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

Burn oil, feed the world, grow plants, save forests, get richer, live longer. Why we urgently need to raise CO2.

It’s time to stop pussy footing around. We need higher levels of CO2. It is morally and ethically irresponsible to be silent while millions starve, biodiversity is under threat, and people are dying from cold weather.

Carbon dioxide increases crops, forest and plant life by 14% and is worth $140 billion, just in agricultural production. Thanks to CO2, forests have been protected because farms are more efficient in a higher CO2 world.

Countries that don’t do their part in producing enough carbon dioxide emissions need to lift their game. Coal use should be favoured over nuclear, hydro, wind and solar. Countries like France are free-riding on the nations like China, the US, and Australia — which are helping to green the world and feed the starving.

Indur Goklany has put together a comprehensive report on the benefits of CO2 for the GWPF.

The advantage of higher CO2 for all C3 crop plants is spectacular. That’s rice, wheat, barley, rye, cotton, sugar beet, spinach, and potato. C4 plants evolved in the last 30 million years to be good at dealing with low CO2 atmospheric concentration (corn, sugarcane, cabbage, broccoli, sedge, daisy.) Most plants are C3.

Plant growth, CO2, C3 crops, C4 crops

Figure 1: Carbon dioxide fertilization (in ppm, horizontal axes) of C3 crop and C4 weed
Source: von Caemmerer et al. (2012).

Cold kills more than heat does, even in hot towns more people die in winter:

 The pattern of a higher death rate in the colder months also holds for all-cause mortality in tropical and subtropical areas in China, Bangladesh, Kuwait, and Tunisia. Mortality rates apparently also peak in winter in Sao Paulo, Brazil; Mexico City and Monterrey, Mexico; Santiago, Chile, Cape Town, South Africa; and Nairobi, Kenya (see Figure 9). It is also the case for the southern US states of Florida, Texas, California and even Hawaii.198 In addition, in Cuba, deaths from heart diseases and cerebrovascular diseases, which account for 37% of all deaths, peak in the colder (winter) months.

Conclusion — higher CO2 concentrations improves both human and plant well-being.

Summary

  1. This paper addresses the question of whether, and how much, increased carbon dioxide concentrations have benefited the biosphere and humanity by stimulating plant growth, warming the planet and increasing rainfall.
  2. Empirical data confirms that the biosphere’s productivity has increased by about 14% since 1982, in large part as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels.
  3. Thousands of scientific experiments indicate that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the air have contributed to increases in crop yields.
  4. These increases in yield are very likely to have reduced the appropriation of land for farming by 11–17% compared with what it would otherwise be, resulting in more land being left wild.
  5. Satellite evidence confirms that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also resulted in greater productivity of wild terrestrial ecosystems in all vegetation types.
  6. Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also increased the productivity of many marine ecosystems.
  7.  In recent decades, trends in climate-sensitive indicators of human and environmental wellbeing have improved and continue to do so despite claims that they would deteriorate because of global warming.
  8. Compared with the benefits from carbon dioxide on crop and biosphere productivity, the adverse impacts of carbon dioxide – on the frequency and intensity of extreme weather, on sea level, vector-borne disease prevalence and human health – have been too small to measure or have been swamped by other factors.
  9. Models used to influence policy on climate change have overestimated the rate of warming, underestimated direct benefits of carbon dioxide, overestimated the harms from climate change and underestimated human capacity to adapt so as to capture the benefits while reducing the harms.
  10. It is very likely that the impact of rising carbon dioxide concentrations is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally. These benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain. Halting the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations abruptly would deprive people and the planet of the benefits of carbon dioxide much sooner than they would reduce any costs of warming.

 REFERENCE

Goklany, Indur (2015) Carbon Dioxide, The Good News, GWPF

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (109 votes cast)
Burn oil, feed the world, grow plants, save forests, get richer, live longer. Why we urgently need to raise CO2., 9.2 out of 10 based on 109 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/np2zw8t

393 comments to Burn oil, feed the world, grow plants, save forests, get richer, live longer. Why we urgently need to raise CO2.

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Hoo Baby!! That should get the bed-wetters out from under their flat stones! I’m off to the store for more popcorn. Very sound resume of Goklany’s paper.

    582

    • #
      Stephan

      The benefits of raising atmospheric C02 concentration might approach the costs to human civilisation if the change happened over a long enough interval for most of the biosphere (on which we rely) to adapt. Problem is we’re causing the change to happen about 10-100 times faster than for that to be possible.

      769

      • #
        Dave in the states

        We are causing the change? How is that possible?

        381

      • #
        Radical Rodent

        On what evidence do you base such extraordinary claims?

        (Please remember that any palaeological evidence is data spread over centuries, not the few decades that you might be basing today’s figures upon.)

        280

      • #
        gigdiary

        Problem is we’re causing the change to happen about 10-100 times faster than for that to be possible.

        10-100 times..could you be a bit more specific, or are you just making this up?

        440

      • #
        AndyG55

        Guess what Stephen.

        The post at #22 shows that there will be MASSIVE expansion of coal fired power stations and emissions over the next 20-30 years.

        And guess what, little drone….

        THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT :-) :-)

        393

        • #
          AndyG55

          And in fact , it has been shown the puerile anti-CO2 efforts such as wind turbines and solar farms have almost certainly lead to an INCREASE in global CO2 emissions as industries in anti-CO2 infected countries have moved to China, India etc etc. These follies will probably never produce much more energy that was used in the coal-fired manufacture.

          The minor falls in the USA CO2 emissions have been almost totally due to the use of gas in stead of coal, or in basic efficiency gains that would have happened anyway.

          The whole AGW farce is purely a vehicle to bring in UN control agendas, but if they really think that this will have any effect in countries like China, India etc etc, then I’m sure I can find a rusty old bridge somewhere to sell them and their cult members. ;-)

          193

          • #
            gai

            I would suggest the Tappan Zee Bridge. (I was talking to a trucker this weekend who had a piece fall off as he drove over it. That didn’t scare him half as bad as the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis that collapsed just after he had driven over it.)

            The USA is spending billions on worthless wind turbines and solar farms while our infrastructure collapses around our ears. There are still wooden water pipes in Boston. The New Orleans levees are still a mess. They were built by farmers who dumped old stumps and other trash into the levees and the material has since rotted away leaving the levees weak.

            80

          • #

            Andy55
            Building coal-fired power stations is just part of the reason for rising GHG levels. The fact is that the countries that are growing their emissions have a far greater population than those cutting emissions.
            For COP21 in Paris Countries are submitting plans of emissions from 2010 to 2030. I looked at 32 rich countries (Australia, Canada, EU28, Japan & USA). 900m people, the governments plan to cut emissions by 4Gt. Also 7 large developing countries with 3300m people, plan to grow there emissions by 13Gt. The net impact is a 20% increase in global emissions.. Combined it is 60% of global emissions and population.
            Post 2030, the developing countries are not going to shut down their their newly built coal-fired power stations, or scrap hundreds of millions of cars. Emissions are going to just keep on rising, regardless of what happen in the developed countries.
            http://manicbeancounter.com/2015/10/11/plans-to-increase-global-emissions-at-cop21-paris/

            20

      • #
        James Murphy

        Stephan,
        Can you tell me what the climate should be doing, assuming the industrial revolution never happened? Would it have stayed exactly the same? How do you distinguish between normal and abnormal?

        I love your use of “about 10 to 100 times”, as if this range is tiny, perhaps inadvertently displaying your tenuous grasp of mathematics, or maybe it’s just a desire to make things sound bad by using large numbers? I’m also looking forward to you providing some sort of credible reference for this claim of yours too, that’d be nice.

        192

      • #
        Rico L

        Just out of interest, what is the cost to human civilization so far?

        80

        • #
          Stephan

          Large and externalised.

          210

          • #
            James Murphy

            Externalised? How so?

            Are you related to Harry Twinotter, by any chance?? As he too, manages to be consistently superficial, and unable to construct anything resembling a science-based argument, and has dutifully learned all the right catchphrases without bothering to understand what any of them even mean.

            72

            • #
              Stephan

              Cost externalizing is a socioeconomic term describing how a business maximizes its profits by off-loading indirect costs and forcing negative effects to a third party.

              - Wiki

              Always happy to be of service to the apparently less than quick.

              26

          • #
            AndyG55

            Yes the cost of the anti-CO2 agenda has been huge…with an massive negative benefit.

            But the money has been very much internalised.

            54

          • #

            Stephen in reply to what Rico wrote here:

            “Just out of interest, what is the cost to human civilization so far?”

            by saying,

            “Large and externalised.”

            Absolutely worthless reply since you provide no evidence of any costs to human civilization, one that lives much longer in more comfort than any time in history.

            You are pathetically short on details fella.

            12

      • #
        Manfred

        “…we’re causing the change…”

        Another ‘mentalist, like the UN, with their own private definition of ‘change’.

        Stephan, what do you imagine are you writing about? This?

        or maybe this?

        It’s simply not possible to discern the vagaries of the weather or indeed the climate beyond the bounds of natural variation.

        It has been roughly two decades since there was a trend in temperature significantly different from zero. The burst of warming that preceded the millennium lasted about 20 years and was preceded by 30 years of slight cooling after 1940.

        The man-made warming of the past 20 years has been so feeble that a shifting current in one ocean was enough to wipe it out altogether.

        Let’s hope that the United Nations admits as much on day one of its coming jamboree and asks the delegates to pack up, go home and concentrate on more pressing global problems like war, terror, disease, poverty, habitat loss and the 1.3 billion people with no electricity.

        The Wall Street Journal.
        Whatever Happened to Global Warming?
        Now come climate scientists’ implausible explanations for why the ‘hiatus’ has passed the 15-year mark.
        By Matt Ridley Sept. 4, 2014 7:20 p.m. ET

        Yes, and pigs will fly.

        131

        • #
          crakar24

          Yes, and pigs will fly.

          ——————————————————————————–
          The correct phrase is “All pigs fuelled and armed sitting on the piano keys ready for take off”.

          A bit pedant i know………:-)

          52

      • #
        Egor TheOne

        Stephan ,

        “10 to 100 times faster ” is about as vague as it gets by a factor of 10 , by even your own admission !!!

        Prediction accuracy within a magnitude of 10x………..Hilarious !!!!!

        It therefore equates to unscientific clairvoyant medieval nonsense !

        Let me guess …….Nothing a great big new tax can’t fix , no doubt insisted upon at the upcoming Paris Marxists’ Climate Hajj !!!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk

        72

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Nothing a great big new tax can’t fix…”

          Straight into the banksters and UN coffers, of course….

          ….never to be spent on any real climate action like providing poor countries with solid reliable electricity.

          In fact, who knows where all those taxes will go to.. !!!!

          73

      • #
        Ceetee

        Stephan, how can you conclusively say this hasn’t happened in the past?. How can you attribute that which is happening now to “us” alone.

        81

      • #

        Stephan writes,

        “The benefits of raising atmospheric C02 concentration might approach the costs to human civilisation if the change happened over a long enough interval for most of the biosphere (on which we rely) to adapt. Problem is we’re causing the change to happen about 10-100 times faster than for that to be possible.”

        That doesn’t make sense to me since it is obvious that Plants take it in gladly since it is a key component of the PHOTOSYNTHESIS process,with out it,NO life at all.

        From HERE is why CO2 is so important:

        Oxygenic photosynthesis is written as follows:

        6CO2 + 12H2O + Light Energy → C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O

        Here, six molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) combine with 12 molecules of water (H2O) using light energy. The end result is the formation of a single carbohydrate molecule (C6H12O6, or glucose) along with six molecules each of breathable oxygen and water.

        The “rapid rise” you mentions doesn’t hurt the plants at all as they take what is available and runs the process. If the water and weather are favorable, it will take in as much as the plant can handle.

        By the way that claim you wrote is absurd since the plants already can handle it NOW!, there is no “adapting” needed since they ALREADY know how to use the CO2 and have for many MILLIONS of years.

        “The benefits of raising atmospheric C02 concentration might approach the costs to human civilisation if the change happened over a long enough interval for most of the biosphere (on which we rely) to adapt.”

        You go on to babble with this absurdity,since there is ZERO evidence that increasing amount of atmospheric CO2 is harmful to plant life.

        “we’re causing the change to happen about 10-100 times faster than for that to be possible.”

        Really you badly underestimate the ability for life to use it.

        21

        • #
          AndyG55

          “The “rapid rise” you mentions doesn’t hurt the plants at all as they take what is available and runs the process”

          There was a study done of CO2 over a growing field.

          Values are only from memory, but iirc, started in the morning at 600ppm, and by lunch time was down to 250ppm, and dropped no lower.

          All that the small amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere does is give the plants a bit more growing time each day.

          13

      • #
      • #

        Stephen: The modern plants you see around you evolved at higher levels of CO2. There is no adaptation required.
        Please: Look it up, don’t make it up.
        It is often theorized that the evolution of the grasses, deciduous trees etc. likely are a major cause of the drop in CO2 levels. Really. Science. Facts. History. Not a single-Party-dictatorship propaganda lie. Could be only a small part of the drop but the two things happened at the same time in history. If CO2 of more than 2000 was bad for them they would have failed early. Modern plants grow better up to around 2000ppm in studies.
        Marijuana grows bigger and faster with more cannabanoids when CO2 is elevated above 1000ppm.

        10

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    What’s not to like? But the alarmists will pooh-pooh and the media will ignore. Every little bit helps, but it will take a bit longer to tip the balance in our favour.

    552

    • #
      Yonniestone

      I believe ‘pooh-pooh’ is good for plants also Ken, but deep down warmists want to selectively kill off the carbon life forms that produce it.

      462

      • #
        sophocles

        Careful, Yonniestone! NZ has just banned a book (Into the River by Ted Dawe) for having expressions like that in it.

        Because it’s banned, I can’t quote it. (I would have to submit this comment to the Publications Review Board, aka The Censors) for permission for it to leave NZ. Even then, it might be rated “Adults Only.” It likely wouldn’t receive permission to travel even with such a rating, because non-adult New Zealanders might see it on Jo’s blog.)

        The ban is acclaimed by the Ultra Red-Necked Minority, those Dead from the shoulders up, to be “Democracy in Action,” and a restoration of “Family Values”.

        Technically, it’s a “Legal Restraint Order” which has the effect of a ban until after the Censor’s Office review.

        302

        • #
          mikerestin

          Is there a town in Soviet Russia or Soviet China called NZ?
          Sure sounds like it.

          31

          • #
            sophocles

            The pilot, on every flight incoming from overseas, gives a brief welcome message to the passengers at the end of taxiing once the aeroplane has been parked. The message contains a brief summary of the external weather (temp, wind direction, and precipitation etc) and the date and local time. Should you enter this country, please bear in mind the date is only approximate and set your personal timepieces back 30 years.

            11

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Models used to influence policy on climate change have overestimated the rate of warming, underestimated direct benefits of carbon dioxide, overestimated the harms from climate change and underestimated human capacity to adapt so as to capture the benefits while reducing the harms.’

    Very impressive, the whole story in one sentence.

    481

  • #
    Neville

    Very good summary Jo. We owe a debt of thanks to Dr Indur Goklany over the years for his tireless work on the beneficial changes of fossil fuel use for human health and wellbeing plus the benefits to the planet’s biosphere.

    452

  • #
    RogueElement451

    To say that I am totally and utterly gobsmacked by an interview I have just seen on CNN I think , would be to understate the case to the nth degree. Obama , when being confronted by a Journo .asking him about how he has failed to show leadership in the Middle East whilst Putin is demonstrating how to win friends and influence people came back with …. “snort,, showing leadership by bankrupting his Country and and alienating his closest allies ? I do not think so , I am showing true Leadership with my fight on Climate Change ”

    Seriously??? I actually felt my jaw drop , I am astounded . If there was a Dear God Almighty Id definitely be praying that he smite this cretin until he was smitten back to his senses. Can I swear ?? Un^&*$%£believable.

    630

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Are you serious?, we could have giant alien spaceships hovering over Washington and this guy would say “Meh, that’s nothing compared to the threat of climate change.”

      America I’m truly sorry for you…. :(

      553

    • #
      Stephan

      Yeah man! I’d totally rather have another crony-capitalist Republican to lead the West into another couple of needless wars to spawn another few terrorist insurgencies and failed Middle-Eastern states. Damn that Obummer refusing to bleed his own country dry to fatten up Halliburton and settle some pathetic old scores!

      736

      • #
        Yonniestone

        If having another war exposes the true crony capitalism of the hypocritical left, then that gets us closer to learning not to make the same mistake of allowing the takers to write laws for the makers, remember as popular war advances peace is closer.

        140

        • #
          crakar24

          There is actually little difference in the way the fight against global warming and the global war on terror is sold to the public, both are a waste of time.

          You cannot declare war on a tactic, well you can i suppose but it wont do you any good because you do not know who the enemy is a tactic does not wear a uniform for example but yet the simpletons around the world have lapped this rhetoric up.

          With the war on global warming it is based on what will happen in X years from now IAW the climate simulations, in other words there is no evidence AGW actually exists we are told we need to act now to stay below the 2C hand rail. Granted the sweaty palmed among us desperately try and link a storm to AGW to prop up the scam but none of that rubbish has stuck.

          Those among us that would prefer to mitigate the issue rather than fight it would not have had to spend a cent even after all these years.

          Once again the simpleminded among us have fallen for the empty rhetoric “we must fight AGW” how do you fight the weather?

          60

      • #
        Tom O

        Seriously, have you had your head examined lately? There appears to be a noise like a wind whistling through a hollow space. It can even be heard in the word you write.

        140

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Tom,

          it is probably one of those new Cyborg things that julie and banki have set up at the u n to stop people becoming aware of our biggest problem;

          The unit$d n$ti$ns.

          121

      • #
        clive

        Why don’t you crawl back under what-ever rock you crawled out from.Idiot.

        71

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        Stephan. If you care to look at the last 100-150 yrs or so you will see that Democrats have pulled America into many wars much more than anything that has happened in this century. WWI-Wilson, WWII-Roosevelt, Korean War-Truman, Viet Nam war- Kennedy & Johnson.
        And the most lethal war America fought with the most casualties was the Civil War-started by what were then and up to Reagan, Democrats. We lost about 600,000 in the Civil War alone.
        Please look up the losses in the other wars started by Democrats and you will find the overwhelming number of US losses were in wars started by Democrats.

        131

      • #
        Annie

        Wretched phone…I intended thumbs down Stephan. You just don’t get it, do you?

        71

      • #
        James Murphy

        Halliburton doesn’t need Obamas help to stay rich. Now they are merging with Baker Hughes, they are even bigger than before.

        I wonder if Stephan knows what Halliburton and Baker Hughes, and other oilfield service companies actually do to make their money (without looking it up first)…

        Actually, this Halliburton video is hilarious, even if it’s as old as the hills.

        50

    • #
      Bill

      Pehaps Obama is too busy finding weddings to crash to be bothered doing any real leading?

      81

    • #

      Embarrassed to be an American at the moment:
      When all else fails, as it has often done under O’Bummer, his default mode is to go after that pesky climate change.

      Keeps predicting a climate disaster.

      Does things (EPA) that really have a minimal effect on the climate.
      ,
      Ten years later he’ll claim:
      “Earth’s climate is fine thanks to me — we were heading toward the end of life on Earth as we know it — and I helped save the world! If Republicans had been in charge, Wall Street bankers would be going to work on gondolas, because Manhattan would have been underwater — Al Gore told me that.”

      200

      • #
        Radical Rodent

        That is one thing that does worry me. While we are spending a huge amount of money, we are actually doing nothing. However, Mother Earth is continuing as normal, regardless of whatever we do – but, if whatever happens, happens to be not a catastrophe (the most likely – nay, almost certain – scenario), the zealots will claim it was solely because of their “efforts”. The fact that it was inevitable no matter what they did will never enter into the equation.

        100

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Well CAGW is middle class problem – blue collar people know CAGW is nonsense, the welathy are too busy keeping the middle class in a panicked state ( thus making money off them – hello Gore ), and the middle class are tying themselves up in knots.

          They say ignorance ofhte law is no excuse – the same should be applied to people who have an opinion on CAGW – unless they have done theresearch, they shouldnt comemnt. the lamestream media dont count as “knowledge” ( in fact I cringe every time I see nightly “news” on tv…. )

          70

        • #

          I’d say a lot of REAL pollution is being ignored in China and India.

          Back in the 1970s most environmentalists knew what real pollution was, and led the effort to reduce it.

          Now environmentalism is the new statism (socialism, marxism, communism) whose primary goal is to stifle economic growth, population growth and the reduction of poverty encouraged by free markets.

          00

  • #
    TdeF

    Plants and thus every living thing, grow by Carbon Dioxide capture and (almost) nothing else. They are solid CO2 and H2O compounds and filled with water, from the tallest tree to the smallest phytoplankton. The corollary of this is that all you need to grow crops is CO2 and H2O and sunlight (and some tiny trace elements).

    So it is no surprise that more CO2 means more, bigger plants and more food for us. No surprise that everything grows better near the equator. No surprise that nothing grows in a desert.

    The inappropriately named and science ignorant Greens seem to believe that you can live without CO2, that CO2 is somehow bad and they want to ban carbon, limit carbon or tax it. Why?

    I also read in a link to the University of Adelaide marine biology unit that animals, fish, plants cannot adapt to change and will be wiped out by a simple change in pH. Of course that is utter nonsense. They adapt by selection, but that does mean some die. So the fear is simply that you will be selected against, that your particular white polar bear will no longer be needed. So? Why are people and animals so much bigger in cold northern climates? An accident? No, selection. Smaller surface area to body mass ratios keep the heat in. The polar bear is a relatively recent adaption of the far more common brown bear, nothing more. Brown bears died because of their colour where white bears survived.

    Fear is what drives the Greens. Fear that the world will change. Fear that CO2 levels, climates are just perfect today and they might change but they are far from perfect and historically CO2 is far too low. Blame the low planet temperature as CO2 is 98% dissolved in the oceans and only heat will release more.

    A warmer world would would be a far greener, more sustainable world, but change frightens people, a fear used by the doomsayers of the IPCC to generate billions. What’s the bet you could double CO2 and the world would be a better place. Of course warmer seas would rise as they have done for ten thousand of years since the ice age, 120 metres, but over the short period since cities started, say 1300AD, what difference does that make? Then most cities rise steadily too. That’s why acheologists have to dig. No, we need more CO2. Time to start a campaign to warm the world, to make it more sustainable.

    431

    • #
      Richard111

      Good stuff TdeF. Now imagine a good layer of ice over all that plant growing land, sea levels way down exposing millions of square kilometres of rotting sea weed and stuff. CO2 levels will go through the roof. Happens every ice age. Course the ice has to come first.

      130

  • #
    sophocles

    Sad to say, we won’t be able to get it (CO2 atmospheric level) up high enough to enable the return of T-Rex. :-(
    Not any time soon. :-(

    130

    • #

      The obvious problem as explained in the main post above would be the inherent positive feedback on sequestration. There are just not enough humans to increase CO2 at a rate that would not level out below the very long geological time scale average. So I agree with you Sophocles but would say that we just cannot get it back up to normal without a massive increase in population.

      110

      • #
        TdeF

        Siliggy, my perpetual point is that man cannot control CO2 levels anyway. That is the core fraud of the IPCC before you even get to talk about IR.

        Physical chemistry laws set the CO2 level. That is the equilibrium which keeps enough air in the oceans that fish can breathe O2 and output CO2 without asphyxiating. The warmists focus on the land surface is absurd. This is a planet covered with massive amounts of water and a trivial atmosphere.

        In fact why not ban H2O? It is equally a combustion product and far more effective in controlling the earth’s temperature. A H2O tax? Nope, we already have plenty. Sorry about T-Rex. Besides, he was only the last in a long chain of evolving top predators long before Al Gore.

        170

        • #
          sophocles

          The warmists focus on the land surface is absurd. This is a planet covered with massive amounts of water and a trivial atmosphere.

