2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

[glockmail]

Um .. wow ... um ... you really don't know much about botany ...

The amount of CO2 has little effect on the growth rate. .....

Research has shown that in most cases rate of plant growth under otherwise identical growing conditions is directly related to carbon dioxide concentration.

Enrichment Of Plant Growth With CO2

 

[Old Rocks]

Sammanfattning (abstract):
Manipulation of source (flag-leaf removal) and sink (ear trimming) was conducted in a factorial CO2-irrigation field chamber experiment with spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in south-west Sweden to test the hypothesis that responsiveness of grain production and biomass partitioning to CO2 concentration ([CO2]) and water supply is dependent on the source-sink balance of the plant. Negative effects of doubled [CO2] on both individual grain mass (IGM) and harvest index (HI) were strongly related to decreasing relative sink strength (i.e. increasing source:sink ratio), probably as a result of feedbacks from sink limitation on source activity under elevated [CO2] being relatively more important as relative sink strength decreases. Substantial down-regulation of photosynthetic capacity in elevated [CO2], resulted in lack of significant stimulation of grain yield (GY) of unmanipulated shoots growing under elevated [CO2]. GY was even reduced by elevated [CO2] in sink-manipulated shoots, implying that high source:sink ratio may result in a down-regulation of photosynthetic capacity that more than offsets the direct stimulating effect of elevated [CO2]. High irrigation positively affected IGM and HI in source-manipulated shoots only, probably as a result of the timing of irrigation treatment effects on soil moisture during, but not before, grain filling. Irrigation thus probably affected source activity during grain filling rather than potential sink capacity determined before and around anthesis, an effect that should be more pronounced for shoots with low source:sink ratio. We conclude that effects of [CO2] and irrigation on grain production and biomass partitioning of wheat are strongly modified by source-sink balance of the plant, and that sink limitation is a major constraint on CO2-induced GY enhancement of spring wheat under Scandinavian climatic conditions. These findings may explain earlier observations of decreased CO2 responsiveness of GY in modern wheat cultivars, with lower whole-plant sink strength before and around anthesis compared to old cultivars, and call into question current attempts of molecular plant breeding to maximise photosynthetic activity before and around anthesis in order to enhance GY in a world with rising atmospheric [CO2]. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Ämneskategorier:

Source-sink balance of wheat determines responsiveness of grain production to increased [CO2] and water supply

 

[Old Rocks]

Potential effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide on yield
Carbon dioxide is essential to plant growth. Rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere can have both positive and negative consequences.

Increased CO2 is expected to have positive physiological effects by increasing the rate of photosynthesis. Currently, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 380 parts per million. In comparison, the amount of oxygen is 210,000 ppm. This means that often plants may be starved of carbon dioxide, being outnumbered by the photosynthetic pollutant oxygen. The effects of an increase in carbon dioxide would be higher on C3 crops (such as wheat) than on C4 crops (such as maize), because the former is more susceptible to carbon dioxide shortage. Under optimum conditions of temperature and humidity, the yield increase could reach 36%, if the levels of carbon dioxide are doubled.[citation needed]

Further, few studies have looked at the impact of elevated carbon dioxide concentrations on whole farming systems. Most models study the relationship between CO2 and productivity in isolation from other factors associated with climate change, such as an increased frequency of extreme weather events, seasonal shifts, and so on.

In 2005, the Royal Society in London concluded that the purported benefits of CO2 fertilization are “likely to be far lower than previously estimated” when factors such as increasing ground-level ozone are taken into account." [8]


[edit] Effect on quality
According to the IPCC's TAR, "The importance of climate change impacts on grain and forage quality emerges from new research. For rice, the amylose content of the grain--a major determinant of cooking quality--is increased under elevated CO2" (Conroy et al., 1994). Cooked rice grain from plants grown in high-CO2 environments would be firmer than that from today's plants. However, concentrations of iron and zinc, which are important for human nutrition, would be lower (Seneweera and Conroy, 1997). Moreover, the protein content of the grain decreases under combined increases of temperature and CO2 (Ziska et al., 1997)."[9]

Studies have shown that higher CO2 levels lead to reduced plant uptake of nitrogen (and a smaller number showing the same for trace elements such as zinc) resulting in crops with lower nutritional value.[10][11] This would primarily impact on populations in poorer countries less able to compensate by eating more food, more varied diets, or possibly taking supplements.

Reduced nitrogen content in grazing plants has also been shown to reduce animal productivity in sheep, which depend on microbes in their gut to digest plants, which in turn depend on nitrogen intake.[10]
Climate change and agriculture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[glockmail]

And for timber and phytoplankton?

