I’ve made a lot of statements about CO2 recently. My current opinion from every source I’ve found is that there are no verified negative consequences of CO2. Nothing. Calling CO2 a dangerous pollutant is more than a bit overstated and calling for decarbonization has no foundation in science.
Besides, if the scientists get their way, the plants are going to be really pissed off.
the Air Vent 
In the wild, plant growth is usually limited by sunlight and water availability, and maybe minerals. When those are abundant, extra CO2 can help.
you just made that up. do you need to be reminded of chemistry?
JeffID: This is heresy, and the Malthusians will hunt you down!
Nick Stokes: “In the wild, plant growth is usually limited by sunlight and water availability, and maybe minerals. When those are abundant, extra CO2 can help.”
This is one of the most absurd statements I’ve seen you make. Prove that crap, please? You are ignoring most of the planet, actually!
“calling for decarbonization has no foundation in science”
Yes, but in the Church of Scientism, it’s the cool thing to do. 😉
Andrew
Nick Stokes:
I noticed root growth was stimulated by the increased CO2. I’d like to understand why that is, but it would offset a lack of water availability if it were a persistent feature.
There is some historical reason to believe that plants (and animals) will in general flourish in higher CO2 concentrations. Most families of animals and plants evolved under much higher than current CO2 levels. I’ve heard speculation that 250 ppm isn’t much above “shut down” level for some species in fact (e.g., extreme period of an ice age).
It would be interesting if one of the feedbacks that leads to global scale glaciation were the biosphere response to lowered CO2 levels.
Great video Jeff.
#2
Strange I have seen claims by the AGW folks that the poison Ivy has grown larger to increased CO2.
How is that consistent or is it a false claim.
“ACID TEST: THE GLOBAL CHALLENGE OF OCEAN ACIDIFICATION”
soon_carbon_myopia_talk
I’m only a lowly horticulturalist, ex Burnley Hort Melbourne, 40 years nursery production, market gardening, and this is stuff we were doing in the 60’s. Hartmann Kester Davies, Plant Propagation Principles and Practices is the bible for propagation. We use 2,400ppm CO2 in the propagation areas, and 2,500ppm CO2 in the production houses. Nothing new in this. Plants slow down growth below 300ppm, and stop or die below 180- 150 ppm CO2.
#7 The lowly horticulturalist, good stuff. There is so much power in the knowledge around here. Ever grown a plant, um well I try to keep it to harvesting 20,000 plants per week, maybe if we grew 50,000 we would know something, really though we’re just farmers.
Farmers with GPS tracking of fertilizer concentrations on their plows.
#7 Why 2400, is there less improvement from that point?
The propagation houses are fully sealed temp controlled, mist system or fogging, the extra 100ppm? we’ve never tried it over that, it was the recommendation, we set the dials and leave it to work, several large banks of CO2 cylinders outside feeding through controllers. Rooting for cuttings is usually 2 – 3 days before initialisation, without CO2, it can be a week to 10 days.
We set it to 2500ppm in the production areas, they are larger less well sealed polyhouses, fruit and flower size works for us at that level, capsicums, tomatoes, lettuce, carnations, roses, it was just one of those, “we suggest these settings for your installation” and we have never found any reason to alter them. The hydroponic units I’ve worked with under CO2 work at 2,500ppm as well.
Apparently there is another video comparing a plant grown at a lower atmospheric CO2 concentration than 450ppm,
I think it was 275ppm.
It was a stunted little runt that one, in comparison..
No surprise at all that.
Have you not ever wondered why plants were soo big in the times of dinosaurs. ?
Atmospheric CO2 was approximately 2,000 ppm……..Apparently.
It may have been 3,000ppm if I’ve remembered incorrectly,
which ever, life flourished with MORE atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The propagation houses are fully sealed temp controlled, mist system or fogging, uv lighting, the extra 100ppm? we’ve never tried it over that, it was the recommendation, we set the dials and leave it to work, several large banks of CO2 cylinders outside feeding through controllers. Rooting for cuttings is usually 2 – 3 days before initialisation, without CO2, it can be a week to 10 days.
