For Ian [modified]
-
I have found some information, NOT from GW oriented sites about CO2 usage in agriculture. Here is some info from the Canadian Ministry of agriculture: The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years. [^] And here are some links to industrial and home use CO2 generators for use in agriculture: http://www.bey-tech.com/CO2Blackbox.html[^] http://www.gas-plants.com/co2-generator.html[^] http://www.blu-ox.com/[^] http://www.taylorsgardenbuildings.co.uk/store/customer/product.php?productid=22049[^] http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/CO2Gen.asp[^] http://www.blueworldgardener.co.uk/store/index.php?cPath=235[^] http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/greenhouse_co2_generators_from_a.htm[^] So clearly, as I said before, the benefits of CO2 on crop production have been understood and CO2 generators used to this end for many years. Now, using only NON GW sites, as I have done, can you refute this? Something else of interest. I was watching a program that stated thst UK crop produciton increased 2 fold in the three decades after WW2 so I loked for some figure
-
I have found some information, NOT from GW oriented sites about CO2 usage in agriculture. Here is some info from the Canadian Ministry of agriculture: The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years. [^] And here are some links to industrial and home use CO2 generators for use in agriculture: http://www.bey-tech.com/CO2Blackbox.html[^] http://www.gas-plants.com/co2-generator.html[^] http://www.blu-ox.com/[^] http://www.taylorsgardenbuildings.co.uk/store/customer/product.php?productid=22049[^] http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/CO2Gen.asp[^] http://www.blueworldgardener.co.uk/store/index.php?cPath=235[^] http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/greenhouse_co2_generators_from_a.htm[^] So clearly, as I said before, the benefits of CO2 on crop production have been understood and CO2 generators used to this end for many years. Now, using only NON GW sites, as I have done, can you refute this? Something else of interest. I was watching a program that stated thst UK crop produciton increased 2 fold in the three decades after WW2 so I loked for some figure
As far as all this global warming/climate change stuff is concerned one thing I want to know is, are these supposed scientists yet taking into account the output of the sun as a contributing factor, last I heard they had dismissed this as inconsequential and it has no bearing on the climate of the planet. If this is the case, to me it raises questions when an astrophysicists can accurately predict the winter conditions in the UK months in advance based on the output of the sun where as the MET using CO2/AGW models predicts the opposite at the same time and ends up being wrong.
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs
-
I have found some information, NOT from GW oriented sites about CO2 usage in agriculture. Here is some info from the Canadian Ministry of agriculture: The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years. [^] And here are some links to industrial and home use CO2 generators for use in agriculture: http://www.bey-tech.com/CO2Blackbox.html[^] http://www.gas-plants.com/co2-generator.html[^] http://www.blu-ox.com/[^] http://www.taylorsgardenbuildings.co.uk/store/customer/product.php?productid=22049[^] http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/CO2Gen.asp[^] http://www.blueworldgardener.co.uk/store/index.php?cPath=235[^] http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/greenhouse_co2_generators_from_a.htm[^] So clearly, as I said before, the benefits of CO2 on crop production have been understood and CO2 generators used to this end for many years. Now, using only NON GW sites, as I have done, can you refute this? Something else of interest. I was watching a program that stated thst UK crop produciton increased 2 fold in the three decades after WW2 so I loked for some figure
:zzz:
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
:zzz:
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Wakey-Wakey!!!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
:zzz:
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)After a discussion a week ago about this, I come back with relevant facts and that is your response? You are acting like a child Ian. Shame. I had hoped we could discuss this without using propagandist websites and acting like grown ups. It seems you arent capable of either.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
modified on Tuesday, March 8, 2011 10:10 AM
-
As far as all this global warming/climate change stuff is concerned one thing I want to know is, are these supposed scientists yet taking into account the output of the sun as a contributing factor, last I heard they had dismissed this as inconsequential and it has no bearing on the climate of the planet. If this is the case, to me it raises questions when an astrophysicists can accurately predict the winter conditions in the UK months in advance based on the output of the sun where as the MET using CO2/AGW models predicts the opposite at the same time and ends up being wrong.
