On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:27:15 +0200, 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.

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"?)

That is not what "hide the decline" meant, silly goose. Tree ring
proxies became chaotic. Global temperature still increased.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree...e-problem.htmp


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

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

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 03:01:39 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
wrote:

On 19 Aug, 17:27, 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.
* 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"?)

Dont tell me that CO2 doesnt encourage plant growth. Farmers have
been using it for decades to boost crop yields. So do canabis growers.

Nobody has claimed that some plants do not do better with higher
concentrations of CO2. The problem is that food production
decreases (and has already been observed to decrease) with higher
CO2.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

Rob Dekker wrote:
"Roger Dewhurst" wrote in message
...
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.
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.


Most of the plant families we see today evolved in Mesozoic times. The
ginkgophyta evolved in upper Palaeozoic times and Gingo biloba, extant
now, evolved in Mesozoic times. It is fair to say that most plants evolved
in an atmosphere much richer in carbon dioxide.

R

Which evidence do you have that they respond very positively to increased
CO2 in the current climates ?

Greenhouse operators pumping carbon dioxide into their greenhouses to
increase the growth rate? Is that enough?

R

"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

"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

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

On 21 Aug, 01:50, Desertphile wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 03:01:39 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes





wrote:
On 19 Aug, 17:27, 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.
* 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"?)
Dont tell me that CO2 doesnt encourage plant growth. *Farmers have
been using it for decades to boost crop yields. So do canabis growers.

Nobody has claimed that some plants do not do better with higher
concentrations of CO2. The problem is that food production
decreases (and has already been observed to decrease) with higher
CO2.http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm

Most plantsd grow better with CO2, not some. Also your statement that
food production decreases is stupid. Farmers have ben using O2
enrichment for decades to boost crop yields of all kinds of produce so
dont talk crap.


--http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:18:55 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
wrote:

On 21 Aug, 01:50, Desertphile wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 03:01:39 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes





wrote:
On 19 Aug, 17:27, 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.
* 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"?)
Dont tell me that CO2 doesnt encourage plant growth. *Farmers have
been using it for decades to boost crop yields. So do canabis growers.

Nobody has claimed that some plants do not do better with higher
concentrations of CO2. The problem is that food production
decreases (and has already been observed to decrease) with higher
CO2.http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm

Most plantsd grow better with CO2, not some.

Odd how the scientists say differently, eh? They all must be in on
the conspiracy! Oh, how dare they?!


Also your statement that
food production decreases is stupid. Farmers have ben using O2
enrichment for decades to boost crop yields of all kinds of produce so
dont talk crap.


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

"Desertphile" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:18:55 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
wrote:

On 21 Aug, 01:50, Desertphile wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 03:01:39 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes





wrote:
On 19 Aug, 17:27, 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.
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"?)
Dont tell me that CO2 doesnt encourage plant growth. Farmers have
been using it for decades to boost crop yields. So do canabis
growers.

Nobody has claimed that some plants do not do better with higher
concentrations of CO2. The problem is that food production
decreases (and has already been observed to decrease) with higher
CO2.http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm

Most plantsd grow better with CO2, not some.

Odd how the scientists say differently, eh? They all must be in on
the conspiracy! Oh, how dare they?!



Yes, how dare they hide the truth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE









Warmest Regards



Bonz0



"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville



"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period."

Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics



"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."

"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips



"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"

"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips



"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...ly-exaggerated



Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.

Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher