2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

[Skeptik]

Does increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere spur plant growth?

Not according to a study done at Stanford University it doesn't.

Of course, that's just Stanford University, not a right wing radio show, so its findings are suspect, now aren't they?

 

[glockmail]

Does increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere spur plant growth?

Not according to a study done at Stanford University it doesn't.

Of course, that's just Stanford University, not a right wing radio show, so its findings are suspect, now aren't they?

I'll see your Standford and raise you a National Center For Policy Analysis.

* With a CO2 increase of 300 ppm, plant growth increased 31 percent under optimal water conditions and 63 percent when water was less plentiful.

* With a 600 ppm CO2 increase, plant growth increased 51 percent under optimal water conditions and an astonishing 219 percent under conditions of water shortage

NCPA - BA #256 - Who's Afraid of CO2?

 

[Old Rocks]

I understand the concept of CO2 being a greenhouse gas just fine, that realy is a non-debatable topic at this point. I understand the cycle just fine. If the ocean levels were three meters higher than they our now, but there is actually MORE CO2 in the air, why are ocean levels not currently 3 meters (or more) higher? It couldn't possibly be that CO2 is not the only factor that plays a roll in climate, could it?

On top of that had you read my link you would note that CO2 as not only a trace atmospheric gas, it is also a trace greenhouse gas.

Ever hear of inertia in large systems? Because it warms, does not mean that the ice instantly melts. In fact, the primary effects that we are feeling right now are from the GHG levels of 1960. We will be getting the direct effects of the CO2 in the air at present in some systems as early as 2060. The Ice Caps, having greater thermal inertia, should react slower than that. We hope.

 

[Old Rocks]

The increase of CO2 isn't a cause, again people are trying to cure symptoms while leaving the actual problem alone. CO2 increase is a symptom of something else, trace that to what it's a symptom of and continue until you can no longer find causes, then you'll find the real problem.

Isn't a cause of what? The increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. That is a simple fact, it was proven before 1960.

 

[glockmail]

Isn't a cause of what? The increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. That is a simple fact, it was proven before 1960.

There are no simple facts in this discussion, only simplified opinions.

 

[Old Rocks]

These look damn healthy to me, as so close I couldn't walk through them.

Trees planted far apart are no more susceptible to getting blown over than groups.

Looks like a stand of Lodgepole Pine. They normally grow in thick stands.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'll see your Standford and raise you a National Center For Policy Analysis.

NCPA - BA #256 - Who's Afraid of CO2?

Funding
The NCPA web site states that it "receives 70% of its funding from foundations, 20% from corporations, and 10% from individuals." According to Greenpeace it has received roughly $400,000 from ExxonMobil over the last 10 years.[4] Expenditures in 2001 were $5.2 million.


[edit] Characterization by others
The NCPA has been characterized as a "right wing think tank" by organizations such as People for the American Way, which noted that NCPA funding has come from foundations with a conservative orientation: Bradley, Scaife, Koch, John M. Olin Foundation, Earhart Foundation, Castle Rock, and JM Foundation. [5]
National Center for Policy Analysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[glockmail]

Funding
The NCPA web site states that it "receives 70% of its funding from foundations, 20% from corporations, and 10% from individuals." ....

Attack the messenger.

Great ploy when you can't dispute the science.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are no simple facts in this discussion, only simplified opinions.

Simple fact. The measured C14 in the CO2 in the atmosphere demonstrated that a significant portion of the CO2 had a significant depletion of C14. That ratio agreed nicely with the increase in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere from 150 years ago.

 

[glockmail]

Simple fact. The measured C14 in the CO2 in the atmosphere demonstrated that a significant portion of the CO2 had a significant depletion of C14. That ratio agreed nicely with the increase in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere from 150 years ago.

But you have no way of correlating that with CO2 emissions. I would posit that the increased atmospheric concentrations could be from the reduced mass of plant material on the surface of the earth, and the reduced ability to take up CO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

Attack the messenger.

Great ploy when you can't dispute the science.

I have already posted sites that disprove the broad assertation that increased CO2 is good for all plants. As pointed out in some of the scientific articles I posted, some of those that do increase growth rates have decreased nutrient values. Now these were scientists writing about changes observed and measured, not a political entity trying to prove the validity of a particular political point of view.

 

[glockmail]

I have already posted sites that disprove the broad assertation that increased CO2 is good for all plants. As pointed out in some of the scientific articles I posted, some of those that do increase growth rates have decreased nutrient values. Now these were scientists writing about changes observed and measured, not a political entity trying to prove the validity of a particular political point of view.

So your sources come up with different conclusions than mine. Like I said earlier....

 

[Old Rocks]

But you have no way of correlating that with CO2 emissions. I would posit that the increased atmospheric concentrations could be from the reduced mass of plant material on the surface of the earth, and the reduced ability to take up CO2.

You wrote that without thinking. Were that the case, the plant material and the CO2 from it, would represent the normal C14 ratio in the CO2. What was measured was a depleted amount of C14. That means that the additional CO2 came from a source that had not been near the surface for a long time. As in Fossil Fuels.

 

[jeffrockit]

Isn't that obvious? What sinister motive do us liberals have for wanting to go green?

Liberals hate capitalism. Global warming is a scam to destroy capitalism and have total control over corporations not to mention people.

 

[jeffrockit]

Either way, we're going to regulate it and tax your precious corporations for their pollution. Get ready.[/QUOTE]

That will show them! Who do you think the corporations will pass the cost to? I guess what Obama about bankrupting the coal industry said rings true for you libs. Lets watch everyone's heating bill double or triple because of this GW panic. I lived through the "Ice Age" in the 70's, so I am sure I will survive the warming.

 

[KittenKoder]

Isn't that obvious? What sinister motive do us liberals have for wanting to go green?

Liberals hate capitalism. Global warming is a scam to destroy capitalism and have total control over corporations not to mention people.

LOL ... I wonder how many people realize the irony in this.

 

[glockmail]

You wrote that without thinking. Were that the case, the plant material and the CO2 from it, would represent the normal C14 ratio in the CO2. What was measured was a depleted amount of C14. That means that the additional CO2 came from a source that had not been near the surface for a long time. As in Fossil Fuels.

Yet plants take up all species of CO2 without prejudice, no?

 

[Chris]

Isn't that obvious? What sinister motive do us liberals have for wanting to go green?

Liberals hate capitalism. Global warming is a scam to destroy capitalism and have total control over corporations not to mention people.

Has to be one of the dumbest posts of the year.

Green energy is made in America and will be the most important industry in the 21st century.

The melting polar ice and the rising CO2 level are not liberal.

 

[Skeptik]

So your sources come up with different conclusions than mine. Like I said earlier....

Some sources have a political agenda, and others do not. Don't you wonder about one that is described as a "conservative think tank", especially on an issue that continues to be billed as a "liberal" idea, despite t he fact that it is a science/wishful thinking issue.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yet plants take up all species of CO2 without prejudice, no?

No. As pointed out earlier, the plants are not keeping up with the amount of CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere. And while some plants will grow faster because of the CO2, the change in weather patterns caused by the warming will more than negate the gains. In fact, already has. Our worldwide grain reserves have been steadily dwindling for the last seven years.