JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Wetlands like CO2 — “Gimme 700ppm” say sedge-grass

scirpus olneyi | Smithsonian

Not only does one particular grass seem quite happy at 700ppm, it was absorbing 30% more carbon dioxide, and there was no sign that it might not be equally happy at even higher levels. Will disaster strike the world at 401ppm? This 19 year study suggests (again) it might not be so bad. Arguably, 700ppm might be better. Even the C4 plants (supposedly the ones which prefer low CO2) still absorbed 13% more CO2 at 700ppm. (Absorbing more carbon usually means growing faster.)

During the worst drought years, growth slowed dramatically, but drought-stricken plants with 700ppm of CO2 around them still absorbed 4% more.

From the Smithsonian

High CO2 Spurs Wetlands to Absorb More Carbon

Under elevated carbon dioxide levels, wetland plants can absorb up to 32 percent more carbon than they do at current levels, according to a 19-year study published in Global Change Biology from the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Md. With atmospheric CO2 passing the 400 parts-per-million milestone this year, the findings offer hope that wetlands could help soften the blow of climate change.

Plant physiologist Bert Drake created the Smithsonian’s Global Change Ecological Research Wetland in 1987 at Edgewater. Back then, most scientists thought plants would gradually stop responding to rising CO2. Whether or not terrestrial ecosystems could assimilate additional carbon—and act as powerful carbon sinks—was not known. This study tracked not only how much CO2 wetlands absorb, but also the impact of rising temperature and sea level, changing rainfall and plant type.

To simulate a high-CO2 world, Drake’s team surrounded marsh plots with open-top Mylar chambers. For this study they left half of the chambers exposed to today’s atmosphere. In the other half they added CO2 and raised the level to 700 ppm, roughly doubling the CO2 concentration as it was in 1987. Other plots of land were left without chambers. They compared the levels of CO2 going in and CO2 going out to determine the carbon exchange between the wetland and the atmosphere.

Two types of plants populate most of the world, and the experiment tested both. C3 plants—which include more than 95 percent of the plant species on earth, including trees—form molecules of three carbon atoms during photosynthesis, and they tend to photosynthesize more as atmospheric CO2 rises. C4 plants form molecules of four carbon atoms. But for C4 plants, photosynthesis is saturated with CO2 at present levels. For that reason the team expected photosynthesis to increase in the C3 plants but not the C4 plants as they raised CO2. In this study, half the plots were dominated by the C3 sedge Scirpus olneyi and half by the C4 grass Spartina patens.

The C3 plants saw the largest increases. Over the 19-year study, they absorbed on average 32 percent more carbon under higher CO2 than under normal CO2. Most of the increase took place during the day, as the plants absorbed extra CO2 through photosynthesis. But the team was surprised to find that elevated CO2 also decreased the amount of carbon the plants lost at night through respiration. That reduction was due in part to a decrease in the amount of nitrogen in both types of plants when they grew in the high-atmospheric CO2. Also contrary to their expectations, the C4 plants saw a 13 percent increase under elevated CO2, also predominantly during the day but partially at night.

“We expected that more carbon would be assimilated during the day due to stimulation of photosynthesis,” Drake said. “We did not expect that loss of carbon at night would also be affected by the elevated CO2.”

Read the rest of the press release, or the copy of that at Science Daily.

 

REFERENCES

Erickson, J.E., Peresta,G.,  Montovan,K., Drake, B. (2013) Direct and indirect effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on net ecosystem production in a Chesapeake Bay tidal wetland. Global Change Biolog, DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12316

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (49 votes cast)
Wetlands like CO2 -- "Gimme 700ppm" say sedge-grass, 8.9 out of 10 based on 49 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/muh9g99

162 comments to Wetlands like CO2 — “Gimme 700ppm” say sedge-grass

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Somebody’s been conducting naughty empirical experiments over the longer term rather than leaving it all to the chicken entrails of GCM projections as interpreted by Climastrological Catastropharians. I wonder how long it will take for this real science team to be wound up through lack of funding?

    360

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      How will they do the research without their heretical empiricism being discovered? Usually the police helicopters take an intense interest in anyone secretly growing herbaceous plants in the outback.

      It’s much like the days of Leonardo Da Vinci when aspiring medical doctors could only learn anatomy by stealing bodies from the morgue and performing autopsies in secret meetings.

      Perhaps Drake’s Daring Carbon Crew can pretend to be monitoring the effects of climate change on depression in Australian males, then they can set up test greenhouses secretly inside one of the Men’s Sheds charities. With help from the locals of course…

      Micko, put that CO2 canister inside the greenhouse for Mr Erickson.
      Wozza, help doctor Drake put up the grow lights.
      Jerry, get the good doctor a beer, there’s a good chap.
      Yanos, rack `em up on the pool table will ya?
      Bazza, mate, you’re on guard duty. If anyone approaches ask them what the price of a litre of milk is. If they don’t know then they’re with the government and you can tell them they can’t come in; it’s secret men’s business today.
      Now lads, let’s get some climate science going!

      90

      • #
      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Commercial flower growers regularly pump CO2 into their greenhouses.

        Since they grow to order, based on what is required in an overseas market, and when, they can vary the rate of growth by changing the level of CO2.

        CO2 directly influences the amount of water and nutrient uptake, and hence the size and quality of the plants.

        Tomato growers do much the same thing, except they don’t tend to vary the amount of CO2 since they already know the optimum level for the type of tomato they are growing in each greenhouse.

        In all cases, the level of CO2 is at least 450 ppm.

        The trouble with most urban greens is that they think that tomatoes and flowers come from the supermarket, and they never seem to wonder where, or how, the supermarket gets them.

        And they certainly never want to ask where the meat comes from!

        80

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      These researchers also seem to have omitted the horrible truth that a by-product of these plants absorbing more carbon is that they have released Oxygen into the atmosphere. Now, we all know that with, fuel and heat that additional oxygen is going to help to sustain a nasty hazardous fire. We’re doomed.

      40

    • #
      Ace

      In the UK when field experiments with real crops (genetically modified) were first attempted Lord Melchett and his masked white overalled “Brown Shirts” of the Green Fascism turned up to trample and destroy the entire field. All thse colours add a whole diffrent meaning to “rainbow coalition”.

      I suspect, had they known where it would lead, this marvellously named geezers wetlands would have been desecrated by the Eco-Black-Shirts as well!

      Black, white, brown and green. Can canyon expand upon this palette?

      20

      • #
        Byron

        Ace,
        There is a group in Mongolia going for the whole palette , a one stop group for the totalitarian Who`s come out of the closet, all the colours of fascism in one uniform , that`s right , They`ve got ………..Mongolian Neo-Eco Nazis

        10

    • #
      sophocles

      Heh. Quite right, Kevin.

      But we don’t even need to “conduct naughty empirical experiments” to see the effects of
      higher CO2 levels. The evidence for the huge diversity of life from such levels is all through
      the fossil record. Just take a walk through a well-equipped natural history museum and you
      can see evidence from the past just how well the whole environment thrivesunder
      much higher levels of CO2, all life, not just plants.

      I define a “well-equipped natural history museum” as one which has an apatosaurus (eg Carnegie
      Natural History Museum), or an argentinosaurus (eg Senkenburg Nature Museum Frankfurt) or a
      similarly large (approx 40m long and 25tonne mass) herbivorous dinosaur skeleton on display.

      How could these giants occur?

      Easy: adequate food. High levels of CO2 in the atmosphere 100MY ago, at about 2000 plus ppm,
      and more meant forests browsed by these monsters regenerated and recovered sufficiently quickly
      for the herds of these beasties to be “environmentally sustainable.”

      And if these beasties were sustainable, then their predators were too. Eg: the allosauridae
      culminating in the tyrannosauridae such as Tyrannosaurus Rex (eg Carnegie Museum of Natural
      History) and other large carnivores.

      That was then. CO2 levels are now so low, the largest herbivorous land animal which can be
      sustainably supported at present concentrations of CO2 is the African Elephant at
      4m long and 4tonnes (very approximately).

      We are told in all earnestness “elevated levels of CO2 are dangerous.” Yeah, right.
      All the proof needed to refute is there in the Natural History Museums.

      Mind you, “naughty empirical experiments” could be more fun!

      “There are none so blind as those who will not see!”

