jg wrote in
ond.com:

Peter Webb wrote:

"jg" wrote in message
ond.com...
AGWExtortion wrote:
The Incredible Shrinking Frog

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/1...hrinking-frog/

In the New York Times, there's an article on some research that
suggest a
slight shrinkage of plants and animals with warming.

...

"We have not seen large-scale effects yet, but as temperatures
change even
more, these changes in body size might become much more pronounced
- even
having impacts for food security."

....

It's an idiot website, doesn't even seem sure if polar bears are
shrinking in size or numbers. One worse than 'media', it's media
commentary.

I believe the actual source was the National University of
Singapore, not 'research' by the New York Times as suggested.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...tref/nclimate1
259-s1.pdf



The article contains no original research.


Articles don't generally. It seems whichever article you refer to, is
based on the study results I provided a link to. They are categorised
as fossil study (F), experiment or geographic comparison (E), or
recent evidence (R) of change in organism size.


But what is it you find hypocritical?

Because they took organisms that have been developed or evolved to
thrive at one temperature, then changed the temperature, and then
announced that plants grown at non-optimal temperatures didn't do so
well.


Hypocritical??

You'd be referring to the experimental category. "Recent" would
suggest there had been a reduction alongside temperature increase.


This says *nothing* about the impact of Global Warming on food
production or security. If global temperatures increase by 1 degree,
farmers will simply use species and cultivars designed for the warmer
temperature. The study says *nothing* about whether that would
increase or decrease yields.

Meanwhile, we know that adding CO2 makes plants grow faster.


That would make it baffling (for 'us'), when a temp increase along
with more CO2 shows up as reduced plant and fruit size.


This "research" is normal warmist bull**** - ignore all the
positives, use inappropriate and irrelevant control cases, and use
this to generate a supposed problem relating to global warming which
turns out to have no scientific validity.


It seems to me to be simple measurements alongside climate changes, no
mention of CO2. Even many skeptics are fond of saying 'climate always
changes'.


Or is it that you don't believe the shrinking contention, or that
climate change is responsible, or do you think it's all happening
but not because of AGW?


That *what* is happening due to AGW?

These are mostly laboratory experiments in controlled environments;
the rest are based on the fossil record. How could any result be due
to supposed anthropogenic warming when they were (a) in a controlled
environment (and hence not exposed to GW at all) or (b) were derived
from fossil records that pre-date AGW?


You seem to be ignoring all the results that say Recent. Do you think
they are made up?


The Nature PDF link is to the sources section, and a whole basket-load of
comparisons between the size of something, and some other measure, eg
drought. Even if the size measurements are accurate and involve
statistically significant sampling, this is still junk. What "climate
change" data are size changes being correlated with? Could be anything.

Might be reasonable to assume cause and effect where "drought" is
concerned. Most people would agree with that wouldn't they? Don't think it
requires a research grant. On the other hand, a few years ago
"researchers" discovered aspirin promotes longevity in plants, and domestic
dogs are capable of jealosy, so maybe we shouldn't be surprised.

CO2 would be absent because it is well known that additional CO2 promotes
plant growth - that's why it is pumped into greenhouses (real, not
imaginary ones).

Anyone can do the froggy picture. I have a picture of a big green tree
frog, used to hang round the house, now there are only smaller ones. Shock
horror? Nah - the big fella has turned up again ...

troppo wrote:
jg wrote in
ond.com:

Peter Webb wrote:
............

These are mostly laboratory experiments in controlled environments;
the rest are based on the fossil record. How could any result be due
to supposed anthropogenic warming when they were (a) in a controlled
environment (and hence not exposed to GW at all) or (b) were derived
from fossil records that pre-date AGW?


You seem to be ignoring all the results that say Recent. Do you think
they are made up?


The Nature PDF link is to the sources section, and a whole basket-load of
comparisons between the size of something, and some other measure, eg
drought. Even if the size measurements are accurate and involve
statistically significant sampling, this is still junk. What "climate
change" data are size changes being correlated with? Could be anything.

Might be reasonable to assume cause and effect where "drought" is
concerned. Most people would agree with that wouldn't they? Don't think it
requires a research grant. On the other hand, a few years ago
"researchers" discovered aspirin promotes longevity in plants, and domestic
dogs are capable of jealosy, so maybe we shouldn't be surprised.

CO2 would be absent because it is well known that additional CO2 promotes
plant growth - that's why it is pumped into greenhouses (real, not
imaginary ones).

Anyone can do the froggy picture. I have a picture of a big green tree
frog, used to hang round the house, now there are only smaller ones. Shock
horror? Nah - the big fella has turned up again ...


So they waited for a drought to go out and measure growth rings on
Alaskan Spruce trees, but hasn't more CO2 been increasing between 1908
and 1996?

Just how can CO2 be excluded from comparative growth measurements?

jg wrote in
ond.com:

troppo wrote:
jg wrote in
ond.com:

Peter Webb wrote:
...........

These are mostly laboratory experiments in controlled environments;
the rest are based on the fossil record. How could any result be
due to supposed anthropogenic warming when they were (a) in a
controlled environment (and hence not exposed to GW at all) or (b)
were derived from fossil records that pre-date AGW?


You seem to be ignoring all the results that say Recent. Do you
think they are made up?


The Nature PDF link is to the sources section, and a whole
basket-load of comparisons between the size of something, and some
other measure, eg drought. Even if the size measurements are accurate
and involve statistically significant sampling, this is still junk.
What "climate change" data are size changes being correlated with?
Could be anything.

Might be reasonable to assume cause and effect where "drought" is
concerned. Most people would agree with that wouldn't they? Don't
think it requires a research grant. On the other hand, a few years
ago "researchers" discovered aspirin promotes longevity in plants,
and domestic dogs are capable of jealosy, so maybe we shouldn't be
surprised.

CO2 would be absent because it is well known that additional CO2
promotes plant growth - that's why it is pumped into greenhouses
(real, not imaginary ones).

Anyone can do the froggy picture. I have a picture of a big green
tree frog, used to hang round the house, now there are only smaller
ones. Shock horror? Nah - the big fella has turned up again ...


So they waited for a drought to go out and measure growth rings on
Alaskan Spruce trees, but hasn't more CO2 been increasing between 1908
and 1996?

Numerous studies show an increase in biomass in recent years, but I don't
see any of these in this list. Conclusion is that it's cherry-picking.

Just how can CO2 be excluded from comparative growth measurements?

Good question. I recently finished sawing up +/- 20 tonnes of cyclone-
damaged 20 year growth of timber. Most recent rings are wider. Natural
growth, eg no additional nutrients, no major fluctuations in precipitation
over the period, etc. Has to be CO2 I reckon.