          Absolutely right. At over 70% coverage of the surface area of this planet, and at two orders of magnitude more mass than the atmosphere, the oceans are in charge. Over 98% of the world’s free CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. And it’s those physical laws you mention which control the interchange of CO2 between ocean and atmosphere.

          Another myth is overpopulation. If NZ was bull-dozed flat, it could hold all 7 billion of the world’s population with over 38 sq metres of space per individual. Not very comfortable but when you look at NZ on the globe, it’s a fly speck. The world isn’t overpopulated, as claimed. The problems laid at the feet of that false premise are symptoms of the misallocation of resources, particularly of access to land. Man’s injustices to their fellow men.

          CO2 is invisible, water isn’t, at least not all the time. Droughts are very uncomfortable very quickly, whereas CO2 shortages aren’t so readily apparent. Ergo, CO2 is easier to demonise.

          T-Rex would starve to death really fast if his diet was restricted to warmists, pollies and what other undesirables we could throw his way. He evolved to prey upon those 40m long, 8-10m high, 6-8m wide, 45-90 tonne herbivores like dreadnaughtus and argentinosaurus, of the titanosaurs. At today’s starvation levels of CO2, the plant life just wouldn’t grow fast enough to take the browsing of those giants. It barely supports the 4m x4m x4m, 4tonne elephants and those only in small family groups, not huge herds.

          But T-Rex is a kitty compared with a nastier bigger predator: spinosaurus. Now there’s a killer with real star qualities. (Some paleontologists had some fun here simulating possible abilities…)

          T-Rex, Spinosaurus and the titanosaurs were only possible because of plentiful food. Atmospheric CO2 levels when those babies were alive were of the order of 2000 ppmv. The forests of the time grew so rapidly they were able to recover from being browsed by those huge herbivores very quickly. The predators grew large in response.

          It’s happening to us. Modern man is about 40% larger than the hominids of 4 million years ago. Over the last 10,000 years our food supply took control of us and we are still growing. We cook our food, which kills parasites and some harmful bacteria so we are generally healthier. The change from raw to cooked is changing our dentition, as we are losing those teeth we call wisdom teeth.

          Life’s a gas and CO2 is the gas of life (with a little water mixed in).

          If the titanosaurs were a response to an atmosphere containing CO2 at 2000ppmv plus , why are we so concerned about a 43% increase from 280ppmv to 400ppmv, which isn’t down to us anyway?

          60

          • #
            TdeF

            Well said. You have also addressed the obvious fact that dinosaurs had a lot more to eat and that in turn enabled bigger animals and so far bigger predators. Predators are always smaller, by necessity. It was clearly a time of high CO2 and great plenty. A water planet always moderates high temperatures, as in India and Singapore.

            So this worry about CO2 and temperature is a fabrication, based on a odd 10 years and a maximum increase of 0.5, so the new (1988) IPCC said this meant 5C in 100 years. Now there’s some complex arithmetic.

            No, it is not true. Now the predictions are completely wrong, they have given the presumptive name of the ‘pause’, when in fact it may be a turning point to destruction, kept alive by the faithful only by fiddling and deleting and ignoring current and historical temperature records.

            So much hinges on Paris. That is because unlike Copenhagen and Rio and Durban and Qatar, this is the bankers and bureaucrats last chance with any credibility. It is why Tony Abbott had to go and who else than an ETS pushing rich Goldman Sachs merchant banker to get rid of him? However if Malcolm does not push an ETS, his friends will abandon him. If he does, his party and especially the Nationals will abandon him. I hope it is freezing in Paris in December.

            70

            • #
              sophocles

              I hope it is freezing in Paris in December.

              A big snow dump as in the British Isles in the winter of 2009-2010 was the lead up to the 2010 El Nino. We can hope for something similar for Paris. Paris is a bit far south and consequently a little too warm for anything really bad but freezing and snowing together would be good.

              60

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    LiarDenierLiarDenierLiarDenier
    LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa
    CarbonPollutionCarbonPollutionCarbonPollution
    LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa
    LiarDenierLiarDenierLiarDenier

    152

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    Quoting Dr Goklany ; “Yet despite this the media overlook the good news and the public remain in the dark.”
    We should be rejoicing the fact that this increase in Carbon dioxide (man made) provides a fantastic ‘spin off’ for the world.
    Indeed I feel sure that I can notice the increase in the amount of green vegetation, particularly upon my return visits to the UK.
    Anybody else notice this? Or am just being euphoric and waxing lyrical!
    Geoff W Sydney

    171

    • #
      RogueElement451

      It always was England’s green and pleasant land. But I hear you!

      91

      • #
        Annie

        It usually is a green and pleasant land but wasn’t in August 1990. We thought we were back in Australia at that time as everything was so dry and brown!

        30

  • #
    doubtingdave

    NO JO your singing from the wrong hymn sheet !! (sarc) its all about social engineering and culling the population , and what else would you expect when the revitalized eugenics movement read Paul Ehrlich . Demonising CO2 helps to both starve and freeze people and they are like the Jehovahs Witness lot , in that only the privilaged few will get a place in heaven , except this bunch of religious extremists want to create their heaven on Earth and threaten any non conformists with a fiery climate hell if they don’t get their way.

    221

  • #
    Manfred

    Conclusion — higher CO2 concentrations improves both human and plant well-being.

    …and the World and its civilisations flourished in the warmer periods.


    Why Global Warming Would be Good for You

    A Shortened version of this article entitled “Why Global Warming Would be Good for You” appeared in The Public InterestWinter 1995 without footnotes, tables, the chart or references. The complete version was published later in 1995 in the Hoover Institution Working Paper series as…

    …GLOBAL WARMING: A Boon to Humans and Other Animals
    Thomas Gale Moore

    It’s more than time the weasel eco-marxists were called out. They euphemistically, perhaps even hopefully describe themselves as ‘progressives’ and like UN defined ‘climate change’ and UN defined ‘civilised society’ this as we all so well know, means anything but.

    191

  • #
    Ron Cook

    Yes!, yes!, yes!, go Jo.

    I’ve been trying to get this point across for, err, years especially to my ‘christian’ friends. Stop CO2 and STARVE the planet, allow CO2 to increase AND SAVE the planet from starvation especially those disadvantaged 3rd world countries that ‘Christians’ claim to care about. The MAJORITY of my Christian friends equate CO2 to pollution and hence “evil”. I WILL NOT CAPITULATE burn. burn, burn fossil fuels.
    I’ve just read the Goklany report and it reinforces what I learnt in high school science.

    HOW DO WE GET THIS ACROSS TO MAIN STREAM MEDIA?

    Today’ media controls…………

    R-COO- K+

    161

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      Mr Cook: your Christian friends are not being particularly… er… Christian – Genesis 1:28: God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

      100

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Hi Ron, as a Christian I find the response from your Christian friends is odd, as Radical rodent correctly quoted Gen as proof of Gods desire for humans to become many.

      I think many people, Christians included, get sucked in by peer/group think. And yes they should know better, I also think may US churches are afraid of actually preaching the Gospel as it was written, which only creates further limitations on Christians to question whatthey hear.

      My general observation is that CAGW at its heart is also anti-human ( certainly its heavily anti-Christian ) as it has strong elements of paganism, satanism & humanism. Its championed by the communist occult UN and promoted by marxists/Communists the world over as a way of undermining our existing ( based on Christian-Judeo roots ) western civilisation.

      At its heart, CAGW is the mechanism to remove Christian-Judeo influence from the world, while implementing a global police state.

      80

  • #

    Oh look!

    Check out the map at this link, a Thread from Joanne’s site dated February 2013.

    That’s an extra CO2 emission of around, umm, 10 Billion tonnes a year.

    Or, as the UN might say, “hey, look over there. It’s Leonardo di ….. whatever!”

    Tony.

    171

  • #
    Ron Cook

    AGH! I’m in moderation

    R-Coo- K+

    [Ron, I didn't see anything in moderation or in spam.] ED

    30

  • #
    • #
      Egor TheOne

      ‘ If the Facts don’t Fit the Faith , then the Facts must be Fudged till they do ‘

      The ‘Scientific Method ‘ of the True B’lver >>>

      http://go-galt.org/climategate.html

      Just ask ‘Mick ,The Hockey Stick Mann ‘ !

      Or if that Fails ……its take a vote …..CONsensus Science …..just like the CONsensus that said ” The Sun Orbits The Earth ”

      It only took one to disprove in spite of all the medieval punishments handed out to the dissenters and deniers !!

      And now its co2 is bad …co2 is evil …. co2 is carbon pollution !

      The truth …..we would benefit greatly from double or triple present levels !

      But for many ,it is still the dark ages , where medievalism out weighs Science >>>> pre-enlightenment has returned in the form of CONsensus and Sinister Political Agenda !!!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdmgkZ7cCP8#t=38

      Co2 is not why Venus is so hot ,even though it is 96% of Venus’s atmosphere !

      Therefore , how can our 3% of the total 0.04% atmospheric co2 be the cause for warming here on Earth >>>>>>

      http://newandamazing.shadowsofadistantmoon.com/?tag=global-warming-on-venus

      00

  • #
    Rollo

    Halting the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations abruptly would deprive people and the planet of the benefits of carbon dioxide much sooner than they would reduce any costs of warming.

    As the human contribution is only 3-4 % I don’t think it will make much difference. Suggesting that fossil fuel generated CO2 is going to make any difference concedes an undeserved point to the other side.

    150

    • #
      llew jones

      Of course the morons “on the other side” believe human produced CO2 is a pollutant. Intelligent sceptics of the human induced climate change nonsense of course don’t concede that. But rather know from the science that CO2 is a gas vital to all life on Earth. That’s why well informed skeptics don’t rave over nuclear or hydro.

      When we humans gather in places like picture theatres or in aeroplanes we are very comfortable with CO2 concentrations of 1600 ppm or even higher. And plants like it much higher. Incidentally Aussie safe standard exposure for we humans is 5,000 ppm per working day.

      140

    • #
      David Maddison

      I agree Rollo. Whilst having more CO2 would certainly be beneficial as it is at very low levels now, I can’t see what humans can do to increase it by much given that the current anthropogenic load is less than 3.5% of all CO2. We can’t just go and set fire to all the coal reserves to make CO2 because we need to use it productively for electricity (with a side benefit of CO2), given that most of the world is too stupid to allow nuclear.

      100

      • #
        sophocles

        We can’t just go and set fire to all the coal reserves to make CO2

        No need. Nature’s done it for you. Some of those coal reserves have been burning (lightning set fires) underground for hundreds of years. Rather than allow that coal to go to waste, we should burn it. Then it would be burnt usefully.

        50

  • #
    Frank

    Wow, a science and technology policy analyst knows more about climate than the climate scientists. As an electrical engineer he’s well placed to correct all the misinformation out there, can’t wait for the glowing peer reviews from the Heartland Institute.

    631

    • #

      What’s a climate scientist?

      You mean those fellows on the government dole who play computer games all day?
      The fellows who make scary climate forecasts that don’t come true?
      The fellows doing that for 40 years so far?
      And if they don’t make scary forecasts, they don’t get government grants.

      Climate modelers are not scientists — they do no scientific work.

      Models are not data.
      With no data, there is no science.

      Just “climate astrology”, producing scary, wrong predictions used by politicians to gain political control over people and their businesses.

      The average temperature has changed a degree or two F. in the past 150 years.

      So what?

      Earth’s climate is ALWAYS changing.

      Your speciality seems to be character attacks.

      What do they have to do with science or the climate?

      Grow up.

      202

      • #
        Frank

        Richard and Gnome,
        Pointing out how spectacularly unqualified someone is to play scientist is not a character attack just stating the obvious, yet you accept their findings because it feeds your confirmation bias. All my repeated observations of the skeptics’ lack of evidence, continual rebuttal from all the respected scientific bodies, poor peer reviews are answered by attacks on science and conspiracy theories, please come back to the light.

        [If you could justify you claim that skeptics need evidence in order to question your lack of evidence, perhaps you would not get stuck in moderation. Nevertheless, I'm approving this and we'll let the world respond to it as each reader sees fit.] AZ

        314

        • #
          Frank

          AZ,
          There’s nothing wrong with questioning a consensus , its just that the burden of proof is with the questioner,particularly when they are mostly speaking outside their area of expertise as armchair critics. Your ascertion that we warmists dont have evidence highlights your blinkered view of the evidence, thats why you’re stuck on this site.

          [Frank, it's the consensus itself that is so questionable. It is, in fact, fallacious to argue consensus to support your position. In science it's evidence, not consensus that counts. Consensus is simply an opinion and no matter how many may hold that consensus view, it's not evidence. And you're still wrong about where the burden of evidence lies in this case.] AZ

          [Frank, consensus at best is not much more than Group-Think. At worst you end up with horrible human rights abuses and history is chock full of examples. In each of the worst examples the "burden of proof' argument was also the justification for eliminating the "questioner". Wiser people know this.] ED

          211

          • #
            James Murphy

            No, actually Frank, ‘Warmists’ have put forth the concept that the world as we know it will come to an end unless we do something. That means the burden of proof is on you and your kind.

            You (the ‘warmists’) propose a theory, so you should be able to defend it, and be very happy to provide all the data, and to allow others (the ‘deniers’) to ask questions, ask for clarifications, and poke around looking for flaws and mistakes. That’s how the scientific method works… the fact you have it completely reversed is a sad indictment on your own evidently poor level of scientific training and knowledge.

            As i have asked others of your mindset – what should the climate be doing if the industrial revolution never took place? How do you distinguish between normal, and abnormal variations given the inherent limitations on data resolution, in magnitude, in geographical location, and in time, when using temperature proxies?

            72

          • #
            Frank

            Ed , AZ
            Please dont martyr yourselves by suggesting that questioners may be eliminated , wise people see this heading towards Godwin’s law. So,you must also challenge the consensus views in all the other sciences which are equally evidence based. Stop the reversal of evidence demand, you’re the ones on the fringe, provide some comprehensive evidence .

            [No one has suggested that questioners be eliminated. That comes from you, not from me or ED. You have been allowed to go on with this line for instance.] AZ

            29

            • #
              AndyG55

              Climate science is NOT evidence based..

              Still haven’t work that out, have you, frunk !

              12

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              Frank.

              “Ed , AZ
              Please dont martyr yourselves by suggesting that questioners may be eliminated…”

              It is difficult, once the rhetoric and insults are stripped away there is not much discussion of the science.

              The climate scientists who support AGW Theory have put forward their case.

              For someone to argue a consensus of climate scientists is not relevant is bizarre. All established scientific theories arrive at a consensus sooner or later. A consensus is not a matter of opinion, a consensus is arrived at thru an evaluation of the scientific evidence by those qualified to do an evaluation.

              A thought experiment: what would the AGW dissenters say if there was a consensus AGAINST the theory of AGW? What would the policy makers say? Would the AGW dissenter blogs than say they reject the consensus and ask for scientific evidence?

              01

              • #

                Yawn.

                A thought experiment: what would the AGW dissenters say if there was a consensus AGAINST the theory of AGW?

                – “It’s about time”

                What would the policy makers say?

                – “We always knew it was junk.”

                Would the AGW dissenter blogs than say they reject the consensus and ask for scientific evidence?

                – No, because we already looked at the evidence. Some consensuses are right.

                22

              • #
                AndyG55

                A little though would be a unique experiment for you, twin-emptymess.

                With don’t you actually produce something relevant and backed by actual facts for a change. !!!

                11

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Joanne Nova.

                “– No, because we already looked at the evidence. Some consensuses are right.”

                The “all consensuses are equal, but some are more equal than others” argument.

                03

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                AndyG55.

                “With don’t you actually produce something relevant and backed by actual facts for a change. !!!”

                You don’t come to this blog for a discussion, do you?

                03

              • #
                AndyG55

                “You don’t come to this blog for a discussion”

                You certainly don’t.

                You have never produced one iota of viable discussion, only rabid empty rhetoric.

                So , I repeat (with typo correction…
                ..
                “Why don’t you actually produce something relevant and backed by actual facts for a change. !!!”

                11

        • #
          James Bradley

          Frank,

          It’s a null hypothesis, with about 4 billion years of planetary history of climate change, CO2 much higher and much lower, species come and go, flourish and diminish, and flora and fauna that adapt, evolve and overcome – I’d say the onus is on you to provide evidence current, brief period of warming from the middle of the Little Ice Age to about 1998 is unusual.

          103

          • #
            Frank

            James,
            Its not me you need to convince. You’re the ones questioning the evidence, cough up something that stands up to peer review – oh, I forgot, science is broken etc. etc

            36

            • #
              Erica

              Still don’t get it Frank. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, yet you still have no evidence whatsoever.

              32

            • #
              AndyG55

              So, poor Frank still cannot produce any evidence whatsoever to back up his cult-like belief.

              [True, he can't. And it's time to let it go. Thanks.] AZ

              01

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              What is this evidence, to which you refer?

              We have seen nothing that would qualify as scientific evidence, only political statements, and scary drawings, with no scale, and no supporting data. There are quite a few people on this site, with sufficient mathematical and computer science skills, to be able to understand a computer model, and how it works. Many of us have developed them from scratch.

              And yet we are barred from conducting an independent review, because the models and the associated “homogenised” data are classified. Say, what? Why are they being hidden, do you suppose?

              As Erica says, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. But we are left with the impression that there is probably no evidence at all.

              I think it was Adolf Hitler who said, “Political vision requires no reason”. Climate change only exists, because the political vision at the UN requires it to exist.

              [Same comment as to Andy -- it's time to let it drop. Thanks.] AZ

              01

        • #

          Hi,
          Troll with eight sided heat and teeth, but nothing else!

          “All my repeated observations of the skeptics’ lack of evidence”

          You have made observations only of your own floaters and sinkers!

          “continual rebuttal from all the respected scientific bodies,”

          The now disgraced Clueless Climate Clowns (CCC), are no longer even respected by Armadillos!

          “poor peer reviews are answered by attacks on science and conspiracy theories, please come back to the light.”

          Does this have any meaning whatsoever?
          AZ, was that OK? ;-)

          62

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Frank.

          “Pointing out how spectacularly unqualified someone is to play scientist is not a character attack just stating the obvious…”

          Correct, if someone claims to be an authority, or others claim that a person is an authority, those claims can be tested.

          17

          • #
            sophocles

            There are liars, damned liars and experts”

            An English judge around 1850.

            Now it’s
            There are liars, damned liars and models.

            41

          • #
            Erica

            as your various claims have been tested and found wanting.

            21

          • #
            AndyG55

            “Pointing out how spectacularly unqualified someone is to play scientist”

            Stop looking in the mirror, harry multi-person.

            01

        • #

          The climate is always changing.

          So what?

          A degree or two F. change since 1850, based on very rough measurements, is perfectly normal for our planet.

          There is no evidence of any climate change problem, much less a crisis — in fact, the climate is better than it has been in at least 500 years — slightly warmer after many cool centuries from 1300 to 1800, and more CO2 in the air to accelerate green plant growth.

          Frank, on the specific subject of climate change, you are a fool to overlook the obviously wonderful climate we have now — and getting better — and you only “see” a catastrophe in the future (even though humans have no tools to predict the future climate better than flipping a coin, and you even seem unaware that CO2 is an airborne plant food that greens the Earth — not the “climate controller”.

          You probably have no idea the era of rising manmade CO2 since 1940 was accompanied by global cooling from 1940 to 1976, and by a flat average temperature trend since the early 2000′s.

          In plain English, that I hope even you can understand, when CO2 rose after 1940, the average temperature went down or remained steady in most of the following decades — only up once (let’s say 1995 to 2005).

          If you want scare everyone and claim a catastrophe is coming, then YOU got some ‘splainin to do.

          As a Skeptical Denier, I need no explanation for claiming the climate is perfectly normal today, because it obviously is, and the future climate can not be predicted by anyone, so the next 20 years could have warming, cooling or a neutral trend — no one knows today.

          You global warmunists have been trying to scare people, to control them, by predicting one false environmental catastrophe after another since the 1960s (DDT, acid rain, hole in the ozone layer, global cooling, and many more).

          Only gullible people believe your latest false boogeyman — the coming global warming catastrophe … that will never come.

          And environmentalists who used to care about REAL pollution in the 1970s in the US, and did something about it … now look the other way when REAL pollution in China and India is far worse than the US in the 1970s. Real water, land and air pollution does not include CO2.

          Climate scaremongers like you should be thrown in prison for a year so we calm, normal people can enjoy the pleasant climate — 40 years of incessant bellowing of the lie that climate change means life on Earth as we know will end, is disturbing the peace.

          00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Somebody who is not: an Atmospheric Physists, Climatologists, Hydrologist, Meterologists, Statistician, Geologist, and so on, through all of the other “natural sciences”.

        The term “Climate Science” is used in lieu of the other scientific disciplines, because it is closer to Political Science, and Computer Science, than it is to any of the real sciences.

        In fact, I am always wary of any discipline that is so insecure that the word “science” has to be appended to the subject name. It has always proven to have little to do with science at all.

        11

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Social Science”.. “Home Science” that is where “Climate science” ranks.

          01

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          In the Goebbellesk world of alarmism, it occurred to someone, somewhere, that the fictional term “rocket science” was perceived by the public to be so complicated that it could not even be discussed by the average Joe.

          ” Most of the early citations of ‘not rocket science’ relate to football; for example, this piece from a sports report in the Pennsylvania newspaper The Daily Intelligencer, December 1985:

          “Coaching football is not rocket science and it’s not brain surgery. It’s a game, nothing more.”

          Prior to the 1980s, ‘brain surgery’ had been the occupation that simple tasks were said not to be. ‘It’s not brain surgery’ dates from the 1960s. Before that, straightforward tasks were simply said to be ‘as easy as pie’ or ‘as easy as falling off a log’.”

          Hence in a fashion similar to adoption of the term “denier” due to its connotation, the term “climate science” was adopted by the MSM.

          Just as there are no “rocket scientists”, but rather, Engineering teams of ballistics specialists, jet propulsion specialists, fuel and combustion specialists, etc. there are no “climate scientists” either. A study of the the world’s weather and its drivers, for the purpose of understanding, requires a huge team of the professionals Rereke has listed, and more.

          That’s my two cents worth, anyhow. The terms “climate science” and “climate scientist” were carefully selected alarmism mumbo jumbo in order to impress the gullible in order to advance misunderstanding. The hairy tin bird and Frank apparently have been sucked into that nonsensical void.

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Thank you Rod,

            I wish I had said that.

            … Give me a week or two, and I probably will.

            00

            • #
              Rod Stuart

              William Briggs has some comments about the weird “science” that is performed regularly by the modern shaman.
              We are really and truly retrogressively entering the Dark Ages.

              00

    • #
      gai

      Frank,

      If you think ‘carbon’ is a pollutant and ‘Coal Plants’ are EVIL, why aren’t you and Hansen and Al Gore and Obama and Turnbull and all the rest of the Alarmists walking the walk? Instead I see you using EVIL electricity generated by EVIL CO2 producing power plants to run your EVIL computer made of EVIL plastics and mother earth ripping mined metals built in EVIL factories.

      How about showing us by EXAMPLE!

      Let’s see you and the rest of the Alarmists living in ‘carbon neutral sustainable villages’ like this one:
      http://www.renewablenrgsystems.com/assets/blog-images/2011/02/William_Kamkwambas_old_windmill.jpg

      After you have done so for a year, maybe then you can tell us how to live.

      Otherwise all you have got is unvalidated Computer Models and pie-in-the-sky air-dreams of some unobtainable socialist Utopia that has NEVER EVER been built. Yet you and the others who benefit day in and day out from CARBON and CAPITALISM insist that we tear down our entire advanced civilization and embrace a completely unproven concept as the basis for a different civilization.

      Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, the executive director of the U.S. Task Force on National and Homeland Security, told us exactly what would happen. Wiping out the electrical grid (plus sensitive electronics) will KILL 90% of the US Population through starvation, disease, and societal collapse according to his report to the US government.

      Ironically it is the city dwelling Progressives who are the least likely to survive, while fly-over-country conservatives will probably survive due to their advanced planning.

      152

    • #
      diogenese2

      Frank – your poor talent for irony has metamorphosed into a Reverse Cassandra Syndrome. You think you are telling a lie but are actually speaking the truth!