      60

  • #
    Richard

    Skeptics have always said that increasing CO2 would do wonders for the environment by enhancing the growth-rates of plants and by providing vita- nutrition to microorganisms – Warmists on the other hand have re-branded it ‘pollution’ and even compare it with super-toxic substances like arsenic. NASA satellites have measured a huge increase in worldwide vegetation from 1982-onwards, and a recent study by Donohue et al 2013 has found that an increase in CO2 of 14% between 1982-2010 may have been responsible for an increase in worldwide vegeation of about 5-10%. Imagine how many hungry bellies that’s helped to feed, and how many lives it’s saved.

    150

  • #

    Nature continues greening the planet (in the true sense of the word) while human beings show just how smart they are by declaring war on the CO2 that’s doing it. Evolutionary speaking, it looks to me like human intelligence is still very much in the kiddie stage.

    161

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Interesting idea A.D.
      Taking in the timeframe our progress fit’s in with the Ancient Aliens theory touted by some.
      I believe we’re at the “Idiot Savant stage” hopefully not stuck forever. ;)

      30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I think, as a species, we have had our moment of glory, in the Renaissance Period in Europe.

      Now we are on the decline.

      “Whosoever the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad”.

      50

  • #
    Manfred

    And in a nearby Galaxy the US EPA:
    ‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act’

    Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) — in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

    Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/

    40

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    At 500 pmm greenies would die from apoplexy

    I can’t wait

    150

  • #

    Some gardening nurseries artificially increase the concentration of CO2 in their greenhouses by direct injection of CO2 and venting products of combustion from their heating equipment into their greenhouses in winter. Nurseries have found a concentration of 1,000 ppm to be ideal for plant growth.

    With a CO2 concentration below 100 ppm, photosynthesis ceases and this lush green world we enjoy would be turned into a lifeless, frozen ball.

    Enjoy what’s left of this 10,500 year old Interglacial Warmup Period. A 90,000 year long Ice Age is in the batter’s box.

    131

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    ‘“Gimme 700ppm” say sedge-grass’ well that may be good for sedge-grass, but overall that doesn’t mean it will be good! A case of ‘too much of a good thing’! Other factors have to be taken into consideration!

    Co2 good for plants?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wRoCBluQ50

    327

    • #
      Yonniestone

      “Other factors have to be taken into consideration!”
      - Useless green jobs.
      - Corrupt carbon market.
      - Erosion of the scientific method.
      - Socialist progression.
      You know blackdildothe4th you’re right!
      My sincere apology.

      192

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        “Other factors have to be taken into consideration!”
        ‘- Useless green jobs.
        - Corrupt carbon market.
        - Erosion of the scientific method.
        - Socialist progression.’

        So where/what is your evidence?

        223

    • #
      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        And?

        09

        • #
          Heywood

          “The exclamation mark or exclamation point is a punctuation mark usually used after an interjection or exclamation to indicate strong feelings or high volume (shouting),

          Some people consider shouting in blogs rude.

          50

          • #
            Dave

            Heywood,

            I think you may have to do a video of it to make the dumb one understand this, or anything.

            BA4th – what is the ratio of C4 to C3 plants in biomass terms today?

            30

            • #
              Heywood

              According to ‘BA4′ I am not smart enough to upload a video to YouTube. It takes a REAL smart guy to do that apparently. I wish my claim to fame was having a YouTube channel. I too could be alongside such greats as “Cute Kitties” and “Watch me play COD4″.

              30

              • #
                crakar24

                Hey, nothing wrong with COD4……….

                20

              • #
                Heywood

                “Hey, nothing wrong with COD4……….”

                Yeah, nothing wrong with playing it.. Recording your game and displaying it for all to see on YouTube is a little sad though.

                10

              • #
                crakar24

                It depends, was he any good?

                I saw a guy in BF3, in a F18 dog fight, in a vertical climb get out of the plane pull out his RPG and shoot the plane in front then get back in the plane again.

                Normally when i am required to pull out my RPG i am in a panic, fumble it and drop it on the ground :)

                Seriously yes it is a little self serving isnt it, i dont mind the ones done as a tutorial for us newbies.

                10

              • #
                Annie

                Hello Heywood. You certainly have a ‘cute’ kitty as your avatar. (Dare I put the exclamation mark after that?).

                10

            • #
              AndyG55

              Maybe we should ask him how plants survived pre-carboniferous, when the CO2 level was 10 times or more the very meagre, subsistence levels we currently have.

              40

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘when the CO2 level was 10 times or more’ evolution I expect! But how many humans were around at the same time? Not many, damn that evolution thing!

                07

              • #
                Heywood

                Interesting.. “Michael” finishes his session of thread bombing and BA4th appears…

                Starting to look like more than a coincidence….

                31

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              @Dave
              July 17, 2013 at 9:05 am

              ‘what is the ratio of C4 to C3 plants in biomass terms today?’ I assume you mean ‘natural’ co2 compared to product of fossil fuel burning? Don’t know, but plants prefer ‘natural’ co2, as far as I remember, but use any co2. What is your point?

              09

              • #
                Dave

                BA4

                Plants prefer “natural CO2″.

                NO they don’t: C3 plants prefer CO2 from non fossil fuel origins, while C4 and CAM plants are not selective. And the question was, for the biomass ratio of each type of photosynthetic pathway on earth today, and it may give you a clue.

                What you have to do is study the difference in how each system works, and then wonder why science today has started to not investigate the C4 and CAM pathway, simply because they will find some CARBON source figures that don’t agree with them. Even though the science is saying that the C3 plants growth is greater in higher CO2 levels, it is the biomass or sequestration of fossil fuel (and volcanic etc) generated CO2 that is the most important aspect.

                Keep an open mind BA4, and check out how increasing the supply of CO2 to C3 plants will increase the rate of rubis­co’s reaction and the subsequent production of sugars, while C4 plants, the rubisco is concentrated in specialized cells. This concentration mechanism means that rising atmospheric CO2 won’t directly benefit C4 photosynthesis.

                Also water reduction is a side benefit, as plants grown with elevated CO2 levels do not need to open their stomata as much to satisfy CO2 needs, so less water is lost. This increases whole-plant water use efficiency and allows both
                C3 and C4 crops to maintain higher photosynthetic rates during times of drought.

                Do you see the advantages of increased CO2 levels now. While CAM plants are a whole different ball game.

                20

              • #
                Heywood

                He’s stuck because he can’t find it on YouTube…

                40

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Don’t know, but plants prefer ‘natural’ co2,”

                roflmao.. OMG, you stupid, stupid macaroon !!

                22

              • #
                AndyG55

                1. Plants are better able to process C12 than C13.. a plant does not “prefer”.. it takes what is there.
                2 Fossil fuels increase the C12 to C13 ratio
                3. There is no real difference in C13 of fossil fuel and vegetation decay, both are in average around 25 per mil c13

                Therefore.. Plant LUV fossil fuel CO2

                Time to kick those coal fired power station back into action !!

                10

              • #
                AndyG55

                ps. I might add that C13 is around 1% of atmospheric CO2, so it make F all difference anyway.

                10

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              @Dave
              July 17, 2013 at 7:12 pm

              ‘Plants prefer “natural CO2″.

              ‘NO they don’t: C3 plants prefer CO2 from NON FOSSIL FUEL origins’, is that not an oxymoron?

              ‘Do you see the advantages of increased CO2 levels now’ NO!

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wRoCBluQ50

              14

              • #
                Dave

                BA4

                That’s why asked the original question.

                Oxymoron is not the appropriate terminology in this case. What is the biomass ratio?

                10

          • #
            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              @AndyG55
              July 17, 2013 at 8:56 pm

              ‘you stupid, stupid macaroon !!’ and what do you base that on?

              04

              • #
                AndyG55

                Plants have absolutely NO IDEA where the CO2 came from !

                What do you think, are the psychic or sometime ?

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                Weird vision of little pixies inside the leaf inspecting where each CO2 molecule came from.

                An origin inquisition, so to speak.

                “Oh no, this one came from burning coal… quick get rid of it !”

                10

    • #
      AndyG55

      The original Blackadder was a comedy character, who was a perpetual abject failure.

      You just leave out the comedy part.

      60

      • #
        Brian G Valentine

        He’s just horsing around, he doesn’t REALLY believe that “CO2 in the air” garbage that he has been told on the TV.

