface of the Arctic Ocean has been witnessed and photographed. In the meantime have a read here:

        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs43.pdf


        Report this

        112

        • #

          Oh Maxine, go on tell us.

          I wish we could get some nice G3/4 nuclear power plants here and in other places where they can be safely built.

          Your Labor Party puppet masters have the direct answer to that.

          Hey, look over there. Isn’t that Britney Spears!

          You won’t even begin to discuss it.

          All they have is a new Tax on CO2, paid for by consumers.

          Might you inform us how this new tax will put out those bushfires.

          Tony.


          Report this

          81

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Maxine says…

          the methane bubbling up to the surface of the Arctic Ocean has been witnessed and photographed. In the meantime have a read here:

          It must be uneconomical to capture this “bubbling methane” and burn it as fuel.

          Unfortunately it’s a waste.


          Report this

          30

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Maxines/Maxwells :

            “methane bubbling up to the surface of the Arctic Ocean”

            is actually Whale Farts.

            Does he want us to kill all the whales?

            KK


            Report this

            10

        • #

          Maxine, your Labor Party puppet masters could actually win the next election by taking direct action instead of utilising a Tax.

          Labor could just shut down those Coal fired and gas fired plants. Then there would be no need for a tax on CO2 at all, and those people grumbling would have no reason to grumble and would flock back to Labor, now having extra money in their pockets, satisfied all round.

          Then, because action here in Australia means nothing across the whole Planet, Labor could then ban the sale of coal, both coking and steaming coals to China, our biggest market for these coals in protest against their using coal to bring electrical power to their vast populace who have no electrical power at all. Then there would be no reason at all to even mine the coal in the first place. All those green supporters would then also flock back to Labor.

          Hey problem solved Maxine. Win win for Labor.

          Why don’t you stop whinging, umm, blah blah blahing, umm, complaining, umm, contributing at this blog, umm telling us how bad we are and how ignorant you think we are because we don’t have the crystal clarity you do, and you could perhaps get off your fundament and put it to Labor that you have this cunning plan. You can even take the credit Max, I don’t mind.

          Tony.


          Report this

          101

        • #
        • #
          Jaymez

          Maxine, I’ll see you your dodgy BOM data which excludes the old temperature records which doesn’t suite their purposes (refer #6.1.2.1.3 above), and raise you the last 10,000 years climate history which shows current temperatures are nothing special:
          Greenland Ice Core Data 10,000 years as proxy for NH Climate


          Report this

          10

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Great graph – so the Minoan period peaked at 2.5 degrees warmer then now.

            Look at the rate of rise out of the dark ages cold period to the medieval warm period – looks like the same slope as the modern period of warming.

            The Minoan drop down to the Dark Ages was a 3 degree shift – again how did the world survive that???

            Perhaps Maxine can explain.


            Report this

            10

    • #
      michael hammer

      Maxine;

      Don’t you think you are getting a bit hysterical. Plants stop growing completely at about 200ppm CO2. The most alarming scenarios I have seen, suggest doubling of preindustrial CO2 (from 280 ppm to 560 ppm) by the end of the 21st century. Are you really suggesting plants would be poisoned by a level of CO2 less than 3 times the minimum level at which they “starve”? In fact plants are “in principle” poisoned by oxygen (the waste product of photosynthesis) not CO2 although evolution slowly allowed plants to adapt to our current levels of oxygen. Animals are poisoned by CO2 (their waste product) not plants but even there the toxic limit for humans is around 1%-4% corresponding to 10,000 to 40,000 ppm not 560 ppm.

      If your claim is correct that higher CO2 leads to lower nitrogen uptake (something I would like a reference for rather than accepting at face value) surely that would mean we would need less nitrogenous fertiliser not more yet you seem to be suggesting the opposite.

      In terms of lower protein and seeds, dont forget that nature gives reproduction first call on resources. There is no danger that seed production would stop. Further, it is considerably warmer in the tropics than in temperate or cold polar regions yet plants grow fastest in the tropics and they don’t seem to have any problem with reproduction or nutritional value. Apart from which, fruit and seed production is usually linked to potassium and phosphorus availability not nitrogen. Nitrogen is used more for green leaf production, thus one uses high nitrogen fertilisers on lawns where lots of green growth is desired but much lower levels for food plants. Look at any gardening text and they will point out that excessive nitrogen leads to massive soft sappy growth which is usually not desirable.

      Assuming your claim of lower nitrogen use in warmer conditions is correct, did you consider whether maybe the plants are using less nitrogen because they need less for healthy growth? Plants are good at taking up just what they need for good growth irrespective of how much is available. As an example, early in the season liliums absorb nitrogen strongly when they are growing rapidly yet as they start to produce flower heads and seeds, nitrogen uptake drops right off even if it is available in the soil and instead they take up potassium and phosphorus. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that because the plants are absorbing less nitrogen they will become moribund and die but what basis do you have for such a conclusion. The latest satellite data shows the planet has been progressively greening for the last 30 years. Is this greening a sign of plants becoming moribund and dying out?

