We Just Breached the 410 Parts Per Million Threshold

What the lying sacks of shit always leave out of the equation of increasing CO2 is that the Green Plants end up increasing also. Liberals don't want you to know this, for then, the MONEY those liberals steal in the name of saving the planet will dry up like California did with Gov Brown's drought order.(when you cut off the canals to southern Cal, then it will turn into a desert). The deception of the left knows, no bounds.

Very true. An increase in CO2 increases crop growth. A good thing for a planet whose human population is increasing.
 
http://ecoethics.net/cyprus-institute.us/PDF/Rosensweig-Food-Supply.pdf

Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations | Science

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations

  1. Stephen P. Long1,2,3,*,
  2. Elizabeth A. Ainsworth4,1,3,
  3. Andrew D. B. Leakey3,1,
  4. Josef Nösberger5,
  5. Donald R. Ort4,1,2,3


Abstract

Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050, the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses. The CO2 fertilization factors used in models to project future yields were derived from enclosure studies conducted approximately 20 years ago. Free-air concentration enrichment (FACE) technology has now facilitated large-scale trials of the major grain crops at elevated [CO2] under fully open-air field conditions. In those trials, elevated [CO2] enhanced yield by ∼50% less than in enclosure studies. This casts serious doubt on projections that rising [CO2] will fully offset losses due to climate change.

duration and rate of grain growth, and harvest index, of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in response to temperature and CO2 | Journal of Experimental Botany | Oxford Academic

The duration and rate of grain growth, and harvest index, of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in response to temperature and CO2

T.R. Wheeler

T.D. Hong

R.H. Ellis

G.R. Batts

J.I.L. Morison

P. Hadley


Abstract

Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. Hereward) was grown in the field inside polyethylene-covered tunnels at a range of temperatures at either 380 or 684 μmol mol−1 CO2. Serial harvests were taken from anthesis until harvest maturity. Grain yield was reduced by warmer temperatures, but increased by CO2 enrichment at all temperatures. During grain-filling, individual grain dry weight was a linear function of time from anthesis until mass maturity (attainment of maximum grain dry weight) within each plot. The rate of progress to mass maturity (the reciprocal of time to mass maturity) was a positive linear function of mean temperature, but was not affected by CO2 concentration. The rate of increase in grain dry weight per ear was 2.0 mg d−1greater per 1 °C rise, and was 8.0 mg d−1 greater at 684 compared with 380 μmol mol−1 CO2 at a given temperature. The rate of increase in harvest index was 1.0% d−1 in most plots at 380 μmol mol−1 CO2 and in open field plots, compared with 1.18% d−1 in all plots at 684 μmol mol−1 CO2. Thus, the increased rate of grain growth observed at an elevated CO2 concentration could be attributed partly to a change in the partitioning of assimilates to the grain. In contrast, the primary effect of warmer temperatures was to shorten the duration of grain-filling. The rate of grain growth at a given temperature and the rate of increase in harvest index were only independent of the number of grains per ear above a critical grain number of 23–24 grains per ear (˜20 000 grains m−2).

So, at best, we are looking at an increase of only about 1% for even CO2 at 684 ppm. And that does not take into account the increase in extreme weather events that we are already seeing. A real big gamble for a penny on the dollar.
 
Oldrocks my friend,,,

You're not going to be able to convince the scum with science or papers from journals that they're wrong. They think millions of sciencist are in on a global scam and there's no convincing them otherwise.

This isn't science that they're using but political emotional bullshit.

It wouldn't matter if we did come up with a lab scale experiment proving without a doubt that co2 did warm the planet. Nothing will change their minds as they're coming at this with a closed mind.
 
Oldrocks my friend,,,

You're not going to be able to convince the scum with science or papers from journals that they're wrong. They think millions of sciencist are in on a global scam and there's no convincing them otherwise.

This isn't science that they're using but political emotional bullshit.