        Nobody really believes it, not even the people pretending to look and sound “serious” about it, it’s a big effort for them not to laugh at how stupid it all is

        50

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          ‘that he has been told on the TV’ I don’t have a TV! So I don’t watch many moving pictures! But read New Scientist, etc on the web.

          ‘Nobody really believes it’ I think you’ll find current polls say 60% do!

          02

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        @AndyG55
        July 17, 2013 at 9:31 pm

        ‘What do you think, are the psychic or sometime ?’ I think you are being obtuse! By being too literal with the word ‘prefer’, of course I’m not saying they intelligently choose which carbon they take! But, they find it easier to use c12 as compared to c14!

        03

        • #
          AndyG55

          C14 which makes up 10^-12 parts of CO2.. Get real, fool !!!

          You again prove you have absolutely no idea what you are even talking about.

          20

    • #
      manalive

      Although they kid themselves otherwise, CAGW worriers are closet Gaia worshippers believing that “… Gaia is life working as a whole to maintain the atmosphere as it is, so that life can go on …” (Tim Flannery “The Weather Makers”) — basically a teleological argument.
      Around 1950, AGW kick-off according to the IPCC, the global temperature was around half a degree C cooler than now and the CO2 concentration was about 310 ppm.
      There was nothing ‘ideal’, Gaia-given, about those numbers, they just happen to have been the case at that time.
      Even at ~400 ppm CO2 concetration is near as low as ever in the history of the planet.
      Trenberth’s predictions are at odds with the data; atmospheric water vapour has been falling or stable at different levels in the troposphere, weather extremes are not increasing.
      In any case it is a matter of cost-benefit.
      World extreme poverty, which means millions unnecessary deaths of mostly children, has dropped from around 45% in 1980 to 20% today — in fact the CO2 concentration can be viewed as a reverse proxy for world poverty.
      In context, quibbling about increased weed growth or ‘angry summers’ etc. is a bit shabby IMO.

      41

      • #
        Ace

        BUT…they want to see FEWER children survive to adulthood.

        20

      • #
        manalive

        World extreme poverty, which means millions unnecessary deaths of mostly children …

        I should have said avoidable deaths.

        10

        • #
          Ace

          Whats the difference…these National Eco Socialist Schwarz Staffers like our Sugar Plum Dong Kopf here (see lower down) just want to run with the meme however many it kills…they then get all shrill and shirty over FIVE PEOPLE who die in a hurricane somewhere that…of course (doh) you and me have caused by our failure to worship thir idols.

          20

      • #
        Backslider

        Around 1950, AGW kick-off according to the IPCC

        Whoa! Don’t tell Michael that! He claims that AGW brought us out of The Little Ice Age.

        20

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Well you really nailed what the debate has always been about.

      The western world demands 25c, sunny with light winds and cool evenings. A little rain now and then to stop farmers from whining too much because it makes the “Chardonay” less enjoyable in Melbourne’s Al Fresco whine bars. So any conditions that are actually or may ever be less than perfect is basically cause to say things like…

      “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”. Tim Flannery
      “The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.” Tim Flannery
      “There are islands in the Torres Strait that are already being evacuated and are feeling the impacts (of global warming).” Tim Flannery (100% wrong)
      “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” David Viner

      And the list goes on… all 100% wrong. But its ok because these well meaning idiots only wanted to “raise our awareness maaaaaan” so telling a few white lies is ok if your heart is in the right place yes ?

      As for polar bears…. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868

      Do you know how we can tell that the vast majority of organisms on the planet are able to withstand sever climate change ?

      THEY ARE HERE!

      And what we call climate change is nothing more than an inconvenient lie. A little blip on the scale of the earth’s age and complexity. So small and so immeasurable that I dont even believe this debate can or will be resolved in our lifetimes, the time scales are just not long enough to get enough observational data (thats right data not dodgy backyard modeling) to draw firm conclusions. 200-300 years of mostly arguable temperature data out of a 2.5 billion year old system is used to make arguments ? Laughable my friend… just laughable…

      So dont fret, your sidewalk, coffee sipping, hand wringing, pretendy concerns will be able to go on for some time yet. Time is on your side as far as being scared and small goes. You can cry the sky is falling for at least a few more generations before the data will show you it was always pinned up pretty securely.

      50

      • #
        Backslider

        time scales are just not long enough to get enough observational data

        What? Surely you are joking, right? THIRTEEN YEARS of data from Argo Buoys is perfectly enough to tell us how much the oceans are warming….. isn’t it? 8O

        30

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          Frankly Im surprised they waited that long. Youd think theyd just have a guess, or make a wild claim anyway. Why change now ?

          10

          • #
            Backslider

            Well, don’t forget that the rollout of the Argo’s wasn’t completed until 2007…..

            00

      • #
        Annie

        “Melbourne’s Al Fresco whine bars”. Hilarious…I love it.

        00

  • #
    AndyG55

    Hey, nice one Jo.

    Good to see you adopting my “Toward 700ppm” meme. !!

    Nature LUVS CO2

    41

    • #
      blackadderthe4th

      ‘Nature LUVS CO2′ are you sure about that! So by does it keep moving to avoid its effects!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sNtemijNn4

      016

      • #
        AndyG55

        I’m not interested in your puerile, irrelevant little youtube videos.

        Get an education, preferably with some real science, then get back to us.

        80

        • #
          Heywood

          Lol.. Science via YouTube. Might as well be doing science via Wikipedia.

          50

          • #
            AndyG55

            I had a quick peak the link.. It was a BBC talk thingy uploaded by that first class moron “uknowitmakessense”.

            20

            • #
              Heywood

              BBC?

              So a balanced report then?

              ;)

              40

            • #
              Sugarplumfairy

              Hi Andy,

              Old habits die hard, old son.

              Let’s look at a few of your comments over recent times here:

              No, moron..

              You super-GULLIBLE braindead zombie.

              JB know nothing of dignity or grace.

              He lives in a world of green slime !!

              You are brain dead. !!

              …pussilanimous morons, BOTH

              You moron, are the picture child for gullibility!

              Sorry fool,
              Mattb isn’t even a scientist’s a******e.
              A donkey’s a******e, perhaps ?

              No John.. it is YOU that lacks significance.
              You are a NON-entity, a blot, and “emptiness”

              Don’t PANIC, Nonce !!!

              You insignificant, puerile, little git !!

              You serve no purpose !!

              DESPERATION , Nonce.. you got nothing !! FOOL !!

              GET A GRIP, you poor little worms. !!

              I know…. but “goose” is far more appropriate !

              and at the time I couldn’t think of an appropriate/usable “c” word.

              Slimy Git = JFC

              Come off it.. the only thing JB ever reads is his inane scrawlings on his padded office walls.

              The only drogos here are JB, KFC etc.. and I couldn’t give a rat’s about insulting them.

              You got nothing, NONCE !! you feeble little git. !

              No Eddy, NOT ONE of the CAGW scum would dare……

              do some research you ignorant little twerp.

              Poor little worm. !!!

              Very, very few, from anywhere, at the next election.. FOOL !!

              No, you moron, donations are more likely linked to thumbs up, and you generate NOTHING,
              Because that’s what you are.. . . a nothing, an empty waste of time and space.
              oh dear.. you stupid moronic half-witted fool..

              Basically a bunch of non-entities !
              John Cook’s boy friend , perhaps ??

              “trough” is almost certainly the correct word for this slimy git.. . . or maybe “swill”

              btw, Which climate trough are you swilling on?
              that’s PATENTLY OBVIOUS, because you are as ignorant as an amoeba.
              A moronic brain-dead non-entity.

              And now we have this:

              I had a quick peak the link.. It was a BBC talk thingy uploaded by that first class moron “uknowitmakessense”.

              And without any provocation on my part, you once referred to me as a pusillanimous moron. It sounds like a Moncktonism to me, and yes I had to look up pusillanimous.

              We could go on, there are plenty more over the last few months.

              Now, are you the same AndyG55 who posted this on WUWT????

              AndyG55 says:
              August 22, 2012 at 3:53 am
              Oh NO !!!!!! Unprecedented tropic storms .. in the tropics..
              Quick, alter the cawg bletheren !!!
              Anyway.. Isn’t it about time you guys over there had another decent hurricane, they have been pretty few and far between of late.

