"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