We set it to 2500ppm in the production areas, they are larger less well sealed polyhouses, fruit and flower size works for us at that level, capsicums, tomatoes, lettuce, carnations, roses, it was just one of those, “we suggest these settings for your installation” and we have never found any reason to alter them. The hydroponic units I’ve worked with under CO2 work at 2,500ppm as well.
connection doubled up delete and ignore please Jeff
Posts 9 and 10.
I’d take a quess that the 2,400 / 2,500 ppm is a human health and safety limit,
not a plant limit.
Not a limit from the EPA I would of thought either, or maybe it is, I don’t know.
I have heard the plant optimum level for CO2 is more like 20,000ppm….
Although I have not seen any justification for such a CO2 level for plant growing optimum,
should be easy enough to show though.
OSHA allows an environment of 5000 ppm for an 8-hour workday. I presume a small percentage of people not in good health might experience some effects at that level.
I found this at the Swedish national television channel’s website. Canadian paleontologist Scott Sampson thinks the large herbivorous dinosaur species couldn’t have survived without high CO2 levels to increase the productivity of ecosystems.
Google translated: http://bit.ly/b4f75L
Although just lowly uneducated farmer, you know one of those guys that produce food, the second most important, next to water, essential for human life,
I have been a trustee for one of Australia’s larger agricultural crop research establishments which is based in western Victoria, Australia, for some 28 years.
There are many sophisticated experiments being conducted both in this Research Institute and in a close cooperative effort with Chinese Ag researchers and in other Ag research organisations around the world where closely controlled and monitored releases of CO2 are drifted across an area of instrumented open field crops to ascertain the increases, always increases, in growth and yields of mankind’s most important crops from increased CO2 levels.
Increasing levels of CO2 increases the water use efficiency of plants or in other words the plants make better use of the soil available water and therefore make much better growth and / or can tolerate dry and drought conditions much better with much higher levels of CO2 again due to their increased ability to make better use of the available water.
There are also other plant physiological factors at work as well that take advantage of the increased CO2.
The evidence from the biologists is that most of life must have evolved in very high levels, by today’s standards, of CO2 in that they are so responsive to much higher levels of CO2.
And Warren is quite right in that once CO2 levels get down to around the 180 to 200ppm plants cease to function and die.
Plant breeders and biologists also estimate that around 20% of the INCREASES in crop yields over the last 20 or 30 years is due entirely to the increases in atmospheric CO2 levels over this same period.
The other 80% of the increase in crop yields over the same period are due to the much improved gene based breeding technology from the plant breeders and by farmer induced and very considerable changes in fertilizers and fertilizer application, weed control and disease control and much better soil fertility and cultivation practices and the adoption of some very sophisticated technology in the application of the above to crops by farmers.
A very good source for the comparative effects of various rates of CO2 on many types and species of plants plus a vast amount of very good CO2 science can be found at “CO2 Science.”
http://www.co2science.org/index.php
The tables for the increased CO2 effects on crop and plant growth and yields ; CO2 Science > Data > Plant Growth
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php
The CO2 levels indicated are additional to the atmospheric levels.
Some of the increases in crop and plant bio mass and yields with higher levels of CO2, 600 ppm to 900 ppm above the current atmospheric levels are quite astonishing.
On human tolerance levels of CO2, American nuclear submariners have operated for long periods in CO2 levels of 8000 ppm.
Above 8000 ppm and around 10,000 ppm some crew members started to suffer headaches and other physiological problems.
If you check for nuclear submarine CO2 scrubbers you will find that the specifications generally promise to maintain CO2 levels at a maximum of 5000 ppm.
Are we furiously agreeing that the 2,400 / 2,500 ppm is probably a lower safe limit for humans,
ie, a human health and safety limit, NOT a plant limit.