              In the USA, five people died as a result of Hurricane Isaac, Andy, and damage totalled $US2.35 billion. I’m sure the families of the deceased and all those who lost their homes appreciated your encouragement. Not even a moron would wish death and destruction on others.

              You are, by any standard, a stupid, stupid man.

              114

              • #
                Ace

                Sugarplumasshole: FIVE PEOPLE DIED…well F%$36 ME…aint that utterly awful…YOU twirp, are a complete pillock!

                90

              • #
                Sugarplumfairy

                Hi Ace,

                Tasteful reply. And you all keep telling us how you care for all humanity.

                I never thought we’d find a bigger idiot than AndyG55, but you have proven me wrong.

                110

              • #
                Ace

                Sugar plum dong-kopf……..”Tasteful reply. And you all keep telling us how you care for all humanity.”..

                Well it may have spent all day cutting Andy wotnots words out of their context (its called “traduction”) but it certainly aint got a bead on me: Ive never said I give a shit about anyone but myself…Im honrest…all last inter on here I was repeating my complaints about these eco-pinheads purely on the grounds that I was suffering as a direct result of their ideology.

                Like I said, a complete pillock. The kind of pillock that “cared” so much they put Adolf Hitler into office.

                30

              • #
                AndyG55

                Good to know you have been following the discussion.

                My posts obviously interest you immensely. Thanks. :-)

                Pity you haven’t learnt anything.

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                And yes, when I see a stupid pussillanimous git, I will call it a stupid pussillanimous git.

                You are as you are. Not my fault.!

                20

              • #
                Heywood

                Wow AndyG55, congratulations, you have a stalker

                Imagine this,

                “Dinner is ready dear”

                “Can’t come right now honey, too busy compiling a list of AndyG55 quotes, super serious stuff.”

                What a life.

                70

              • #
                AndyG55

                Yes Heywood, Sweet isn’t it. :-)

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                @Ace “The kind of pillock that “cared” so much they put Adolf Hitler into office.”

                And if we are extremely unlucky his kind of moronic pillock will put KRudd in as PM! Same result.

                Now there’s a guy that cares……. about one person only.

                40

              • #
                Mark D.

                SP Fairy, I’ve read all your quotes and quips, so what is the problem?

                Then this really deep tidbit:

                In the USA, five people died as a result of Hurricane Isaac, Andy, and damage totalled $US2.35 billion. I’m sure the families of the deceased and all those who lost their homes appreciated your encouragement. Not even a moron would wish death and destruction on others.

                You are, by any standard, a stupid, stupid man.

                People die all the time all over the world. Do you really think Andy created the hurricane? No. Did he benefit by their loss of 2.35 billion? I doubt it.

                So you can take your progressive left leaning sob story and perhaps insert it into the orifice nearest to your brain.

                You are, by any standard, a stupid, stupid man.

                70

              • #
                Backslider

                Sourplumogre…. you are a truly, truly sick person to have been collecting Ace quotes like that. You could be arrested for stalking, but I think rather you need psychiatric help…. really, you do.

                30

              • #
                Backslider

                *typo – Andy quotes… but I wouldn’t be surprised to find you have a list of Ace quotes also.

                20

              • #
                Tim

                You could try an early night with a glass of warm milk.

                00

            • #
              Ace

              What really tickles m is that every ass-nut and rectal-sphinctre should demand validation for the mere observation of what they are. I mean, where does one begin?

              20

          • #
            AndyG55

            I mean, no wonder ba has ZERO idea about anything if that is the type of source he uses. !! Next he’ll be linking SkS or something !

            30

            • #
              Ace

              Theres no point arguing with a two-dimnsional entity, just ask, does he have a beard and how much Radio Head has he listened to? Or if hes over 40, did he once shave his head and have albums by REM?

              30

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          @AndyG55
          July 17, 2013 at 8:51 am · Reply

          ‘Get an education, preferably with some real science, then get back to us’ so its obvious you haven’t watched any! Because they are full of real science!

          14

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            … they are full of real science!

            Only if you classify propaganda and “creative editing” as science.

            31

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              ‘Only if you classify propaganda and “creative editing” as science’ OK pick one and decide what the propaganda is and let me and everybody else know! “creative editing” well seen as 99% are straight copies of clips from the original, the link to which should be in description, where is the ‘creative editing’? And what is it?

              15

          • #
            AndyG55

            You wouldn’t know real science if it bit you on the a**e.

            11

      • #
        Neville

        Blackadder, you must really seriously be the most scientifically illiterate drongo I’ve ever had the misfortune to read on this website!
        I STRONGLY suggest you acquire even just a LITTLE basic scientific knowledge – starting with what EXACTLY the “scientific method” actually means – before you proceed with your ten cent’s worth in these discussions.
        And that’s the polite comment. (don’t make me resort to the blunt one!)

        11

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          ‘just a LITTLE basic scientific knowledge’ well assuming you are in the AGW anti-science mafia, you wouldn’t know knowledge if it hit you with a dead fish across the face!

          12

          • #
            Sonny

            Blackfodderthe4th

            You are a useful idiot. (Not to me, to people far richer than me)

            Congratulations.

            11

  • #
    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Quite right. The actual land surface area of the Sahara is decreasing as plant life starts to encroach into the desert.

      It is hard for plants to grow in the sandy and rocky conditions, so the rate of establishment is slow, but it is happening, not that you would see it mentioned in the MSM.

      It is the course, low-lying grasses that establish first, and their root systems give shelter to other plants that live and then die, leaving their plant matter to compost and make soil. These plants are literally turning CO2 into soil, that can support other plants. And the more CO2 there is, the more soil is created.

      20

  • #
    PhilR

    Crikey, you mean the palnet has the ability to adapt. Amazing.

    30

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Its a recent discovery….

      Can you imagine our predecessors reading this debate and seeing this argument playing out.

      They have just come through at least 2 ice ages with nothing more than sticks and bear skins and they watch us wringing our hands till the skin falls off that we might have to tolerate 2c warming…

      Its times like these I am basically embarrassed to be human. Modern man is in the main, a soft, weak, frightened little creature, jumping at its own shadow and seeing the faces of deities on toast slices.

      Its so weak it makes me sick.

      60

    • #
      Backslider

      you mean the palnet has the ability to adapt

      The “palnet”. Yes, this came up the other day. The palnet will continue to release “peer reviewed” papers which will show they predicted everything that happens…. don’t you worry about that, they most certainly will adapt.

      40

  • #
    pat

    17 July: Australian: David Crowe: Why Kevin Rudd will never ‘terminate carbon tax’
    LABOR is facing a parliamentary veto over its attempt to cut the carbon price next year as the Coalition and the Greens savage the new plan and challenge Kevin Rudd’s vow to ease the cost of living for families…
    Labor is not planning to legislate the changes before the election but has targeted a strategy of arguing for the reforms during the campaign and claiming a mandate for the amendments if Mr Rudd holds on to power…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/why-kevin-rudd-will-never-terminate-carbon-tax/story-e6frg6xf-1226680449065

    17 July: Australian: Lauren Wilson: Labor ready to act on ETS before poll
    Climate Change Minister Mark Butler says laws to scrap the fixed price and move to an internationally-linked emissions trading scheme on July 1 next year would be ready before this year’s federal election.
    “In the event that parliament were to resume before the election, I could take draft legislation to the parliament,” he told the ABC this morning…
    Finance Minister Penny Wong said the Greens need to be “held responsible for their destructive impact on climate policy over these last years”…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/labor-ready-to-act-on-ets-before-poll/story-e6frg6xf-1226680616878?from=google_rss&google_editors_picks=true

    20

  • #
    pat

    News Ltd & AAP (same thing) believe Climate Institue survey!

    16 July: Australian: AAP: Opposition softens to carbon tax: survey
    The Climate Institute says a growing number of Australians reject the argument the carbon tax is based on false science and agree the impost should be given a go.
    Attitudes about climate change were emerging from the shadows of the perceived “carbon tax lie”, institute CEO John Connor said.
    “There is a sentiment of give carbon pricing a go,” he said in a statement.
    The research found that two-thirds of Australians accept climate change science, with a majority believing it was having an impact…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/opposition-softens-to-carbon-tax-survey/story-e6frg6xf-1226680017448

    pity for the above that this report came out today!