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs
So far as I understand it the visible outptut of the sun, which doesnt vary much, is the part that has been discarded. But the effect of solar wind from flares, which varies a lot and how it interracts with cosmic rays, which also vary alot, has quite a large effect on cloud formation (as you might know cloud chambers can be used to show the presence of radioactive particles in labs). If cloud formaiton changes then the albedo of the earth changes and that can have a large effect on climate. For example, say a star explodes and spews out cosmic rays grouped like fingers, so in space there are patches of higher concentrations and lower, and that these are regularly spaced. This could account for the ice ages and their fairly regular periodicity as the earth travels through these 'fingers' or waves of cosmic particles. Aerosols also affect cloud formation, and these too are badly factored into the models the AGW alarmists scientists use. Additionally the effect of CO2 on plants as a negative water vapour feed back is not modeled. In fact, the only way the models accurately mimic the temperature of the last 40 years or so is if the calculated effect of CO2 on temperatuere is quadrupled. (This is why the IPCC says we will get a 4 degree rise where the calculated rise will only be 1 degree from a doubling of CO2. Add in the IPCCs positive water vapour feed back and you have the theory of runaway global warming.) The IPCC itself actually knows about thes unknowns though. Here is a graphic from their third report: "very low level of scientific understanding"[^] Of course how they then tally this very low level of understanding with the statement that they are 95% sure man is behind the recent warming is a baffling mystery to me! :)
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
After a discussion a week ago about this, I come back with relevant facts and that is your response? You are acting like a child Ian. Shame. I had hoped we could discuss this without using propagandist websites and acting like grown ups. It seems you arent capable of either.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
modified on Tuesday, March 8, 2011 10:10 AM
Was that any different than your response here: http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3785093/Re-Ever-wonder-if-the-media-thinks-for-itself.aspx[^] ? (Except that Ian only used one emoticon and you used three...)
-
After a discussion a week ago about this, I come back with relevant facts and that is your response? You are acting like a child Ian. Shame. I had hoped we could discuss this without using propagandist websites and acting like grown ups. It seems you arent capable of either.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
modified on Tuesday, March 8, 2011 10:10 AM
You're repetitive and boring. You oversimplify every argument and ignore any evidence that contradicts your point of view. There's no point in discussing this with you, so I decided not to bother anymore. Everything I've learned while arguing this issue with you has moved my viewpoint TOWARD the AGW theory, mainly because it's become incredibly obvious that the "denier" crowd, as they're known, is, for lack of a better term, spouting so much bullshit that it's a wonder that their methane emissions haven't already cooked the planet. So, again... :zzz:
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You're repetitive and boring. You oversimplify every argument and ignore any evidence that contradicts your point of view. There's no point in discussing this with you, so I decided not to bother anymore. Everything I've learned while arguing this issue with you has moved my viewpoint TOWARD the AGW theory, mainly because it's become incredibly obvious that the "denier" crowd, as they're known, is, for lack of a better term, spouting so much bullshit that it's a wonder that their methane emissions haven't already cooked the planet. So, again... :zzz:
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
and ignore any evidence that contradicts your point of view
Except this time you havent got any have you? You cant come up with any evidence outside of GW websites that shows CO2 is not beneficial to plants. So all you can do is resort to insults. Yep, as I said, childish Ian.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Was that any different than your response here: http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3785093/Re-Ever-wonder-if-the-media-thinks-for-itself.aspx[^] ? (Except that Ian only used one emoticon and you used three...)
If you had followed that thread, which it seems you did, you will have realised that Ian was just posting links as a form of debate, which is dull and unimaginative, hence my response.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
I have found some information, NOT from GW oriented sites about CO2 usage in agriculture. Here is some info from the Canadian Ministry of agriculture: The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years. [^] And here are some links to industrial and home use CO2 generators for use in agriculture: http://www.bey-tech.com/CO2Blackbox.html[^] http://www.gas-plants.com/co2-generator.html[^] http://www.blu-ox.com/[^] http://www.taylorsgardenbuildings.co.uk/store/customer/product.php?productid=22049[^] http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/CO2Gen.asp[^] http://www.blueworldgardener.co.uk/store/index.php?cPath=235[^] http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/greenhouse_co2_generators_from_a.htm[^] So clearly, as I said before, the benefits of CO2 on crop production have been understood and CO2 generators used to this end for many years. Now, using only NON GW sites, as I have done, can you refute this? Something else of interest. I was watching a program that stated thst UK crop produciton increased 2 fold in the three decades after WW2 so I loked for some figure
Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations [^] Super-optimal CO2 reduces wheat yield in growth chamber and greenhouse environments.[^] Photosynthesis, Productivity, and Yield of Maize Are Not Affected by Open-Air Elevation of CO2 Concentration in the Absence of Drought[^] Peer reviewed literature produces epic fail for the person from Google University posting random websites? Yes.