      You say pampered green house plants may be OK with a whiff more CO2 but other plants will be poisoned by it. I wonder on what basis you consider the vegetables grown in green houses to be so special and pampered that their reaction is diametrically opposite to other plants. Those green house grown vegetables you refer to also grow outside greenhouses and by the way represent a significant fraction of our vegetables. Its just that they grow better and have higher yields in glass houses with elevated CO2 and it also allows them to be grown in places that are normally too cold for them. I also point out many of the studies with elevated CO2 have looked at a wide range of plants not just a few vegetables, even major trees and the universal finding seems to be a positive response to increased CO2.

      Please have a think whether maybe your concerns are not somewhat exaggerated or maybe even completely unwarranted.


      Report this

      80

      • #
        ExWarmist

        For further reading…

        Submarine crew are reported to be the major source of CO2 on board submarines (Crawl 2003). Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003).


        Report this

        60

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Assuming your claim of lower nitrogen use in warmer conditions is correct”

        This is NOT true. There is agtually an INCREASE in nitrogen uptake, but because the plant is being so much more efficient, the actual protein percentage level may drop very slightly

        The nitrogen is actually transported as a solute in water, and as the plants don’t need as much water because they don’t transpire as much, the water flow slows down a bit.

        It should be noted however that nitrogen fixing type plants go berserk, they absolutely love enriched CO2 levels. So a minor change in diet, if you are really, really, panically, distraughtly, worried about a tiny, tiny decrease in the protein content in some plants, is all that is required.


        Report this

        20

      • #
        ColdOldMan

        For goodness sake, Michael, please don’t bring logic or facts into the discussion. Maxine looks as if she/he has never run an allotment where the balance of nutrients has to be varied for healthy, thriving plants.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Mark D.

        Please have a think whether maybe your concerns are not somewhat exaggerated or maybe even completely unwarranted.

        There is no way Maxine can “have a think”. Maxine has a garden plot and therefore is an expert in plant biology (in her own mind).


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Ace

        Tony from Oz has the best reply to all the Maxinites that Ive seen. If they are so adamant then they can just get on with it instead of talking about it.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      llew Jones

      That is easily remedies by increased levels of nitrogen fertiliser.

      However from CO2 Science the following indicates that the amount of protein per given plant, when exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations, can still be greater than from an unexposed to higher CO2 levels plant:

      “Background”

      It is sometimes claimed that while cereal grain crops may be more productive in a high-CO2 world of the future, the amount of protein they produce may be lower, making their grains less nutritious.

      What was done

      The authors grew seven cereal grain crops — winter barley (Hordeum vulgare, cv. Petra), winter wheat (Triticum aestivum, cvs. Libellula, Mv Regiment, Mv Mambo), winter durum wheat (Triticum durum, cv. Mv Makaroni), spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, cv Lona), and spring oats (Avena sativa, cv. Mv Pehely) — in a phytotron at the Agricultural Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences at ambient and enriched atmospheric CO2 concentrations (380 and 750 ppm, respectively) under well-watered conditions or drought conditions, where water was withheld from the 10th day after heading, during which time soil volumetric water content dropped from approximately 25% to 6%, after which they measured a number of crop characteristics at harvest.

      What was learned

      Veisz et al. report that the plants grown in the CO2-enriched air “produced more organic matter, being taller, with more spikes and a higher grain number per plant than those grown at the present CO2 level,” and that “thanks to the more intensive incorporation of carbohydrate, there was an increase in the mean grain mass and in the grain yield per plant” in the CO2-enriched air. However, there was a concomitant decrease in the protein concentration of the grains produced in the high CO2 treatment. Nevertheless, the net effect was still positive, as noted in the following paragraph.

      For the several cereal varieties averaged together, grain yield under the well-watered conditions rose by 12.37% (from 2.83 to 3.18 g/plant) in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment, while grain protein concentration dropped from 17.04% to only 16.23%, which resulted in a net increase of 7% in total grain protein production. Likewise, grain yield under the water-stressed conditions rose by 30.68% (from 1.76 to 2.30 g/plant) in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment, while grain protein concentration dropped from 21.63% to 19.70%, which led to a net increase of 19% in total grain protein production.

      What it means

      The increase in cereal-grain biomass production that accompanied the rise in the air’s CO2 content in this study was more than adequate to more than compensate for the much smaller decrease in grain protein concentration that occurred concomitantly in these crops, which resulted in a net increase in total protein harvest, which is generally typical of all such studies.

      http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N24/B1.php


      Report this

      50

      • #
        llew Jones

        …..(remedied)…


        Report this

        20

      • #
        ExWarmist

        llew Jones says…

        For the several cereal varieties averaged together, grain yield under the well-watered conditions rose by 12.37% (from 2.83 to 3.18 g/plant) in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment, while grain protein concentration dropped from 17.04% to only 16.23%, which resulted in a net increase of 7% in total grain protein production. Likewise, grain yield under the water-stressed conditions rose by 30.68% (from 1.76 to 2.30 g/plant) in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment, while grain protein concentration dropped from 21.63% to 19.70%, which led to a net increase of 19% in total grain protein production.