    17 July: ABC AM: Science literacy on the decline among young adults
    A new survey has raised concerns about the level of scientific literacy in Australia, especially among young adults…
    The academy has just conducted a survey of 1,500 people asking simple science questions. It found more than 40 per cent didn’t know how long it took the Earth to orbit the sun, and Professor Field is most surprised that three out of 10 Australians think humans lived with the dinosaurs…
    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3804599.htm

    20

    • #
      ianl8888

      Try this simple question in any shopping market:

      Why is “daylight saving” less effective the closer you are to the equator ?

      Be prepared for the answers with ear plugs. I even had one person answer this question by stating that houses in the equatorial belt could solve this by using shorter curtains

      I was completely flabbergasted by an inner-Melbourne academic feminist (her self-description) insisting that the famous Einstein equation E = mc^2 was sexist because it privileged the speed of light above other speeds. That still has me speechless

      70

  • #
    Frank.P.White

    I noticed that plants need less nitrogen when CO2 is elevated.

    If this works for crops, it means a savings in fertilizer required, a reduction in pollution, and reduction in CO2 resulting from less demand / production of nitrogen fertilizer, which takes a lot of energy to produce and transport.

    There is some double-counting in my list, but a competent economist and engineer team could resolve that.

    20

  • #
    ROM

    I’m surprised that only Sedge Grass is listed as benefitting from increased CO2 as CO2 is a fundamental requirement for plant life of every biologically related origins including the basic flora of the oceans that underpins all life in the oceans.

    The CO2 Science site in it’s data section has listed the laboratory derived photosynthetic responses and the plant bio-mass responses to increased CO2 of 300 ppm, 600 ppm and 900 ppm over and above the present atmospheric CO2 levels.

    Wheat which is the world’s largest basic food crop, as an example, is listed as increasing it’s bio-mass by 33% when atmospheric CO2 is increased by another 300 ppm. And this of course implies similar increases in yields of grain
    Wheat’s photosynthetic response from the same CO2 Science “data” tables is increased by some 60% again when CO2 is increased by 300 ppm over the background levels of about 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2.

    CO2 Science Data tables; http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php

    The CO2 Science has a whole raft of papers listed on the responses of plants to various CO2 levels.

    There are a large number of papers out of the global Agricultural research industry that have looked at the effects rapidly growing crops have on the localised CO2 levels and how our basic global food crops are affected in growth rates, yields, water useage, protien and carbohydrates levels, nutrition and disease susceptibilities and resistance at higher CO2 numbers

    Agricultural researchers are running a number of globally co-ordinated open air CO2 enhanced crop experiments around the world to measure plant growth response in the field to increased CO2 levels.

    One of Australia’s research efforts in this field is here at Horsham’s [ Victoria ] Grain’s Innovation Park.

    National wheat Free Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment (FACE) array

    This research arose after the very puzzling finding that sometimes Corn in the American Corn Belt which is centred around and south of the Great Lakes and in the hot, very high humidity conditions ideally suited to the extremely rapid growth characteristics of Corn, sometimes just stopped growing during the latter part of the day.
    This was found to occur on very still, windless days.
    Research found that for a couple of metres above the corn canopy, the CO2 content of the air had been depleted to such a low level that photosynthesis ceased due to the lack of the absolutely essential to plant life and plant growth. CO2,
    Where there were at least some steady breezes above the canopy the problem did not occur as the CO2 depleted air above the canopy was being replaced by fresh air being brought in via the breezes and wind

    Once CO2 falls to below about 180 ppm of CO2, plants of every type will probably not survive and most certainly will not grow.
    CO2 is taken into the plant through Leaf Stomata, minute eye lid shaped pores on the underside of the plants leaves.
    If the atmospheric vapour pressure of CO2 at say 180 ppm falls below the internal pressures within a plant then the plant cannot acquire the essential to it’s biological processes and energy systems, the CO2 to continue it’s biological processes and so it dies.

    In high CO2 environments like around 600 ppm or higher, wheat does best in yields at 700 ppm. 300 ppm of CO2 more than today’s atmospheric levels of 400 ppm. then the plant doew not need as many or as large leaf stomata to take in required CO2.

    Those leaf stomata are also the outlets which plants use to respire water used for both transporting nutrients within the plant and for the biological processes and to maintain the temperature range in which the plant biological processes operate best at under the conditions it is growing in.

    So with increased CO2 the leaf stomata are both fewer and smaller and therefore the transpiration of water through the leaf stomata is also reduced.
    Resulting in a much faster growing plant BUT only using about the same amount of water to achieve this higher growth rate.
    Which is another reason why desert areas with the same historical precipitation levels as formerly are now greening with the extra and increased atmospheric CO2. The desert plants have the stimulus of the extra CO2 but are doing it all, ie; growing faster and better on the same amount of water.

    A spin off of the leaf stomata research is that based on fossilised leaves from a number of sources, plant biologists have come up with the researched finding that pre-industrial CO2 levels were close to 310 ppm to 320 ppm, not the 280 ppm so beloved of the global warmers or whatever they call it today.
    This above 300 ppm of pre-industrial CO2 is in line with a a lot of 18th century measurements of atmospheric CO2 conducted with great care by the scientists of those times.
    Of course starting at 280 ppm with an increase of CO2 to 400 ppm today sounds a damn sight more frightening that if the base levels of pre-industrial CO2 started at 310 or 320 ppm.

    CO2 levels across the planet are far from uniform.
    An Ag researcher from Horsham spent some time in China on an Agricultural research project some 400 kms west of Beijing a few years a ago when CO2 was supposedly just above 280 ppm.
    He regularly measured local levels of CO2 in this rural farming environment at 420 ppm.

    There is much, much more I could comment on re plants and CO2 but this will have to do.
    Basically it comes down to a case of if we want to feed the global population of around 9 billions, a figure predicted to be reached by about 2040 before we start to see a very slow global population decline then we need to push up global CO2 levels to around 500 or 600 ppm.
    If we want to see deserts bloom once again then, ditto.
    If we want to see increased global precipitation then increased plant growth will do that job and for more plant growth we need more CO2.

    Simply put, our plant world and the flora of our oceans are close to the edge due to the low levels of CO2 that we are now living through.

    And if we do a see a warmer world as a consequence of the increased CO2 then that also will be of great benefit to mankind and the bio-sphere of this Earth.

    Despite the land masses along the equatorial regions being very limited in area compared to the amount of land areas in the colder regions of the planet, some 60% of mankind has chosen to live in the warmer above average temperature equatorial regions between the latitudes of the average global temperatures.
    The lowest densities and numbers of mankind and of life of every type are in the coldest regions of the planet.

    And if extra CO2 increases global temperatures by a couple of degrees we will still be close to that great 4000 year long Holocene Climatic Optimum of some 9000 to 5000 years ago that enabled mankind to start on his great journey of Civilisation of which we are the latest and greatest beneficiaries..

    91

    • #
      Dave

      Great comment ROM

      It seems the world grain production increase per year follows the increase in CO2 rate. But especially with the C3 grains like wheat, rice, barley, oats etc. Even peanut production is following the increase also.

      The C4 crops (Maize, sugar cane & Sorghum) increase is not quite a rapid, but still a great improvement.

      The problem is the greenies are using arable land for biofuel crops – also increasing each year instead of food supply.

      The other major problem is deforestation (which the green vandals put last on their list) with 30% of the earth was covered by tropical forest in 1950,and by 1975 only 12% was left, and by 2012 now cover only about 5% of the earth’s land. South America (biofuel production), Asia and Africa have been the three major ones.

      I’d hate to think about the drop in food production levels if the CO2 was still at 270 ppm as it was in the 1700′s.

      20

      • #
        AndyG55

        I think you will find that C4 plants are an adaptation to cope with lower CO2 levels.

        There is an extra step in the photosynthesis cycle, which means they require more energy for the process. Hence they do not respond as quickly when CO2 levels are raised.

        It might be interesting to keep some C4 plants under a raised CO2 environment for a period of time, and see if they revert back to C3 processes.

        13

        • #
          Dave

          Andy,

          That would be interesting, but it’s probably happening now. Another 10 to 20 years of increased CO2 levels, plus a slight cooling in temperatures will see us through, with increased production of C4 sugar cane and C4 corn to feed all the out of work Greenies.