It wouldn't matter if we did come up with a lab scale experiment proving without a doubt that co2 did warm the planet. Nothing will change their minds as they're coming at this with a closed mind.
That same science that says XY is a Male and XX is a female? Just want to see who minds are really closed.
 
At 1270 ppm, those plants better be real heat tolerant.
How come you fuckers NEVER take into account that 98% of warmth of the planet is by "Water Vapor" and the exposure of sunlight? You know why? Because liberals cant TAX water vapor and sunlight. But they can TAX carbon products, and steal from those taxes to make themselves very rich as Al Jazeera Gore made 1/2 billion scamming the stupid fucks who believe his shit.

al-gore-global-warming.jpg
 
How come you are such an ignorant stupid bastard, andoranjim? The residence time in the atmosphere of water vapor is less than ten days. That of CH4 about 15 years, CO2, tens to hundreds of years. Water vapor is a feedback from the other GHGs.

800px-Arctic-death-spiral.png


Arctic sea ice decline - Wikipedia
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-5-30_5-0-58.png
    upload_2017-5-30_5-0-58.png
    127 bytes · Views: 42
  • upload_2017-5-30_5-1-25.png
    upload_2017-5-30_5-1-25.png
    127 bytes · Views: 41
How come you are such an ignorant stupid bastard, andoranjim? The residence time in the atmosphere of water vapor is less than ten days. That of CH4 about 15 years, CO2, tens to hundreds of years. Water vapor is a feedback from the other GHGs.

800px-Arctic-death-spiral.png


Arctic sea ice decline - Wikipedia
It's Water Vapor, Not the CO2 - American Chemical Society
Remark: “The Earth has certainly been warming since we have added so much CO2 to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.”
Reply: “Forget the CO2. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It controls the Earth’s temperature.”
added so much CO2
3 1/100ths to 4 1/100ths only 1 1/100 of 1%. Yet once again, you can tax Carbon Products but not water or sunlight. Not much difference between the 2 pictures for sure.

IPCC_chicken_little.jpg liberals-head-up-his-ass.jpg
 
http://ecoethics.net/cyprus-institute.us/PDF/Rosensweig-Food-Supply.pdf

Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations | Science

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations

  1. Stephen P. Long1,2,3,*,
  2. Elizabeth A. Ainsworth4,1,3,
  3. Andrew D. B. Leakey3,1,
  4. Josef Nösberger5,
  5. Donald R. Ort4,1,2,3


Abstract

Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050, the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses. The CO2 fertilization factors used in models to project future yields were derived from enclosure studies conducted approximately 20 years ago. Free-air concentration enrichment (FACE) technology has now facilitated large-scale trials of the major grain crops at elevated [CO2] under fully open-air field conditions. In those trials, elevated [CO2] enhanced yield by ∼50% less than in enclosure studies. This casts serious doubt on projections that rising [CO2] will fully offset losses due to climate change.

duration and rate of grain growth, and harvest index, of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in response to temperature and CO2 | Journal of Experimental Botany | Oxford Academic

The duration and rate of grain growth, and harvest index, of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in response to temperature and CO2
T.R. Wheeler

T.D. Hong

R.H. Ellis

G.R. Batts

J.I.L. Morison

P. Hadley


Abstract

Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. Hereward) was grown in the field inside polyethylene-covered tunnels at a range of temperatures at either 380 or 684 μmol mol−1 CO2. Serial harvests were taken from anthesis until harvest maturity. Grain yield was reduced by warmer temperatures, but increased by CO2 enrichment at all temperatures. During grain-filling, individual grain dry weight was a linear function of time from anthesis until mass maturity (attainment of maximum grain dry weight) within each plot. The rate of progress to mass maturity (the reciprocal of time to mass maturity) was a positive linear function of mean temperature, but was not affected by CO2 concentration. The rate of increase in grain dry weight per ear was 2.0 mg d−1greater per 1 °C rise, and was 8.0 mg d−1 greater at 684 compared with 380 μmol mol−1 CO2 at a given temperature. The rate of increase in harvest index was 1.0% d−1 in most plots at 380 μmol mol−1 CO2 and in open field plots, compared with 1.18% d−1 in all plots at 684 μmol mol−1 CO2. Thus, the increased rate of grain growth observed at an elevated CO2 concentration could be attributed partly to a change in the partitioning of assimilates to the grain. In contrast, the primary effect of warmer temperatures was to shorten the duration of grain-filling. The rate of grain growth at a given temperature and the rate of increase in harvest index were only independent of the number of grains per ear above a critical grain number of 23–24 grains per ear (˜20 000 grains m−2).