        Because it bears repeating.

        The essence of the scare put forward by Maxine et al, requires, deliberate or otherwise, the misunderstanding of the above results.

        The response of the plant consumers would be to simply eat a small additional amount of the now more abundant plant material to access the same or additional protein.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        AndyG55

        Crop rotation.. Legumes fix nitrogen much better in a higher CO2 environment.


        Report this

        40

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Hi Maxine,

      Now please think carefully about this question.

      What is the specific measurable difference between (a) a naturally occurring heatwave, and (b) a man made global warming heatwave?

      I’m sorry – I can’t tell them apart – could you please help me out.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      sophocles

      Maxine:
      here is a page providing access to ten papers about protein in plants in atmospheres of enriched CO2. You might enjoy reading them at

      CO2 Science

      There are many other papers you could enjoy reading there, too.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      At a time when high temperature records are being set, when huge numbers of bushfires are out of control can we at least not talk anti–scientific bullshit?

      I would be happy to stop, Maxine. But you keep on going.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Maxword:

      “It has been shown that increasing CO2 levels does lead to lower nitrogen intake”

      Maybe you should use more fertilizer next time.

      KK :)


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Geoffrey Cousens

      Maxine is way too far gone.C.O.2 plant poison?That takes the cake!Photosynthesis,Max.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Peter Whale

    It’s already happening the war mists are changing into the night riders doom and gloom go with them everywhere. Mount Doom is the UEA with PSU and the EPA the home of the Orcs Lisa Jackson has gone, next battle SaraMann in the courts, IPCC was the battle of Rohan and the ring of deceit will be laid to rest at the UEA.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    So now they are trying to predict species evolution? Or are they erring and instead trying to predict adaptation. Perhaps if they looked at the atmosphere CO2 content versus the geological timescale and the development of species over the same period, then they might think again. This assumes they know how to think in the first place, of course.


    Report this

    51

    • #
      • #
        Louis Hissink

        The PETM event was 55 million years ago and is close enough to the KT event at 65 million years ago to be considered the same event. That period was a globally catastrophic period associated with mass eruptions of kimberlites on the continents, mainly in Africa.

        No mention of kimberlite is mentioned at all at your realclimate reference, nor in the text or following comments. So their explanations are incomplete.

        Kimberlite eruptions are associated with massive eruptions of supercharged CO2 rich fluidized magmas from deep in the crust, and according to Russian research, the result of a possible interaction with a cosmic body that interacted electrically with the earth.

        The mass species extinctions, thermal anomalies and CO2 spike are all effects from a transient external cause. The Russian hypothesis has been published under the auspices of the New Concepts in Global Tectonics Group at http://www.ncgt.org – author K. Khazanovitch-Wulf.

        The rise in CO2 had nothing to do with causing the species extinctions – the K-T event conventionally explained as a meteor impact – caused the extinctions and the spike in CO2.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Louis Hissink says…

          The PETM event was 55 million years ago and is close enough to the KT event at 65 million years ago to be considered the same event.

          Interestingly enough if the climate system was “fragile”, and governed by net +ve feedbacks it would be inherently unstable and likely to tip over into runaway states that would be next to impossible to return back from.

          Only a “robust” climate system governed by -ve feedbacks would have the inherent capacity to dampen down perturbations (events – as per the above) and maintain a dynamic range bound equilibrium sufficient to support complex life forms.

          Wait a second – what is it Alarmist Warmists rely on for a catastrophy to occur from increasing concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere?

          Perhaps Maxine could help explain it.


          Report this

          10

  • #
    Mattb

    In all honesty though, regardless of hobbits, with a 6C rise in temps (whatever the cause) we are well and truly rooted.


    Report this

    212

    • #
      Louis Hissink

      Based on what evidence? When did it happen in the past for it be possible to happen in the future?


      Report this

      71

      • #
        Mattb

        That’s not what I said Louis.


        Report this

        02

        • #
          Louis Hissink

          Mattb

          In order to state that a rise in temperature of 6 degrees, humanity will be “rooted” as you describe it, has to based on a previous experience of that temperature rooting us. All I asked is for the basis of that statement in previously observed facts. Fact is it was decidedly warmer during the MWP and we weren’t rooted, but positively revelled in it.

          The only time humanity becomes rooted is during ice ages – that’s what the historical record shows.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Mattb

            6C warmer than today in the MWP? pull the other one it has bells on.


            Report this

            03

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Hi Mattb,

            That’s not what Louis said.

            Try reading what he said again – your conclusion does not follow from his words.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Mattb

            Louis said: “Based on what evidence? When did it happen in the past for it be possible to happen in the future?”

            well it’s not happened in the past so that its impact on humanity can be measured from data. Also would it have to have happened in the past to be possible in the future. From what I can gather about 150,000 years ago there was quite a spike that could have been in the order of 6C, but this is eons before civilization so you can’t really say what the impact was. However the evidence is clear that significant swings in temps/climate correlate to serious problems for most species alive at the time. If not then there would be a lot more dinosaurs around, no?