This topic was also covered recently at Jo Nova’s blog, you like to catch up there..
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/co2-is-the-magic-gas-that-makes-plant-grow/
One should note that Legumes are nitrogen fixers and generally grow well in depleted soils. I was under the impression that additional NPK wouldn’t yield dramatic results so it’s interesting to see that additional co2 yields significantly more biomas. The video looked like an animation, not time lapse photography. The hydroponic situation makes it a little difficult to gauge real world results, a bit like computer models ;-). After 28 days they both looked pretty small to me. I wonder how a really ‘hungry’ plant would fare?
Jeff, I was lurking around Deltoid last week. As you know, posters there are of the pro AGW persuasion and do not tolerate dissent.
They believe that skeptics have done nothing to impact the ‘consensus’ science; the temperature record is still largely the same, co2 is blamed for warming and the catastrophic predictions remain…etc, etc.
While I believe that most AGW advocates are socialists, which presents a transparency problem, I find that both camps engage in too much politics, red herrings, character assignations and other deceptions. (considerably more with the advocacy)
For the average punter, it’s really difficult to tell where the truth lies and to be honest, I often find myself sitting on the fence.
Even though anthropogenic warming is plausible, there are still many untested forcings to rely on the popular catastrophic notion.
Where am I going with this? I think it would be nice to see some kind of mission statement at skeptic blogs and to define exactly what skepticism means to the blog owner. Such a definition is not always obvious to the average blogger, who often gets reduced to left/right, denialist/alarmist, conservative/ leftist bias.
What do you agree on, where do your opinions diverge? Are Deep Climate’s refutations valid or bogus? How much effect has McIntyre had on the temperature record etc. etc. It would be even more interesting to see some criticism at your own side ! Monckton’s Pinker paper mishap for example.
I acknowledge that you may not have definitive answers.
Feel free to tell me to shut up.
“I’ve made a lot of statements about CO2 recently. My current opinion from every source I’ve found is that there are no verified negative consequences of CO2. Nothing. Calling CO2 a dangerous pollutant is more than a bit overstated and calling for decarbonization has no foundation in science.”
Jeff,
You are obviously “anti-science” and doing the bidding of evil, fossil fuel industry paymasters who are bent on destroying the planet. You must be part of the despicable assault on science and the noble men and women, like Mikey Mann, who have selflessly devoted their lives to saving the planet and preserving a future for humanity.
The problem here is that you have no understanding of truth. Probably because you are not an approved owner of truth. “Truth” means that you can make up whatever numbers you want. It means you can try to provoke a large group of protesters in the hope that one or two will misbehave. When no one does, the owners of “truth” are still permitted to call the protesters racists and slander them as having used the “n-word”. Reality is not relevant when you own the truth.
“Truth” means that GM and the administration can claim it has paid off the US government when it borrowed more money from the govt and used it to “pay off” the old borrowing. The debt hasn’t decreased, but the owners of truth can now claim it is paid off.
Oxburgh, Mann, Hansen, Jones, Algore, Obama and their friends are approved owners of truth. You, McIntyre, Watts, and similar such despoilers of the earth, instruments of injustice, and the embodiment of all that is dark and ugly in life are not permitted to have access to truth. Accordingly, everything you write or think has been deemed false (even before you write or think it.
Face it, Jeff, you ain’t on the list. You can’t be truth. As Jack Nicholson said, “You can’t handle the truth!”
That’s reserved only for approved truth-handlers.
#20, Sam, I’m a conservative, in case anyone hadn’t noticed. The Air Vent started mostly because I needed an outlet for some of life’s insane pressures. The news is so ridiculous on both sides, people are happy to tell you any old story to make their point these days. Pielke claims that a 4% difference in coal plant efficiency is ‘decarbonization’, Tiljander can be read upside down, fish shrinking from global warming, paying off debt with another loan from the same bank and claiming your loan is paid off, this kind of oppositeland rubbish.
