For Ian [modified]
-
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
-
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
fat_boy wrote:
And by the way, thats a known fact supported by every scientist on earth!
I'm a scientist, I'm on earth, I don't support it. Ergo, your statement is wrong. :-D
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
fat_boy wrote:
And by the way, thats a known fact supported by every scientist on earth!
I'm a scientist, I'm on earth, I don't support it. Ergo, your statement is wrong. :-D
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
riced wrote:
I'm a scientist, I'm on earth, I don't support it.
Ergo, your statement is wrong. :-DReally? You dont accpet that CO2 is good for crop production (in accordance with the links I provided)?
"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
-
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:
So, I have provided NON PARTISAN irrefutable evidence that CO2 (at up to 1000PPM) is beneficial for crop production
That of course makes your claim non-scientific i.e. it's dogma. For example, consider Newton's theory of gravitation which was supported by 'irrefutable evidence' for about 200 years. Except that evidence was found to refute it. Hence Einsteins' theories which (as far as I know) have not yet been refuted but some day will. Unless GW does us all in before that. :-D
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
riced wrote:
I'm a scientist, I'm on earth, I don't support it.
Ergo, your statement is wrong. :-DReally? You dont accpet that CO2 is good for crop production (in accordance with the links I provided)?
"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
Don't know anything about it - not my area of expertise. So I neither support nor reject the view that CO2 is good for crop production. If I looked only at the links you provided I'd probably have to provisionally accept the view. However, I'd still recognise that I could be wrong and need to see if there is any conflicting evidence. I merely tried to point out that your statement that all scientists hold that view is incorrect. But we've been through this before - you make a sweeping claim that can be instantly refuted but still stick to the claim.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
Don't know anything about it - not my area of expertise. So I neither support nor reject the view that CO2 is good for crop production. If I looked only at the links you provided I'd probably have to provisionally accept the view. However, I'd still recognise that I could be wrong and need to see if there is any conflicting evidence. I merely tried to point out that your statement that all scientists hold that view is incorrect. But we've been through this before - you make a sweeping claim that can be instantly refuted but still stick to the claim.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
Didnt you even do photosynthesis in biology at 15?
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
fat_boy wrote:
So, I have provided NON PARTISAN irrefutable evidence that CO2 (at up to 1000PPM) is beneficial for crop production
That of course makes your claim non-scientific i.e. it's dogma. For example, consider Newton's theory of gravitation which was supported by 'irrefutable evidence' for about 200 years. Except that evidence was found to refute it. Hence Einsteins' theories which (as far as I know) have not yet been refuted but some day will. Unless GW does us all in before that. :-D
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
How have Newtons laws been refuted?
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
How have Newtons laws been refuted?
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
Suppose two bodies are traveling towards each other at velocities V1 and V2 respectively. What is their speed of approach? Newton's answer, V1+V2, is incorrect - for example suppose V1 is 0.9C and V2 is 0.95C (C = speed of light). That Newton's laws are approximately correct does make them correct. If you accept Einstein's theories you have to conclude that Newton was wrong i.e. his laws have been refuted. Of course that does not mean they are not extremely useful and, to all intents and purposes, can be regarded as 'true' in everyday life.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.