"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