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