I suppose my goal here is to just write what I think and hang around with smart people who write what they think. Recently I wrote the article on why CO2 does capture radiant energy, although I doubt anyone noticed, this was a far different post for me because it felt like my intent was to show skeptics the stronger argument position rather than simply vent a bit. It was a bit of a directed intent there.
There really isn’t a mission yet, but after approaching 2 years of reading and blogging, it has become more clear what is going on. In the past, I avoided statements like the one under this plant video preferring to simply say – dunno. Eventually, as many here know already, you’ve read enough papers and seen enough flaws to understand that climate science isn’t right. It’s a sick science, in need of a good doctor. Still this doesn’t mean that anyone has proven their warming conclusions to be wrong, but currently the claim is they have been proven to be right and this is not correct.
A few years ago the Nicholas School of the Environment tried this on a larger scale in the Duke Forest. This was the “FACE” experiment, involving the Brookhaven National Laboratory and NASA:
http://www.bnl.gov/face/DukeForest-FACE.asp
The trees responded pretty much as your Cowpeas did until the other nutrients were depleted (CO2 is a nutrient).
That’s interesting, some skeptics appear to be overly zealous, you appear to be testing a hypothesis rather than trying to peddle one. I’m not going to name names.
Before worrying about ‘safe’ limits of CO2 for humans, it is probably best to understand the human physiology involved in breathing.
The mechanisms are quite different to what many people suppose. e.g. the breathing reflex is triggered by CO2 levels,not oxygen levels, so it might be ‘safe’ oxygen levels we worry about, rather than CO2.
Koeslag has an interesting description here:
http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal/page/portal/Health_Sciences/English/Departments/Biomedical_Sciences/MEDICAL_PHYSIOLOGY/Essays/pulmonary_physiology
Nick, Carrick, it is generally thought that CO2 increases water use efficiency by reducing water loss through open stomatal pores. The underlying logic is that pores are not as open due to higher CO2 concentrations. There would presumably also be feedbacks on this water use efficiency as crops or natural ecosystems are able to sustain sheltered canopies with less water – which further prevents evaporation losses.
Raise the CO2 enough to make a difference, and plants will respond. Per the video, and the indirect evidence discussed upthread, most plants will likely benefit.
That’s only part of the picture. Darwin and his successors assure us that plants compete with one another, driving natural selection. Thus, it’s nearly inevitable that some species of plants would experience relatively larger benefits than would other species of plants. (Just as some species do relatively better at certain levels of soil moisture, sunlight, free nitrogen, and so forth.)
For agriculture, where the hand of the farmer restricts competition (e.g. through seed selection, then tilling and Roundup application), this wouldn’t really be an issue.
It seems to me that most ecosystems would undergo significant change in response to significant rises in CO2, as some species of plants would likely benefit more from the C02 than would others. Under changed competitive circumstances, new winners would emerge.
I’d guess that many of those changes would please humans, and many others wouldn’t. Still others, we wouldn’t notice. But I’d expect some big changes to result from a big jump in atmospheric CO2.
#20 Sam.
There was a great thread here on April 1st in response to a Willis Eschenbach post on Wattsupwiththat, in which people were invited to state their positions on some of the climate-related issues. Might give you a flavour of the range of opinions here, a bit wider than the equivalent range on Deltoid or RC, I suspect.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/the-solution-is-the-problem/
Thanks David S
Fairly atypical answers as far as believers portray skeptics.
…back to the topic
I liked the quip about poison ivy growing bigger. I think if the IPCC really wanted to they could find something detrimental about increased plant growth with increasing levels of CO2. More weeds and noxious plants. Or more plants, we over-eat, get fat and die.
Actually a stand alone video clip of two plants would be better with a follow up of some links to the debate on AGW with increased CO2 levels and crop production. What I recall reading was that AGW mitigation advocates grudgingly admit more growth but then appear to arm wave a bit on more drought stricten areas with future AGW detracting from the CO2 benefits. The CO2 levels versus plant growth might be an interesting subject to persue and particulary withy regards to efforts to spin it into something bad.