          10

    • #
      AndyG55

      Well stated sir ! :-)

      Toward 700ppm … an beyond.. Let the Earth’s biosphere FLOURISH :-)

      20

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Reminds me of the Stephen Donaldson novel “The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever” in which the planet occasionally goes into a massive greening phase so severe it basically makes the whole place impenetrable jungle lol

        20

        • #
          AndyG55

          Gees SFG, that stuff will turn you crazy..

          I would not like to be inside SD’s mind… seriously warped..

          but a fun read :-)

          Have you got to “Against All Things Ending” yet?

          00

    • #
      Myrrh

      CO2 levels across the planet are far from uniform.
      An Ag researcher from Horsham spent some time in China on an Agricultural research project some 400 kms west of Beijing a few years a ago when CO2 was supposedly just above 280 ppm.
      He regularly measured local levels of CO2 in this rural farming environment at 420 ppm.

      As with the clear findings, well known by corn farmers.., that wind brings in carbon dioxide and the Horsham study that regulary found high levels above 400ppm, this is par for the real science course which does these kind of measurements, but, this is distracted from by the AGW meme “well mixed background” which claims these are “local” situations.

      The “well mixed background” was an idea created by Keeling who said this could be measured from anywhere in the world – so to measure this he went to the biggest active volcano in the world surrounded by active volcanoes and thousands of earthquakes a year over a great volcanic island creating hot spot in warm seas..

      This station is the poster child of the fib of “well mixed background”, claiming it is uncontaminated by local CO2 production.. If you read the way they do the measurements it is a bad joke. They arbitrarily decide when to start measuring, which method is what Keeling began so he could show an increase and claim it was all anthropogenic. He took Callendar’s low estimate which was got by chucking out all the highs and lows.

      The levels now are not shown to be different from what they actually were then, we do have thousands of studies goind back a couple of centuries, because Keeling decided to create the rise by artificially choosing to produce one from the abundant resource he had at his disposal on the active volcano.

      Callendar/Keeling were greenie anti coal, they had an agenda.

      10

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    And we wonder why people are so sucked in by the pseudo science of climate religion.

    http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci-tech/survey-finds-black-holes-in-nations-basic-science-knowledge-20130716-2q2d4.html

    Wonder no more, they wouldn’t be able to distinguish observational data from skewed computer modeling if it was tattooed on their eyelids.

    I postulated about 10 years ago that the world was heading toward an era of what I called “neo superstition” as the uneducated masses started to outnumber the educated and perhaps more importantly the scientifically curious. Well we are on our way to that place right now.

    Shows on TV about ghosts have larger audiences than Time Team. People believe other people can commune with the dead while being part of religions that dont support the idea of spirits remaining on earth. Their belief systems are so random, so unsupported by evidence and so disjointed that they basically dont even know what they believe in.

    Superstition will in my opinion out run science in the years to come. There is so little appreciation of the scientific method, what constitutes evidence and how to determine truth from fiction that I believe we are already past the point of no return. Enter climate science…. just believable enough to appeal to the weak of mind and when the culprit CO2 can apparently cause rain, no rain, record rain, drought, flood, record heat, record cold, snow, no snow and flaming freaking unicorns… well how do you argue against that sort of nonsense….?

    20

    • #
      crakar24

      SG66,

      Have you seen the movie “Idiocracy” if not i highly recomend it.

      10

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        One of my favorites. I enjoyed it sooooo much mainly because someone suggested it to me after I had completed a rant similar to that one lol.

        “Ow My Balls”!

        00

        • #
          crakar24

          Watched some doco thingy on you tube where they set out to show the USA is already in a state of idiocracy……….they succeeded

          10

    • #
      Winston

      But you miss the ultimate irony, Safety. This neo-superstition era is being ushered in by………..”scientists”. Rather than a bulwark against assumptions, unfounded beliefs and unreasonable fears, the calm and rational implementation of the dispassionate and sacrosanct scientific method is being bypassed by precisely those who should be guarding such values with their lives.

      That’ why it is important to emphasise that:
      While I understand why Ace and Andy above are so aggrieved and angered by such an egregious
      and serial misrepresentation of the facts by alarmists, I think we must be careful not to be sucked into an abuse slanging match with charlatans like SPF and BA4, who are only interested in the concept of “truth” in so far as they can distort it for political gain and point scoring for effect.

      As this CAGW pseudoscience cause unwinds inevitably, I hope the cancer that has metastasized throughout the scientific world can be expurgated and some hard lessons learned from it. I wish I was confident, given that humans repeatedly have to relearn from their mistakes on daily, annual, decadal and centennial time frames.

      30

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Wow well said Winston. I try not to get into slanging matches, but my patience is wearing thin these days.

        Its definitely the perversion of science that has upset me the most. The notion that we can accurately model the climate to a degree that is so indisputable we can then make major and lasting changes to our economy and lifestyles based on that modeling is just unspeakably unscientific. We cant even accurately model the stock market and thats a system we created, which is perhaps a fraction of the complexity of the climate.

        To see good people like John Christy being canned by scientific hacks who have qualifications in basically everything other than climate, just breaks my heart and to an extent, my spirit. If a guy like him, with his qualifications and experience can just be dismissed as a loony really speaks reams about how far backward we have gone in pursuit of this fantasy posing as science.

        I sure hope your right that it cant last… my faith in people is being sorely tested and it wasnt that strong to start with lol

        20

        • #
          Winston

          My sentiments exactly. If there was decent evidence to support the alarmists contentions, then I’d happily agree with them. I have only one axe to grind- if you are a scientist, act like one. Don’t pretend to be “scientific”, and then ignore any and all evidence that doesn’t conform to your preconceived notions- that is the antithesis of science.

          The precautionary principle while undoubtedly a fallacy in itself, is also a double edged sword. “Action”, as they like to refer to it, is only warranted when there is a clear, rational and well-thought out strategy that makes sense, but none of what alarmists propose make any sense whatsoever. Action that is counterproductive or opens one out to negative consequences greater than what is being mitigated against, is not only foolish but irresponsible.

          Making the first world poorer, for example does not make the 3rd world richer- quite the opposite IMHO (with the insidious connotations that strategy might hold), while investing trillions in technology which has failed repeatedly to be even remotely economically viable (wind, solar, EVs) and have inherent issues (intermittency, lack of effective energy storage technology, cost/benefit ratio, etc) that cannot be solved with current technology, means they can NEVER perform as viable alternatives to fossil fuels in more than token quantities, and therefore can only DELAY the transition away from fossil fuel dependence (if that is even possible), certainly not bring fossil fuel independence forward as they erroneously claim.

          Unfortunately, because anyone who speaks out against the religious doctrine of the apostles (Al, James, Phil, Gavin and Mike) is branded a heretic, we can’t even have a sensible discussion about just what direction global energy generation will take in the future, no open debate about Thorium nuclear for example, or sundry other forbidden subjects because of the contamination of political malfeasance and corruption, and ideological biases of those wolves dressed in green tie-dyed sheepskin clothing.

          20

      • #
        AndyG55

        Hey, who said I was angry or aggrieved??

        I just call people as I see them.. no anger at all.

        I don’t see why I should bother molly-coddling them just so I don’t hurt their feeling. :-)

        10

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Over the past 10 years, since the AGW caught fire with the Chardonnay sipping hand-wringing crowd with little else to worry about – and o much evidence of “climate change” gathered by people hoping to find it –

    Has there been any documented cases of some “observation” of “climate change” that has not reversed itself? Drought, rain, ice, snow, lack of it, animal migrations, glaciers, snow caps, the whole lot of it – I don’t know of any of it that has persisted, all reversed, showing the same variability it always has, yet many people still cling to the idea – what do they base their beliefs upon?

    30

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Several well known logical fallacies including in no particular order:

      1. False Cause – Assuming a perceived relationship between one thing and another (CO2 and Climate)
      2. Appeal to Authority – Because a certain person or group of people said it, it must be true (“97% of scientists believe etc”)
      3. Appeal to emotion – Trying to gain an emotional response rather than relying on evidence for argument (“what about the future of the children”)
      4. Ad Hominem – Attacking the character of people who dont subscribe to the belief system (“John Christie is a fraud who is in the pocket of big oil”)
      5. Band Wagon – Popularity of the position equals accuracy of the position (“2000 peer reviewers cant be wrong”)
      6. Special Pleading – Moving the goal posts because your current argument seems to be wrong (global warming becomes climate change then climate instability)

      I could go on…. but its kind of like trying to argue with religious people, using rationale and logic to combat nonsense and superstition is basically a waste of time.