      72

    • #
      AndyG55

      roflmao.

      Frank puts all three feet in his mouth, yet again !!!

      The new head of the IPCC..

      “Incoming chief Hoesung Lee, an economist from South Korea”

      Sooooo funny !

      42

    • #

      Franks dives in with his silly foot in the mouth babble,

      Wow, a science and technology policy analyst knows more about climate than the climate scientists. As an electrical engineer he’s well placed to correct all the misinformation out there, can’t wait for the glowing peer reviews from the Heartland Institute.

      Look at how many fallacies he squeezed in a paragraph:

      Authority
      personal attack
      source

      No attempt to counter the posted article at all,maybe because YOU are no scientists at all?

      11

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Of course he is no scientist, unless you include those hacks who put “Political” in front of the word.

        He has no idea how much complex math is involved in designing the thousands of semiconductor junctions, that collectively move individual atoms around in the laptop or tablet or ‘phone, that he uses to produce his drivel.

        But of course Electrical Engineers don’t do math, in the fantasy land inside Frank’s head.

        00

  • #
    gnome

    At last you’re speaking my language. What took you so long?

    The benefits of increased CO2 in the atmosphere are so obvious I can’t understand why I have been singing this song in my choir of one while people talk nonsense about “the best way to reduce caaahbon emissions” and pretend that a bit of beneficial warming needs to be avoided.

    Global warming, rising CO2 levels- if only!

    121

    • #
      Bill

      He definately knows more than that cherry picked 97% (79 out of over a thousand)

      81

    • #
      AndyG55

      Gnome, you are not a choir of one.

      I have been using the slogan “TOWARDS 700+” for a long time

      First used in on a 350.org forum and promptly got banned, oh well ;-)

      ps.. yes I know even more would be better, but at 350.org there was a very good reason for using 700+ :-)

      33

  • #
    Mike Flynn

    If climatologists advocate the destruction of the human race by removing CO2 from the atmosphere, does this count as ultimate genocide?

    Presumably, these people should be brought to justice, for inciting genocide.

    If insanity is proffered as a defence, incarceration in a facility for the criminally insane, for life, might be appropriate. The savings to Government would be immense. No more funding of pointless models, no more crackpot carbon trading schemes, and all the rest.

    More CO2 and H2O for all! Run the murderous Warmists out of town! Let them freeze and starve in the dark!

    142

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I think some years from now, when warmists throw around the word “Denier” as if to equate it with Holocaust denial, perhaps our rebuttal will be “A skeptic runs on reason, I’d rather be a skeptic than a ( warmist ) Collaborator…”

      History will be a very harsh judge to warmists, they will be weighed and found wanting, on par with those who aided and abetted the Inquisitions in europe in the orignal Dark Ages.

      52

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      Mike Flynn.

      “If climatologists advocate the destruction of the human race by removing CO2 from the atmosphere, does this count as ultimate genocide?”

      This is a bizarre claim to make.

      110

      • #
        AndyG55

        “This is a bizarre claim to make.”

        Only if you are too ignorant to comprehend that current CO2 levels are still dangerously low.

        ANY reduction in CO2 levels will put even more stress on world food supplies, already hit by the idiocy of bio-fuel mandates.

        CO2 is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for all food supply on this green planet of ours…

        and fortunately, as post #22 shows, there will be plenty and plenty of human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere for a very, very long time to come.

        This thread is about the need for more atmospheric CO2, and it will happen, no matter what the climate cult, in their utter stupidity, try to do about.

        53

      • #
        sophocles

        Harry Twinotter said:

        This is a bizarre claim to make.

        It’s not bizarre at all. It would not just be the ultimate genocide but the ultimate extinction. At about 240ppmv, plants are struggling, and barely growing. At 150ppmv, they die. When they die, so does all animal life on land. In such an event, there may be a few (tiny) survivors in the oceans.

        Almost all the plants alive today evolved in an atmosphere with the CO2 concentration at about 1000ppmv.
        Even at the present 400ppmv, they’re starving.

        52

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Sophocles.

          “Even at the present 400ppmv, they’re starving.”

          Really?

          This is the most insane hypothesis I have heard in a while. Plant life seems to have gotten along fine at 280 ppm for a long time.

          10

  • #
    el gordo

    We know more CO2 was liberated from the ocean depths during the Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period and our Modern Climate Optimum. Its a natural reaction to global warming.

    I don’t believe the level of CO2 in the atmosphere creates a warmer world, the failure of the models make that abundantly clear, but the jury is still out on whether increased carbon dioxide can stave off a mini ice age.

    153

    • #
      gai

      el gordo,

      I am not worried about a mini ice age. It is the BIG DROP that is the bummer. Unfortunately all it will take is a quiet sun, and increase in albedo from major volcanic activity to kick the earth into the other mode at this time. Other factors lining up just right could also provide the kick into glaciation.

      ************************
      Holocene optimum – 523 Wm-2
      Modern Warm period – 476 Wm-2
      Depth of the last ice age – 464 Wm−2

      (From Berger 60°N June insolation – (www1DOT)ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/orbital_variations/berger_insolation/insol91.jun)
      ************************
      The solar insolation in the critical northern latitudes has decreased by 47 Wm-2 since the Holocene Optimum and is now only 12 Wmm-2 above the lowest solar insolation for the Wisconsin Ice Age. It took over 522.5 Wm-2 to kick the earth out of the Wisconsin Ice Age so once glaciation starts we are out of luck.

      Glaciation starts in Hudson Bay so Hudson Bay and the Great Lakes, directly south, and not some ‘Global Temperature’ tells us what is really happening to our climate.

      Hudson Bay was the growth centre for the main ice sheet that covered northern North America during the last Ice Age. The whole region has very low year-round average temperatures. (The average annual temperature for Churchill at 59°N is -5 °C; by comparison Arkhangelsk at 64°N in a similar cold continental position in northern Russia has an average of 2 °C.[16]) Water temperature peaks at 8°-9 °C (46°-48 °F) on the western side of the bay in late summer. It is largely frozen over from mid-December to mid-June
      WIKI

      The sea ice on 25 July 2015. (Note the location of the Great Lakes and think of the record ice the last couple of winters and the 6F below normal summer water temperature.)
      https://polarbearscience.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/hudson-bay-breakup-july-25-2015_cis.gif

      On August 13, 2015 Hudson Bay saw the 2nd highest ice coverage since 1971 in mid-August. The Great Lakes obliterated all records for springtime ice last year, and this year. On March 1, 2014 the Great Lakes were approaching 100% Ice Cover for The first time on record, only Lake Ontario was a major holdout.

      ………

      A fall 2012 paper Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? The paper gives the calculated solar insolation values on June 22 @ 65°N for several glacial inceptions:

      Current insolation @ 65°N = 479W m−2 (from that paper)

      MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2,
      MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2,
      MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2,
      MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2,
      MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2

      The Holocene interglacial is now 11,717 years old. That’s two centuries or so beyond half the present precession cycle (or 23,000/2=11,500). The Little Ice Age was about the right timing. (Thank you Grand Solar Maximum) Only one interglacial , MIS-11, since the Mid-Pleistocene Transition has lasted longer than about half a precession cycle.

      Any hope that the Holocene would go long was shot down by Lisiecki and Raymo in 2005 in their rebuttal of Loutre and Berger, 2003. No more recent papers has rebutted Lisiecki and Raymo in the decade since then. Not that the MSM would bother telling us that.

      ABSTRACT
      We present a 5.3-Myr stack (the ‘‘LR04’’ stack) of benthic d18O records from 57 globally distributed sites aligned by an automated graphic correlation algorithm. This is the first benthic d18O stack composed of more than three records to extend beyond 850 ka,…

      RESULTS
      Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA Community Members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with d18O values below 3.6% for 20 kyr, from 398 – 418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6% for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398– 418 ka as from 250–650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.
      large(DOT)stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/Lisiecki_Raymo_2005_Pal.pdf

      An older paper from 2007 also agrees Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception

      ….Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….
      (wwwDOT)sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379107002715

      Given the age of the Holocene and the low level of solar insolation resulting, the witch hunt against CO2 is really rather humorous.

      191

      • #
        gai

        I can not post John Kehr’s website or graphs because WordPress censors his site. Luckily E.M. Smith has his graph, a pointer to his site and commentary.

        Annoying Lead Time Graph

        The graph shows the Northern Hemisphere solar insolation vs Holocene temperatures and is a graphic presentation of what I said above.

        Dr Robert Brown @ Duke has an interesting comment at WUWT that helps explain this graph.

        “The Earth’s climate is manifestly, empirically bistable, with a warm phase and cold phase, and the cold phase is both more likely and more stable.”

        ….Now, as for the “bistable” bit — if you look back at the first figure, you’ll see only two states in the last 2 million years — warm phase (interglacial) and cold phase (glaciation). There is no evidence of a warmer phase than the warm phase! Not even back when the average temperature was some 3C warmer than it is today — and that’s as much as the worst case CAGW prediction — and stable. There is no “tipping point”. Even when previous interglacials spiked up 2C to 3C warmer than today, they didn’t stay there because the warm phase is unstable, or rather, it is very stable from above, not so stable to cold excursions.

        Now this is something I know a bit about. Underneath this sort of behavior there is a very convoluted phase sheet with at least one fold and a surface or line of stability on a middle unstable sheet or branch. As long as one isn’t too near the folds, one is stable to temperature fluctuations that don’t “cross the line”. However, all things are not equal — something moves the Earth along these sheets over to the real tipping points — the ones that drop warm phase back down to cold or vice versa. The general trend of the Holocene has been cooling from the Holocene Optimum, and it is (as noted) not at all unlikely that we are near the tipping point — down — although we may have saved ourselves with CO_2 for at least a few centuries.

        What might trigger a transition? Perhaps an extended Maunder minimum. Perhaps something else. Our problem is that we don’t know why the ice age ended. We don’t know why the Younger Dryas happened as a bobble after the world warmed up. We don’t know why the Holocene is warm or the preceding period of glaciation cold. We don’t know when, or why, the Holocene will end, or whether anthropogenic CO_2 is having any effect on this either way.

        The number of things we don’t know that no climate scientist who is honest will claim that we know — is large enough to make me pull my little remaining hair and scream! And this is the basis of our settled science?…
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/a-response-to-dr-paul-bains-use-of-denier-in-scientific-literature/#comment-1015971

        61

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘What might trigger a transition? Perhaps an extended Maunder minimum.’

          That would seem most likely, especially if you look back to Eemian’s end in Europe.

          The Younger Dryas may have been caused by a comet breaking up over the Northern Hemisphere, which ultimately put a damper on Holocene excesses and helped create civilization.

          51

          • #
            gai

            “‘What might trigger a transition? Perhaps an extended Maunder minimum.’”
            ………….

            I was being diplomatic el gordo although I think that is quite likely.

            Several studies of the Arctic say that glaciers have grown since the Holocene Climate Optimum.

            In a study on glaciers in Norway the scientists say:

            A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier

            Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700-5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity [growth] is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~ 4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~ 3400, 3000–2700, 2100–2000, 1700–1500, and ~ 900 cal yr BP.

            I wish I could link to John Kehr’s analysis of this paper [Search: Norway Experiencing Greatest Glacial Activity in the past 1,000 year] because he has the graph showing the increase in glaciers with continuous glaciers since the Medieval Warm Period melt as well as a “Satellite image of the region in the study. The glaciers are easily visible on Google Maps.” where he pinpoints the study area.

            Why is this significant?

            1. Because the earth is cooler than it was going into the Little Ice Age.

            2.Thanks to the glaciers that did not melt back during this warm period, the albedo is higher.

            3. 2,000 years ago, the Solar Insolation at 60°N was 3.6Wm^2 higher than it is during the Modern Warm Period. (Medieval Warm Period was from about 950 to 1220 A.D)

            4. We are exiting “the modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19-23, i.e., 1950-2009),” described as “a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia.” A 3,000-Year Record of Solar Activity
            …………….

            I am sure the Politicians who want to lock in ‘Global Governance’ are in a panic to get an agreement signed in Paris in December. They know they are fast running out of time as Solar Cycle 24 winds down and the Norther Hemisphere winters become more severe and the winter snow cover climbs.

            61

            • #
              el gordo

              Do you believe Holocene warming began in the Southern Hemisphere and glacial conditions return through Northern Hemisphere mechanisms?

              20

              • #
                gai

                el gordo, I do all the reading I can on the subject.

                1. The closing of the Isthmus of Panama and the opening of Drake Passage is thought to have tossed the Earth into the present Ice Age. That would indicate the ocean currents are a very important factor.

                2. It seems pretty clear glaciation was not uniform and that it follows the same shape as meridional jets (Steven Wilde’s Loopy Jets)

                3. Both ENSO and the Gulf Stream start with variable currents branching off the Antarctic Circumpolar current as it hits Drake Passage (Humboldt current- not shown below)) and Cape of Good Hope. The Antarctic Circumpolar current is wind driven and from what I can piece together the strength of the winds is connected to ozone and thus the sun’s UV. Actually all the surface currents are wind driven.

                3. There were recent studies claiming the Gulf Stream is slowing. They are refuted by this study: On the long-term stability of Gulf Stream transport based on 20 years of direct measurements

                If the Gulf Stream changes paths or slows then you could see less warming in the Northern Hemisphere and an increase in glaciers.

                http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/oceandeepcur.jpg

                Figure 8q-2: The following illustration describes the flow pattern of the major subsurface ocean currents. Near surface warm currents are drawn in red. Blue depicts the deep cold currents. Note how this system is continuously moving water from the surface to deep within the oceans and back to the top of the ocean. (Source: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment -ACIA).

                From http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8q.html

                I have a library full of bits and pieces that I am not going to get into but the connection seems to be UV & magnetic field changes ozone which changes wind which can change ocean currents.

                With meridional jets in winter you have cold polar air mixing with warm moist tropical air and dumping 2 to 3 meters of snow in one storm as happened to Buffalo NY, Norway, Scotland, Japan, Italy and Greece last winter. (See IceAgeNow) That cold polar air also freezes the Great Lakes and keeps the area cold into the spring and summer.

                Here are a couple of studies:

                06 May 2012 Nature Geoscience | Letter Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum
                (wwwDOT)nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/abs/ngeo1460.html

                ABSTRACT
                Large changes in solar ultraviolet radiation can indirectly affect climate by inducing atmospheric changes. Specifically, it has been suggested that centennial-scale climate variability during the Holocene epoch was controlled by the Sun. However, the amplitude of solar forcing is small when compared with the climatic effects and, without reliable data sets, it is unclear which feedback mechanisms could have amplified the forcing. Here we analyse annually laminated sediments of Lake Meerfelder Maar, Germany, to derive variations in wind strength and the rate of 10Be accumulation, a proxy for solar activity, from 3,300 to 2,000 years before present. We find a sharp increase in windiness and cosmogenic 10Be deposition 2,759  ±  39 varve years before present and a reduction in both entities 199  ±  9 annual layers later. We infer that the atmospheric circulation reacted abruptly and in phase with the solar minimum. A shift in atmospheric circulation in response to changes in solar activity is broadly consistent with atmospheric circulation patterns in long-term climate model simulations, and in reanalysis data that assimilate observations from recent solar minima into a climate model. We conclude that changes in atmospheric circulation amplified the solar signal and caused abrupt climate change about 2,800 years ago, coincident with a grand solar minimum.

                Antarctic Circumpolar Current – Response to recent Climate change
                austhrutime(dot)com/antarctic_circumpolar_current_response_climate_change.htm

                The westerlies, the prevailing winds between 30oS and 60oS, in the Southern Hemisphere have been observed to have intensified significantly over the past decades. (2008)

                31

              • #
                el gordo

                I agree the closing of the Isthmus was fundamental, but there is debate on the timing. When do you think the Americas became one?

                And I agree with your other points.

                Here is a story by Ralph Ellis which discusses ice ages and carbon dioxide.

                http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri15/ralph_ellis_oct15.html

                30

              • #
                el gordo

                If the Great Year has arrived, shouldn’t we be thinking of opening up the Great Seaway again?

                What harm a little tinkering, run a few models, I’m sure we can come up with a solution. Otherwise we can look forward to 400 years of dust and then a deep freeze, it would be like living on another planet.

                20

              • #
                gai

                el gordo,

                I had not followed the controversy on the timing of the closing of the isthmus of Panama. I did just run across this:
                from April of this year:
                New evidence suggests Isthmus of Panama was formed earlier than thought

                There is also this:

                Submerged Volcanoes Cast Doubt on Antarctic Glaciation Theory

                The Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC), an ocean current flowing clockwise around the entire continent, insulates Antarctica from warmer ocean water to the north, helping maintain the ice sheet. For several decades, scientists have surmised that the onset of a complete ACC played a critical role in the initial glaciation of the continent about 34 million years ago.

                Now, rock samples from the central Scotia Sea near Antarctica reveal the remnants of a now-submerged volcanic arc that formed sometime before 28 million years ago and might have blocked the formation of the ACC until less than 12 million years ago. Hence, the onset of the ACC may not be related to the initial glaciation of Antarctica, but rather to the subsequent well-documented descent of the planet into a much colder ‘icehouse’ glacial state.

                “If you had sailed into the Scotia Sea 25 million years ago, you would have seen a scattering of volcanoes rising above the water. They would have looked similar to the modern volcanic arc to the east, the South Sandwich Islands,” explained Prof Ian Dalziel from the University of Texas at Austin’s Institute for Geophysics, who is a lead author of a paper reporting the findings in the journal Geology.

                Prof Dalziel and his colleagues used multibeam sonar to map seafloor bathymetry and identify seafloor rises in the central Scotia Sea.

                They dredged the seafloor at various points on the rises and discovered volcanic rocks and sediments created from the weathering of volcanic rocks. These samples are distinct from normal ocean floor lavas and geochemically identical to the presently active South Sandwich Islands volcanic arc to the east of the Scotia Sea that today forms a barrier to the ACC, diverting it northward….

                30

              • #
                gai

                el gordo,

                Yes I read Albedo regulation of Ice Ages, with no CO2 feedbacks by Ralph Ellis
                (wwwDOT)warwickhughes.com/agri15/ralph_ellis_oct15.html

                #1. The ‘Great Year’ makes sense.

                #2. Regional calculation of solar insolation makes a heck of a lot more sense compared to the flat disk always facing a weak sun that the Climastrologists live on. For example on a clear day in mid-September, the value is 1150 W/m^2 at the equator at noon vs TOA for that day receiving 1353 W/m^2. The Climastrologists are saying you can set a kettle on a burner on low for 24 hours and get the same temperature as setting the burner on high for 10 to 15 minutes. With one it never boils and with the other you get a vigorous boil. Actually the whole ‘global temperature’ idea is a big Red Herring since it is the configuration of the jet streams that actually count when it comes to weather and climate from what I can tell.

                #3. Dust.
                I will agree to dust as a major contributor.

                Perhaps one of the more poignant moments in all of climate science occurred in 1992, documented by John D. Cox, writing in Climate Crash: Abrupt Climate Change and What it Means for our Future (John Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academies Press, ISBN: 0-309-54565-X, 224 pages, 2005), which describes the initial discovery of Abrupt Climate Change (ACC) and also introduces a main character, Dr. Richard B. Alley:

                “They knew they had the critical layer of ice in their snow cave…

                The ice that had formed from falling snow during the transition from the last of the cold, dry, windy ice ages to the first of the warm, wet calms of the modern 10,000-year-long Holocene climate is 1,678 meters, just over a mile, down the GISP2 core. Rendered in ice, what exactly would it look like, this boundary of epochs?

                …”‘You did not need to be a trained ice core observer to see this,’ recalled Alley. ‘Ken Taylor is sitting there with the ECM and he’s running along and his green line is going wee, wee, wee, wee – Boing! Weep! Woop! And then it stays down.’ Dust in the windy ice age atmosphere lowered the acidity of the core to a completely new state. [they are going backwards in time]

                …then it was Alley’s turn at the ice. “It slides across in front of me and I’m trying to identify years: ‘That’s a year, that’s a year and that’s a year, and – woops, that one’s only half as thick.’ And it’s sitting there just looking at you. And there’s a huge change in the appearance of the ice, it goes from being clear to being not clear, having a lot of dust.

                (wwwDOT)sott.net/article/279874-The-End-Holocene

                So the transition from the Wisconsin Ice Age to the Holocene happened in ONE YEAR! Amazing.

                Low CO2 levels are a bit dicey though. Jaworowski shows how the CO2 ice core data was fudged and so does plant stomata numbers.

                CONTINUED: (I want to add more live links.)

                10

              • #
                gai

                CONTINUED:
                I would like to correct Ralph Ellis reliance on ClimAstrologists CO2 data since it will strike a jarring note with realists.

                Like the surface temperature data, the CO2 data has been twisted and hammered until it fits the ‘Cause.’ Jaworowski makes the point that the older analysis using the whole sample give much higher readings compared to using just the air bubble. This is because CO2 likes water and will diffuse into the ice. This older data has of course now been scrubbed from the narrative.

                So what is a more realistic view of Ice age CO2?

                First the ‘plants die at 180 ppm’ is based on the corrupted CO2 data. An older paper now replaced on the internet gave 220 ppm and trees (C3) die. Other data shows a wheat field (C3) will draw CO2 down to a constant 310 ppm during the day. (Measured at 2 meters above the plants.**) Greenhouse studies showed plants could reduce CO2 by 50 ppm ” within a tomato plant [C3] canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house” and “photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration approaches 200 ppm” Source

                ** (wwwDOT)sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0002157173900034

                Second a problem for C3 plants is although the photosynthesis pathway is more energy efficient, at low CO2 levels more stomata are needed and the plant loses a lot more water through the open stomata. Therefore the evolution of C4 and CAM plants was favored by low CO2 level AND the long dry periods when the northern ice-sheets dominated the landscape.

                The last problem is when the level of CO2 drops below 310 ppm the rate of net photosynthesis drops like a rock. SEE Ontario Canada fact sheet on Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses figure 1.

                What does figure 1 mean for plants? It means the number of days needed to grow to maturity is longer and if the CO2 is low enough, the plant might live but it might not have the needed energy to bare seed.

                Was there CO2 starvation of C3 plants? Yes. Also often overlooked is the partial pressure of CO2 changes with altitude** and this would limit the altitude where C3 plants (trees) could grow.

                References:
                ** Impact of lower atmospheric carbon dioxide on tropical mountain ecosystems
                (wwwDOT)ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9367947

                Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution
                rstb(DOT)royalsocietypublishing.org/content/353/1365/159.abstract

                Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California
                (wwwDOT)ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15642948

                CONTINUED

                20

              • #
                gai

                So what is my correction to Ralph’s dust/albedo theory?

                Add to low CO2, lack of WATER, or more correctly drought (and wind) If you look at the Wisconsin Ice Age map, you can see the amount of extreme desert near the glaciers. Add a bit of warming so the polar deserts are not frozen solid year round plus wind and there you have your dust. CO2 need not apply.

                You can check out whether the northern deserts would thaw by looking at the solar insolation. NOAA lists the Berger calculations for June solar insolation values @ 60°N (not 65°N)

                The Depth of the last ice age – around 464 Wm−2
                Ralph says the dust was ~10,000 years before the transition.

                21,000 years ago…………… 469 Wm-2
                NOW (Modern Warm Period) 476 Wm-2
                So 7 Wm-2 less insolation @ 60°N

                11,000 years ago…………… 523.16 Wm-2 peak insolation
                Wisconsin Ice age- Holocene transition
                12,000 years ago…………… 522.50 Wm-2

                Holocene peak insolation: 523 Wm-2

                WUWT has a discussion about Verhojansk, Russia (lat of 67.55N)

                Verkhojansk is located in a treeless shallow valley. There is snow on the ground during winter months; it melts in the spring. Verhojansk experiences the coldest winter temperatures of any official weather station outside of Antarctica. Verhojansk has Earth’s most extreme temperature contrast (65oC) between summer and winter.