- F
-
Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations [^] Super-optimal CO2 reduces wheat yield in growth chamber and greenhouse environments.[^] Photosynthesis, Productivity, and Yield of Maize Are Not Affected by Open-Air Elevation of CO2 Concentration in the Absence of Drought[^] Peer reviewed literature produces epic fail for the person from Google University posting random websites? Yes.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations [^]
"Model projections suggest ..." Er, models? You serious?
Fisticuffs wrote:
Super-optimal CO2 reduces wheat yield in growth chamber and greenhouse environments.[^]
"Super-optimal CO2 reduces..." Super optimal anything is going to have a negative effect. Super optimal water is called drowning, super optimal oxygen is called hypoxia. So, as stated in my link, CO2 at 1000 PPM is the optimal level for plant growth. And what are we talking about with AGW? 700PPM. So its well within even the optimal level, let alone any crazy ass figure used to poison plants.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Photosynthesis, Productivity, and Yield of Maize Are Not Affected by Open-Air Elevation of CO2 Concentration in the Absence of Drought[^]
Yeah, some plants dont. So what? This doesnt detract from the fact that most do, and at levels far higher than we are suposed to be worrying about. So, Fisticuffs, what have you shown us? That you cant follow basic instructions about using non AGW propagandist links? That you are so wrapped up in your beliefs about how bad CO2 is that you cant even recognise the fact it has been used for decades to boost crop production? What a feeble lame ass attempt at a refutation! :laugh:
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
modified on Wednesday, March 9, 2011 7:58 AM
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
and ignore any evidence that contradicts your point of view
Except this time you havent got any have you? You cant come up with any evidence outside of GW websites that shows CO2 is not beneficial to plants. So all you can do is resort to insults. Yep, as I said, childish Ian.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
I'm not falling into this trap again. Whine to someone else.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I'm not falling into this trap again. Whine to someone else.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)No whining from me, just pointing out the facts in the expectation you will actually take them on board.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations [^]
"Model projections suggest ..." Er, models? You serious?
Fisticuffs wrote:
Super-optimal CO2 reduces wheat yield in growth chamber and greenhouse environments.[^]
"Super-optimal CO2 reduces..." Super optimal anything is going to have a negative effect. Super optimal water is called drowning, super optimal oxygen is called hypoxia. So, as stated in my link, CO2 at 1000 PPM is the optimal level for plant growth. And what are we talking about with AGW? 700PPM. So its well within even the optimal level, let alone any crazy ass figure used to poison plants.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Photosynthesis, Productivity, and Yield of Maize Are Not Affected by Open-Air Elevation of CO2 Concentration in the Absence of Drought[^]
Yeah, some plants dont. So what? This doesnt detract from the fact that most do, and at levels far higher than we are suposed to be worrying about. So, Fisticuffs, what have you shown us? That you cant follow basic instructions about using non AGW propagandist links? That you are so wrapped up in your beliefs about how bad CO2 is that you cant even recognise the fact it has been used for decades to boost crop production? What a feeble lame ass attempt at a refutation! :laugh:
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
modified on Wednesday, March 9, 2011 7:58 AM
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Gotcha!
? As 'Gotcha' as a comatosed cat tackling a 10 lb rat. :)
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Gotcha!
? As 'Gotcha' as a comatosed cat tackling a 10 lb rat. :)
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
fat_boy wrote:
As 'Gotcha' as a comatosed cat tackling a 10 lb rat.
At least you have the proper respect for our respective positions on the food chain of scientific knowledge. Me = predator You = lunch OHHHH SNAP!!!!!
- F
Getting even more feeble.... So, I have provided NON PARTISAN irrefutable evidence that CO2 (at up to 1000PPM) is beneficial for crop production. I have shown that an entire industry exists in order to provide this to farmers and home growers alike. (And you know farmers, if it didnt show a profit they would spend the cash). And that governments recomend it. So, thats one of your arguments slayed. Now for the "was it warmer during the last 10000 years and by how much" question. I am sure you already know this to be a fact so we dont need to provide the AR1 graph, Vostock and Greeland ice core data as well as allegorical evidence. Finally, feed backs. And this is where it gets tricky. Your position is that the 1.2 degrees C rise that CO2 will theoretically give us will be amplified by water vapour feedbacks thus giving us a 4 degree rise. (This is after all the IPCC position). So, what real world evidence is there for this? Well, look back in time. Mankind has already added 100PPM, a 35% increase, and what has happened during that time? 0.7 degrees C warming of the lower troposphere. No feed back. Of course you know that the effect of CO2 is non linear such that small amounts added intially to the atmosphere have a far larger effect than large amounts added later, so if we add 100% more CO2 it is very likely that even if CO2 does cause warming in the rclimate system* we will only get the expected lower troposphere rise of 1.2 degree C. Of course during the addition of that 100PPM severe or extreme weather hasnt increased at all so its equally unlikely that it will do when we double CO2. Which we will by the way. Now I know you can throw links about that show by using computer models that extreme weather HAS increased and so on, but since they are models and not the real world their 'evidence' counts for nothing. *Note, I say 'even if' because it is thought that CO2 has been responsible for stratosphereic cooling. If this is the case, and the net energy addition to the system is zero, then it cant be said to be warming. Also historic/gound based temperature data is too unreliable. Satellite data is better of course, but we dont have a long enough record and what we do have shows 10 years of stasis. Yes, CO2 should be warming, but if its effect is hard to detect and other factors can halt, or reverse that warming, then its unclear whet the resulting temperature wil actually be from doubling CO2.