So, at best, we are looking at an increase of only about 1% for even CO2 at 684 ppm. And that does not take into account the increase in extreme weather events that we are already seeing. A real big gamble for a penny on the dollar.

You are wrongly stating that it will warm the earth. Therefore we'll have more crop land, therefore, more production of food. Hey, didn't the Vikings colonize Greenland raising crops and animals to restock their ships on the way to North America?
 
At 1270 ppm, those plants better be real heat tolerant.

Got any actual evidence that 1270ppm will cause the climate to warm...it certainly didn't cause the atmosphere those plants were growing in to heat up excessively...got a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence?...

didn't think so.
 
How come you are such an ignorant stupid bastard, andoranjim? The residence time in the atmosphere of water vapor is less than ten days. That of CH4 about 15 years, CO2, tens to hundreds of years. Water vapor is a feedback from the other GHGs.

800px-Arctic-death-spiral.png


Arctic sea ice decline - Wikipedia

Not even close to hundreds of years but you go right on believing like the dupe you are.
 
You are wrongly stating that it will warm the earth. Therefore we'll have more crop land, therefore, more production of food.

Obviously wrong. Soil and sunlight are also required for crops, and the soil and sunlight are lacking in the far north.

Hey, didn't the Vikings colonize Greenland raising crops and animals to restock their ships on the way to North America?

Well, no. They barely got by, raising a bit of barley in sheltered valleys, and trading walrus ivory for food to keep from starving. They were a food destination, not a food source. It is much, much warmer in Greenland now than it was during the MWP.
 
It's Water Vapor, Not the CO2 - American Chemical Society
Remark: “The Earth has certainly been warming since we have added so much CO2 to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.”
Reply: “Forget the CO2. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It controls the Earth’s temperature.

”added so much CO2"

3 1/100ths to 4 1/100ths only 1 1/100 of 1%. Yet once again, you can tax Carbon Products but not water or sunlight. Not much difference between the 2 pictures for sure.

Dumbass, your link specifically refutes your idiot claim. It's a debunking page . What you quoted was the part that got debunked.

Try reading your source next time.
 
How come you are such an ignorant stupid bastard, andoranjim? The residence time in the atmosphere of water vapor is less than ten days. That of CH4 about 15 years, CO2, tens to hundreds of years. Water vapor is a feedback from the other GHGs.

800px-Arctic-death-spiral.png


Arctic sea ice decline - Wikipedia





Bull poo. The RT of CO2 is as low as five years, and as high as 15 years. No more than that. Only the IPCC claimed a multi hundred year RT for CO2 and they provided no support for the claim. So. You know this so why do you continue to lie olfraud....
 
How come you are such an ignorant stupid bastard, andoranjim? The residence time in the atmosphere of water vapor is less than ten days. That of CH4 about 15 years, CO2, tens to hundreds of years. Water vapor is a feedback from the other GHGs.

800px-Arctic-death-spiral.png


Arctic sea ice decline - Wikipedia





Bull poo. The RT of CO2 is as low as five years, and as high as 15 years. No more than that. Only the IPCC claimed a multi hundred year RT for CO2 and they provided no support for the claim. So. You know this so why do you continue to lie olfraud....

This references only older papers...there are new ones being published all the time questioning that idiot 100 year or more claim, but it does show where the IPCC stands in relation to actual research..

Carbon-dioxide-residence-time.jpg
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top