#31. Kenneth, your point is not so bizarre as you might think. If you look at the US CCSP reports, the increase in noxious weeds with higher CO2 is stated to be one of the adverse effects.
Although 5000 ppm is a long-exposure safety threshold, most people feel nothing up to 25000 ppm in acute exposure; then maybe shortness of breath, headache, low blood pressure and pulse. OSHA document can be found here.
Vegetation feedback is actually considered in carbon cycle studies . One might disagree with the analysis, but the problem with non-quantification is that of skeptics coming across something for the first time and thinking that they found something that the warmists have missed.
Cool
Farmers with GPS tracking of fertilizer concentrations on their plows.
maybe a swarm of mesh networked intelligent fertilizer pellets that release nutrients and then biodegrade.
i’ll get right on it.
“Darwin and his successors assure us…”
How comforting. 😉
Andrew
#32 Steve. Is the noxious weed theory based on any actual evidence of relative response to CO2, or is it just speculation that is could happen?
Do you realise what it means to spud out 44% more weed in my back garden?
Dagfinn,
Click to access P-EC4.6_Ziska.pdf
Hoi Polloi,
You could call it ‘green manure’ and dig it in, while praising Gaia for the bountiful largesse provided, or you could remember that a weed is a beautiful plant growing in the wrong place…
steven mosher said
April 27, 2010 at 12:58 pm
intelligent fertilizer pellets that release nutrients and then biodegrade.
Already have them Stephen, http://www.pacgro.co.nz/product_catalog.asp?g=3#sg122
Whatever time you want them to release the nutrient for. Then the capsule degrades.
Nick #1 “In the wild, plant growth is usually limited by sunlight and water availability, and maybe minerals. When those are abundant, extra CO2 can help.”
Actually plants respond more to ehanced CO2 when stressed (i.e. minerals water etc.)
Ainsworth, E.A. and Long, S.P. 2005. What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytologist 165: 351-372.
Steven Mosher
12:58 pm
GPS controlled fertilizer application and GPS controlled herbicide application is quite common.
“maybe a swarm of mesh networked intelligent fertilizer pellets that release nutrients and then biodegrade”.
Not intelligent but already tried and used!
Seed & fertilizer combined in biodregradable plastic strips have been trialled and have some commercial use.
Currently another Ag research organisation I am involved with is trialling bio-degradeable plastic sheeting over large plot sized areas to find if moisture, plant growth and weed control plus fertilizer applications plus yields will benefit from such bio-degradeable sheet technology and if the technology is economic over large areas as in hundreds of acres.
We are going to have to feed 9 billion people [ from the current 6 3/4 billions ] within another 30 to 40 years and we are going to have to do it on a land area that is not much larger than is currently farmed.
There is not much more fertile land suitable for large scale farming and food production left on this planet so the plant breeders and farmers of this world are just going to have to get even better than they currently are.
And as the western consumer doesn’t want to pay for food there is not much incentive left in farming to adopt new technologies or to accumulate the capital needed to do so anymore
Worrying about rising CO2 levels and their effect on the global climate is a sick joke compared to the probability of major world food shortages within 15 to 20 years.
I’ve seen very short term food shortages twice in my lifetime and nearly saw the third about 3 yeas ago.
The effects are not pleasant and can be literally deadly for those who are not rich westerners who can afford to worry about something as ridiculous as rising CO2 levels and the effects on the climate in a 100 years time.
Re: Kon Dealer (Apr 27 17:34),
Kon,
That was a good article on FACE, which puts the prospects in perspective. They mention Layman’s point:
“The primary effects on plants of rising [CO2] have been well documented and include reduction in stomatal conductance and transpiration, improved water-use efficiency, higher rates of photosynthesis, and increased light-use efficiency
(Drake et al., 1997).”