            Following on From Louis saying “When did it happen in the past” he then said “Fact is it was decidedly warmer during the MWP and we weren’t rooted” which quite frankly has nothing to do with what the impact of a 6C rise in temps would be.

            Note I never said it would happen, just that if it did well we’d be rooted.

            Anyway here we are today all happy as larry, so just how “rooted” was humanity in those ice ages?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Louis Hissink

            Mattb,

            So if we can’t really say what the impact of a temperature spike 150,000 years would be, and as it hasn’t happened during civilisation, then how could you possibly know what an imagined temperature spike might do in the future. You don’t know.

            During the Little Ice Age Europeans had to resort to cannibalism to survive. Millions died from famines.

            Significant swings in temps/climate – I have no difficulty coping with temperature swings from 0 to 50 degree Celsius in the deserts, and you are stressing over 6 degrees?


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Mattb

            “then how could you possibly know what an imagined temperature spike might do in the future. You don’t know.”
            But you can look at habitats now, and temperature ranges suitable for various species, and it is not that hard to see what a 6C rise would do. I can comfortably say that if there was a 6C rise then there would be no apple trees in south west WA for example (as there would be no cold temps). I mean that is what the world’s scientists are trying to do… figure out what would happen. It is a rare argument that 6C temp rises would be great for humanity, it is normally that there is no reason to think there would be a 6C rise. There is a lot of what I consider credible science that confirms that a 6C rise would be bloody terrible… and as Jo points out in the skeptics handbook all this is based on the assumption it may happen, and that the evidence seems to suggest CO2 ain’t going to make it happen (I disagree naturally).

            But no we don’t “know” what will happen, we jsut think we have a fair enough idea.

            Hey look if we were pumping a gas in to the atmosphere that was making the planet cooler I’d be concerned too.

            “I have no difficulty coping with temperature swings from 0 to 50 degree Celsius in the deserts, and you are stressing over 6 degrees?”
            Stupid statement Louis, you know better than that. You are stressing about a drop of far less than that in the cold direction.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Mattb with regard to apples you are just guessing right? Apples grow well around my part of the world. Winter temps drop to as low as -30F pretty predictably in any month November to Feb. (not every day mind you). Summer daytime high temps average say 68F but the occasional 100+F happens often enough. The trees do fine and only late frosts really ruin a season.

            Suggesting that apples would cease to produce because there would be no more cold???? Well I think we’d still have cold even in your doomsday scenario. Besides that, trees do their thing based mostly on length of daylight which, to my understanding, is NOT affected by man or carbon consumption.

            Even if this scary scenario were to develop we know how to plant trees, we even have the technology to move whole trees.

            Now even you are starting to sound like Maxine…..


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            Not guessing – I chose an example I actually know something about:) Apples need a certain period of low temperatures for fruit to set. So where I live in Perth there are no apples. But 200km south is where all the orchards are (Donnybrook for example) because the winter nights are colol enough for fruit to set.

            Random quote from the old farmars almanac site:
            “Each variety has a number of chill hours needed to set fruit (i.e., the amount of time temperatures are between 32 and 45 degrees F).”

            This is also why we don’t have local Raspberries.

            Climate is why different regions of the world grow different crops. It is why the wheatbelt is where it is, and why we grow grapes for wine in Margaret River, and why mangoes come from Carnarvon, NT and QLD.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            This is not to say you “can’t” grow an apple in Perth, just you’ll have less fruit and less consistent years.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Otter

      When have You been honest?


      Report this

      34

  • #
    Otter

    maxie, mattie, brooksie… I think global warming has already evolved some (people?) into trolls….


    Report this

    70

  • #
    MadJak

    Being a hobbit must be more efficient – what’s wrong with that?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    gnome

    Hobbits- that’s not so bad, they could have threatened to turn us all into muppets if we don’t worship at their altars.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Mack

    ‘Maxine’ sounds very like one of the ecofascists recently booted off James Delingpoles blog.Maybe a look at the IP addie would be interesting.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    I’m not entirely sure those jokers are joking …

    Pointman

    BTW Jo, a typo I think. One of the “turns” in the title s/b a “makes”

    Crickey Pointman. How did that get past all the proofreaders? Thanks! – Jo


    Report this

    20

  • #
    John Knowles

    could be “catastrophic” for an overpopulated world, according to one of the scientists involved

    You know they’re off to a shaky start with only one scientist saying something which could happen.
    My son has just finished a science degree in Sydney and he made the observation that some university academics, though very clever in their little niche are functional idiots and would have difficulty out in the real world.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      ExWarmist

      John Knowles says…

      though very clever in their little niche are functional idiots and would have difficulty out in the real world.

      Very true – I’ve met them, and had the hair pulling experience of working with some of them.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Lighthouse

      Agreed, but the same applies to some people in the industry, or in academia too – appear clever but complete idiots, talk well but actually don’t know much. They should be business people or politicians than scientists. Some nerds better be in academia than in other fields. Nevermind. Certain people fit in better in some areas, some in others, all of us complete one another to build this world together with respect of one another. The ‘real world’ needs academia, academia won’t exist if there’s no ‘real world’. Your son is supposed to realise this as a university graduate.