      They believe because they believe, because they are afraid and because they are now so deep in the fraud/fantasy that they will lose too much face by backing out.

      20

      • #
        ianl8888


        … because they are afraid

        Such people (apparently a majority of the population) are pretty much afraid of everything

        Short dinner party game:

        The basic premise is that safe, guaranteed time travel is available, no tricks or gotchas. One can choose to travel either back or forward to any time of choice for any period of choice and return perfectly safely to the present

        One limitation – you can only choose one trip, either forwards or backwards. You cannot do both

        Question: which would you choose – forwards or backwards ?

        The point ? Most people choose backwards. So why ?

        10

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          Great question…

          Damn I would choose forward in a heartbeat… its so crappy that I wont be around to see us finish the mothership and leave this rock… I basically subscribe the Stephen Hawking principal of planetary care…. “strip mine, upgrade the ship and move on”… eventually we have no choice, so why fight it worrying about what happens to dolphins and koalas? At best they will be taken along as viable DNA, other than that, worry about number one!

          20

      • #
        handjive

        A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning.

        Logical fallacies are like tricks or illusions of thought, and they’re often very sneakily used by politicians and the media to fool people.

        Don’t be fooled!

        This website has been designed to help you identify and call out dodgy logic wherever it may raise its ugly, incoherent head.

        00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Notice also that they reverse their prophecies AFTER things start to happen contrary to their original prophesies…

      “Oh but we said….”

      NO, you didn’t !

      10

  • #
    crakar24

    SG66,

    I could go on…. but its kind of like trying to argue with religious people, using rationale and logic to combat nonsense and superstition is basically a waste of time.

    You cannot use logic and reasoning to convince someone the position they hold is incorrect when they did not use logic and reasoning to arrive at the postion they currently find themselves in.

    To put it another way, you believe in God because you have faith not evidence, ergo evidence cannot convince them God does not exist.

    Cheers

    00

    • #
      Backslider

      ergo evidence cannot convince them God does not exist

      What evidence?

      00

      • #
        crakar24

        Evidence that God does not exist?

        Well the bible states that on the sixth day God made man in his own image, we know this to be incorrect on two counts.

        1, We know the approximate epoch when man arose and we know the Earth is about 4 billion years older than that so it is impossible for God to create man and the Earth over a 6 day period.

        2, We know via fossil records that man evolved from more primative species so therefore the second claim made in the bible has been proven false.

        Summary:

        The only document which describes God as the maker of all things is the bible and if the bible has been discredited then so must the theory of a God.

        A believer will not/cannot accept this because they have faith.

        00

        • #
          Backslider

          False on all counts Crackar24.

          1. That’s your own (and others’) literal interpretation

          2. You mean like Piltdown Man? Really, all we have are cleverly constructed assumptions, however no scientific proof.

          3. No, its not the only document.

          4. No, I cannot accept this because I see the actual evidence, which you do not, not because I have faith.

          Your statement “you believe in God because you have faith not evidence” is false. There is a universe of evidence.

          Tell me Crackar24 – how many bombadier beetles blew their own arses off before they got it right?

          00

          • #
            crakar24

            1. That’s your own (and others’) literal interpretation

            A, If we cannot take literal interpretations of the bible then it is even more useless than i thought

            2. You mean like Piltdown Man? Really, all we have are cleverly constructed assumptions, however no scientific proof.

            A, No Piltdown man was a intentional fabrication and bears no relevance to the point i made about Darwins theory of evolution

            3. No, its not the only document.

            A, Well yes this is technically correct the Koran also mentions Mary and Jesus et al but not God

            4. No, I cannot accept this because I see the actual evidence, which you do not, not because I have faith.

            A, So you and i are in agreement…you also see the actual evidence that God does not exist, your only complaint is that your evidence is better/more righter than mine?

            No matter thank you for giving SG66 and myself a gleaming example of what we were both suggesting.

            00

            • #
              MemoryVault

              Crakar,

              Without buying into the debate at all (since, like Socrates, I am not wise enough to know), you are quoting from a poor source when basing your argument on apparent discrepancies in Genesis in the Old Testament as it exists today.

              The Biblical Genesis story is an oft re-translated and much-rewritten summary of one third of the Epic of Gilgamesh, a much older and more complete explanation of where we came from, which relies on neither God(s) (as defined in this discussion), or evolution.

              Might I suggest “The Genius of the Few” by Christian O’Brien as an interesting alternative to the old “God versus Evolution” debate, both of which have gaping holes of logic in them, for a truly inquiring mind to stumble in.

              Not saying O’Brien’s right – just an interesting alternative perspective, that’s all.

              00

              • #
                crakar24

                MV,

                If you took the literal translation of Genesis and all the accompanying scripts (from Persia, India, Egypt etc) which apparently you cannot do then you would have to come to the conclusion that there where beings from outer space here on this planet and they were all treated like Gods flying around in their ships dropping nukes on their enemies and all that good stuff.

                To be honest this sounds more plausible to me than a make believe friend floating in the sky.

                00

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Crakar,

                Actually, I can, and I have. I have even learned the written symbols of some of the dead languages so I did not have to rely on translations by somebody else.

                And yes, it is far more plausible than an all-powerful, white-bearded old man “up there”.

                But then, it is also far more plausible (and in many cases far more supported by evidence), than some of the equally implausible aspects required of a belief solely in evolution.

                00

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                So basically… the movie Prometheus is a true account of human origins. Okay, I’ve heard worse.

                Can’t say I agree with everything Hitchens ever said, but his 10 minute demolition of Theism is in my opinion legendary.

                As for abiogenesis, it’s really unconstrained by evidence of any kind, either way. Statistically it could have happened but that doesn’t mean it did, it just means you’re entitled to believe in natural abiogenesis without violating any fundamental laws of probability or physics.

                00

              • #
                MemoryVault

                … the movie Prometheus is a true account of human origins.

                Yes, and the “Star Trek” movies are a true account of where an all-powerful one world government will take us.

                .
                Honestly, Andrew, as one of the most lucid commentators here, I expected more of you. Nonetheless, I thank you for the Hitchens link. Quite brilliant.
                No argument there. But then, what would one expect from a philosophical (as opposed to religious) Taoist?

                As for abiogenesis, since I accept neither pure creation, nor absolute evolution, the argument is an irelevant storm in a tea cup for me.

                00

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                Sorry if the sarcasm in my first line didn’t come through clear enough, MV. I was restating your own conclusion in that sentence, simply rephrased in my own words.
                For the record, I have never believed humans to be of extraterrestrial origin.

                Not sure why you’re narky about it though, since you did just confess to finding the prospect “there were beings from outer space here on this planet and they were all treated like Gods flying around in their ships” more plausible than Christianity. Ancient Aliens, basically.

                Maybe I misunderstood your opinion. It’s certainly happened before.

                00

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                Gah! And the problem with the first line in 17.1.1.1.3 is that I didn’t end it with a question mark.
                You are forgiven for your unwarranted chastisement.

                00

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Hi Andrew,

                No offense intended or taken. I was merely offering an alternative point of view to the usual limited offering of “God or Evolution”, that’s all.

                Whether there’s any truth to it or not, well, as I said at the start, I’m not wise enough to know. And I doubt the truth of it will be unveiled in my lifetime. So, for me, it is no more or less than an entertaining speculation for a rainy day.

                I do find it interesting though, as you yourself alluded to, that ancient writings from all over the world seem to describe a similar history – one that includes intervention in our development by “God-like” characters.

                00

            • #
              Backslider

              the point i made about Darwins theory of evolution

              What point did you make?

              I can make a point – it’s mathematically impossible. The numbers required are simply in the realm of fantasy. I know that there are clever arguments saying that it is possible, but that’s all they are.