                The Latitude of Olenek, Russia is 58N Steve McIntyre,on
                Nov 10, 2008 reported:

                YEAR …. APR . MAY . JUN .. JUL . AUG .. SEP .. OCT
                2006 -18.1C 1.6C 10.6C 16.9C 11.5C 4.4C -14.6C
                2007 -4.0C 0.1C 12.4C 13.5C 11.3C 3.1C -9.0C
                2008 -13.4C 1.3C 12.0C 13.1C 12.1C 3.1C 3.1C

                So thawing in summer even with 7Wm^2 less solar energy would happen.

                Last Glacial Maximum vegetation
                “This map illustrates the aridity of full-glacial conditions suggested on the basis of palaeoevidence from around the world; there was much less closed forest and more desert than at present. In fact, current evidence from various parts of the world suggests that the greatest overall aridity was reached slightly after 18,000 14C y.a., and closer to 16,000-14,000 BP. In this sense, the map may be more appropriate as a representation of conditions slightly after the LGM. Nevertheless, the whole period from about 21,000- 14,000 14C y.a. seems to have experienced much colder and more arid conditions than at present.”

                http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/lastgla.gif

                Early Holocene vegetation
                “Summary map of vegetation cover at 8,000 14C years BP. By 8,000 14C y.a., the Earth was under a full interglacial climate, with conditions warmer and moister than present in many parts of the world. Tropical forest in Africa (and probably also Asia) was expanded in area, and the areas of desert in Africa and Asia were much reduced.”

                http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/earlyho.gif

                10

              • #
                Power Grab

                @ gai:

                “I have a library full of bits and pieces that I am not going to get into but the connection seems to be UV & magnetic field changes ozone which changes wind which can change ocean currents.”

                Awww…I want to learn more about the UV and magnetic field influences on the planet’s climate.

                00

              • #
                ralph ellis

                >>So thawing in summer even with 7Wm^2
                >>less solar energy would happen.

                I don’t think so.

                The difference is that during an Ice Age, you are trying to thaw a high albedo ice-world. It is not going to work. The increased insolation cannot get a grip on fresh snow an ice, no matter how intense. No absorption = no melt = no rise in temperature. You need to lower the albedo, before anything will happen.

                As to the CO2 calculations. Yes, it is true that plants draw down the CO2 at low altitude, and they then require more moisture. This simply means that 150 ppm is not the plant death zone, anywhere from 200 ppm or below can be. Any more arid regions will lose their plant life first, followed by any high altitude locations. And some species may be wiped out before others.

                I am guessing that pines may die before broad-leaf trees, I will have to find out. But if so, the great northern pine forests could be wiped out first, and result in a vast swathe of dry timber just waiting for a continent-wide conflagration. And then you would have all the soot you need, to create a D-O warming event.

                Ralph

                00

        • #
          sophocles

          Gai: have you read any of Nir Shaviv’s research?
          He thinks outside the box. Where all the klimate scientists are all looking inwards, he is one of the very few who has looked up and out. He may or may not be right but he makes a good case, IMHO.

          20

  • #

    I think this would be relevant in any discussion on this site. Many of you may have seen it before. Milton Friedman commenting on central planning but specifically the comments from about 50secs and immediately after is chillingly relevant today.

    Why do I get the impression we were “smarter” as a society 30 years ago than we are today? Listen also to the overall quality of the debate, it is civil, yet confrontation is common. It is informed and no one belittles the position of another, despite holding polar opposite views.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT5X9RE-ZDU

    120

    • #
      Yonniestone

      This type of open discussion is referred to as useless information by the central planners of today as the sheeple are given more important crusades of social justice to occupy their once wasteful existence, I wonder how many activists realize they’re actors in a bad play with an ad-libbed script written by ignorance?

      120

      • #

        Yah the US Ambassador saying “obviously people wouldn’t petition the Govt. to control the weather because the Govt. cant control the weather” was just gold!

        70

    • #
      Bill

      Not certain about “smarter” (as in more intelligent) but certainly society as a whole had more commons sense (refered to by some as common dog). And people actually had real jobs, not just the “basket weaving” (nothing against basket weavers but the expression holds true) type that their “higher education” qualified them for. Too many with useless BA’s that really don’t contribute much, from universities that program rather than teach.

      40

      • #
        Bill

        There is a lot to be said for the older society; it was more polite, people considered the consequences of their actions and words, and took responsibility for them. Now we have….none of the above?

        80

  • #
    AndyG55

    DON’T PANIC

    There will be Plenty of CO2

    CO2 India ! https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/02/indias-climate-plan-will-triple-emissions-by-2030/

    CO2 Holland https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/10/02/netherlands-massively-increasing-their-coal-capacity/

    CO2 Germany (continuing to grow their lignite burning)

    CO2 Japan (43 new coal fired plants planned or being built)

    CO2 Turkey…. http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/turkey-double-coal-capacity-four-years-314706

    CO2 China (massive increase for at least another 15 years ,, with Obama approval, of course)

    CO2 Indonesia (just over taken Australia in coal production in 2013)

    CO2 Vietnam http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22332

    CO2 Kazakhstan http://www.inform.kz/eng/article/2787951
    “”Kazakhstan is currently seventh in the world in terms of coal reserves. This means that there is enough coal to last us around 300 years at current rates of production.

    CO2 Global http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2014/december/global-coal-demand-to-reach-9-billion-tonnes-per-year-by-2019.html

    and many, many, many others.

    And any new power stations will have a 50+ year lifespan.

    So there will be…

    PLENTY OF CO2 FOR ALL THE WORLD”S PLANT LIFE FOR MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS TO COME . :-) :-)

    183

    • #
      gnome

      Of course we will be proved right when almost every developing country continues to use fossil fuels and the benefits continue to flow and become apparent, but it’s not the point. I don’t really care if we win the rhetoric flow or not, I care that this “reducing caaahbon emissions” nonsense is destroying our economy now.

      Developing countries’ economies are of no particular interest to me either, it’s ours I care about.

      161

      • #
        AndyG55

        The AGW farce will die once they get their totalitarian UN agenda signed.

        AGW is a vehicle that will no longer be needed.

        62

  • #
    Ruairi

    When measured experiments show,
    How profusely food plants will grow,
    With more ‘carbon’ emissions,
    Under trial conditions,
    It’s the way that real science should go.

    220

  • #
    Robert O

    It really isn’t rocket science that plants use CO2 to synthesise carbohydrate. And the rate of the photochemical reaction is controlled by substrate concentration, light intensity and temperature. Greenhouse growers have known this for ages, why do they use lights, heaters and carbon dioxide enrichment to around 1300 ppm.? To grow tomatoes as fast as possible.

    81

  • #
    Dsystem

    That’s why the Dinosaurs died out – CO2 decreased, vegetation decreased. The big green chomping dinosaurs starved out of existence. They were BIG so needed lots of vegetation (apart from T-rex types who needed big herbivores). Just a theory (guess) but worth some research???

    60

  • #
    barney rubble

    It’s the “SUN” not C02 that causes climate change, well well.

    A new, peer-reviewed professional paper shows our sun, not our carbon dioxide, causes climate change. It also shows atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are an insignificant player, and possibly a non-player, in climate change.

    They show climate models do not reproduce the correct temperature record when back tested. This means, of course, climate models are of no value in making climate predictions. The reason is obvious. Climate models do not properly simulate the physical effects of carbon dioxide, water vapor, clouds, aerosols, and solar irradiance.

    http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/new-study-sun-not-co2-causes-climate-change/?awt_l=AJVsI&awt_m=3cl_or7iya7WuNE

    101

  • #
    PeterS

    I agree we should increase CO2 but I’m sensing the thought police will ask for laws to be enacted so that they can arrest people who suggest we increase CO2. I think I can hear the Gestapo coming now.

    121

  • #
  • #
    Dariusz

    The reason why we have suddenly ( geologically speaking) lots of glacial periods is because we live on the co2 starved planet with little greenhouse defence. Any change caused by the milankovitch cycles (Jupiter caused gravitational wobbles of the earth orbit around the sun) changes amount of sunlight and hence rapid temperature change.
    Anyone who believes in the Gaia crap should be thankful that humanity liberates co2 preventing this world from falling into the permanent ice house just like it happened before in the geo history.

    91

  • #
    doubtingdave

    Have you all ever thought about the irony of this; a warming world would mean less severe weather events such as hurricanes etc because as the arctic warms temperature differences between the arctic and equator even out, were as in a cooling climate the temperature difference between the poles and the equator increases and stormy weather increases. So why is it that climate scientists aren’t jumping up and down shouting that less tornadoes and hurricians are proof that the climate is warming as they predicted!!! Obviously we all know the answer to that, too many so called scientists and their political hangers on ” jumped the shark” with fear mongering ,how frustrating it must be for them ,less stormy weather is just about the only real observational evidence for a warming world that they have,and if the world is going to be two degree’s warmer by the end of the century,if increased CO2 is going to cause the greening of the planet and if the weather is going to be less stormy , then they are describing a future utopia not the Armageddon they’d have us believe ,so they may as well turn off their computers , shut down their labs and go and do something useful instead.

    72

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    The GWPF would say that, they are a lobby group for fossil fuel interests.

    [No evidence for that claim Harry. The GWPF specifically states on their web site:

    Funding
    The Global Warming Policy Forum will be funded by private donations. In order to make clear their complete independence, neither the Foundation nor the Forum accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.


    Keep on telling un-truths Harry, it's the fastest way to permanent moderation.] ED

    Something tells me 3C of warming and sea level rise by around mid century will be a high price to pay. Increases in droughts will likely negate any increases due to CO2 fertilisation.

    327

    • #
      Dariusz

      I hope you are using a horse drawn cart to go to work (if you really ever worked) or use a paddled bike powered iPad to talk to us. I am working for the petroleum industry as a geologist and never seen any fossil fuel industry interests that you speak of. In fact you offend me when I see thousands of people loosing their jobs now because of low oil price. This must some evil fossil industry grand plan.
      But don,t jump with joy too early as you get less money from the same industry to support your coffee latte lifestyle.

      182

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Dariusz.

        Worst attempt to distract and change the subject that I have seen in a while, you make no attempt to be subtle about it. I guess you have admitted defeat and have no wish to respond intelligently.

        “never seen any fossil fuel industry”

        You got me there, I have no idea how to respond to that odd statement. The fossil fuel industry is HUGE the last time I looked at the stock market.

        “I hope you are using a horse drawn cart to go to work”

        Tu quoque logical fallacy.

        “In fact you offend me when I see thousands of people loosing their jobs now because of low oil price”

        What has that got to do with climate change? Anyway I personally cannot help what you find offensive, and for what reason.

        621

        • #
          AndyG55

          Guess what Harry twoperson.

          The post at #22 shows that there will be MASSIVE expansion of coal fired power stations and emissions over the next 20-30 years.

          And guess what, little drone….

          THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT :-) :-)

          124

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            I guess AndyG55 has to pop in and make one of his pointless comments as usual. He tends to repeat himself, too.

            011

            • #
              AndyG55

              I need to repeat myself several times to make non-learners like you comprehend.

              So I will repeat it again, seeing the truth seems to upset you so much..

              The post at #22 shows that there will be MASSIVE expansion of coal fired power stations and emissions over the next 20-30 years.

              DO…YOU…UNDER…STAND !!! :-)

              And the only person around here making pointless, meaningless, unsubstantiated comments…. is you.

              82

        • #
          Dariusz

          Working? You Forgot to cover this in your analysis?
          I won,t stoop your levels of invectives.

          Off to work for the evil petroleum industry. You can put me on your death list.
          Dariusz Jablonski
          Geologist, 25 years of experience including climate and Palaeogeographies reconstructions. You can find me on the web.

          81

    • #
      doubtingdave

      Well thanks Harry , if you are correct that scenario would turn my home in the middle of England into a tropical paradise with a warm north sea lapping against the palm trees at the bottom of my garden, what a lovely thought, thanks ;)

      174

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        doubtingdave.

        Well some might actually enjoy their global warming. As long as they have enough to eat, live high enough above sea level, and are past military service age.

        425

        • #
          Mike Flynn

          Harry,

          It may have escaped your notice that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so. No amount of CO2 or anything else has prevented this occurring.

          Likewise, you may be unaware of the fact that the Earth’s crust is in constant motion. As continents rise, the sea level is perceived to fall. And vice versa.

          Finally, burning of hydrocarbons produces at least two things – CO2 and H2O. H2O is also known as water, so your fears of drought may be misplaced. Maybe you should worry more about too much water, and the danger of drowning?

          Please feel free to ask, if you need any assistance with understanding natural processes. I am here to help.

          Cheers.

          133

        • #
          Egor TheOne

          Which islands / land masses are about to or have disappeared ???

          As Lindzen has said , and applies with true b’lvers as yourself ” Grotesque Misrepresentation ” of the facts !

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9bEOB3x0dQ

          51

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            Egor TheOne

            “Which islands / land masses are about to or have disappeared ???”

            Who said anything about land masses disappearing?

            I will chalk this one up as a straw man.

            112

            • #
              Egor TheOne

              As long as they have enough to eat, “live high enough above sea level”

              Your words Harry !

              Suggestive of sea level rise of threat !
              How is approx 1mm per year rise any possible threat ???
              In 100 years , another 4 inches of water ,maybe might cause some to have to move i meter !!!

              Yep , big emergency…….we need great big global governance and a great big new global tax to save us !!!

              You sir , and your true b’lver brethren are ready for this >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straitjacket#mediaviewer/File:Straitjacket-rear.jpg

              A song to cheer you up >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk

              71

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Egor TheOne.

                “How is approx 1mm per year rise any possible threat ???”.

                Actually 3mm per year going by satellite measurements, their coverage is better. Tidal gauges only measure the coast in general.

                That is 30mm per decade, or 300mm (around a foot) in 100 years. And that is an average so the extremes will be higher. And that is not allowing for sea water erosion of glaciers that terminate in the ocean.

                11

        • #
          AndyG55

          “live high enough above sea level”

          So. let me see.. even at the massively adjusted NOAA rate of 3mm/year.

          A person born now would maybe see 1ft/30cm of sea level rise in their whole life time.

          Taking the real value of around 1.5mm/year at most.. that would be 6″ in their lifetime.

          That is truly CAUSE FOR PANIC , isn’t it , twinperson .. ;-)

          But don’t let the facts drown you, little child. ;-)

          83

          • #
            sophocles

            Andy, you forgot: 1ft/30cms = 300mm, which is a much scarier number.
            Go stand in the corner for 5 seconds.

            12

    • #
      gai

      “The GWPF would say that, they are a lobby group for fossil fuel interests.”

      You have that the wrong way round Harry.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>
      Shell Oil wants to push natural gas and considers the coal industry a competitor they want to crush. So Shell and BP and Enron, used the tried and true business model, regulate the competition out of business.

      Enron, joined by BP, invented the global warming industry. I know because I was in the room. This was during my storied three-week or so stint as Director of Federal Government Relations for Enron

      Ged Davis was IPCC lead Author of Scenarios while a Shell Oil VP. He wrote the Sustainability Scenarios for the IPCC. A Climategate email shows Shell Oils desire to replace coal with natural gas in the “Sustainable Development (B1)” part of the February, 1998 Climategate e-mail which asks for comments on the attachment: “Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios” by Ged Davis

      To quote from the Sustainable Development (B1) section:

      …The impact of environmental concerns is a significant factor in the planning for new energy systems. Two alternative energy systems, leading to two sub-scenarios, are considered to provide this energy:

      1. Widespread expansion of natural gas, with a growing role for renewable energy (scenario B1N). Oil and coal are of lesser importance, especially post-2050. This transition is faster in the developed than in the developing countries…
      (Sorry link has forbidden word)

      No wonder Shell Oil (and BP) have been pushing a global warming crisis since day one when they provided the initial funding for the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia. It will be a real moneymaker. Tear out the old infrastructure and replace with natural gas, Solar and Wind. A new twist on ‘the broken window fallacy’ where the entire country has to shell out to pay for replacing the ‘window’ the energy sector is so busy breaking.

      Another Shell Oil exec Doug McKay was at the IPCC scenario meetings. McKay was also Senior Financial Analyst with the World Bank. Robert Watson worked for the World Bank while Chair of the IPCC.

      David Hone is not only SHELL OIL’S Senior Climate Change Adviser he is also Chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association. He and his mentor James Smith, SHELL OIL’S previous UK Chairman took SHELL very deeply into Carbon Trading.

      Shell Oil President, Marlan Downey, “Former President of the international subsidiary of Shell Oil” now works for Richard Muller of BEST fame (Muller Assoc.)

      The Dutch royal family (The House of Orange) is still reportedly the biggest shareholder in Shell Oil. The Queen of England is also a major stockholder. Another major stockholder is the Rothschilds. The Rothschild Investment Trust was formed in 1988 and recently became RIT Capital Partners. Rockefellers and Rothschilds Unite

      Following the major owners of Shell you find Prince Bernhard of the Dutch Royal Family was the Founding President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). HRH The Duke of Edinburgh served as International President of WWF for 16 years until his retirement at the end of 1996. John H. Loudon, Better known as “the Grand Old Man of Shell”, headed Royal Dutch Shell from 1951 to 1965…. He was President of WWF from 1976 to 1981.

      *****************
      Grants Search:- The Rockefeller Brothers Fund (Standard Oil money)

      (wwwDOT)rbf.org/content/grants-search

      Bill McKibben’s 350_dot_org: 6 grants from 2003 totaling US$875,000.00

      Bill McKibben’s 1Sky_dot_org: 7 grants between 2007-2011 totaling US$2,100,000.00
      (includes US$1 million ‘start-up’ grant)

      The Sierra Club: 12 grants from 2009 totaling US$1,665,000.00

      Friends of the Earth: 7 grants from 2009 totaling US$777,500.00

      The Pacific Institute (President; Peter Gleick): 5 grants between 2004-2008 totaling US$670,000.00.

      This small sample doesn’t even scratch the surface of grants awarded by the RBF to activists (e.g. Greenpeace Fund: US$550,000) and/or climate research units globally (e.g. Center for Climate Strategies: US$5,171,600.00).

      Oh…almost forgot;

      The Heartland Institute => Your search results: 0 Grants
      The Global Warming Policy Foundation => Your search results: 0 Grants

      The OIL FUNDED Grantham Foundation also funds or has funded the Imperial College based Grantham Institute for Climate Change, Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media, World Wildlife Fund and other environmental groups.

      ………….
      Coal has one up side for consumers, you can stock pile it easily. Natural gas is not as easy to stock pile. This means you can charge a lot more money for Natural gas when the weather is very hot or cold. This is why there is a campaign against pipelines. Can’t make as much money with a steady supply.

      121

    • #
      gai

      Harry Twinotter says “Something tells me 3C of warming …. Increases in droughts….”
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      Again Harry displays his ignorance. Warmth means more evaporation and less drought according to Maps Compiled by Jonathan Adams, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN

      Africa home of the Sahara desert.

      Summary

      From around 150,000 to 130,000 years ago, Africa experienced colder and more arid than present conditions. About 130,000 years ago, a warm phase moister than the present began, and this lasted until about 115,000 years ago, with greater rainforest extent and the deserts almost completely covered with vegetation. Subsequent cooling and drying of the climate led to a cold, arid maximum about 70,000 years ago, followed by a slight moderation of climate and then a second aridity maximum around 22,000-13,000 14C years ago. Conditions then quickly became warmer and moister, though with an interruption by aridity around 11,000 14C years ago. A resumption of warm, moist conditions led up to the Holocene ‘optimum’ of greater rainforest extent and vegetation covering the Sahara. Conditions then became somewhat more arid and similar to the present. Relatively brief arid phases (e.g. 8,200 14C y.a.) appear to punctuate the generally moister early and mid Holocene conditions.

      (I wish these images would post)
      Africa under full glacial conditions – 22,000-14,000 ya

      http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/afr(22-.gif

      The top 1/3 of Africa is Extreme desert with semi desert, then grassland as you go south and only a bit of forest here and there.

      Africa during the early Holocene – 9,000 ya

      http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/afr(9ky.gif

      The top 1/3 of Africa is mainly grassland with a narrow strip of semi desert, then savanna (some trees) as you go south with the middle now scrub, open woodland and tropical forest indicating a much wetter climate despite the higher temperatures.

      Africa present-potential vegetation

      http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/afr(pre.gif

      The vegetation is headed back toward that seen during glacial conditions with an expanding desert, open woodland and savanna becoming grassland, and forest areas shrinking.

      122

    • #

      Harry Twinotter October 13, 2015 at 10:24 pm

      “The GWPF would say that, they are a lobby group for fossil fuel interests.”

      Woodja lookat dat! A HARRY TwinBeaver, wif big teeffs! :-(

      62

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      “Keep on telling un-truths Harry, it’s the fastest way to permanent moderation.] ED”

      So I am required to be accurate, and others are not? It appears I have hit a nerve with my comment about the secretive GWPF. For a group that lobbies for “transparency”, you would think they would embrace transparency themselves.

      I will let others in this forum judge the fairness of this.

      Follow the money, as they say…

      [Harry, you hit a nerve alright and you continue without substantiation, to defame GWPF. From where does your money come Harry? I'd like to follow that......] ED

      012

      • #
        gai

        “…Follow the money, as they say…”

        I already have and it leads to Shell oil, the World Bank and their buddies the IPCC and World Wild Life Fund.

        That is your problem Harry you really do nothing but parrot what you learn on SkS from a cartoonist instead of doing a bit of checking.

        31

      • #

        Because you LIED about it Harry,

        GWPF states on their website:

        “Funding
        The Global Warming Policy Forum will be funded by private donations. In order to make clear their complete independence, neither the Foundation nor the Forum accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.”

        You had claimed the very opposite with ZERO evidence:

        “The GWPF would say that, they are a lobby group for fossil fuel interests.”

        11

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          sunsettommy.

          “GWPF states on their website:”

          Believing a declaration on a website without evidence?

          They should reveal whom their “private” donors are then, that would clear it up for everyone as the claims can be checked.

          Until then I prefer to stick with what the government-funded scientific bodies say, at least they are accountable to the government’s electors.

          01

  • #
    gai

    When you think about it. It is obvious that CAGW is a manufactured scare and it’s purpose is political. I very much doubt that the global Movers and Shakers actually believe in CAGW. So the question is WHY the push to completely restructure society?
    …..

    This is a SWAG from piecing together recent history.
    ….

    The key time period is the late 1960s and early 1970s. You can see the mindset in Washington DC switch in the 1970s from pro-economic growth to major socialist regulations and taxes crippling growth. This ultimately ended up with the US government behind the striping of assets in the USA including literally packing up and shipping our factories and technology overseas. (First the 1980′s Leveraged Buyouts destroyed debt free US owned corporations, then Clinton finished the job with The WTO and helping move US technology to China.

    So John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome Malthusians (founded in 1968) were not alone. The US government has been behind them since BEFORE the book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions (1973) was published. The book just echoed the real thoughts of the US government of that time.

    Given Holdren is Obama’s Science Czar and the Malthusian drivel is still coming out of the universities, I do not see that the actual mindset in DC has changed.

    You even have Ted Turner, founder of CNN and the UN Foundation saying “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

    So why would the Movers and Shakers want wipe out a large part of the population. Why would they want to strip the assets of the EU, the USA and Canada and move them to China, India and Brazil? If the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals are to be believed First world assets will also be used to drag Africa, the Middle East and Latin America kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

    This map of the Wisconsin Ice Age vegetation might give us a clue:
    http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/paleoveg/veg-adams-big.gif

    Is there evidence that the Movers and Shakers might believe the Holocene is near the end?
    Nigel Calder @ calderup(DOT)wordpress.com/2010/05/14/next-ice-age/
    and Alan Feuerbacher @ corior(DOT)blogspot.com/2006/02/part-15-ice-ages-confirmed.html
    give the history of the critical time period of the 1950s to early 1970s.

    ************************
    1941 – Milankovitch had finished his calculations.

    1950s – Cesare Emiliani found no fewer than seven complete glacial-interglacial stages during the past 300,000 years that agreed fairly well with the variations predicted by Milankovitch. (Ericson’s foram analysis had identified as warm were shown by Emiliani’s methods to have been cold so there was much debate.)