But it’s not magic. Only one of the four crops they studied, cotton, showed a clear increase in yield. That comes back to the question of what real benefits might result from higher CO2. CO2 has been elevated for a while now, but it doesn’t seem that plant biomass is rising. The airborne fraction has been fairly constant, and although that implies that something is taking up a fraction of our emissions, it’s generally thought to be the ocean.
That was my original point – in most environments plant growth is limited by availability of sunlight, water and minerals, and that will still be true with higher CO2. Of course in horticulture, those limitations are artificially overcome, so CO2 helps, and this is true to an extent in agriculture too. But CO2 won’t make the deserts bloom.
I found this link to a Hort research paper from Palmerston North, New Zealand. It is in sections, worth reading.
http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/science/n/neder/co2_nr1.htm#top
http://hydroponics.com.au/php/viewtopic.php?t=4 This a paper that while discussing CO2 enrichment, does a large hat tip to AGW, in reading it I feel there has been a strong bias towards the CO2 = Bad concept.
Most of what I mentioned in #7 further back is covered, although their recommendation is up to 1000ppm, not the 2000+ we were using. Benefits are linked to a range of factors, water, humidity, sunlight, nutrient, we did find that the higher levels of CO2 over a years production cut our water usage by 20% in the hydroponics areas. As well as increased size and faster yields on hydroponic lettuce and capsicum.
I’m trying to find links to the Nurseries I’ve worked in, but after 15 years away some have sold/changed/moved.
#43 Nick Stokes
Nick, I haven’t been able to track down the paper, but if the crops studied had yields limited by factors other than water, then the CO2 effect would be much less evident. Dry matter yield may also be a better indicator of the effect than seed yield.
43-“it doesn’t seem that plant biomass is rising.”
DEAD WRONG! We now know for a fact, from extensive data, that the world has been getting greener.
“something is taking up a fraction of our emissions, it’s generally thought to be the ocean. ”
Illogical. A warmer ocean should have reduced ability to hold CO2 not more. So I don’t know who on earth would “generally think” that.
“CO2 won’t make the deserts bloom”
Presumably the observed greening of the world’s deserts is due to something else then. Maybe Global Warming is making the deserts bloom?
45-More accurately “shrinking” of deserts, they are greening at their margins.
#46
Intuitively, I would definitely agree with the notion that an increase in water use efficiency should show up in sensitive areas like desert margins. Obviously, any trends in precipitation, temperature, clouds, humidity, and wind would have to be considered.
Re: Nick Stokes (Apr 27 18:49),
The missing sink almost has to be biologic, whether terrestrial or oceanic. It wasn’t a significant factor until CO2 reached about 310 ppmv and then it took off. It’s not behaving like a diffusive sink (like dissolution in sea water) at all.
#48, the missing factor as you put it, may be a result of measurement noise. My opinion is that this rock we all live on has a lot of limestone and rain, we have a massive hydrological cycle with immense potential for absorption of a bit of carbonic acid. How else would CO2 be kept so low for so many years.
Hell think about that. If CO2 stays resident for thousands of years, how much CO2 should be present in the biosphere? Really, animals put out a shitload. Plants with the IPCC short cycle should have no effect. Where is it going?
I’m going to have to buck up and run some numbers because of all of climate science the thousand year CO2 is the biggest POS ever invented.
Hmm… let’s see here…
“… The data also were dominated by high value crops, but results should be applicable to the three-fourths of the world agriculture represented by the C3 crops and possibly to the remaining C4 crops as well. Keeping these limitations of the data in mind, the analysis showed that yields probably will increase by 33% (with a 99.9% confidence interval from 24 to 43%) with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/75/5/779
Forests in the Eastern United States are growing faster than they have in the past 225 years. http://tinyurl.com/ybqw4rc
What to Do about CO2
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N50/EDIT.php
NASA says earth getting greener
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0530earthgreen.html
Amazon Forests doomed as CO2 increases biomass… waitaminute…
http://tinyurl.com/amazon-forests
ROM (#42),
“Worrying about rising CO2 levels and their effect on the global climate is a sick joke compared to the probability of major world food shortages within 15 to 20 years.”