      Report this

      30

  • #

    Today, 8th Jan at 08.00 on UK Radio 4 news

    “The met office says it does not believe global warming will be as severe as it had previously predicted.”

    Nothing on the BBC website though.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Speedy

    Evening all

    There’s been a lot of argument about protein content of plants grown in high CO2 atmospheres.

    My understanding is as follows:

    1. Plants shut down when the CO2 level falls below 150 ppm
    2. The protein content of non-existent plant life is zero.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Lighthouse

    Makes sense. Hot climate -> smaller species, eat less, cold climate -> larger species to keep warm, by eating more chips and burgers.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Ace

    The problem with all of these scarifying future tales is this….eventually the sun will expand and swallow the Earth. Now that IS a fact. It IS going to happen. And NOTHING can be done to prevent it.

    Even if Star Trek came true and humanity colonised other star systems, the part of humanity left behind will inevitably be extinguished. And at the moment humanity is barely able to put a few people in orbit so I dont think interstellar voyages are on the agenda.

    So its millions of years away as opposed to what…the doom-sayers arent even predicting extinction, but whatever they do predict occurs after everyone alive today is dead. So, what exctly is the difference whether it happens a day after I am dead or ten million years later?

    Then they say we aint half awful for not thinking of “future generations”. Ahem, “future generations” means THEIR CHILDREN…I dont have any children. I have already done more for the planet than even the most zealous Environmentalist who has had children. If they are authentic in theirconcerns then its incredibly selfish of them to keep spawning.

    What IS a reality is the constant struggle to cope with the burdens imposed upon me by Environmentalists and their asshole brethren.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Louis Hissink

      The problem with all of these scarifying future tales is this….eventually the sun will expand and swallow the Earth. Now that IS a fact. It IS going to happen. And NOTHING can be done to prevent it.

      Based on what previous data?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Ace

    On a lighter note…..I think the “report” (bollocks…a report refers to something that exists, you cannot report on a speculation) is RATHIST!!!!!

    Its Waycist because it implies that the Chinese are inferior because they are smaller, the Japanese are sub-Human because they are tiny and the Vietnamese arent even hominid.

    In other words… we are menaced with the prospect of becoming a race of Napoleons (look up just how tiny he was). Who should give a shit?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Peter Crawford

    The warmists are ahead of the game here. Michael Mann, Tim Flannery, Kevin Trenberth, and Phil Jones are already the size of Hobbits. Naomi Oreskes has shrunk to 4’6″. And Stephan Lewandowsky, after concerted effort, has managed to whittle himself down to an impressive three foot three.

    Respect.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      llew Jones

      That’s the most likely reason they are alarmists. They don’t want to downsize.

      The other hypothesis is that these vocal agitators may all suffer from “small man’s disease”?


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I wonder what they would have said if a certain movie was not a big box-office hit at the moment. Most other exemplars of diminutive size are not very PC anymore. Hobbits they can pick on.

    Just thinking out loud… ;-)


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    My parting shot at all this is to say I’m glad I wear nice comfortable high top boots. It’s a real help when wading through such stuff as this because I don’t get contaminated.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Either my browser or the server is messed up.

    This looks like it will be comment #40 or later. Where will it show up?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Nope! It becomes #32 and everything else is pushed down one number.

      Ain’t computer science wonderful?

      [Earlier, I removed a post that had an inappropriate link. This caused a ripple in the WordPress space-time continuum. I just put back the offending post after removing the link. Things might go back to normal. If not, blame WordPress.] ED


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        [Earlier, I removed a post that had an inappropriate link. This caused a ripple in the WordPress space-time continuum. I just put back the offending post after removing the link. Things might go back to normal. If not, blame WordPress.] ED

        Thou shalt not mess around with Jo’s computer. :-)


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Mark D.

    If this stuff is true there will be plenty of benefits too:

    Taller people have more back problems

    Taller men have higher rates of prostate cancer

    Taller men have more basketball injuries

    Tall, dark & handsome men have more “woman trouble”

    OK the last two are purely speculation (not based on experience).


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Crakar24

      It does not end there MarkD, the benefits are endless.

      1, They could all drive around in tiny cars like the ones you see at a circus, you could then paint extra lines on the road and double its capacity virually eliminating traffic congestion overnight (tiny cars = tiny engines reducing CO2)

      2, A 32″ flat screen TV will become the largest on the market but even then this would be an indulgence (Smaller Tv’s use less power = reduction in CO2).

      3, They would weigh less therefore less fuel required by airplanes = less CO2 (also see point one)

      And the list goes on, of course we could achieve a similar results if we could just figure out a way of getting rid of the useless eaters……………cue the overpopulation crusaders.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Ace

    The Iranians HAVE banned them. They say the tie is the symbol of The Crusader. Thats the Iranian equivalent of the bogeyman or Boneys coming to get you (citing Napoloeon a second time).


    Report this

    10

  • #
    MangoChutney

    I’m alright, Jack, I’m short with hairy feet, so nearly there already.

