Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) (sci.geo.meteorology) For the discussion of meteorology and related topics. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "tunderbar" wrote in message ... On Aug 19, 10:27 am, Tom P wrote: On 08/19/2010 04:49 PM, matt_sykes wrote: On 19 Aug, 16:20, wrote: On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 05:58:42 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes wrote: On 19 Aug, 14:20, Roger wrote: Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g093lhtpEFo "CO2 is plant food" is crock? How about sunlight? Is that also crock? And water? Idiot. --http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz Estimates imply that below 200 PPM life on earth becomes untenable. Historical records show CO2 as high as 5000 thousand of PPM. And our current level is towards the bottom of that range. Life on earth will benefit from a doubling of CO2. And since CO2 has not yet had a marked effect on temperature and its effect is non linear there isnt going to be any effect on temperature. The problem with the "CO2 is plant food" argument is that in recent decades the correlation between temperature and tree-ring growth has broken down. Has broken down? In recent decades? Interesting spin on the fact that the tree ring proxy fails to follow temperatures. It is a failure of the proxy. Since both CO2 and temperature went up, one may wonder why trees fail to respond with growth in the past 4 decades.... No one in their right minds, no pun intended, would even consider disputing the basic scientific fact that plants use CO2 as a nutrient. But apparently the alarmists are prepared to challenge anything and everything that doesn't follow their ideological constructs. You read Toms comment incorrectly. He does not challenge that CO2 is a 'nutrient', he just challenges the argument that deniers use that CO2 is beneficial for plant growth. And knowing that proxies show that growth is not keeping up with CO2 increase, you have to admit that he has a point. You would expect an increase in CO2 to display a beneficial effect on tree-ring growth. But it doesn't. Trees are behaving as if the climate were cooling. (Remember the "hide the decline"?) T.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No you don't "expect" and increase in CO2 to necessarily display a "beneficial" effect on tree ring growth. By that I assume you mean that more CO2 should always show wider tree rings . Don't expect it to. There are too many other localized factors that will impact tree ring growth. Tree rings are poor proxies. Very poor. Virtually useless. You cannot extrapolate on factor from a multi-factorial proxy. OK. Do I understand from your statement that you agree that CO2 is not necessarily good for plant (and tree) growth, because there are too many other factors involved ? Like precipitation consistency, which also affect growth ? And incidentally percipitation consistency is also affected by climate changes ? Which is affected by GHG emissions ? And thus that you agree that the statement "CO2 is Plant Food" or "CO2 is good for plants" is a gross oversimplification of the process that we have set about by changing the GHG concentrations in this planet's atmosphere ? Rob |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 20 Aug, 10:09, "Rob Dekker" wrote:
"tunderbar" wrote in message ... On Aug 19, 10:27 am, Tom P wrote: On 08/19/2010 04:49 PM, matt_sykes wrote: On 19 Aug, 16:20, wrote: On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 05:58:42 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes wrote: On 19 Aug, 14:20, Roger wrote: Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g093lhtpEFo "CO2 is plant food" is crock? How about sunlight? Is that also crock? And water? Idiot. --http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz Estimates imply that below 200 PPM life on earth becomes untenable. Historical records show CO2 as high as 5000 thousand of PPM. And our current level is towards the bottom of that range. Life on earth will benefit from a doubling of CO2. And since CO2 has not yet had a marked effect on temperature and its effect is non linear there isnt going to be any effect on temperature. The problem with the "CO2 is plant food" argument is that in recent decades the correlation between temperature and tree-ring growth has broken down. Has broken down? In recent decades? Interesting spin on the fact that the tree ring proxy fails to follow temperatures. It is a failure of the proxy. Since both CO2 and temperature went up, one may wonder why trees fail to respond with growth in the past 4 decades.... No one in their right minds, no pun intended, would even consider disputing the basic scientific fact that plants use CO2 as a nutrient. But apparently the alarmists are prepared to challenge anything and everything that doesn't follow their ideological constructs. You read Toms comment incorrectly. He does not challenge that CO2 is a 'nutrient', he just challenges the argument that deniers use that CO2 is beneficial for plant growth. And knowing that proxies show that growth is not keeping up with CO2 increase, you have to admit that he has a point. You would expect an increase in CO2 to display a beneficial effect on tree-ring growth. But it doesn't. Trees are behaving as if the climate were cooling. (Remember the "hide the decline"?) T.