    1968 – George Kukla showed loess deposits at a brickyard quarry on Red Hill near the city of Brno in Czechoslovakia, contain a record of many glacial cycles.

    “In the spring of 1971, as part of the International Decade of Ocean Exploration, a group of scientists and researchers organized a series of studies known as CLIMAP — the Climate Long Range Investigation, Mapping and Prediction project. One of their first missions was to analyze sea cores and deduce the climate changes that have taken place…”

    1972 – The UN First Earth Summit chaired by Maurice Strong that kicked off CAGW
    ************************

    By the 1960s the evidence supporting Milankovitch was piling up.

    At a meeting held in Paris in 1969, Imbrie announced the results that he had obtained when he studied a Caribbean core with this multiple-factor technique. Whereas Emiliani’s research indicated that surface water temperatures in the Caribbean had dropped by almost 11Deg F. during the last ice age, Imbrie’s multiple factor method showed a drop of only 3.5Deg F. When the core was analyzed for oxygen-isotope ratios, the zones that Ericson had identified as cold were shown to be warm by both the isotope and multiple-factor methods.
    At the Paris meeting Imbrie talked after the lecture with a British geophysicist named Nicholas Shackleton. They

    realized that their independent work on the problem had led them to the same answer: Changing ratios of oxygen isotopes in marine fossils are caused primarily by fluctuations in the size of ice sheets, not by variations in sea temperatures… If water deficient in O-18 were to be locked up on land in the ice sheets, the proportion of the heavy isotopes in sea water would rise, and this increase would be reflected in the ratios of the oxygen isotopes present in forams and other marine organisms.

    Evidence confirming the Milankovitch radiation curves continued to appear. In 1965

    geochemist Wallace S. Broecker reported some interesting findings that he and some colleagues had made when they dated fossil coral reefs in the Florida Keys and the Bahamas. Since coral can grow only at certain depths, it provides an accurate record of former sea levels… Noting that present sea levels are also considerably higher than they have been at times of great glaciation, Broecker observed that these three known periods of high sea levels closely correspond to the warm periods calculated by Milankovitch in his radiation curve for lat. 65Deg N.

    corior(DOT)blogspot.com/2006/02/part-15-ice-ages-confirmed.html

    I point out this history because The 1976, Hays, Imbrie, and Shackleton paper “Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages.” did not just suddenly appear on the scene. There was enough interest that an international conference was held in 1969 and 1970 was the start of the International Decade of Ocean Exploration and CLIMAP, the Climate Long Range Investigation, Mapping and Prediction project.

    Governments do not fund this type of pure resceach without a reason. So what else was happening on the Political scene?

    The 1974 CIA report, “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems” tells us.

    Pg 7
    In 1972 the Intelligence Community was faced with two issues concerning climatology:

    * No methodologies available to alert policymakers of adverse climatic change

    * No tools to assess the economic and political impact of such a change.

    “… Since 1972 the grain crisis has intensified…. Since 1969 the storage of grain has decreased from 600 million metric tons to less than 100 million metric tons – a 30 day supply… many governments have gone to great lengths to hide their agricultural predicaments from other countries as well as from their own people…

    pg 9
    The archaeologists and climatotologists document a rather grim history… There is considerable evidence that these empires may not have been undone by barbarian invaders but by climatic change…. has tied several of these declines to specific global cool periods, major and minor, that affected global atmospheric circulation and brought wave upon wave of drought to formerly rich agricultural lands.

    Refugees from these collapsing civilizations were often able to migrate to better lands… This would be of little comfort however,… The world is too densely populated and politically divided to accommodate mass migration.

    Page 18 talks of coming glaciation.
    Scientists are confident that unless man is able to effectively modify the climate, the northern regions… will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow. That this will occur within the nexy 2,500 years they are quite positive; that it may occur sooner is open to speculation.

    page 22 states:
    The climate of the 1800s was far less favorable for agriculture in most areas of the world. In the United States during that century, the midwest grain-producing areas were cooler and wetter and snow lines of the Russian steppes lasted for longer periods of time. More extended periods of drought were noted in the areas of the Soviet Union now known as the new lands. More extensive monsoon failures were common around the world, affecting in particular China, the Philippines and the Indian Subcontinent.

    The Wisconsin analysis questions whether a return to these climate conditions could support a population that has grown from 1.1 billion in 1850 to 3.75 billion in 1970. The Wisconsin group predicted that the climate could not support the world’s population since technology offers no immediate solution. Further world grain reserves currently amount to less than one month; thus any delay in supplies implies mass starvation. They also contended that new crop strains could not be developed over night… Moreover they observed that agriculture would become even more energy dependent in a world of declining resources.
    (wwwDOT)climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

    131

  • #
    • #
      Ross

      Thanks for the link. Very informative.

      It reads like bureaucratic speak for ” We give up, but we cannot do nothing.Lets have a lot words and promises in an agreement which can be glossed up for the gullible MSM, but we all know it will really mean nothing.”

      I wonder what the next step in back down will be ?

      30

      • #
        gai

        Ross says “…I wonder what the next step in back down will be ?”
        ….

        I am afraid it is their usual fall back position WAR — and Obama is doing everything he can to make sure it happens.

        30

  • #
    C.J.Richards

    On Left Wing Nutters claiming the Morales high ground https://twitter.com/tan123/status/653892660529262592

    60

  • #
  • #
    Stephan

    Top 10 denailist myths present on this page:

    1 “Climate’s changed before”
    2 “It’s the sun”
    3 “It’s not bad”
    4 “There is no consensus”
    5 “It’s cooling”
    6 “Models are unreliable”
    7 “Temp record is unreliable”
    8 “Animals and plants can adapt”
    9 “It hasn’t warmed since 1998″
    10 “Antarctica is gaining ice”

    Funny how one bogus argument isn’t considered strong enough, no, there must be multiple to fall back on as one or other is continually debunked like a big whack-a-mole game.

    533

    • #

      11 “Turn off the power plants”

      Go on, be brave!

      Tony.

      153

      • #
        Erica

        Perhaps he’s one of those who riot when the lights go out?

        84

        • #
          gai

          I am at the point I would like to see them pull the plug on the US east coast electric grid and do a bit of Cleansing of the Gene Pool. Although that will play right into the UN Agenda 21 rebuilding plans like they are using in Christchurch NZ.

          Unfortunately I am afraid if the wrong person wins the 2016 election between November and January, Duke Energy will do just that so there is no change in government thanks to a massive civil emergency invoking martial law.

          Duke Energy loaned Obama $$$ and is a big fan of CAGW. Most of the Coal plants slated for closure and destruction are east of the Mississippi River and are controlled by Duke Energy.

          The Elite really do have us between a rock and a hard place at this point and I do not like the looks of the future going forward. All I see is death by the millions unless some sanity returns right quick.

          81

          • #
            Frank

            Gai,
            You really are in foil hat territory here.

            [Don't know why this ended up in moderation. But opposing opinions are welcome on Jo Nova.] AZ

            52

            • #
              gai

              Actually Frank I am not in foil hat territory, I wish I was.

              #1. Duke Energy is closing plants and demolishing them because they do not want to pay taxes on the buildings. The blast that took out a nearby coal plant shook my house like an earthquake.

              Tricky Business Taking Down Old Coal Plants
              (wwwDOT)powermag.com/tricky-business-taking-down-old-coal-plants/

              #2. The EPA relied heavily on a DOE study claiming that even under a theoretical “stringent” test, EPA Utility MACT and CSAPR regulations would only close 21 GW of generation. That estimate was WAY OFF! More than 72 gigawatts (GW) of electrical generating capacity have already, or are now set to retire.

              Report from 2012

              Reliability of the Generating Grid
              …The North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s (NERC) most recent long-term assessment found that existing and proposed environmental regulations affecting fossil fuel plants in the United States may significantly affect bulk power system reliability.

              NERC, the nation’s leading authority on electric reliability, evaluated four major regulations now being proposed or implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency and found them to expose the United States to significant energy vulnerabilities. NERC estimates that nearly a quarter of our coal-fired capacity could be off-line by 2018 and that as many as 677 coal-fired units (258 gigawatts) would need to be temporarily shut down to install EPA-mandated equipment.[ii] These EPA regulations must be implemented within a 3-year window and the mandated equipment takes about 18 months to install. Because EPA’s three year timeline is so tight and the regulations affect so many units, utility companies are not sure that they can meet the standards and ensure reliability of the electricity system at the same time

              3. Map shows most of the plants going down are on the east coast:

              Reported closures planned for 2012 to 2016
              94 percent of these retirements will come from generating units at coal-fired power plants, shuttering over one-fifth of the U.S.’s coal-fired generating capacity.

              http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/CoalRetirementsMap.png

              4. Switch to natural gas allows price gouging.

              NERC is Concerned about Reliability even though It Underestimates the Amount of Closures

              ….This past winter demonstrated in real time the value of the existing coal fleet. During the winter of 2014, coal was the only fuel with the ability to meet demand increases for electricity, providing 92 percent of incremental electricity in January/February, 2014 versus the same months in 2013. Americans were harmed as the relentless cold indicated that prudent utility practices require large, baseload coal plants to stabilize the grid, keep society functioning, and maintain electricity availability. Many regions suffered; for example, in late January and early February 2014 some locations in the Midwest experienced gas prices as high as $35/MMBtu, and the Chicago Citygate price exceeded $40/MMBtu. Those figures are nearly 10 times higher than EIA’s estimated average price of $4.46/MMBtu for natural gas in 2014.

              #5. If you are not already aware of the fanning of unrest in US cities I suggest you look up the riots in Ferguson Missouri, Baltimore MD and the shooting of police in NYC and other cities.

              On July 13, 1977 a massive blackout hit New York City.

              …The entire city of New York is blacked out, parts of it for more than 24 hours…

              In all, 1,616 stores were either looted or damaged during the blackout. More than a thousand fires were set, 14 of them resulting in multiple alarms. And in the biggest mass arrest in city history, 3,776 people were thrown in the jug. The jails were so overcrowded that the overflow had to be held in precinct basements and other makeshift jails.

              A congressional study later put the damage caused by looting and vandalism at $300 million…
              http://www.wired.com/2010/07/0713massive-blackout-hits-new-york/

              In addition, 550 police officers were injured, 204 civilians and 80 firemen.

              That was during a ‘gentler time’ when our police were not outfitted with military equipment and trained in urban warfare at DHS Fusion Centers. When our Federal agencies weren’t armed with machine guns and the DHS hadn’t purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammo, enough for a 20 year war. The police are already riled up over the police shootings and the lack of support from the US government.

              Dozens of police officers turned their backs on Mayor Bill DeBlasio during the funeral service for police officers who were shot in response to the Ferguson riots. Riots that were egged on by Obama’s Justice Department.

              President Obama gave a Labor Day speech in Boston about the importance of unions on Monday, but one of the area’s top police union’s boycotted the event to protest Obama’s lack of support for law enforcement.

              Police are now “De-Policing” some areas of cities.
              De-Policing and Reality for Police Professionals by William L. Harvey On Jul 27, 2015
              (wwwDOT)officer.com/article/12089778/de-policing-and-reality-for-police-professionals

              I will leave it to you Frank to look up the Duke Power president’s letters to stock holders and the loan Duke Energy gave to Obama and has now ‘forgiven’

              51

            • #
              gai

              Well my reply to Frank with info backing up my opinion also got tossed into moderation.

              (Sorry I used four live links.)

              51

            • #
              toorightmate

              Gee, I wish the blast had been larger and taken out the house – and the special duds residing therein.

              20

            • #
              AndyG55

              Frank, do you have one single bit of evidence to counter gai’s references?

              We are waiting.. tick-tock, tick-tock.

              Come on Frank, provide something of substance… for once in your trivial life.

              32

              • #
                gai

                Andy, it is very rare for the third rate ‘Useful Innocents’ to have enough knowledge to do more that parrot what they are told or name call when they hit information they dislike.

                Notice to counter Dr Evans they have had to enlist the big guns but there are really very few of that caliber while most skeptics can run circles around most of the Warmists without trying.

                11

      • #
        Andy

        Hi Tony,

        love your work. This is slightly inline with your comment. I live in Adelaide and they are closing the Port Augusta power station(s) next year along with the dedicated coal mine which supplies them. Could you do a blog on the power issues which will occur from this action (my money is on massive blackouts) e.g. the raw numbers, distribution, etc? For all others South Australia has a very unhealthy reliance on wind with our back-up supplies coming from Victoria (also reliant on wind). Victoria, from my understanding, relies on excesses from the hydro scheme in Tasmania. Happy for you to fill in the gaps Tony.

        Thanks and Regards, Andy (an ex-pusser and kindred spirit).

        10

    • #
      Bill

      Stephan,
      1. So you DENY that climates change naturally and have in the past?
      2. You DENY that the sun has any contribution?
      3. You think any change is bad?
      4. You really think that 79 “scientists” out of thousands represents “consensus” and that science is consentual?
      5. You Deny the scientific record with respect to the actual -unmodified- data?
      6. You really think models are more reliable than data?
      7. You think the homoginized temperatures promulgated are accurate rather than unmanipulated physical data?
      8. You DENY evolution and adaptation in nature?
      9. You DENY the “pause/hiatus” that even the IPCC states is real?
      10. You DENY the continuing accumulation of ice in Antarctica and the Arctic?

      I would ask you what colour the sky is in your world but you apparantly never leave your mommy’s basement.

      204

    • #
      Erica

      None of these have been debunked, in fact the opposite is true.

      611

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      Stephan.

      “Top 10 denailist myths present on this page:”

      Indeed, it puts the “Gish” into the Gish Gallop.

      418

      • #
        AndyG55

        Guess what Harry twoperson.

        The post at #22 shows that there will be MASSIVE expansion of coal fired power stations and emissions over the next 20-30 years.

        And guess what, little drone….

        THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT :-) :-)

        104

    • #
      RogueElement451

      A bit like the 53 answers for where the heat has gone then?

      102

    • #

      Earth;s climate has improved since 1850:

      It is slightly warmer after many cool centuries from 1300 to 1800

      There is more CO2 in the air so green plants grow faster.
      The earth is greening.

      I do not blame all the mild warming since 1850 on CO2.
      Even the IPCC doesn’t do that.

      But I know:
      SUVs didn’t start melting the last ice age glaciation 15,000 years ago.
      SUVs didn’t cause the warming before 1940.
      CO2 rose as the temperature fell from 1940 to 1976
      CO2 rose as temperature remained steady from the early 2000′s to 2015

      I want more warming.

      I want more CO2 in the air.

      Both will make the Earth a better place to live.

      The past 150 years, with its mild warming, has been the most healthy and prosperous 150 years for humans so far — give me more of that !

      By the way, Earth is always warming or cooling — you probably didn’t know that.

      If you don’t like warming, then cooling is the only other “choice”.

      But be aware: Written anecdotal evidence shows humans strongly preferred warm centuries over cool centuries.
      .
      Warming makes people happy.
      Cooling makes people miserable.

      Now go back to your computer game climate astrology, and false CO2 boogeyman, and leave us sensible people alone!

      141

    • #
      GI

      Stephan,

      Just as are the now 68 peer reviewed excuses for the ‘pause’.

      103

    • #
      gai

      Stephan says ” #1. “Climate’s changed before”
      ……………….

      Dansgaard-Oeschger events were abrupt warmings that occurred from just a few years to mere decades that average between 8-10C rises (D-O 19 scored 16C). NOAA says the cause of these events is still under debate. These events continued into the Holocene as Bond events. Despite the wishes of the Alarmists, the climate has been far from stable and ClimAstrologists don’t even know what causes the abrupt warmings ever 1500 years or so!

      http://www.sott.net/image/s9/188220/large/sole_et_al_2007_fig_11.jpg

      NOAA – Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events

      Climate during the last glacial period was far from stable. Two different types of climate changes, called Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events, occurred repeatedly throughout most of this time. Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events were first reported in Greenland ice cores by scientists Willi Dansgaard and Hans Oeschger. Each of the 25 observed D-O events consist of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades, and was followed by a gradual cooling. Related to some of the coldest intervals between D-O events were six distinctive events, named after paleoclimatologist Hartmut Heinrich…

      So you can cross that bit of idiocy off your list of Top 10 denailist myths…. Unless of of course you want to continue looking like a science illiterate.

      111

    • #
      handjive

      Stephan.
      Any doomsday dates available?
      I just bought some green bananas, and I hate wasting food.

      80

      • #
        gai

        Handjive, toss the green bananas into a brown paper bag with an apple for a day, then check ripeness. (Apples produce ethylene gas, which speeds ripening.)

        Or you can hand them over since I like slightly green bananas. The husband complains that I eat them all before they get ripe enough for him.

        80

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      Get a real religion ,instead of climate clairvoyance medievalism !

      No atmospheric warming for nearly 2 decades measured by satellite , our most accurate measurement method >>>>

      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/clip_image002_thumb1.jpg?w=597&h=279

      No ocean warming for at least 10 years , according to the Argo Ocean Project ,our most and only accurate method of measurement >>>>

      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/clip_image002_thumb1.jpg?w=597&h=279

      But the real clincher is from the climate medievalists themselves !

      If it is still warming at supposedly doomsday rate , if at all , then why the main religious title change from ‘ Global Warming ‘ to ‘Climate Change ‘ ????????????????

      Apparently the Chief Clowns don’t even know what to call their new religion , of which you idiotically crusade !!!

      And still the only planetary saviour is a great big new tax !

      How convenient that must be for the upcoming Paris Marxists’ Hajj !

      71

    • #
    • #
      el gordo

      Average sea ice around Antarctica, but over the last half century the mainland has continued to gain snow and ice, with increasing mass balance particularly noticeable on the high country in the east.

      30

    • #
      el gordo

      Nor can you point to the Peninsula in hope of an imminent collapse, its cooling.

      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/antarctic-peninsula-stopped-warming-30-years-ago/

      30

    • #
      AndyG55

      1 “Climate’s changed before”
      2 “It’s the sun”
      3 “It’s not bad”
      4 “There is no consensus”
      5 “It’s cooling”
      6 “Models are unreliable”
      7 “Temp record is unreliable”
      8 “Animals and plants can adapt”
      9 “It hasn’t warmed since 1998″
      10 “Antarctica is gaining ice”

      1.. most definitely
      2. The series of strong solar maximum in the latter half of last century causing slight warming, followed by an 18 year plateau as the sun takes a holiday…….. yes.. most probably the sun
      3. almost certainly, since we are actually only just above the coldest period of the last 10,000 years
      4. If 74 out of 77 is a consensus, then yes. ;-)
      5. Cooling, that’s what the untampered satellite data since 2001 tells us.. so.. yes.
      6. Models.. only 2 out of what is it, 120? are anywhere close to measured temperatures.. yes, Unreliable.
      7. The continual adjustment of past data proves that the data are unreliable.
      8. plants and animals have always adapted.. other wise they would be here.
      9. The ONLY warming since 1998 is from Gavin’s massive data tampering.
      10. Antarctic sea ice extent.. was up, went down, them climbed up a bit, now its summer down here, so will probably go back down.

      32

    • #

      Stephen,comes here to regale us with his off topic rant:

      1 “Climate’s changed before” CORRECT
      2 “It’s the sun” CORRECT
      3 “It’s not bad” CORRECT
      4 “There is no consensus” CORRECT
      5 “It’s cooling” CORRECT
      6 “Models are unreliable” CORRECT
      7 “Temp record is unreliable” CORRECT
      8 “Animals and plants can adapt” CORRECT
      9 “It hasn’t warmed since 1998″ CORRECT
      10 “Antarctica is gaining ice” CORRECT

      Congratulations you are 100% correct!

      How did you do that?

      30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Those ten points you chose to mention are each corroborative evidence for the other nine. Collectively they are called, “a body of evidence”, which is something that is required in a court of law, in order to convict someone.

      In attempting to show your superiority, you actually ended up agreeing with us by default.

      Now the question is, “Do you have the personal integrity to admit that you were wrong?”

      10

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    At this moment in history, 13 October 2015, I know of no energy storage technology that can economically buffer the variable output of wind and solar generators at the scale required to actually feed the grid reliably. The record for molten salt thermal storage is still one facility in Spain feeding the grid for 36 days continuous, as TonyFromOz is aware. ;) A larger field is on the way but they have less hours of storage so that’s not scaling up.
    With the decade (or more) lead time to build nuclear power plants and political resistance against them, it is therefore inevitable that in absence of any other reliable energy source, electricity will continue to be generated from fossil fuels in a great many places. Therefore CO2 will be on the up, not because we decided to deliberately increase CO2 but because there is no economically viable non-fossil energy option available today.
    The GWPF’s call to increase CO2 is therefore akin to imploring people to breathe; it’s an underwhelming recipe for business-as-usual.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Although not exactly pertinent to our modern malaise but very pertinent to his case, there is other heartening evidence from Paleontology that Mr Goklany did not cite in his report.

     • Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution.
    T E Cerling, J R Ehleringer, and J M Harris

    The decline of atmospheric CO2 over the last 65 million years (Ma) resulted in the ‘CO2-starvation’ of terrestrial ecosystems and led to the widespread distribution of C4 plants, which are less sensitive to CO2 levels than are C3 plants. Global expansion of C4 biomass is recorded in the diets of mammals from Asia, Africa, North America, and South America during the interval from about 8 to 5 Ma. This was accompanied by the most significant Cenozoic faunal turnover on each of these continents, indicating that ecological changes at this time were an important factor in mammalian extinction.

    Probably what happened was the cold ocean sucked the CO2 out of the air, the land plants gasped, and the elephants starved.

    At this point it would be nice to think that the plants and mammals of the year 32015 will be thanking us for increasing CO2 to help keep them all well fed in the next glaciation. However the problem with such optimism is that it ignores the CO2 sequestration currently occurring in the ocean and which will only increase with colder temperatures. The rate the oceans are now taking CO2 out of the atmosphere is at least 1.6GtC/year or 0.76ppm CO2 per year. This rate shows that high CO2 levels will not persist for 1000 years after human emissions cease, a claim made by some. One of the more well known predictions (Tans 2009) showed CO2 peaking at 600ppm in 2100 and declining exponentially to 430ppm by the year 2500. If CO2 follows the same decline as atomic bomb 13C then it will be much faster than Tans estimated. So it follows that any benefits from high CO2 also will not be long lasting, certainly not on a millennial time scale.
    We and our leafy companions have less than 500 years to enjoy the benefits of our handiwork.

    101

    • #
      doubting dave

      Thanks Andrew very interesting , it made me think of Twinotters earlier comment to me ( whilst he must of been sat at his PC wearing his hair shirt and whipping himself on the back)that we are all doomed because in few years sea levels will rise and we will get at least 3 degrees of warming,you know, like it was back in the climate optimum about 5 thousand BC when the Sahara was green and full of life and Human civilization got a kick start. Since then sea level and temperatures have dropped and most of those early civilizations have turned to dust except for where they huddled around major rivers, so cheer up Harry maybe your scenario is the half full glass not the half empty one that you drink out of.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdVFzdRZF0Q

      91

    • #
      gai

      Andrew McRae,

      I do like that paper: Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution.
      companion papers are Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California.
      and Impact of lower atmospheric carbon dioxide on tropical mountain ecosystems “Carbon limitation due to lower ambient CO2 partial pressures had a significant impact on the distribution of forest on the tropical mountains, in addition to climate. Hence, tree line elevation should not be used to infer palaeotemperatures.”

      One of the option we as humans have to release more CO2 into the atmosphere as needed is to heat limestone which is mainly composed of calcium carbonate. When heated, calcium carbonate decomposes to form calcium oxide (QUICKLIME).

      Of course then you have to figure out what in heck to do with the quicklime.

      71

  • #
    Rud Istvan

    Those interested in some further facts including the yield interplay between CO2 and temperature will find them in essay Carbon Pollution in my most recent ebook. Examine rice, soy, corn. Pine trees especially like CO2, but we don’t eat them.

    100

  • #
    F. Ross

    I’ll gladly raise a (highly carbonated) beer to this report.
    Cheers!
    …maybe two.