              You did not answer my question re. the bombadier beetle :-)

              00

  • #
    pat

    apologies for going way O/T, but who has seen ANYTHING in the MSM on the HIGHLY SECRETIVE Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which our Govt has been negotiating via DFAT since 2008? the 18th TPP meeting is presently being held in Kuala Lumpur, & US Govt hopes to have a deal by the end of this year, yet MSM is silent & Australians know none of the detail. from what i understand it’s a further threat to the little sovereignty we have left:

    16 July: ChannelNewsAsia: Human rights groups in Malaysia protest against TPP talks
    A memorandum was submitted to Parliament, demanding an immediate halt to all talks on the TPP until all the chapters and provisions are disclosed to the public and debated in Parliament.
    http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/human-rights-groups-in/746572.html

    i’m with the Greens on this:

    August 2012: IT News: John Hilvert: Opposition rejects TPP draft disclosure
    The Federal Government and opposition have jointly voted down a Greens-led motion to make the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations available to the public.
    It called on support for measures protecting Australian sovereignty and the rights of Australian residents…
    However, the opposition joined the Government in rejecting the motion, indicating it also backs attempts to keep the trade negotiations confidential until all countries have agreed to it…
    The Greens’ motion was prompted by a US trade policy that draft texts of the agreement are selectively aired to AT&T, Verizon, Cisco, the Motion Picture Association of America and other industry lobbyists, but blocked from democratically-elected parliamentarians, advocacy organisations and citizens…
    http://www.itnews.com.au/News/312130,opposition-rejects-tpp-draft-disclosure.aspx

    10

  • #
    Earl

    I have come to understand that few people actually have any concept of what 350 ppm and 400 ppm or 700 ppm actually means. I teach horticulture, and in a recent class on the role of co2 in photosynthesis, the usual ” we are all all going to die” statements began.
    On the the white board, I drew a square with 1 meter sides, and invited the students to show what they understood to be 400 ppm, the current concentration of co2 in the atmosphere, in this square.
    I was astonished to see that half to three quarters of the square was seen as 400 ppm.
    As result, I asked the group, how many millimetres are in a square metre. I was staggered to find most had no idea.
    Carefully, so as to avoid offending people, I explained that there are 1,000,000 mm2 in a square metre, (1000 x1000 = 1,000,000. Then I drew a square with 20 mm sides and said this is 400 mm2, or 400ppm, there was dead silence. Then I drew a square with 4mm sides and said this represent the 4 % that human activity is generally considered to contribute, and what is claimed to control our climate.
    There was more silence followed by angry statements, of how that could be possible, have we been lied to, it does not make sense, and further statements of enlightenment.
    This was the most success I have had in trying to get people to understand that CAGW is rubbish, and it felt good.

    60

    • #
      crakar24

      You give me hope earl

      Thankyou

      20

    • #
      AndyG55

      4c in $100.. easy to understand.

      20

    • #
      Manfred

      Earl, this is one of the single most useful examples of the true effect of scale. As you so elegantly point out, people have absolutely no concept at all and you’re the catalyst of and witness to a genuine Damascan moment.

      I have found that when in suitable conversation, usually after someone has been climate catastrophising I ask them off-hand whether they know how much CO2 is actually in the atmosphere? The answer, despite all the MSM hysteria is usually negative or profound uncertainty. I then ask them to take a percent guess. It’s quite interesting at this point. Moving on, I suggest 1% – 1 molecule in a 100, more as a leading statement…usually a much smaller value than they guessed. They’re gradually starting to get the feel for the descending scale at this point. Then you jump them down to 0.04% (400ppm). When they finally absorb how small this is you then drive the point home with 4% of that.

      Result – utter incredulity.

      Another approach some may have seen:

      Anthropogenic CO2 Effect Greatly Exaggerated
      By Tom Segalstad

      If you ask how much anthropogenic CO2 can heat the atmosphere, I have the following proposed way of looking at this.

      The Earth receives about 1368 W/m-2 of heat energy from the Sun. In Raval, A. & Ramanathan, V. (1989; Observational determination of the greenhouse effect. Nature 342, 758-761) they report measuring the average greenhouse effect of the Earth to be approx. 146 W/m-2 (+/- 5 to 10 W/m-2 due to natural variations) of the cloud-free atmosphere. This greenhouse effect increases the average temperature 32-33 degrees C from -18 deg. C to +14/+15 deg. C. Of this, 2 W/m-2 is ascribed by Raval & Ramanathan (1989) to anthropogenic CO2. If there is a linear relationship, this should amount to less than 0.5 degrees C. This figure is similar to what has been found by others, i.e. by Ellsaesser and by Idso.

      This is, however, assuming that 21% of the atmospheric CO2 is of anthropogenic origin (IPCC 1990). Segalstad (1992; http://www.co2web.info/hawaii.pdf and later papers) claims from carbon isotope evidence that only 4% of atmospheric CO2 is of anthropogenic origin remaining in the atmosphere (96% is degassed from the oceans and volcanoes etc.). Again, if there is a linear relationship, this should then amount to an anthropogenic contribution of less than 0.4 W/m-2 and only less than 0.1 degrees C.

      Compare this with the clouds’ ability to increase the greenhouse effect by heat absorption of +30 W/m-2 or decrease the greenhouse effect by reflection of -50 W/m-2 [Ramanathan, V., Barkstrom, B.R. & Harrison, E.F. (1989): Climate and the Earth's radiation budget. Physics Today 42 (5), 22-32]. Then the thermostat effect of clouds is major, and the added greenhouse effect by anthropogenic CO2 is minute, indeed.

      See my abstract paper with more references on my web site http://www.CO2web.info here: http://www.co2web.info/Segalstad_ISMA_CO2.pdf

      10

      • #
        Myrrh

        The Earth receives about 1368 W/m-2 of heat energy from the Sun.

        As you say, but that is not how it is used by the AGW Greenhouse Effect energy budget which claims that it is mainly visible light energy from the Sun heating the Earth’s surface – its meme “shortwave in longwave out” – and that “no direct heat energy reaches us from the Sun”, which is longwave infrared.

        That real world solar constant is calculated at surface by how much heat energy is heating the surface, the KT97 and ilk have put this instead at top of atmosphere (TOA) and claim it is the sum total of their “shortwave in”; which they have as mainly visible light and a bit of uv and near infrared either side, near infrared making up 1% of this and so for the most part ignored.

        Their meme is that “visible light from the Sun heats the Earth’s surface of land and water”. This of course is physically impossible as visible light from the Sun works on the much much tinier electronic transition level, not on the bigger molecular vibration level which is what it takes to heat up matter. Heat heats. Light is not a thermal energy.

        They have deliberately excluded the real direct heat from the Sun in order to pretend that all real world measurement of this, longwave infrared aka thermal infrared, come from the “atmosphere under TOA backradiated by greenhouse gases”.

        00

      • #
        Richard

        “Your website”? Are you the Tom Segalstad?

        00

    • #
      Carbon500

      Earl: thanks for this interesting comment. On p26 of Al Gore’s book, he states that our atmosphere ‘is being thickened by huge quantities of human-caused carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.’
      Unless someone’s interested enough and has the time to look further, this sort of nonsense gets taken at face value.
      Confusion is also caused by referring to CO2 not only in terms of percentage, but also as parts per million depending on whose work you’re looking at.
      Of course, confronted with the low concentration of CO2 the true believers then sagely say ‘ah, yes, but you’re underestimating the potency of CO2. It doesn’t take much cyanide for example to kill you!’
      My response to this is that concentration certainly does matter for various chemical or biochemical reactions to proceed. Also, we’re talking about infra-red absorption, a completely different matter.
      I’m still waiting for the catastrophists to perform a controlled laboratory experiment showing the effect of adding C02 incrementally, 1ppm at a time, to an artificial atmosphere with varying amounts of water vapour present. By that I mean a proper experiment using real materials and instrumentation, not playing around with a computer ‘model’. I don’t think that this will happen anytime soon.

      10

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    in other news…. ALP dips its toe into the Nuclear-powered Australia debate.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-17/gray-wants-nuclear-debate/4826058

    People do not build bridges with no intention of ever crossing them.

    The only remaining question is… with so much cheap coal why is this even being talked about? What other plans do they have for our coal if it’s not going to be used for electricity?
    I’ll keep my opinion about that to myself, for the time being.

    Another theory says that global warming was adopted by Thatcher partly because she was keen on using nuclear power to break the coal mining union. Now that the global warming scam is collapsing the nuclear industry may try a fast money grab for new reactor projects before the CO2 emissions reduction argument completely falls out of favour in Canberra.

    Either way, it looks like the ALP is testing the exit doors on “renewables”.

    00

  • #
    Nice One

    I wonder what wheatbix made of this will taste like?

    10