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No you don't "expect" and increase in CO2 to necessarily display a "beneficial" effect on tree ring growth. By that I assume you mean that more CO2 should always show wider tree rings . Don't expect it to. There are too many other localized factors that will impact tree ring growth. Tree rings are poor proxies. Very poor. Virtually useless. You cannot extrapolate on factor from a multi-factorial proxy. OK. Do I understand from your statement that you agree that CO2 is not necessarily good for plant (and tree) growth, because there are too many other factors involved ? Like precipitation consistency, which also affect growth ? And incidentally percipitation consistency is also affected by climate changes ? Which is affected by GHG emissions ? And thus that you agree that the statement "CO2 is Plant Food" or "CO2 is good for plants" is a gross oversimplification of the process that we have set about by changing the GHG concentrations in this planet's atmosphere ? Rob- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And the US forestry statements that tree growt has accelerated in the last 30 years? Eh, eh? Or are you just ignoring data that doesnt fit your idelogy? |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "matt_sykes" wrote in message ... On 20 Aug, 10:09, "Rob Dekker" wrote: "tunderbar" wrote in message ... On Aug 19, 10:27 am, Tom P wrote: On 08/19/2010 04:49 PM, matt_sykes wrote: On 19 Aug, 16:20, wrote: On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 05:58:42 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes wrote: On 19 Aug, 14:20, Roger wrote: Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g093lhtpEFo "CO2 is plant food" is crock? How about sunlight? Is that also crock? And water? Idiot. --http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz Estimates imply that below 200 PPM life on earth becomes untenable. Historical records show CO2 as high as 5000 thousand of PPM. And our current level is towards the bottom of that range. Life on earth will benefit from a doubling of CO2. And since CO2 has not yet had a marked effect on temperature and its effect is non linear there isnt going to be any effect on temperature. The problem with the "CO2 is plant food" argument is that in recent decades the correlation between temperature and tree-ring growth has broken down. Has broken down? In recent decades? Interesting spin on the fact that the tree ring proxy fails to follow temperatures. It is a failure of the proxy. Since both CO2 and temperature went up, one may wonder why trees fail to respond with growth in the past 4 decades.... No one in their right minds, no pun intended, would even consider disputing the basic scientific fact that plants use CO2 as a nutrient. But apparently the alarmists are prepared to challenge anything and everything that doesn't follow their ideological constructs. You read Toms comment incorrectly. He does not challenge that CO2 is a 'nutrient', he just challenges the argument that deniers use that CO2 is beneficial for plant growth. And knowing that proxies show that growth is not keeping up with CO2 increase, you have to admit that he has a point. You would expect an increase in CO2 to display a beneficial effect on tree-ring growth. But it doesn't. Trees are behaving as if the climate were cooling. (Remember the "hide the decline"?) T.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No you don't "expect" and increase in CO2 to necessarily display a "beneficial" effect on tree ring growth. By that I assume you mean that more CO2 should always show wider tree rings . Don't expect it to. There are too many other localized factors that will impact tree ring growth. Tree rings are poor proxies. Very poor. Virtually useless. You cannot extrapolate on factor from a multi-factorial proxy. OK. Do I understand from your statement that you agree that CO2 is not necessarily good for plant (and tree) growth, because there are too many other factors involved ? Like precipitation consistency, which also affect growth ? And incidentally percipitation consistency is also affected by climate changes ? Which is affected by GHG emissions ? And thus that you agree that the statement "CO2 is Plant Food" or "CO2 is good for plants" is a gross oversimplification of the process that we have set about by changing the GHG concentrations in this planet's atmosphere ? Rob- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And the US forestry statements that tree growt has accelerated in the last 30 years? Eh, eh? Or are you just ignoring data that doesnt fit your idelogy? Strange. That seems to contradict the decline in tree growth since 1960 as observed by tree ring proxies. Remember the "hide the decline" in tree ring width remark ? And 'skeptic' McIntyre's "adjustments" (cherry-picked choices of tree proxies) shows an even stronger decline in growth. I wonder why these trees don't grow as fast with so much more CO2 available... Rob |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:19:02 -0700, "Rob Dekker"
wrote: "matt_sykes" wrote in message ... On 20 Aug, 10:09, "Rob Dekker" wrote: "tunderbar" wrote in message ... On Aug 19, 10:27 am, Tom P wrote: On 08/19/2010 04:49 PM, matt_sykes wrote: On 19 Aug, 16:20, wrote: On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 05:58:42 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes wrote: On 19 Aug, 14:20, Roger wrote: Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g093lhtpEFo "CO2 is plant food" is crock? How about sunlight? Is that also crock? And water? Idiot. --http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz Estimates imply that below 200 PPM life on earth becomes untenable. Historical records show CO2 as high as 5000 thousand of PPM. And our current level is towards the bottom of that range. Life on earth will benefit from a doubling of CO2. And since CO2 has not yet had a marked effect on temperature and its effect is non linear there isnt going to be any effect on temperature. The problem with the "CO2 is plant food" argument is that in recent decades the correlation between temperature and tree-ring growth has broken down. Has broken down? In recent decades? Interesting spin on the fact that the tree ring proxy fails to follow temperatures. It is a failure of the proxy. Since both CO2 and temperature went up, one may wonder why trees fail to respond with growth in the past 4 decades.... No one in their right minds, no pun intended, would even consider disputing the basic scientific fact that plants use CO2 as a nutrient. But apparently the alarmists are prepared to challenge anything and everything that doesn't follow their ideological constructs. You read Toms comment incorrectly. He does not challenge that CO2 is a 'nutrient', he just challenges the argument that deniers use that CO2 is beneficial for plant growth. And knowing that proxies show that growth is not keeping up with CO2 increase, you have to admit that he has a point. You would expect an increase in CO2 to display a beneficial effect on tree-ring growth. But it doesn't. Trees are behaving as if the climate were cooling. (Remember the "hide the decline"?) T.