    90

  • #
    nofixedaddress

    Jo,

    Some time ago I floated the idea in comments on your site that we should form something along the lines of 700.org. I may have even suggested 800.org but I cannot remember.

    Perhaps it is time for skeptics to consider the formation of such an organization to carry the real narrative that the general public are not told.

    I have a background in agriculture, horticulture, silviculture, commercial law, economics and forensic audit.

    90

  • #
    Mike Flynn

    Some years ago, a quite talented scientist by the the name of Svante Arrhenius had this to say -

    “By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”

    Unfortunately, he was only half right. Higher CO2 levels increase plant life, but don’t make climate any more or less equable, or better or worse. What is “more equable”? What is “better”? Who is to decide?

    Maybe we should all accept that attempting to control the weather – and hence the climate – to the benefit of every individual, should be postponed until we have enforced world peace. Let’s do the easy tasks first.

    60

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Mike

      I was passing through the comments above to get an idea of what had been written.

      The main thing I wanted to emphasise was that IF we cause increased CO2 in the atmosphere then the possible repercussions as described in the post were certainly not a negative thing; but there is always a BUT.

      Unfortunately Humans do not contribute to the CO2 levels of the atmosphere and so we must be careful not to give warmers any toe hold.

      They may come back and say: so you DO accept that Humans Cause Warming.

      And the main point of linking to your comment was that it was fantastic especially the last line!!

      :) KK.

      60

    • #

      Wasn’t Svante Arrhenius Swedish of Norwegian. Anyone from that area likely thinks warmer is more equable.

      50

  • #
    handjive

    Climate models too complicated? Here’s one that everyone can use (the conversation, 13.10.2015)

    via comments:
    If you follow the link on the overview page to “about the model”, https://monash.edu/research/simple-climate-model/mscm/GREB_model.html?locale=EN, then you can follow those links to the Fortran code.

    70

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    14 Oct: Business Standard India: Nitin Sethi: Paris Climate Change Agreement: First draft ignores India’s demands
    But Indian negotiators say many contentious propositions, which breach Indian red lines and run counter to the country’s formal submissions as part of either the LMDC group or the G77+China group, are reflected without brackets, suggesting consensus where it didn’t exist between countries. At the same time, many formal and key proposals from developing countries are missing…
    Countries are to gather at Bonn during October 19-23 to negotiate further on this draft before the final Paris round of talks begin on November 30 for two weeks. Even the bits in the text pointed to by the co-chairs as having consensus of all governments are open to debate and India, along with other countries, is expected to demand changes…
    To coordinate with the G77+China group, as well as the Like Minded Developing Countries, on the draft text for Paris agreement, Indian negotiators would reach Bonn three days ahead of the scheduled negotiations. “We shall talk to other partner countries of our concerns. The five days (of negotiations) could be difficult, unless demands of the 137 developing countries in the G77+China group are addressed,” said an Indian official, adding the the group was the largest block among the 196 countries party to the UNFCCC…
    http://wap.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/paris-climate-change-agreement-first-draft-ignores-india-s-demands-115101400016_1.html

    9 Oct: Times of India: PTI: Developed nations should deliver on Green Climate Fund: India
    Javadekar said French President Francois Hollande, who will be hosting the Climate Summit in Paris, has indicated that unless there is credible action from the developed nations with regard to implementation of GCF, the Paris talks may fail.
    “Therefore, we are saying that unless there is credible action … and even French Francois Hollande (the host of Paris summit) has said if there is no clear progress on Finance, Paris (talks) may fail. … He has warned,” Javadekar said…
    Further, dismissing any suggestions that India is moving away from its role in protecting interests of poor and vulnerable nations in world summits, the Union minister said India is always at the forefront to ask for climate justice “which has caught up the imagination of the world, because it is a historical responsibility”.
    Asked whether the bloc of newly industrialized countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China, formed to act on climate change, is still relevant in the changing global political scenario, Javadekar replied in affirmative.
    “BASIC is relevant,” he said.
    “We had a very good meeting last year. I was the minister. India hosted the BASIC meeting. Then, now China is hosting. I am going there. We are part of all groupings plus some additional new friends. We have not walked out of it,” he said as the nations prepare for the Conference of Parties (COP21)…
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/Developed-nations-should-deliver-on-Green-Climate-Fund-India/articleshow/49290122.cms

    20

  • #
    pat

    12 Oct: HuffPo: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse: WSJ Catering to Fossil-Fuel Interests… Again!
    In recent weeks the right-wing attack machine has been up in arms regarding a letter sent by a group of 20 climate scientists to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and White House science adviser John Holdren requesting that the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigate fossil-fuel companies that appear to have lied about the effects of their products on our world’s climate…
    As the Wall Street Journal and others have noted, and as the scientists’ letter acknowledges, I myself raised the possibility of an investigation along these lines in a Washington Post op-ed earlier this year. The connection prompted the Journal to quote Georgia Tech’s Judith Curry – a prominent climate denier – attacking both me and the scientists…
    The Wall Street Journal piece also notes that my previous Washington Post op-ed “cited Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who has published politically inconvenient research on changes in solar radiation.” Not noted by the Journal: Dr. Soon reportedly received more than half of his funding from big fossil fuel interests like Exxon-Mobile and the Charles G. Koch Foundation, to the tune of $1.2 million…
    Sadly, Dr. Soon is just a small cog in a massive climate-denial machine, which rivals that of the tobacco industry in size, scope, and complexity…
    Whatever the motivation of the Wall Street Journal and other right-wing publications, it is clearly long past time for the climate denial scheme to come in from the talk shows and the blogosphere and have to face the kind of an audience that a civil RICO investigation could provide. No more spin and deception. It’s time to let the facts shine through.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-sheldon-whitehouse/wsj-catering-to-fossil-fu_b_8276534.html?ir=Australia

    13 Oct: LA Times: The tax loophole that can save you big bucks off a Tesla Model X
    by Charles Fleming and Jerry Hirsch
    Elon Musk and Tesla Motors, masterful at mining state and federal tax incentives, may have lucked into a tax loophole. The company’s new $100,000-plus Model X electric SUV qualifies for a $25,000 federal tax deduction.
    That’s on top of a $7,500 federal tax credit and a $2,500 California rebate given to buyers of battery-electric vehicles.
    The right buyer, a small-business owner with a substantial federal tax exposure, could place an order for the new seven-seater and collect up to $35,000 in tax and government rebate benefits.
    The windfall could produce a public relations backlash among people who may object to tax cuts for the rich.
    “This is a high-priced vehicle that only wealthy people can buy,” said Karl Brauer of Kelley Blue Book. “There are a lot of people who believe we have already done enough to help Tesla.”…
    The tax deduction represents another coup for Tesla and Musk, which have already shown themselves adept at taking advantage of government programs.
    Besides his roles as chairman and chief executive of Tesla, Musk is chairman of SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX. Together the three businesses have benefited from at least an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times…
    Tesla, for example, has sold about $600 million in government-awarded environmental credits generated by sales of its electric vehicles. Additionally, California has paid out more than $46 million in $2,500 clean vehicle rebates to Tesla buyers…
    http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-tesla-tax-break-20151013-story.html

    20

  • #
    BilB

    These conclusions are largely wrong. Look at your crop image there between 400 and 800 ppm the increased growth is in the foliage not the stems from which the fruit or seed grows. That has to be gauged against the loss of growth from loss of available water, for which the study is entirely vague. The weed patch image ie grass for stock feed there is no change. I see now that for global temperature profiles the GWPF has now found a satellite data series somewhere in the atmosphere that gives a graph shape to give the impression of a “stable” temperatures now that global average surface temperatures have resumed the ascent trend. And then there is a lot of other material there that other people will no doubt comment on.

    How is this all stacking up for California, one of the most energetic CO2 production states of the world.

    [Would I be correct if I assume you refer to the drought now troubling California? If so you should remember that California is nearly half desert climate (check any physical geology text) and has been well known to be subject to drought for a very long time. So if you want to make such statements knowing that, so be it.] AZ

    19

    • #
      BilB

      Yes it was a cheap shot, particularly as there is a good chance of the drought breaking with the current El Nino. But more relevent is that California’s ice retention is down to 5% of historic levels , the lowest in 1000 years at least.

      The other point on CO2 and plants is that bigger plants do not necessarily yield more food. Bigger plants require more space, compete for the same amount of light, which together mean fewer plants and less delivered food (unless the whole plant is the food). It is not as simple as more foliage means more food. In rice it almost certainly means less grain produced for a heavier harvesting effort.

      19

      • #
        Erica

        Any farmer with a greenhouse can provide proof of the opposite. Farmers growing food crops under glass deliberately use increased CO2 levels to stimulate growth. In my greenhouses, a 5% increase in CO2 gives me a 28% increase in food crop yeilds (vegetables, fruits, and edible sprouts) with no other changes in inputs.

        110

        • #
          BilB

          Gosh Erica that is truly incredible. What you are saying is that global food production has increased 28% since about 2005 when atmospheric CO2 levels were 5% below where they are now. Feeding he world is no longer a problem. We can stop worrying about starving Africa.

          So how did you introduce the CO2 into your greenhouse and how were you able to be so precise about it? And when you say you got 28% higher yield, was that more items, or bigger items?

          19

          • #
            AndyG55

            Why do you keep displaying your ignorance, bilge??????

            Do some research of your own instead of expecting to be spoon fed !!

            http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

            62

            • #
              BilB

              And you believed all of that AndyG55??? How gullible are you?

              That almost looked credible until I wiped off the dust. Daddy Idso (CEO) used 2 other family names to pad out his board with a President and a Vice President. Then all he had to do was make the figures add up, but that was jus a bit too hard for this geographer.

              Now I see where Erica gets her “figures” from.

              16

              • #
                AndyG55

                So, absolutely no contrary evidence.

                as usual.

                You have nothing, bilge-rat.

                Nothing but pestilence.

                42

              • #
                AndyG55

                I have a good friend who runs a big greenhouse based produce farm.

                I have seen and tasted what that extra boost of CO2 does to food plants. :-)

                Its not gullibility (like your mindless cult-following of the AGW fraud)

                ……. is edibility :-)

                You should try it sometime… might open up your enfeebled mind.

                Nah.. probably not….. zero starting point.

                32

          • #

            BilB October 14, 2015 at 3:51 pm

            “So how did you introduce the CO2 into your greenhouse and how were you able to be so precise about it? And when you say you got 28% higher yield, was that more items, or bigger items?”

            CO2 compressed gas or liquid is one of the most inexpensive useful commodities EVAR.– Just suck it from the atmosphere. In doing endoscopic surgery, the whole body cavity is expanded with 100% CO2 gas, with no ill effects. Bilb, how can you stand yourself being such a stupid troll? :-(

            72

          • #
            Erica

            Dumbas*:
            1. by the controlled introduction of CO2 from pressure containers
            2. crops are alfalfa sprouts, green leaf vegetables, strawberries, raspberries, cucumber, tomatoe, melons, and mushrooms (although we do things a tad differently for them). The increase yeilds are for ALL crops.
            3. the big problem with food and the starving is not the amount of food produced but DISTRIBUTION. Your attitudes are a big part of the problem as you would rather see continuing starvation than deal with the real issues so you can keep blaming false causes.

            30

            • #
              Erica

              PS, science is a great tool for improving the world. You should try it some time.

              30

            • #
              BilB

              Dumbas right back at you. Your CO2 gas is an input,ie cost. I asked the question to see if you were perhaps using a manure composter as a CO2 source, but no, you are using bottle CO2 most likely produced by a bunker oil CO2 generator. I also cast doubt on your ability to accurately determine how much CO2 you have in your greenhouses, and therefore on your very specific yield claim. Frankly, I think that any increased yield is predominately from the plants being grown under an enhanced temperature stabilised environment. Has it occurred to you that a portion of any real increased growth is not so much from the increased CO2 available for transpiration, but from the heat trapping properties of the CO2 as moisture in the greenhouses fluctuates?

              There is a lot more going on there than you realise, I suspect.

              11

              • #
                Erica

                Try using science for a change. Feces bast composting does not produce CO2 but METHANE. The stable temperature comment is irrelevant as our location at 19 degrees North gives us a stable environment. Our gas supply is medically pure, using capture & compression thru a molecular filter system; so your silly bunker c reference is likewise Charlie Romeo Alpha Papa. We use gas analysers to balance the atmosphere in each greenhouse (over 45 acres total), so we are very sure what we are getting. any more silly comments you want to try making in your ignorance?

                40

              • #
                BilB

                OK, Erica, so you’re the one making all of those tasteless vegetables in woolies and coles. But good on you for enterprise.

                12

            • #
              BilB

              And by the way on the,…I said manure not faeces…, manure composter I was going on the writings of one Dr Steve Savage

              http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/the-shocking-carbon-footprint-of-compost.html

              and the bar graph about half way down where he shows manure against general compost. According to his information manure produces very little methane and virtually no nitrous oxide. And that makes sense as most of the sugars in the grass have been extracted in the cows gut. It is the sugars that produce the methane.

              So, Erica, I think that you are completely wrong on that point.

              03

              • #
                James

                manure IS animal faeces, so called “green manure” is just waste plant matter, plowed back into the fields. If there is no methane output, explain why methane composters are so successfull in harvesting methane as a fuel source. Face facts, Erica and others are correct and you are just being a contrarian troll.

                11

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Research the term, “biomass”. That will give you the answer, if you choose to see it.

            10

          • #
            doubting dave

            SO AS YOU SAY BILB , THE NORMAL STATE FOR CALIFORNIA IS TO BE A HALF DESERT , BUT WHEN IT IS SEMI DESERT YOU CLAIM ITS DUE TO MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE” YOU REALLY ARE A THICK BASTARD ARE YOU NOT

            00

        • #
          gai

          Yes!
          Figure 1. The effect of carbon dioxide on net photosynthesis.

          http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077f1.jpg

          From: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses

          …Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm. The decrease in photosynthesis when CO2 level drops from 340 ppm to 200 ppm is similar to the increase when the CO2 levels are raised from 340 to about 1,300 ppm (Figure 1)…

          10

    • #
      gnome

      So what you are suggesting is that the plant’s photosynthesising surfaces are increasing at the expense of woody material? Consequently, more leaf, less stem means less nutrition produced??

      That would make most people wonder where all the extra glucose produced goes to, but I guess to a warmist it’s the ideology that counts as science, not the real world experience.

      Rewrite the textbooks. In a global warming world it’s stem size that matters, not the leaf surface.

      40

      • #

        gnome October 14, 2015 at 1:10 pm · Reply

        “So what you are suggesting is that the plant’s photosynthesising surfaces are increasing at the expense of woody material? Consequently, more leaf, less stem means less nutrition produced??”

        Prolly!

        “That would make most people wonder where all the extra glucose produced goes to, but I guess to a warmist it’s the ideology that counts as science, not the real world experience.
        Rewrite the textbooks. In a global warming world it’s stem size that matters, not the leaf surface.”

        That truly depends on what creatures, critters, beasts and/or varmints; are feeding on such! ;-)

        31

        • #
          AndyG55

          He certainly seems to be remarkably ill-informed or un-informed, even for a climate cultist. !!

          He seems to embody what could be called “negative knowledge”.

          32

      • #
        gai

        This claim about plants and CO2 is probably from a study that came out of the University of California, Davis. Raymond Clemencon is another faculty member at UC @ Davis. He was one of the negotiators on the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21. I would not trust any science that comes out of UC given its UN connections and its aggressive advocacy of Agenda 21.

        Here is a link to the Davis study (wwwDOT)sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5980/899

        It is a seedling study, the plants are not grown to maturity. In fact, they are grown for only a few days. It is a jump to assume that grain quality or quantity would suffer based on this experiment. These experiments can easily be “adjusted” for any outcome one chooses based on the other factors, sunlight water, fertilization and how they are controlled.

        Here is another study on a grass used for hay “… The average content of crude protein, ADF and NDF in leaf depending on the vegetation space and the application of mineral fertilizers…” http://www.istocar.bg.ac.rs/radovi8/2/79.%20engl.%20R.%20Stanisavljevic%20SR.pdf

        Note the “depending on the vegetation space” vegetation space translates into the amount of CO2, sunlight and everything else the plant has access to. If the plant is growing a lot faster due to CO2 what does that do to its access to the required sunlight and nutrients? Have they actually identified the mechanism that limits the nitrogen up take? Remember those roots have increased in length and mass so are we looking at competition at the root level? Have the roots grown down beyond where the nutrients are? Is that what interfering “with plants’ ability to convert nitrate into protein” actually means?

        Also note the protein content in the grass is dependent on “the application of mineral fertilizers” so fertilizer application has ALWAYS been a limiting factor in commercially grown crops, nothing new there.

        Another study:In ‘Physiological plant ecology: ecophysiology and stress physiology of funcional groups’ (Springer, 2003), Walter Larcher writes:

        According to over 3000 scientific publications on the biology of CO2 effects, a broad spectrum of growth responses to CO2 enrichment exists. Since elevated CO2 often reduces the plants’ demands for other resources, CO2 effects on growth do not simply follow Liebig’s law of the minimum. Plants exposed to elevated CO2 need less enzymes (and thus lower quantities of leaf proteins and nitrogen), lose less water (can cope with less soil moisture and often operate at smaller stomata openings) and need less light (because of a shift in the light compensation point for photosynthesis) to reach the equivalent, or even higher photosynthetic rates than plants growing under control conditions with “normal” CO2 concentrations.”

        Under ideal conditions, where there is no shortage of water, light, nutrients, trace elements etc, the benefit of doubling atmospheric CO2 may be 40%. However, where plants are resource limited, a doubling of CO2 can enhance growth of crops by over 100% in some cases. This is particularly important in regions of the world where the soil is poor for many reasons, since increasing atmospheric CO2 will enable crops to be grown efficiently where they currently cannot be grown without first improving the soil and irrigation.

        In ‘Effect of Carbon Dioxide Concentration on Growth and Dry Matter Production of Crop Plants’ (Japan. Jour. Crop Sci, 1978) Imai and Murata showed that after 10 days of treatment with nitrogen at 350ppm and 1000ppm CO2 the dry weight (DW) of rice plants was as follows:

        350ppm CO2, 30 mg nitrogen per plant DW = 835 mg per plant
        350ppm CO2, 120 mg nitrogen per plant DW = 1,081 mg per plant
        1000ppm CO2, 30 mg nitrogen per plant DW = 1,199 mg per plant
        1000ppm CO2, 120 mg nitrogen per plant DW = 1,862 mg per plant

        This demonstrates that at higher levels of atmospheric CO2, food crops have considerably lower requirements for fixed nitrogen for the same growth; alternatively, for the same nitrogen treatment they achieve considerably enhanced growth.

        Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 lead to greater biological nitrogen fixation from the atmosphere, so less is required to be added as fertilizer. This is especially important in legumes, which are also able to improve their uptake and usage of phosphorus with increased CO2. Legume /bacterial symbiosis leading to nitrogen fixation is significantly increased at elevated CO2 levels (Reddy et al, 1989; Reardon et al, 1990). Philips et al (1976) demonstrated increased nitrogen fixation in peas, and Sherwood (1978) found the same in clover. A classic study by Hardy and Havelka (1975) showed that a tripling of atmospheric CO2 results in a six-fold increase in biological nitrogen fixation (from 75 to 425 kg per hectare) by rhizobial bacteria in nodules attached to the roots of soybeans.
        From /buythetruth(DOTwordpress.com/2009/06/13/photosynthesis-and-co2-enrichment in a comment at WUWT

        (wwwDOT)co2science.org/subject/n/nitrogenefficiency.php has a lot more information on this.

        10

      • #
        BilB

        There is more to it than that gnome. I remember reading some of the research 20 years ago which demonstrated that many plants build bigger root systems when there is more CO2 available. That is where a lot of the sugar goes. With higher levels of CO2 plants do gain height faster and with bigger mass, but they do not gain more leaves. And stem branches come buds. So where a plant product is the fruit or seed there is no appreciable increase there other than the fruit might be larger. If as I said before the food is the whole plant, such as Erica’s (shoot and some vegetables) or the leaves then there will be a significant gain.

        13

  • #
    Neville

    More up to date proof that natural disasters and deaths from ND are way down. This backs up Goklany, Lomborg and Oxford union studies. But will our media ever highlight this good news?

    http://notrickszone.com/2015/10/10/inconvenient-truths-2014-global-natural-disasters-down-massively-no-trend-in-tornadocyclones-since-1950/#comments

    60

  • #
    toorightmate

    How dare you raise these matters!

    Paris is just around the corner.

    70

    • #

      toorightmate October 14, 2015 at 8:29 am

      “How dare you raise these matters! Paris is just around the corner.”
      Less -tornado/cyclones- mean many more gullible earthlings! What not to like for Paris, around the corner! Atmospheric EMR flux to space quickly dispatches excess entropy to space. Why not excess stupidity? :-(

      21

  • #
    TdeF

    If CO2 levels are set by the ocean temperature and temperatures are not going up, why are CO2 levels still going up? This is the warmists’ core argument. To them, it is obviously the fault of rich Democracies. China and India are exempt, of course.

    However what is needed is an overall warming of the oceans, not the land or the air. At 400x the mass of the air, it is the oceans which can contain huge heat. It is the oceans which receive 66% of the incoming solar radiation. Consider that for half the day, the sun shines only on the Pacific Ocean. Look at a globe. There is no land on this half. Then for the same amount of heat, oceans would heat up 1/400th as much as the air.

    Of course heat comes in from the sun during the day time. The rest of the planet is cooling. Heating on the summer side and cooling on the winter side and night side. CO2 according to Henry’s law leaves the oceans in the hot areas and is absorbed in the cooler arctic areas. Then you have ocean currents transporting great masses of CO2 in cyclonic patterns even at great depth, driven by Coriolis forces. There are great upwellings and sinks. We see this in the Humboldt currents and others and in the migration patterns of fish and animals, as they follow the food. An increase of 1C in just ocean surface temperature in warm areas would be more than enough to create the 50% increase in CO2. Man’s contribution is pitiful.

    So sadly, even if we wanted to increase the CO2 levels, we could not. Of the 20th century increase, our contribution, burning fossil fuels as fast as we can until we run out, we have contributed perhaps 2% of CO2, 4% of the increase. For this we need to be punished it seems. The Greens argue that if you could get rid of mankind, the planet would be saved, but for whom? The Greens?

    Frankly, the dinosaurs owned the planet for 150 million years and look at the mess they left! Bones, old eggs, continents scattered, oil everywhere. Trash. Modern man has improved it incredibly, if only by getting rid of their mess. A land with oil from the dinosaur period was cursed. That is why Israel was a land of milk and honey.

    I can quote Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir
    “Let me tell you the one thing I have against Moses. He took us forty years into the desert in order to bring us to the one place in the Middle East that has no oil!”

    So good luck with increasing CO2 levels. It is not possible and besides, more than half of the fossil fuels are gone.

    71

    • #
      TdeF

      Actually this prompts another argument.

      Say half the fossil fuels have gone in the last 100 years and the world has warmed 0.8C and according to the IPCC fossil fuels are responsible.

      So simply burning the rest at the same rate would only increase another 0.8C in the next century, despite the very slow start?

      Why is the IPCC in Paris talking about another +2C? (now down from +5C) and in hindsight, how damaging was the last 0.8C? How many countries were drowned? Where are the unusual droughts? Where is the missing ice? How has the population of Polar Bears dropped? Why does it matter? Where is the greatest moral challenge in a generation?