    Bring on the warming you freakishly tall, hairless people ;)


    Report this

    20

  • #
    old44

    “This is because food is less nutritious in a warmer world which means that species have to eat more”
    Does this mean if the temperature drops 6C and we enter an Ice Age the food will become more nutritious and we can eat less?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    michael hart

    They changed it to 200 years while I wasn’t looking. That’s sneaky.

    Anyway, I thinkss it’s more likely that Kate and Andrew will name their first-born “Smeagol”.
    How great would that be?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    michael hart

    If we make the nutritious Hobbits wear ties then they will be easier to catch, throttle, and eat, my precious.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    So Dwarfism is not a genetic defect like we all thought, instead they are a new breed, the crest of the wave in evolutionary leaps, the future of mankind. This would have to be the greatest discovery ever made, give that man a Nobel.

    And the meek shall inherent the Earth……….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    OT

    This is another installment of my ongoing attempts to get a straight answer out of MattB and Co.

    As most of you will know MattB claims the recent bush fires, heavy snows, floods and droughts have all been caused by or at least made worse by rising CO2 levels, no evidence was presented to support such claims because there is not any. So i have taken it upon myself to continually harras these people until they do present evidence in support *OR* they finally admit that they are wrong.

    Here is my latest installment.

    As we know KGW is being blamed for the latest round of hot weather in Australia (mind you Adelaide had two days over forty and the rest is average, you cant beat good propaganda) so if KGW is to blame for that then what caused this?

    http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2013/20130107010-greatest-snow.html

    Greatest snow on record for December in Northern Hemisphere

    Here the numbers for those inclined

    http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.php?ui_set=1

    So my question is how could a well mixed gas cause a heat wave in one hemisphere and a cold wave in another? Take your time and dont answer all at once, so whos first?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    john robertson

    Who knew Gilbert&Sullivan were reincarnated as govt climatologists.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Crakar24

    Do not fear morphing into a hobbit i have the answer

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9784044/China-blazes-trail-for-clean-nuclear-power-from-thorium.html

    So a large part of the developed world is turning to Thorium but what are we doing? Typical of a government driven by a green agenda.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    There are a lot of people here speculating on the affect of CO2 on plants. This is a nice summary of what has been found observationally and experiemntally, with projections as to what would happen if encountered by plants in the wild.

    http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108

    Maybe a few (actually most) of you speculating on this as though you know about the actual research already done would mind reading this?

    If this link can’t be accessed let me know and I can post it to you – see link on my name


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Mark D.

      Gee @ 43:

      YES I’ve read such stuff. Now please reflect with me these realities:

      When a farmer spreads Nitrogen and or Phosphorus on the soil, what concentration reaches the roots?

      When a plant grows through a dry period and then gets rained on, what is the differential PPM of H2O is in the soil around the roots?

      So when a “study” finds that an increase of 100 PPM of Co2 in the atmosphere is enough to ruin the plant world (“major implications”), don’t you have some reservations?

      Mind you, that most food crops grow (have to adapt) in just one growing season.

      Mind you that the natural soil chemistry differences between one farm and the one a few miles away probably vary by much more than 100 PPM of nearly any nutrient element.

      You are sounding a bit like Maxine.


      Report this

      20

      • #

        Yes plants are amazing how they adapt and can regulate their internal environment even when externalities vary. Just like us really.

        For your specific points like the effective N and P concentrations at the root interface… go look it up yourself. I don’t have those data at my fingertips.

        Yes, I have reservations about the severity of predicted affects of increased CO2 on the ecosystems and agriculture, but I don’t have a problem believing good experimental data that changing the concentration of a significant component of the environment by a significant percentage can lead to changes in plant physiology plus attendant microbiota that plants interact with.

        You do realise that there is a heap of plant physiology and field plant experiments on this topic that predate any climate funding or climate related public policy? These concur with recent experiments ie there is no big shift in scientific opinion that correlates with promoting a AGW agenda. Even the cold requirement for apples was studied a looong time ago.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Crakar24

      Read your link GA, so if CO2 increases the effects on plants is a good thing, C4 plants will love it and C3 plants will produce higher yields i cant see a down side here thanks for the link.

      One question, if CO2 is such a well mixed gas as we have been told and nary a whiff of breeze is enough to spread it far and wide how could FACE maintain a constant level of CO2?


      Report this

      10

      • #

        from Wiki and confirmed elsewhere

        Horizontal or vertical pipes are placed in a circle around the experimental plot, which can be between 1m and 30m in diameter, and these emit CO2 enriched air around the plants. The concentration of CO2 is maintained at the desired level through placing sensors in the plot which feedback to a computer which then adjusts the flow of CO2 from the pipes.

        Is asking questions that even wikipedia and simple deductive logic could answer a new debating method? So the additional part of the answer, not in wikipedia, is that your question about mixing of gasses is unrelated to how FACE operates.

        I didn’t answer your first paragraph as it makes no sense to me.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Crakar24

          GA,

          Is asking questions that even wikipedia and simple deductive logic could answer a new debating method?

          Is it the new debating method in how to respond? You insult me with your response and fall victim to the same thing you accuse me of, what a wonderful world you live in GA.