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No you don't "expect" and increase in CO2 to necessarily display a "beneficial" effect on tree ring growth. By that I assume you mean that more CO2 should always show wider tree rings . Don't expect it to. There are too many other localized factors that will impact tree ring growth. Tree rings are poor proxies. Very poor. Virtually useless. You cannot extrapolate on factor from a multi-factorial proxy. OK. Do I understand from your statement that you agree that CO2 is not necessarily good for plant (and tree) growth, because there are too many other factors involved ? Like precipitation consistency, which also affect growth ? And incidentally percipitation consistency is also affected by climate changes ? Which is affected by GHG emissions ? And thus that you agree that the statement "CO2 is Plant Food" or "CO2 is good for plants" is a gross oversimplification of the process that we have set about by changing the GHG concentrations in this planet's atmosphere ? And the US forestry statements that tree growt has accelerated in the last 30 years? Eh, eh? Or are you just ignoring data that doesnt fit your idelogy? "Ideology?" LOL! The rate of growth in trees has been steadly decreasing in most places, increasing in a few. World-wide it has steadily DECLINED as carbon dioxide has increased. "Recent Widespread Tree Growth Decline Despite Increasing Atmospheric CO2," Lucas C. R. Silva, Madhur Anand-, Mark D. Leithead; Global Ecological Change Laboratory, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. "Our results show an unexpected widespread tree growth decline in temperate and boreal forests due to warming induced stress but are also suggestive of additional stressors. Rising atmospheric CO2 levels during the past century resulted in consistent increases in water use efficiency, but this did not prevent growth decline. These findings challenge current predictions of increasing terrestrial carbon stocks under climate change scenarios." Strange. That seems to contradict the decline in tree growth since 1960 as observed by tree ring proxies. Yes. The alarmist conspiracy-mongering nutcase lied. Remember the "hide the decline" in tree ring width remark? Exactly. The decline was tree ring growth, not temperature. And 'skeptic' McIntyre's "adjustments" (cherry-picked choices of tree proxies) shows an even stronger decline in growth. I wonder why these trees don't grow as fast with so much more CO2 available... Most plants will not; many will. -- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 01:09:26 -0700, "Rob Dekker"
wrote: "tunderbar" wrote in message ... On Aug 19, 10:27 am, Tom P wrote: On 08/19/2010 04:49 PM, matt_sykes wrote: On 19 Aug, 16:20, wrote: On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 05:58:42 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes wrote: On 19 Aug, 14:20, Roger wrote: Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g093lhtpEFo "CO2 is plant food" is crock? How about sunlight? Is that also crock? And water? Idiot. Estimates imply that below 200 PPM life on earth becomes untenable. Historical records show CO2 as high as 5000 thousand of PPM. And our current level is towards the bottom of that range. Life on earth will benefit from a doubling of CO2. And since CO2 has not yet had a marked effect on temperature and its effect is non linear there isnt going to be any effect on temperature. The problem with the "CO2 is plant food" argument is that in recent decades the correlation between temperature and tree-ring growth has broken down. Has broken down? In recent decades? Interesting spin on the fact that the tree ring proxy fails to follow temperatures. It is a failure of the proxy. Since both CO2 and temperature went up, one may wonder why trees fail to respond with growth in the past 4 decades.... Pollution. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree...ce-problem.htm -- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Desertphile" wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 01:09:26 -0700, "Rob Dekker" wrote: "tunderbar" wrote in message ... On Aug 19, 10:27 am, Tom P wrote: On 08/19/2010 04:49 PM, matt_sykes wrote: On 19 Aug, 16:20, wrote: On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 05:58:42 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes wrote: On 19 Aug, 14:20, Roger wrote: Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g093lhtpEFo "CO2 is plant food" is crock? How about sunlight? Is that also crock? And water? Idiot. Estimates imply that below 200 PPM life on earth becomes untenable. Historical records show CO2 as high as 5000 thousand of PPM. And our current level is towards the bottom of that range. Life on earth will benefit from a doubling of CO2. And since CO2 has not yet had a marked effect on temperature and its effect is non linear there isnt going to be any effect on temperature. The problem with the "CO2 is plant food" argument is that in recent decades the correlation between temperature and tree-ring growth has broken down. Has broken down? In recent decades? Interesting spin on the fact that the tree ring proxy fails to follow temperatures. It is a failure of the proxy. Since both CO2 and temperature went up, one may wonder why trees fail to respond with growth in the past 4 decades.... Pollution. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree...ce-problem.htm So this means that we can't really tell how much CO2 will increase growth (if it does at all) on a global scale. -- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack Part 1 | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
CROCK OF THE WEEK, "In the 70s, They said there'd be an Ice Age" | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
High CO2 Boosts Plant Respiration - Clue for Bozo the Clueless:plants with no water can't respire anyway | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
High CO2 Boosts Plant Respiration - Clue for Bozo the Clueless:plants with no water can't respire anyway | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
High CO2 Boosts Plant Respiration - Clue for Bozo the Clueless:plants with no water can't respire anyway | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) |