You hit the nail on the head. The first function of government is to provide security for its citizens. That must include a military to guard against external threats and police to provide internal security.
After that there are general welfare issues such as roads and the creation of strategic reserves. While the USA has a substantial strategic reserve of fuel I am not aware of any comparable effort to create substantial strategic reserves of food.
Considering the huge death toll from famines in recent history it seems odd that this issue does not get much attention. In the 1950s over 30 million Chinese people died in famines and during the LIA famines were commonplace.
After dusting off my textbook it says: “CO2 aides a plants ability to utilize water more efficiently”. That being said, you cannot add one source of fertilization without upping the others. The reason why Warrens’ plants do so well at 2400 is because 1)Constant water supply 2)increased nitrogen and minerals. This will allow the CO2 to do its job.
#42 and #51,
Yes, famines are a disgrace and a cause for everyones concern, but in the modern world their causes are invariably political, not scientific.
chuckles
O.T but you might enjoy this:
http://www.jlhudsonseeds.net/NativesVsExotics.htm
#42 and #53
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8648215.stm
#54 SamG,
That’s a great article, thanks.
It reaches it’s apex in the high comedy at airport arrivals areas in Australia, as the delicate pristine balance of the fragile ecosystem is preserved.
The obsession with the deemed status quo is reminiscent of some other areas of ‘science’ I think?
55
Africa is a complete basket case. Corrupt government combined with reliance on foreign aid. When the money does come in, they squander and fornicate, exacerbating an already increasing problem.
GE crops might help but the greenies have demonized it.
Dethroning the despots is better idea, as well as public education.
‘GM crops’
doh!
#7 Warren said:
“Plants slow down growth below 300ppm, and stop or die below 180- 150 ppm CO2.”
Interesting. We’re assured by the IPCC’s “authorities” that pre-industrial CO2 levels were 270ppm, despite thousands of reliable readings from 19th and 20th century chemical gas analysis by independent groups in many locations that show a variable pattern over time, with levels consistently above 300 ppm and even up to 420 ppm in 1942.
It seems that at 270 ppm, agriculture would have been barely viable, and that if our forebears had known the cause, the only responsible reaction to the problem of feeding everybody properly would have been to start burning more fossil fuels in earnest to reproduce the atmosphere of the earlier, benevolent eras of life on earth. Good job they did, because if Keeling and the IPCC are right (ha!), we’d all be starving now.
Yet another PR firm. You’ll all get yours one day. Pretty much anything in over abundance is a pollutant. CO2 is bad when there’s too much of it obviously. But of course it has it’s benefits. You’re being a deceiving c*nt. This enire website is a garbage.
George at post 62 – You’ll soon learn this blog is brilliant because it does not “snip” the drose, or the truth of the matter, or the real questions of the matter however phrased.
Bad language however, it any form, well, let’s just say.
“Those that insult, self define themselves.”
AND,
as the thread has been “bumped” let’s just raise a point so far missed.
The issue of limiting factors raised in post 1, what a silly point.
Satelites show, undeniably, that the world has been “greening” as atmospheric CO2 levels have risen (whatever is the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels).
So, let me offer (one) an explanation of why desertification has gone into reverse as CO2 levels have risen.
CO2 increases reduce a plants reqiremnets for water – ergo, as CO2 levels rise, plants CAN grow where previously (at lower CO2 levels) it was too dry…
Are “we” sure “we” have this limiting factor idea correctly, and
ALL the complex relations / interactions nailed….
I thought NOT.
Beautiful video showing much patience.
And these are Nitrogen fixers too!
Great job!
Hello every one, here every person is sharing these know-how, thus it’s nice to read this web site, and I used to visit this website
every day.