          I did not ask how someone on Wiki would do it i asked how they did it, obviously you dont know, obviously you dont care and you have taken offence at me for asking.

          In fact the answer lies in your link when they quote the figures of 475 – 600 ppm, that is quite a large variation in CO2 levels GA obviously they struggled to keep the levels constant. What would happen on a windy day? Well not even a windy day but a day with a puff of air?

          How many days did the trial last for?
          How many days did the level of CO2 fall outside of this 475 – 600 ppm window?

          The answer is you dont know, but yet you come here waving it around as proof that AGW is gonna gitchya unless you bow on one knee at the altar of the great God of CO2.

          Why dont you dig up some study using dedicated greenhouses where we know the CO2 levels will be constant and examine (LOL) these results and put them up for all to see as a comparison?

          No you dont do that you simply read between the lines of what you want to read and pronounce with trumpets blaring that CO2 is (Booga Booga) bad for plants.

          Regarding this obscure statement

          I didn’t answer your first paragraph as it makes no sense to me.

          You and MattB have the same affliction you suddenly become dumber than bat shit when your faith is rattled.

          My first paragraph said

          Read your link GA, so if CO2 increases the effects on plants is a good thing, C4 plants will love it and C3 plants will produce higher yields i cant see a down side here thanks for the link.

          1, “Read your link” means i opened the link you posted and read it

          2, “so if CO2 increases the effects on plants is a good thing, C4 plants will love it and C3 plants will produce higher yields i cant see a down side here”

          From your link

          “The picture that emerges is that C4 plants are in general relatively unresponsive to elevation of atmospheric CO2 above current ambient levels.”

          I read that as to suggest that C4 plants are impervious to rising CO2 levels, do you read it differently?

          For C3 plants

          The availability of additional photosynthate enables most plants to grow faster under elevated CO2, with dry matter production in FACE experiments being increased on average by 17% for the aboveground, and more than 30% for the belowground, portions of plants (Ainsworth & Long 2005; de Graaff et al. 2006). This increased growth is also reflected in the harvestable yield of crops, with wheat, rice and soybean all showing increases in yield of 12–14% under elevated CO2 in FACE experiments (Ainsworth 2008; Long et al. 2006).

          Overall, FACE experiments show decreases in whole plant water use of 5–20% under elevated CO2. This in turn can have consequences for the hydrological cycle of entire ecosystems, with soil moisture levels and runoff both increasing under elevated CO2 (Leakey et al. 2009).

          So lets recap for a moment, elevated CO2 levels means an increase in yield of 12 to 14% and at the same time use 5 to 20% less water…..hmmmmmm……does this mean we can grow crops in more arid areas? Could we expand on the farming potential in 3rd world countries in Africa, could we increase the worlds food bowl?

          While you ponder this i will read on

          Leaf nitrogen concentrations in plant tissues typically decrease in FACE under elevated CO2, with nitrogen per unit leaf mass decreasing on average by 13% (Ainsworth & Long 2005).

          So we will get a dilution of nitrogen, i repeat a dillution not a decrease and they then state “it is likely”, not proven but “likely” the protein levels will follow the Nitrogen levels. So protein levels will not decrease either.

          So i ask again “Where is he down side”.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Crakar24

            No reply as expected


            Report this

            00

          • #

            long replies full of stuff stifle my creativity.

            There is a lot of stuff there Craker and I don’t and won’t respond to the rhetorical questions that you immediately create an imaginary answer for. Also if you want to find out specifics of someone’s publications, go and find them yourself. Your question earlier did not ask me to tell you to go into detail and why would I go into detail that you can get from the source? I am not your teacher.

            Regarding their efforts at maintaining higher levels of CO2, clearly they do their best to keep it at a certain level, they measure the actual levels during the experiment and build the errors and uncertainty into their assessment of the data. This is what scientists do.

            Biological systems are complex and your statements that amount to “more is better” are too simplistic. So you have characterised an aspect of this as being an upside when in the real world this may not be the case. Plants allocate energy and resources in many ways and changing the balance of allocation might improve one aspect of their physiology and make them vulnerable in a different way.

            Not sure what you are saying with lower N concentrations? Are you saying that more dilute (ie less per unit mass) is not less? If I eat 100g of wheat flour in a cake with 13% less N, surely it will have 13% less? The yield in the plant is up so the total N might be about the same, but I now need to eat more cake to get the same amount of N. If (yes, just “if”) this is N that I need then I am eating a whole lot more stuff I don’t need to get the amount I need.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Crakar24

            Typical crap from GA.

            You produce a study that you claim proves your point but you have no understanding of what that study actually means so you get abrasive when one asks a question

            There is a lot of stuff there Craker and I don’t and won’t respond to the rhetorical questions that you immediately create an imaginary answer for. Also if you want to find out specifics of someone’s publications, go and find them yourself. Your question earlier did not ask me to tell you to go into detail and why would I go into detail that you can get from the source? I am not your teacher.