      61

      • #
        Neville

        The 2010 Miller et al sums up the much warmer Arctic temps during the Eemian interglacial and the warmer temps of the Holocene climate optimum. Here’s the abstract and full study.——————
        http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/MillerArctic.pdf

        a b s t r a c t
        As the planet cooled from peak warmth in the early Cenozoic, extensive Northern Hemisphere ice sheets
        developed by 2.6 Ma ago, leading to changes in the circulation of both the atmosphere and oceans. From
        w2.6 to w1.0 Ma ago, ice sheets came and went about every 41 ka, in pace with cycles in the tilt of
        Earth’s axis, but for the past 700 ka, glacial cycles have been longer, lasting w100 ka, separated by brief,
        warm interglaciations, when sea level and ice volumes were close to present. The cause of the shift from
        41 ka to 100 ka glacial cycles is still debated. During the penultimate interglaciation, w130 to w120 ka
        ago, solar energy in summer in the Arctic was greater than at any time subsequently. As a consequence,
        Arctic summers werew5 C warmer than at present, and almost all glaciers melted completely except for
        the Greenland Ice Sheet, and even it was reduced in size substantially from its present extent. With the
        loss of land ice, sea level was about 5 m higher than present, with the extra melt coming from both
        Greenland and Antarctica as well as small glaciers. The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) peaked w21 ka ago,
        when mean annual temperatures over parts of the Arctic were as much as 20 C lower than at present.
        Ice recession was well underway 16 ka ago, and most of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets had melted
        by 6 ka ago. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) w11 ka ago and has
        been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy
        elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1e3 C above 20th century averages,
        enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice
        Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially
        smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was
        substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished
        or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean

        61

        • #
          Neville

          The MacDonald et al study also shows much warmer temps in Nth Russia and Arctic during the Hol climate Opt. Here’s a summary and the study link. http://epic.awi.de/4164/1/Mac2000c.pdf

          Received March 9, 1999
          Radiocarbon-dated macrofossils are used to document Holocene
          treeline history across northern Russia (including Siberia). Boreal
          forest development in this region commenced by 10,000 yr B.P.
          Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current arctic
          coastline between 9000 and 7000 yr B.P. and retreated to its
          present position by between 4000 and 3000 yr B.P. Forest establishment
          and retreat was roughly synchronous across most of
          northern Russia. Treeline advance on the Kola Peninsula, however,
          appears to have occurred later than in other regions. During
          the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures
          along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to
          7.0°C warmer than modern. The development of forest and expansion
          of treeline likely reflects a number of complimentary
          environmental conditions, including heightened summer insolation,
          the demise of Eurasian ice sheets, reduced sea-ice cover,
          greater continentality with eustatically lower sea level, and extreme
          Arctic penetration of warm North Atlantic waters. The late
          Holocene retreat of Eurasian treeline coincides with declining
          summer insolation, cooling arctic waters, and neoglaciation.
          © 2000 University of Washington.

          50

    • #
      Dave in the states

      If CO2 levels are set by the ocean temperature and temperatures are not going up, why are CO2 levels still going up? This is the warmists’ core argument.

      They can’t have it both ways. If it is not warming (which the data reads)then increased levels of co2 have not caused warming, so there is nothing to be alarmed about.

      50

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    It’s time to stop pussy footing around.

    Jo,

    You are the grand master of the understatement. ;-)

    90

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Another example of media abuse of trust:

    Poor old George just can’t hold back.

    http://www.theherald.com.au/story/3420621/ross-gittins-coals-days-are-numbered/?cs=308

    51

  • #
    gai

    I want to Congratulate Dr. Evans on his wrestling match with David Appell, Nick Stokes and the Wily Rabett.

    A blast from the past from Steve McIntyre, posted on Jun 5, 2007 Eli Rabett’s Bait and Switch

    Dr Evans is taking on some of the ClimAstrologists top guns. It is a joy to watch.

    101

  • #

    “It’s time to stop pussy footing around”

    I think you mean “pussyfooting”

    “Pussy footing” is something else entirely

    30

  • #
    pat

    the language from the “experts”, including Katherine Watts, Carbon Market Watch (check her pic) and Declan Kuch, Research Fellow, University of New South Wales, provides a few laughs:

    13 Oct: Reuters Carbon Pulse: DIALOGUE: Is there a future for international carbon trading?
    Compiled by Ben Garside and Stian Reklev
    New Zealand, South Korea and Switzerland are the only Annex I nations to have made it clear in their INDCs they will contribute demand in an international market, in addition to a limited contribution from Japan through its Joint Crediting Mechanism. The major emitters – China, the EU and the United States – all ruled out using foreign offsets or permits to help meet their targets…
    We asked a number of experts and will post updates as they come in…
    http://carbon-pulse.com/dialogue-is-there-a-future-for-international-carbon-trading/

    13 Oct: Reuters Carbon Pulse: Mike Szabo: “Perception is reality”: panellists debate price effects of EU’s MSR
    Below are arguments made by panellists on Tuesday at Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s The Future of Energy Summit in London:
    Benedikt von Butler, a carbon and biomass trader with Swiss trading house Mercuria:
    “Perception is reality … As an industrial, if everyone says prices will go up then I won’t sell now, and as an investor if everyone says prices will go up then I’ll buy now.”…
    Franzjosef Schafhausen – deputy director general, Climate Change Policy at the German Federal Ministry for the Environment:
    ***“There is discussion in Germany over whether emissions trading is enough. If it’s not, then we’ll have to think about an additional instrument … Additional command and control could happen … but energy suppliers are not so much in favour of more mechanisms.”
    http://carbon-pulse.com/perception-is-reality-panellists-debate-price-effects-of-msr/

    10

  • #
    pat

    13 Oct: Reuters Carbon Pulse: EU cautious on int’l carbon trade, tells market backers to look elsewhere for buyers
    By Ben Garside and Mike Szabo
    Negotiators in Paris must agree robust global standards for measuring national goals ahead of fostering international carbon trade, an EU official said Tuesday, stressing that market proponents should seek credit demand sources outside of Europe.
    “What is important is countries around the world are embracing carbon pricing (and) the international market as an important complement of their effort post-Paris,” said Mary Veronica Tovsak Pleterski, the European Commission’s director for European and international carbon markets…
    Dirk Forrister of carbon market lobby group IETA, which hosted the event, is urging the EU to take a more aggressive approach and push for more wording in the Paris agreement to encourage international trade, which he says will unlock those conditional efforts.
    “If we don’t get this job done we won’t see that additional level of ambition,” he said.
    The latest Paris draft text includes just a single line on markets in the core agreement, with other references only appearing in a supplementary section that are intended to be built upon in future negotiations.‎
    Daniele Agostini of Italian utility Enel feared that if a provision for markets wasn’t properly set out in the main text this year then it could struggle to emerge in future.
    “We need the concept of transferability. If we cannot get it in the text now, it’s going to be very hard to get it back in later,” he said…
    http://carbon-pulse.com/eu-cautious-on-intl-carbon-trade-tells-market-backers-to-look-elsewhere-for-buyers/

    13 Oct: Reuters Carbon Pulse: Ben Garside: Paris talks should set $25/t CO2 tax, emissions target for shipping -OECD think tank
    The International Transport Forum (ITF), an intergovernmental body of 57 member countries, made the recommendations in a discussion paper published on Monday, adding that that the levy would have a marginal impact on maritime trade while raising $26 billion for the UN’s Green Climate Fund and returning a portion of the cash to poorer nations…
    This didn’t stop the International Chamber of Shippping (ICS), a trade body for the sector, putting out a statement slamming the measures as “inappropriate.”…
    Nations have been reluctant to tackle the sector, fearing any regulations could be unwieldy to administer while potentially hampering the 90% of global trade ships carry, but green groups are more hopeful that the wider UNFCCC body will drive progress more quickly…
    http://carbon-pulse.com/paris-talks-should-set-25t-co2-tax-emissions-target-for-shipping-oecd-think-tank/

    10

  • #
    pat

    what SCIENCE is Howard referring to?

    “we also need optimism about the capacity of the men and women and children of Australia to tackle issues of ***SCIENCE and issues that will shape the lives we live”

    13 Oct: SMH: Tony Wright: Malcolm Turnbull a wonder to behold: John Howard showers praise on new PM
    “I congratulate the Prime Minister, I congratulate Malcolm Turnbull on the enthusiasm that he brings to the cause of the future,” declared Mr Howard.
    “We need optimism in this country, we need optimism about our human future, we need optimism about our economic future and we also need
    optimism about the capacity of the men and women and children of Australia to tackle issues of ***science and issues that will shape the
    lives we live.
    “We have every reason to believe we can have a future that exceeds in great bounty the happiness and success of the past…
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/malcolm-turnbull-a-wonder-to-behold-john-howard-showers-praise-on-new-pm-20151013-gk7yzz.html

    10

    • #
      gai

      “I congratulate the Prime Minister, I congratulate Malcolm Turnbull on the enthusiasm that he brings to the cause of the future [Global Aristocracy],” declared Mr Howard.
      “We need optimism in this country, we need optimism about our human future [as serfs], we need optimism about our economic future [as serfs of the UN] and we also need optimism about the capacity of the men and women and children of Australia to tackle issues of ***science and issues that will shape the lives we they live [as serfs in neo-feudal villages.]

      “We have every reason to believe we can have a future that exceeds in great bounty, the happiness and success of the past Aristocracies…
      …..

      I think that is closer to what he actually was thinking.

      10

  • #
    pat

    UN rules the world! LAGGARDS is the buzzword today.

    13 Oct: Climate Change News: Ed King: UN to quiz Saudi Arabia, Qatar over missing climate plans
    Countries who have not yet released climate plans ahead of December’s UN summit in Paris will be asked to explain why by the office of secretary general Ban Ki-moon…
    That leaves over 40 LAGGARDS holding out, a group including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Egypt…
    In a press conference at UN headquarters Janos Pasztor, Ban’s climate advisor, said his office had started to contact capitals that had not released an INDC.
    “We will find out what is the problem and what it will take to fix,” he said…
    UN agencies were already providing help to some governments in developing their proposals, he added…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/10/13/un-to-quiz-saudi-arabia-qatar-over-missing-climate-plans/

    13 Oct: Climate Change News: Alex Pashley: 6 elections to watch before Paris climate summit
    A shift in public mood at the ballot box can boot out climate LAGGARDS or propel them to power. Here are six on the radar
    1. Canada – 19 October…etc
    2. Poland – 25 October…etc
    3. Argentina – 25 October…etc
    4. Turkey – 1 November…etc
    5. Myanmar – 8 November…etc
    6. Marshall Islands – 16 November
    Foreign minister Tony de Brum has used that as his bully pulpit to campaign for more robust climate action…
    The senator has labelled climate change migration “genocide”…
    But like any politician, he must win re-election to the Nitijela parliament in capital Majuro. Polling data is not readily available…
    But small islands states would lose a giant if de Brum did not win back his seat.
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/10/13/6-elections-to-watch-before-paris-climate-summit/

    20

    • #
      Bill

      Pat, our biggest problem here in Canada is the heavily biased media not only cheerleading but actively campaigning for strategic voting to “stop Harper”. It only remains to see how many fools will buy into that campaign.

      30

    • #
      gai

      So the UN has already started acting as a world government and is now treating sovereign nations as Vassal states.

      Since the EU is the Model, this is not surprising.

      10

  • #

    Please help me out here.

    There have been four or five of you commenting here, so obviously you’re coming back to see the comments in reply to your own comments here, so perhaps even one of you might actually offer a comment in reply here.

    For the life of me I can’t understand how any of the people on your side of this (so called finished) debate are so unfeeling, so uncaring, so dismissive, so nonchalant about the vast majority of people in so many non Developed Countries.

    Here you have yourself with all the advantages brought to you by access to a constant and reliable source of electricity, supplied nearly in its totality by coal fired power for so many years now.

    Those Countries still classified as undeveloped, and there’s 160 or more of them. with the vast majority of the World’s population, in fact the World’s most disadvantaged people, who have between zero and extremely limited access to any form of electrical power at all, let alone what you take so utterly for granted.

    As those Countries, and by extrapolation, their people, seek to have even the tiniest fraction of what we have, they attempt to industrialise their Countries, well, those Countries which can afford it.

    The only proven method of bringing stable, reliable, constant electricity to them is with the construction of large scale coal fired power plants, the cheapest way to do this for reliable power.

    In their droves, these Countries are actually doing this. China, now India, Indonesia, and many other Countries in South East Asia, with the vast majority of the World’s poorest and most disadvantaged people, are building these plants hand over fist. In the process, those disadvantaged people are gaining at least some access to electricity.

    You people on that side of this debate are not only not even addressing that, but you are ignoring it totally, concentrating solely on ephemeral Science you keep trying to stand up for, based solely around what is now only political ideology. You’re telling us that we, in the already Developed World must do something to close our existing plants, not construct any new ones, and go back to a place those disadvantaged people are seeking to rise above. What you propose is basically just fiddling around at the margins of what we do, while these Developing Countries totally and utterly ignore that.

    I despair that you are so unfeeling towards your fellow man that you would deny them the possibility to rise to a level of a fraction of what we already have.

    These Countries are ignoring, in its totality what we are being asked to accept.

    And you ignore the fact that what little may be accomplished by what you demand we do will be totally and utterly negated by what they are now doing, bringing reliable power to their people with coal fired power.

    You look the other way.

    Please can you explain to me why you could not care less about the people who are striving to get what we already have.

    Sometimes I despair, every time I see one of you people commenting here and at other sites, that you think yourselves so morally superior, and yet ignore the plight of the vast majority of the World’s populace, and do it on a whim you have been brainwashed to believe.

    Please help me out here. I sometimes get so discouraged when I see the moral superiority of your side, taking complete advantage of something they do not have, and then seeking to deny them the chance to come out of the dark ages, and your answer is that we go back and join them.

    I don’t really expect a response, because, as with everything like this, when the truth is inconvenient, you just look the other way, or divert the subject back to your version of Science.

    Tony.

    130

    • #
      Bill

      Well said, as always, Tony. Please don’t be too discouraged by the rampant stupidity out there. (There is a difference between ignorance -a lack of knowlege and understanding- and stupidity- the refusal to acquire knowlege or understanding.)

      61

    • #
      BilB

      We’ve been over this Tony. Grid electricity systems require political and economic stability. When that happens the first thing that will arrive is electricity from what ever source. I ws just watching a group in Ghana providing a movie making and playing service talking about the difficulties of running a business that needs energy in these countries. Corruption and conflict are the enemies, as well as cost of the energy infrastructure and the makeshift nature of the houses to which the electricity would be applied.

      But all around the world there are people who turn miracles to provide electricity into remote places. There was on particularly inspiring story in south american mountain regions.

      http://www.osawaterworks.com/hydroelectric.htm for example

      You believe in this and are retired. Take your conviction and turn it into action. Apply your selfto the adventure of a lifetime, go and live the experience and learn first hand the on the ground problems of bringing energy to remote lives.

      19

      • #
        AndyG55

        Note that bilge links to hydro.. the goto saviour of the “renewable” farce. ! :-)

        What is needed is solid reliable coal or gas fired power like all industrial countries once had, and which developing countries like China and India are building in copious quantities.

        The anti-CO2 agenda DENIES this regularity of energy supply to countries that want to bring their people out of poverty. It is inhuman and it is insane.

        Thankfully China is starting to fund some coal-fired in these countries, particularly the African countries, which have their own wealth in coal and coal-seam gases that are yet to be developed.

        52

      • #
        Bill

        Bilb, please see my question below on sea levels, I invite your enlightened response.

        10

  • #
    pat

    13 Oct: Phys.org: EDF for carbon price floor
    “Most firms today have carbon price scenarios for their investments, and so have we,” said Claude Nahon, EDF’s director of sustainable development.
    “But we must go further,” Nahon told a news conference.
    “Of course we support a proposal by (Energy Minister Segolene) Royal to create a carbon floor in France, or even Europe.”
    France is out to reduce its dependability on nuclear power in favour of renewables and last week Royal floated the idea, as part of an upcoming parliamentary bill, of a carbon floor price to offset imperfections in a European market vying to slash carbon emissions and push firms to adopt cleaner technology.
    In July, legislators passed a bill to increase the target price of carbon to 56 euros ($63.7) a ton from 2020, then ***100 euros a ton in 2030. The current 14.50 euros is due to rise next year to 22 euros.
    For Nahon, “we must at least get up to between 20 and 30 euros a ton … or even go a lot higher than that.”…
    By 2030, EDF says it wants to double its renewables footprint to 50 gigawatt hours from a current 28.
    Both EDF and French competitor Engie have both been criticised by NGOs for their involvement in coal-fired plants…
    http://phys.org/news/2015-10-edf-carbon-price-floor.html

    20

  • #

    In order to effectively make the argument that we should be using more, not less, of fossil fuels it is necessary to fully understand and be able to communicate the proper moral case for doing so. Fortunately, someone has already written a book detailing exactly how to do that. The title is “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” by Alex Epstein and I urge everyone to read it. You can find it on Amazon.

    50

  • #
    David Maddison

    Stanford graduates told Syrian “refugees” due to “climate change”.

    http://rickwells.us/archives/20644

    20

  • #
    David Maddison

    I can’t imagine what got my above comment into moderation….

    20

  • #
    David Maddison

    Question about wind subsidy farms: As per a recent article on this site, since Australia’s weather is fairly uniform despite the size of the continent, it means that the wind is pretty much blowing everywhere or not. This means that even if wind plants were uniformly distributed over the whole content, you would still get numerous times with no electricity production.

    I am looking for a reference to any study showing these large scale pattens in wind which mean that even a continental distribution of wind plants can’t provide base load.

    21

  • #
    Bill

    Here’s a question that deserves addressing:

    Let’s play worst case scenario. If all the ice in the world was to melt at once and go directly into the oceans (none into lakes, rivers, ponds, swamps, atmosphere, etc); how much sea level rise would/could take place. This will require access to accurate ice numbers and the coversion of volumes (no displacement factors please).

    Can anyone supply an answer? I suspect that the sea level change will be quite minor.

    10

    • #
      David Maddison

      A common figure quoted seems to be about 70 metres.

      10

    • #
      toorightmate

      No more wind farms – we have run out of wind.

      20

    • #
      Mike Flynn

      Bill,

      The answer to your question may be a little more complicated than it would appear at first sight. If the ice is removed from the land, isostatic rebound occurs, and the land rises. Paradoxically, depending on the location of the ice, the centre of the land mass may rise, but parts of the coastline may sink, and local sealevels may rise, even though the bulk of the land mass has actually experienced an overall drop in sea level.

      On top of this, the crust protrudes into the soft mantle roughly in proportion to the weight it supports. The crust under the deep oceans is comparatively thin, compared with crustal depth under, say, mountain ranges.

      Add in the effect of tectonic plate movements, overall vertical displacement of current sea floors either up or down, depending on conditions, and I can give you a very definite answer, which is “I haven’t got a clue, and I don’t think anybody else knows for sure either.”

      Maybe a Warmist can give you an answer to the nearest 0.01 of a millimetre. That’s a little less than half of one thousandth of an inch, but Warmist models and measurements are renowned for their incredible accuracy.

      Best of luck. Good question.

      50

      • #
        David Maddison

        It is complicated. There is a good article at

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

        As Mike said, ask a warmist. They are bound to have a model that will spit out a number…. :-)

        20

      • #
        Bill

        Mike, I agree with all of your points, but let’s try a simpler tack:

        Assume no rebounding, tectonic shift factors, etc (as it complicates things, using the KISS rule) let’s just go with all the snow and ice (excluding the cubes in your freezer) is magically melted by unicorn farts and then transported by chanting care bears or star trek transporters/tractor beams/force fields direct to the oceans.

        Based on those assumptions, and allowing for absolutely no other inputs or variables, how much sea level rise is theoretically possible?

        I’ve asked many of the warmists and other proponents of this failing religion and not a single one will provide a repeatable (in polite company) response.

        Perhaps Tony or another conversant with the data and maths can enlighten us all?

        00

  • #
    pat

    it won’t be easy convincing the public that CAGW is real between now and Paris, it would seem:

    13 Oct: Yorkshire Evening Post: Weather warning: Yorkshire ‘set for months of snow’
    AN early weather warning has been issued across the UK as experts forecast months of heavy show in what is expected to be the worst winter in half-a-century…
    The forecast shows snow is expected to start falling in Yorkshire in December and continue until March, although the earliest snowfall could arrive by early November…
    It is thought low temperatures, snowfall and north-easterly winds in Russia have encouraged Bewick’s swans to start their westwards migration through Europe early this year. The swans have also been spotted on lakes in the Netherlands…
    Unsually cold weather has developed over a large part of continental Europe and is likely to persist through this week with temperatures around 5-10 degrees below average. Daytime temperatures in Russia on Monday were around 3-4C which is more like the average nighttime temperature for this time of year…
    http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/trending/weather-warning-yorkshire-set-for-months-of-snow-1-7511317

    13 Oct: Globe Newswire: As Snow Creeps Down From The Himalayas, World Patent Marketing Reviews the Cost of Developing the Driveway Snow Blanket The New York Inventor Exchange approves Driveway Snow Blanket for licensing and trading intellectual property rights
    MIAMI, Fla. via PRWEB – World Patent Marketing, a vertically integrated manufacturer and engineer of patented products, announces the Driveway Snow Blanket, a snow melting invention that helps people in clearing snow away from the streets and driveways.
    “The Snowplowing Services industry is worth $17 billion and will continue to grow at 3.8% per year,” says Scott Cooper, CEO and Creative Director of World Patent Marketing and Desa Industries Inc. “In the next five years, industry revenue growth will go higher as we experience colder winters with higher levels of winter precipitation.”…
    http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2015/10/13/775540/10152333/en/As-Snow-Creeps-Down-From-The-Himalayas-World-Patent-Marketing-Reviews-the-Cost-of-Developing-the-Driveway-Snow-Blanket.html

    13 Oct: Accuweather: Early-Season Snow to Whiten Germany by Wednesday
    By Kristina Pydynowski, Senior Meteorologist
    Fritzlar should also see snow, marking the earliest such occurrence in October since Oct. 5, 1994, according to AccuWeather Meteorologist Tyler Roys…
    The impending snow may be a preview of what is expected this winter with the AccuWeather Long Range Forecasting Team anticipating an elevated threat for snowfall events across Germany later this winter.

    20

  • #
    pat

    not a one will break from the CAGW fold!

    13 Oct: The Hill: Sanders: Climate change is biggest national security threat
    “The scientific community is telling us: if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to sustainable energy, the planet that we’re going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be inhabitable,” the Vermont Independent said during the first Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas.
    “That is a major crisis,” he said to strong applause and cheering from the crowd in attendance.
    Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley also mentioned climate change as one of the top national security threats, saying it “makes cascading threats even worse.”…
    O’Malley has repeatedly highlighted global warming as a top security threat, inviting mockery from Republicans and others. But he has doubled down on his statements, even saying that climate change is partly to blame for the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
    President Obama has made similar assessments…
    All candidates except Webb mentioned the need to fight climate change in their opening statements.
    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/256859-sanders-climate-is-biggest-national-security-threat

    20

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      Pat ,

      That’s because it’s their “last hoorah ” at the upcoming Paris Marxists’ Climate Hajj !

      How many more years of zero warming will it take for these frauds and medieval imbeciles to abandon their religious crusade ???

      Its gone from Global Cooling to Global Warming to Climate Change to Global Weirding to Global Disruption to Global Climate Disruption ……………………….How about Global Climate Corruption …….finally an accurate description of this fraudulent medieval garbage !

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE

      30

    • #
      Bill

      Pandering to their leftist & hollywood masters

      00

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    Evil co2 (aka what true b’lvers refer to as carbon pollution because these clowns obviously lack a formal education )!

    Evil co2 at work >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE

    Come on 1000ppmv co2 at least for a lush green planet !!!

    20

  • #
    pat

    I realise jo has begun a new thread, but this is better posted here:

    with links:

    14 Oct: Bolt Blog: Pell vs Pope
    Cardinal George Pell has publicly criticised Pope Francis’ decision to place climate change at the top of the Catholic Church’s agenda.
    Cardinal Pell, a well-known climate change skeptic, told the Financial Times the church had “no particular expertise in science”.
    “The church has got no mandate from the Lord to pronounce on scientific matters,” he said,
    “We believe in the autonomy of science.”…
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/pell_vs_pope/

    50

  • #
    pat

    just realised the Pell excerpts I posted from Bolt’s Blog are from July. there’s nothing about CAGW in the letter that is causing concern this week.

    20

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Tony Thomas has just let go with a blast at the UNlimited corruption in the most corrupt organisation on the planet. Well worth a read.