"It
-
Getting even more feeble.... So, I have provided NON PARTISAN irrefutable evidence that CO2 (at up to 1000PPM) is beneficial for crop production. I have shown that an entire industry exists in order to provide this to farmers and home growers alike. (And you know farmers, if it didnt show a profit they would spend the cash). And that governments recomend it. So, thats one of your arguments slayed. Now for the "was it warmer during the last 10000 years and by how much" question. I am sure you already know this to be a fact so we dont need to provide the AR1 graph, Vostock and Greeland ice core data as well as allegorical evidence. Finally, feed backs. And this is where it gets tricky. Your position is that the 1.2 degrees C rise that CO2 will theoretically give us will be amplified by water vapour feedbacks thus giving us a 4 degree rise. (This is after all the IPCC position). So, what real world evidence is there for this? Well, look back in time. Mankind has already added 100PPM, a 35% increase, and what has happened during that time? 0.7 degrees C warming of the lower troposphere. No feed back. Of course you know that the effect of CO2 is non linear such that small amounts added intially to the atmosphere have a far larger effect than large amounts added later, so if we add 100% more CO2 it is very likely that even if CO2 does cause warming in the rclimate system* we will only get the expected lower troposphere rise of 1.2 degree C. Of course during the addition of that 100PPM severe or extreme weather hasnt increased at all so its equally unlikely that it will do when we double CO2. Which we will by the way. Now I know you can throw links about that show by using computer models that extreme weather HAS increased and so on, but since they are models and not the real world their 'evidence' counts for nothing. *Note, I say 'even if' because it is thought that CO2 has been responsible for stratosphereic cooling. If this is the case, and the net energy addition to the system is zero, then it cant be said to be warming. Also historic/gound based temperature data is too unreliable. Satellite data is better of course, but we dont have a long enough record and what we do have shows 10 years of stasis. Yes, CO2 should be warming, but if its effect is hard to detect and other factors can halt, or reverse that warming, then its unclear whet the resulting temperature wil actually be from doubling CO2.
"It
fat_boy wrote:
irrefutable evidence that CO2 (at up to 1000PPM) is beneficial for crop production.
Not all crops. Ba ha ha!!! Really, you should be trying harder to impress me. Anthropogenic global warming is well supported by the bulk of the scientific literature. You can't just ignore that and paraphrase things you've read on anti-AGW websites to make that go away.
- F
-
fat_boy wrote:
irrefutable evidence that CO2 (at up to 1000PPM) is beneficial for crop production.
Not all crops. Ba ha ha!!! Really, you should be trying harder to impress me. Anthropogenic global warming is well supported by the bulk of the scientific literature. You can't just ignore that and paraphrase things you've read on anti-AGW websites to make that go away.
- F
I didnt say all crop production, I said crop production.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Anthropogenic global warming is well supported by the bulk of the scientific literature
We all know that, its clearly the case. Also AGC is also fully supported by all scientists. Yes, man made aerosols cause cooling. Its well known. No-one is disputing either.
Fisticuffs wrote:
things you've read on anti-AGW websites to make that go away.
Once again you utterly fail to get the point of this thread which is about refering to NON AGW/NON PARTISAN/NON PROPAGANDIST web sites. You really are loosing it Fisticuffs. None of these sites atempts to say that AGW isnt a fact! :laugh: None of these sites has ANYTHING to do with AGW! :laugh: They arent even to do with warming! :laugh: They are only concerned with CO2s use in agriculture to boost crop yields. And by the way, thats a known fact supported by every scientist on earth! :laugh:
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