            You then go on and claim the study says things it does not

            Biological systems are complex and your statements that amount to “more is better” are too simplistic. So you have characterised an aspect of this as being an upside when in the real world this may not be the case. Plants allocate energy and resources in many ways and changing the balance of allocation might improve one aspect of their physiology and make them vulnerable in a different way.

            This is not what the study says so stop making shit up, you produced this study as evidence that AGW is the booga booga man but it says nothing of the sort.

            Not sure what you are saying with lower N concentrations? Are you saying that more dilute (ie less per unit mass) is not less? If I eat 100g of wheat flour in a cake with 13% less N, surely it will have 13% less? The yield in the plant is up so the total N might be about the same, but I now need to eat more cake to get the same amount of N. If (yes, just “if”) this is N that I need then I am eating a whole lot more stuff I don’t need to get the amount I need.

            The amount of N uptake is link to the amount of water uptake, the bottom line is the plant will still contain the same amount of N even though the plant might be slightly larger so is this a problem GA?

            I ask again……no i wont bother as you are too stupid to understand your own evidence but there is NO DOWNSIDE to this.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Craker first of all the link was to a review and it made mention of many studies.

            Second is that the link was sufficient for my original post. The point was that lots of posts on this thread demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the subject with people preferring to just have a stab at interpretation rather than checking to see if the thing they were writing about was already understood through research. I was directing them to the thread.

            Craker, no scientist would ever make a statement in a publication about a phenomenon like “there is No downside” Or “everything about this is good”. Bad science there Craker.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Crakar24

            GA,

            People like you live in bubbles, inside the bubble you have your manufactured fantasy, outside the bubble you have reality and at the boundary is where fantasy and reality collide, lucky for you your bubble protects you from said reality.

            Lets look at your latest offering as an example.

            Craker first of all the link was to a review and it made mention of many studies.

            Incorrect, the link does not specify how many studies so your use of the word “many” is a fabrication.

            Second is that the link was sufficient for my original post. The point was that lots of posts on this thread demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the subject with people preferring to just have a stab at interpretation rather than checking to see if the thing they were writing about was already understood through research. I was directing them to the thread.

            Incorrect, your link supports all but one commentator, Maxine claimed

            It has been shown that increasing CO2 levels does lead to lower nitrogen intake, less protein available. Pampered greenhouse plants might benefit from a whiff extra CO2 but other plants will be poisoned by it.

            Every other comment made is supported by the “results” in your link however this was not your intent the purpose of the link was to support Maxine but that is what happens when you have no idea what you are talking about.

            Case in point.

            Mark D challenges you on this study and the use of the words “major implications” in the summary but you dont respond you just simply “cry stupid”

            For your specific points like the effective N and P concentrations at the root interface… go look it up yourself. I don’t have those data at my fingertips.

            You pulled the same stunt with me when i asked about the veracity of a study that cannot/did not keep co2 levels at a constant level.

            You see GA this is where fantasy collides with reality, you find a dodgy review of a couple of studies that uses the words “major implications” and that is all you read.

            Questions

            1, If the result of increasing CO2 levels are an increased yield, no drop in N and P and a decrease in water required by the plant exactly what are the major implications?

            2, Are the major implications good or bad, hint dont bother looking the warmbot that wrote it did not say, what a useful fool or is that tool you have turned out to be.

            If you think i/we are wrong find one of those FACE studies and see what it says, see if the real scientists that did the work use the words “major implications”

            Here is another study by Taub

            http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N25/B1.php


            Report this

            01

          • #

            so the shift is from “all good” to major implications? Then throw in a whole lot of questions that will take ages to answer and annotate for no particular benefit to anyone. Clever. And story ended. I’ve no time to wander down your garden path.

            And one more thing. I have Taub et al. Would you like a copy to read?


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Crakar24

            What?

            I have made no shift i am simply trying to understand your point of view which is extremely difficult, you offered a link and people have made comment on that link and in return you offer nothing. So lets walk down a couple of garden paths, lets do anything as long as you dont have to respond in a coherent manner.

            You dont need to justify what constitutes a “major implication” based on the FACE experiments, you dont need to clarify what is the problem with rising CO2 levels when the FACE experiments dont actually detail any problems you just keep skipping down garden paths to where the fairies gather and the unicorns graze inside your little bubble.


            Report this

            01

  • #
    Mike Ozanne

    Just asking but :

    Didn’t allegedly tall ethnic groups like the Masai, Tusi, Zulus, Samoans, Tongans evolve in places where its fecking hot…?

    Don’t changes in average height in say the Netherlands and Japan suggest that nutrition particularly protein would have a much stronger role than climate?

    Do the authors of the paper actually get out much?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    There is no way you should be permitted to carry a concealed tie. Especially not a red one with yellow polka dots. Oh the horrors of it all.

    Lionell,

    Perhaps we could issue concealed carry permits for a tie to those hardy souls who want to chance it and are willing to sign a liability waiver. After all, we don’t want to tread too hard on anyone’s civil rights.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Hobbits and neckties — we’ve certainly elevated the discourse about science this time around. Maybe we should do this more often.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Amfortas

    Does this explain Queenslanders?


    Report this

    00

  • #