    20

  • #
    Ceetee

    This Indur Goklany obviously was never sent THE memo, unaware of the benefit scheme and quite shamelessly objective.

    20

  • #
    pat

    Rod Stuart -

    the Tony Thomas piece is fabulous. have posted it on WUWT Tips & Notes.
    did u check out the Australian reps for the Global Sustainability Foundation?
    also love how the Sydney office is in Deutsche Bank Place.

    JOHN MCDONNELL
    Special Advisor on Australia Affairs
    …In 2000 Mr. McDonnell moved to Adelaide to work as a consultant and journalist. From 2002-2010, he was a director of the State Library of South Australia. He has had numerous journalistic appointments including feature articles for ***QUADRANT Magazine; main feature writer for the Adelaide Review, occasional columnist for the Australian national newspaper, editor and feature writer for Debate magazine, editor and lead writer for Inside Canberra newsletter and website and Commentator with FlowFM national radio network. Mr. McDonnell is currently chairman of Rescue Radio Corporation, a director of FlowFM, a director of BioinnovationSA, and an adviser to the Global Sustainability Foundation (Australia).
    http://www.gsfoundation.org/#!gsf-global-offices-australia/c1e6y

    the other listed representative:

    LinkedIn: Don Marples
    https://au.linkedin.com/pub/don-marples/16/a0a/719

    20

  • #
    BilB

    Now everyone has had their 5 cents worth on the subject, and it is very easy to assume that science has not thought about the ballooning CO2 impact on agricultural production, but what if scientists actually had thought about it and studied this what might the conclusions be?

    https://youtu.be/Er3iD5PIR00

    [What if someone actually looks at global agricultural production BilB? try here: http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/Q/*/E looks like your video might not match reality.] ED

    13

    • #
      el gordo

      Doing a little reading I found that increasing CO2 levels under laboratory conditions ‘impeded the assimilation of nitrate into protein’ in wheat. That research was done by UC Davis in the 1990s.

      This cannot be replicated in real world conditions because carbon dioxide doesn’t mix well and is unevenly distributed, so its a massive fail.

      10

    • #
      BilB

      ED, your link is predominately about farming and production efficiencies, and specifically to do with crops. There would indeed be a CO2 increased availablity component but the predominate increase is from improvements in chemical fertilisers, pesticides, farming machinery and practices, crop strain improvements and GM crop use. The NASA study is about ALL vegetation globally, not just the pampered plants. As you should well know. This whole “skeptical” thing you have going here is all sound bite and zero substance. Skepticism is really all about people not being prepared to think things through properly.

      [Really? not skeptical? Why did your video show failed crops at the beginning? :33 to :45, mentions crops at 1:20, shows grain crops waiving in the breeze and at 2:47 mentions drought and major crop losses, 3:12 mentions "growing population" (a not too thinly veiled fear mongering over food). Just because you don't see propaganda doesn't mean it isn't there BilB. I showed you a link about crops because your NASA propaganda had much to say about crops. ] ED

      13

      • #
        BilB

        The satellite data is anything but crop specific.

        [The propaganda you provide includes crops. Game Set Match. Sorry BilB you come up short. Remember this dialog because I will refer to it in the future.] ED

        21

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Grain growers in Western Australia say a rising average winter temperature is changing the way their crops grow, and in dry years is reducing yield.’

      ABC / Aug 2015

      —–

      Increasing CO2 should be beneficial in this regard.

      10

    • #
      el gordo

      This Landline story is five years old and looks at field trials in Victoria.

      http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2010/s2851825.htm

      Elevated CO2 increases yields by up to 20 percent.

      10

      • #
        BilB

        That is a good article elgordo, thanks for that. However “Elevated CO2 increases yields by up to 20 percent” is not a completely correct conclusion. I haven’t fully studied their study, but the predominate non included factors are the climate impacts of 550ppm environment. The researchers are aware of the difference but from what I read the study was not able to factor that in. The real take away line, I think, is “Higher CO2 levels need to be seen as part of a complex system”.

        Regardless it is a very important study. There is a research unit not far from my factory but over at Richmond which I imagine is part of that research network. it is a pretty impressive setup.

        12

        • #
          gai

          If you want the studies refuting that Davis Study I just put up a bunch of them HERE (Upthread)

          10

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘…the climate impacts of 550ppm environment.’

          Supposedly we won’t reach those dizzy heights until sometime next century, but that is unlikely because of the cool times ahead.

          Adaptation is the key to survival.

          10

      • #
        Erica

        Recent study and practical experience shows that enclosed systems (greenhouses) are more efficient and produce higher yields over all

        Scientific farming pays off, fear mongering and silly nonsense does not.

        30

        • #
          BilB

          Erica, this thread is about saturating Earth’s atmosphere with CO2, not Greenhouses. Take away that protective membrane and expose you plants to the general environment (extremes of temperature fluctuating moisture levels open to insects and fungii spores), even if you were able to keep the CO2 up to the plants, what would happen to your production.

          12

          • #
            AndyG55

            The Earth’s biosphere has expanded by some 10-15%

            That is what happens to production even when you increase the atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm .

            That’s because 280ppm is pretty close to the plants’ “just surviving” CO2 requirements.

            12

  • #
    pat

    14 Oct: UK Telegraph: Henry Samuel: France’s top weatherman sparks storm over book questioning climate change
    Philippe Verdier, weather chief at France Télévisions, the country’s state broadcaster, reportedly sent on “forced holiday” for releasing book accusing top climatologists of “taking the world hostage
    Now Philippe Verdier, a household name for his nightly forecasts on France 2, has been taken off air after a more controversial announcement – criticising the world’s top climate change experts.
    Mr Verdier claims in the book Climat Investigation (Climate Investigation) that leading climatologists and political leaders have “taken the world hostage” with misleading data…
    His outspoken views led France 2 to take him off the air starting this Monday. “I received a letter telling me not to come. I’m in shock,” he told RTL radio. “This is a direct extension of what I say in my book, namely that any contrary views must be eliminated.”
    The book has been released at a particularly sensitive moment as Paris is due to host a crucial UN climate change conference in December…
    He said he decided to write the book in June 2014 when Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, summoned the country’s main weather presenters and urged them to mention “climate chaos” in their forecasts.
    “I was horrified by this discourse,” Mr Verdier told Les Inrockuptibles magazine…
    According to L’Express magazine, unions at France Television called for Mr Verdier to be fired…READ ON
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11931645/Frances-top-weatherman-sparks-storm-over-book-questioning-climate-change.html

    20

  • #
    pat

    14 Oct: NY Post: Michael Gartland: Cuomo paid state workers to fill seats at climate change event
    Gov. Andrew Cuomo wasn’t taking any chances that there might be empty seats at a speech he delivered last week on climate change — so state workers were summoned on the taxpayer dime to fill the audience, The Post has learned.
    The workers said they left their jobs in the middle of the day Thursday and were paid their full salaries to hear Cuomo at Columbia University announce the state was joining a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    “I’d rather be at the park,” said one of the workers, who is employed by the state Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and who has no connection to climate issues…READ ON
    http://nypost.com/2015/10/14/cuomo-paid-state-workers-to-fill-seats-at-climate-speech/

    10

  • #
    el gordo

    Antarctic ice cores show a drop in CO2 by 6-10 parts per million between 1525 and early 1600s, in the middle of the Little Ice Age.

    What we see here is a retreat from agriculture and a return to reafforestation, creating a bigger sink, the same thing happened around 500 AD because of Dark Age cooling. The colder oceans would also have retained more carbon dioxide.

    Human induced CO2 ticks all the right boxes going forward.

    30

  • #
    pat

    13 Oct: Slate: John Light: A Museum of the future
    A New York City Museum will show visitors the effects of climate change
    One good thing the project has going for it is the array of thinkers who have signaled their support for the museum. Massie has assembled boards of advisers and trustees stocked with prominent climate scientists, architects, lawyers, and activists who come with the potential for partnerships between the museum and other organizations. For example, Cynthia Rosenzweig, a veteran climate scientist who co-authored the Nobel Peace Prize–winning 2007 International Panel on Climate Change report, signed on as the museum’s first trustee and is helping the museum partner with Columbia University’s Earth Institute, one of the foremost organizations studying climate change.
    Politicians and policymakers have also taken notice. On the day I met with Massie she was chatting with the Republican mayor of Carmel, Indiana, Jim Brainard, one of a few lonely climate hawks in his party; he serves on Obama’s Task Force on Climate Change…
    One big part of the museum will focus on the pledges that attendees have already made, connecting visitors past, present, and future. Other than that, Massie doesn’t imagine having any permanent exhibits—both the science around climate and the societal attitude toward action are evolving…
    http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/10/new_york_city_s_climate_museum_looks_to_the_future_of_global_warming.single.html

    16 May: New Yorker: The Museum of Unnatural History
    By Carolyn Kormann
    PIC: A concept sketch for New York’s proposed climate-change museum, by the Danish-Icelandic artist Olafur Eliasson.
    At ten o’clock, just as the museum’s doors were opening, a lawyer named Miranda Massie arrived. The Cooper Hewitt is the seventh Manhattan museum that she has visited this year. She’s looking for ideas for her own museum—a museum devoted to climate change. Massie is thinking big, and thinking long-term, as in centuries…
    Massie conceived of the project in 2012, a few weeks after Hurricane Sandy…
    “If we don’t solve the climate crisis, there’s a sense in which the social-justice issues that have animated me are moot,” she said. “I realized that Rome is being sacked by barbarians, and I’m not in Rome.” Massie quit her job as general counsel for New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, assembled a team of advisers, enlisted a small army of pro-bono lawyers, and, in 2014, founded the Climate Museum Launch Project…
    “It can be a very depressing subject,” Dominique Browning, another C.M.L.P. board member and the founder of Moms Clean Air Force, a nationwide environmental group, told me. “The museum could move the conversation from polar bears to people. It’ll be a museum of unnatural history.”…
    But first they need a space, not to mention hundreds of millions of dollars. Massie has already started fund-raising, and she is leaning toward hiring a star architect…
    http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-museum-of-unnatural-history

    10

  • #
    pat

    Climate Museum: Our Team Members
    Advisory Board includes:
    Edward Maibach, Director of the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication
    Our fiscal sponsor:
    FJC
    http://www.climatemuseum.org/our-team-members

    FJC Board & Staff
    http://www.fjc.org/board-and-staff

    10

  • #
    pat

    must watch video. no voice-over from CBC, who probably hate posting this:

    VIDEO: 14 Oct: CBC: VIDEO: German towns walloped by snowstorms
    Unseasonably cold weather, not seen in decades, catches residents unprepared.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/video-german-towns-walloped-by-snowstorms-1.3270575

    posting just for fun:

    15 Oct: Courier Mail: Renee Viellaris: ABC refuses to reveal cost of professional development course for 70 staff in Clare Valley
    TAXPAYERS will fund a four-day jaunt to South Australian wine country so ABC staff can bond after personnel and budget cuts.
    The ABC is refusing to reveal the cost of transporting and accommodating 70 reporters from around Australia in the Clare Valley, which is renowned for its world-class riesling.
    The love-in, billed as a professional development course, is likely to cost thousands of ­dollars on top of any cost to hire casual or fill-in staff for those who will not be able to do their day job for the four days…
    Communications Minister Mitch Fifield yesterday said: “Every Commonwealth government-funded agency should be the best possible steward of ­taxpayer dollars they can be”…
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/abc-refuses-to-reveal-cost-of-professional-development-course-for-70-staff-in-clare-valley/story-fnihsrk2-1227569486058

    10

  • #

    Co2 is plant food, not pollution. CO is pollution, but by calling it all carbon, they have conflated the two.Environmentalism has become more about governance than conservancy. We must not allow unelected bodies to sign us into irrevocable deals. We must not allow them to disband our armies. The lies need to stop, and I’m on board with y’all… sink or swim.
    https://atokenmanblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/09/environmentalism-conservancy-or-governance/

    20

  • #
    pat

    you won’t see this reported by ABC/Fairfax:

    14 Oct: Reuters Carbon Pulse: London police seize £2.4 mln from jailed carbon scam gang
    The pair, along with an accomplice, Griston’s partner, and Noad’s father – a former banker at Coutts, the Queen’s bank – were jailed for a combined 18 years and nine months for fraud and money laundering offences, with Noad’s mother sentenced to a two-year custodial sentence suspended for two years.
    Awaiting trial for running a land investment scam over which they were arrested in 2010, and with their passports seized and bank accounts frozen, the two men set up Capital Carbon Credits while on bail, the police said, and targeted some of the investors they had previously defrauded.
    They were arrested again in Sep. 2012.
    The gang’s victims included a World War II veteran and a survivor of the Thalidomide drug, who invested his compensation settlement worth hundreds of thousands of pounds…
    The six spent the cash on multi-million pound mansions, luxury cars, expensive jewellery and lavish holidays before they were convicted…
    http://carbon-pulse.com/london-police-seize-2-4-mln-from-jailed-carbon-scam-gang/

    14 Oct: FinancialTimesAdviser: Emma Ann Hughes: Police seize £2.4m from land and carbon credit fraudsters
    Several million pounds are to be confiscated from six criminals, five of whom are currently jailed, who profited from scams that saw hundreds of elderly investors sold worthless plots of land and valueless carbon credits…
    Matthew Noad, 32, Clive Griston, 54, Harry Neal, 31, Kerry Golesworthy, 50, Linda Noad, 59, and Roger Noad, 62, must repay £2.37m to the scams’ victims or face more time behind bars…
    Many of their victims, in both the land banking and carbon credit frauds, were well into retirement with no prospect of ever being able to recoup the money they had lost…
    An 87-year-old retired teacher, living alone, invested £87,000 with Capital Carbon Credits, telling how she was continually pressurised over the phone into handing over more and more of her savings until there was none left to give…
    http://www.ftadviser.com/2015/10/14/investments/alternative-investments/police-seize-m-from-land-and-carbon-credit-fraudsters-oShWyNhzIKehWzHSZ2SKnM/article.html

    10

  • #
    pat

    14 Oct: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: BP, Shell, Rio Tinto offer support to Paris climate deal
    Fourteen multinationals including oil majors Shell and BP have signed up to a statement backing a “sensible and effective” global climate agreement…
    A proposed UN deal – set for sign-off in December – should ensure “require periodic renewal of national contributions to progressively strengthen the global effort” and support international carbon markets…
    Other signatories include miners BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, IT giants HP and Intel, metals trader Alcoa and Siemens, a major clean energy investor…
    FULL STATEMENT…
    The companies – which employ over 1.5 million and have revenues above $1 trillion – say they will mobilise the technology and investment needed to move towards a low carbon economy.
    But they are vague on how strong greenhouse gas slashing targets should be in the near term…
    “These are companies with real skin in the game – either they’re large emitters or their products are,” said Bob Perciasepe, head of the Washington DC-based C2ES think tank that coordinated the statement…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/10/14/bp-shell-rio-tinto-offer-support-to-paris-climate-deal/

    14 Oct: ClimateChangeNews: Alex Pashley: Ten banks launch sustainable finance manifesto
    Lenders including Societe Generale, Yes Bank and ING back ‘positive impact principles’ to scale up clean energy investments.
    The “Positive Impact Manifesto” (LINK) signed by the likes of French lender Societe Generale, Africa’s Standard Bank and Australian fund Westpac seeks to reverse that…
    “Banks are uniquely positioned between the real economy and capital markets,” said UN environment chief Achim Steiner in a statement…
    For Christopher Bray of UK lender Barclays, the approach held a “lot of promise in terms of new business opportunities”…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/10/14/ten-banks-launch-sustainable-finance-manifesto/

    10

  • #
    pat

    hedgb -

    not sure I understand you, but this one is active:

    On Climate Finance Day: New UN Report Lays Out Financial Reforms Needed to Harness Multi-Trillion Investments towards Insulating Countries, Communities from Climate Shocks and Build Market Resilience
    http://unep.org/newscentre/Default.aspx?DocumentID=26816&ArticleID=35048&l=en

    this seems to be the one u say is dead, for the Full Report. this url has it:

    http://staging.unep.org/inquiry/Portals/50215/Documents/The%20Coming%20Financial%20Climate.pdf

    hope that helps.

    00

  • #
    ralph ellis

    So plants die below 70 ppm CO2. But that is in good growing conditions, what about in more marginal conditions? Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, said anything below 150 ppm was lethal to plant-life.

    I have used fact this as an explanation for the end of Ice Ages. At the end of the Ice Ages CO2 concentrations reached a minimum. It is entirely possible that this caused a widespread dieback of plant-life, followed by dust storms. (Each Interglacial was preceded by 10,000 years of dust storms.) And it was the dust storms that caused a reduction in albedo on the ice sheets and a rapid warming.

    Ice Age Modulation without CO2 feedbacks…
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri15/ralph_ellis_oct15.html

    10

    • #

      SOME plants BEGIN to die at levels below 150 ppm/v CO2, some can live at lower levels.

      00

      • #
        gai

        It is not where plants ‘begin to die’ it is whether or not the plants can sprout, grow and produce seed before winter. Lower CO2 has several downsides that reduce the chance of survival and seed production.

        http://www.co2science.org/education/experiments/center_exp/experiment1/figures/final_fig14.gif

        From: (wwwDOT)co2science.org/education/experiments/center_exp/experiment1/final_part1.php

        This is an example of the type of study used to make such pronouncements about plant survival at low CO2 levels. Notice the seed is planted and grown at 350 ppm for 34 days allowing sprouting and the accumulation of carbohydrates before CO2 is reduced to 175 ppm. Also the plants are only subjected to 175 ppm for ten days.

        “…it is likely that rice plants had to reallocate valuable resources into rubisco and other photosynthetic proteins just to ensure that net carbon uptake could prevail for plant survival….”

        Rice (Oryza sativa) a C3 plant was planted and grown in a controlled environment receiving atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 350 for the first 34 days. one of the chambers had its atmospheric CO2 concentration reduced to only 175 ppm, which was then maintained throughout the remaining ten days of the experiment. The other chamber remained at 350 ppm.

        …One day after lowering the atmospheric CO2 concentration, plants exposed to 175 ppm CO2 displayed photosynthetic rates that were 45% less than those exhibited by control plants growing at the ambient CO2 concentration. Moreover, at day five of half-ambient CO2 exposure, the photosynthetic reduction become even more severe, reaching 52%. However, between days five and ten of half-ambient CO2 exposure, plants growing in this unfavorable treatment exhibited a 35% increase in their photosynthetic rates, but subsequent rates were still significantly lower than those observed in plants grown at 350 ppm CO2. This delayed photosynthetic enhancement was at least partly due to 24 and 19% increases in rubisco activity and content, respectively, within developing leaves. Thus, low CO2 concentrations induced an up-regulation of rubisco and photosynthetic rates in young leaves of rice.

        What it means
        Prior to the Industrial Revolution, it is likely that rice had a more difficult time growing than it does today. At lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations, it is likely that rice plants had to reallocate valuable resources into rubisco and other photosynthetic proteins just to ensure that net carbon uptake could prevail for plant survival. Thus, it is likely that plants were smaller and produced less yield than they do today….

        http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N31/B1.php

        About Rubisco also from Co2Science

        Rubisco is the primary carboxylating enzyme used by C3 plants during photosynthesis to incorporate CO2 into sugars needed for growth and development. Even C4 and CAM plants, which use PEP-carboxylase as their primary carboxylating enzyme, utilize rubisco during subsequent secondary CO2 assimilation events. Thus, rubisco is universally present in all of earth’s vegetation and is, in fact, the most abundant plant enzyme on the planet, comprising up to 40 to 50% of total foliage protein. Hence, rubisco represents an enormous sink for nitrogen and other valuable resources within plants.

        Then there is the increased water need in response to lower CO2. This study conducted at 290 ppm, 390 ppm and 480 ppm. Not only were the water requirements of the plants higher but the leaves were thinner and biomass was lower. Also the xylem transport conduits were weaker and therefore more subject to cavitation leading to increased drought stress. In other words the plant was weaker mechanically.

        The effect of subambient to elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration on vascular function in Helianthus annuus: implications for plant response to climate change

        …Leaf evapotranspiration is tightly coupled to the water potential gradient driving water transport from the soil to the leaf, but under hydrated conditions, it is the hydraulic conductance of the xylem tissue that defines the upper limits of g (Sperry et al., 1998; Hubbard et al., 2001; Brodribb, 2009). Indeed, the coordination between leaf-level water loss and the xylem-mediated water supply has been demonstrated across both conifer and angiosperm taxa from tropical to temperate environments…

        Our results indicate that subambient [CO2]atm invokes a greater demand for water in H. annuus plants, as evidenced by greater leaf area, a tendency towards larger stomata and higher stomatal density. This demand is supplied by higher xylem-specific conductivity, the result of a modest increase in vessel diameter, and a decrease in conduit mechanical reinforcement. A potentially significant cost of anatomical adjustments at subambient [CO2]atm is greater vulnerability to cavitation relative to plants grown at ambient and elevated [CO2]atm. Our findings imply that plants inhabiting low [CO2]atm climates were capable of transporting more water, though perhaps at the cost of increased sensitivity to drought. By contrast, elevated [CO2]atm is likely to reduce demand for water as well as fortify xylem conduits such that plants may be more resilient to drought stress

        Although the subambient [CO2]atm plants had greater leaf area, their leaves were thinner and, when combined with the stem tissue, their overall shoot biomass was lower

        A secondary goal of this study was to examine the cavitation response of sunflower, as cavitation resistance is related to interconduit pit membrane traits and conduit biomechanics…Predictably, plants grown at 290 ppm exhibited the highest vulnerability to cavitation…. By contrast, greater carbon availability and reduced demand for water explain the thicker conduit walls, narrower conduit diameters, and greater likelihood of the presence of robust pit membranes in sunflowers grown at 390 and 480 ppm….
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.12339/pdf

        Elevated CO2 often reduces a plant’s light compensation point, which is the light intensity at which the amount of carbon fixed by photosynthesis is equal to that lost by respiration. Above that particular light intensity, net photosynthesis is positive. Below it, net photosyntheis is negative; and if prolonged, the plant will ultimately die. Thus, this phenomenon is especially beneficial to vegetation growing in deep shade beneath forest canopies that block out much of the incoming sunlight (Kubiske and Pregitzer, 1996; Osborne et al., 1997); and it also helps aquatic plants extend their life zones to greater depths (Zimmerman et al., 1997).

        10

  • #

    Nice picture ralph, was that taken at Concordia?

    00

    • #
      ralph ellis

      >>Nice picture ralph, was that taken at Concordia?

      Yes, just a day’s walk away from base-camp. Hard walking, as you can see, as the entire glacier was a moonscape. Surprised to see two geese flying up the valley though. I had no O2, let alone having to fly…

      00

  • #
    gai

    hebgb,

    I am seeing 150 ppm CO2 and even 70 ppm CO2 mentioned above. Do you have links to studies showing plants survive at that low a CO2?

    I realize C4 and CAM are better than C3 but I though much below 200 PPM and plants were really hurting.

    I am not a biologist, but I have seen too many studies where an outcome is desired and the various factors are arranged to assure that outcome.

    As I tried to point out above. CO2 is only one factor. So if the optimum nutrients, light and water is provided and you start with older plants who already have a store of carbohydrates you could ‘stretch’ the bottom number for CO2, especially if you made sure the air pressure was high***.

    I have seen too many studies that have been designed with the sole purpose of ‘proving a fact’ to ‘trust’ without validation.

    *** Carbon limitation due to lower ambient CO2 partial pressures had a significant impact on the distribution of forest on the tropical mountains, in addition to climate.

    00

  • #
  • #

    You’re very welcome… read the article and propagate it, if you can. (9000 words) It would help the very important cause of anti-environmental governance. Lotsa’ godies in there.

    Here’s another informative article about CO2 levels:
    https://atokenmanblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/carbon-monoxide-co-and-carbon-dioxide-co2-do-you-know-the-difference/

    00

  • #

    My blog allows posters who have made a certain number of posts to avoid moderation, while those who have posted less than this number must wait.

    Might I suggest such a thing for this site (if possible?)

    00

  • #