 

[Old Rocks]

Dynamic patterns and ecological impacts of declining ocean pH in a high-resolution multi-year dataset
J. Timothy Wootton1, Catherine A. Pfister, and James D. Forester2
+Author Affiliations

Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, 1101 East 57th Street, Chicago, IL 60637
Communicated by Robert T. Paine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, October 8, 2008 (received for review August 8, 2008)

Abstract
Increasing global concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are predicted to decrease ocean pH, with potentially severe impacts on marine food webs, but empirical data documenting ocean pH over time are limited. In a high-resolution dataset spanning 8 years, pH at a north-temperate coastal site declined with increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and varied substantially in response to biological processes and physical conditions that fluctuate over multiple time scales. Applying a method to link environmental change to species dynamics via multispecies Markov chain models reveals strong links between in situ benthic species dynamics and variation in ocean pH, with calcareous species generally performing more poorly than noncalcareous species in years with low pH. The models project the long-term consequences of these dynamic changes, which predict substantial shifts in the species dominating the habitat as a consequence of both direct effects of reduced calcification and indirect effects arising from the web of species interactions.
Dynamic patterns and ecological impacts of declining ocean pH in a high-resolution multi-year dataset — PNAS

 

[editec]

Of course, the fact that when CO2 levels rise trees, plants and plankton grow faster, thus taking in CO2, is completely ignored.

I am informed that the majority of extra CO2 mankind has generated is being absorbed by the world's oceans.

As this is changing the PH of those oceans, and as we depend on those oceans' plankton for most of our O2, (as well as who the hell knows what else?) I think that the problems we might start encountering have bearly begun to manifest.

Global warming is going to give a global weirding, and that, my friends, means that we are not going to be able to predict outcomes in all sorts of things that we might not even realize are important, yet.

The fact, for example, that the Northern hemisphere could have an ice age, because of the melting ice in Greeland will effect ocean currents is but one example of the weirdness our children might have to put up with.

 

[Andrew2382]

 

[Bern80]

Well, Bern80, you debate points suck. If you had the least understanding on how atmospheric physics work in relationship to the GHGs, you would not be posting your number nonsense. As pointed out, without the 180 ppm to 280 ppm of CO2 naturally in the atmosphere, the earth would be a frozen snowball. By increasing the amount to almost 390 ppm, we have raised the amount far higher than it has been in the last million years. In fact, the last highest amount, 300 ppm 120,000 years ago, the sea level was at least 3 meters higher than today. Here is a site where you can find the facts of GHGs, and the present warming;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

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.

 

[glockmail]

Dynamic patterns and ecological impacts of declining ocean pH in a high-resolution multi-year dataset
J. Timothy Wootton1, Catherine A. Pfister, and James D. Forester2
+Author Affiliations

Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, 1101 East 57th Street, Chicago, IL 60637
Communicated by Robert T. Paine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, October 8, 2008 (received for review August 8, 2008)

Abstract
Increasing global concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are predicted to decrease ocean pH, with potentially severe impacts on marine food webs, but empirical data documenting ocean pH over time are limited. In a high-resolution dataset spanning 8 years, pH at a north-temperate coastal site declined with increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and varied substantially in response to biological processes and physical conditions that fluctuate over multiple time scales. Applying a method to link environmental change to species dynamics via multispecies Markov chain models reveals strong links between in situ benthic species dynamics and variation in ocean pH, with calcareous species generally performing more poorly than noncalcareous species in years with low pH. The models project the long-term consequences of these dynamic changes, which predict substantial shifts in the species dominating the habitat as a consequence of both direct effects of reduced calcification and indirect effects arising from the web of species interactions.
Dynamic patterns and ecological impacts of declining ocean pH in a high-resolution multi-year dataset — PNAS

This is a pretty simplistic prediction. Who knows what kind of species will adapt or become more dominant with changing chemistry. The system has a habit of correcting itself. For instance, at what point will the majority start to ignore the kooks who are against nukes?

 

[KittenKoder]

Enrichment Of Plant Growth With CO2

CO2 aids in the plants ability to utilize minerals and mulch, or did you miss that? Also every living thing has a maximum growth rate per organism, plants are not an exception to this law of nature. You are taking one tiny part of something and turning it into the only thing, plants cannot turn CO2 into the chemicals used to build cells, unless they are somehow nuclear and no one noticed the radiation they are giving off, but even then they would need N2 and a few other gasses to create the cell wall itself. Enrichment only means assisting for the benefit, it does not mean increasing the speed. This is why the liberal whackos still have the upper hand, because opponents like you are using sciences you don't even understand well. Do us all a favor (all of you like him) learn more about science so we can stop the environuts or shut the hell up and let those of us with a brain do it, otherwise we are going to be destroying ourselves or worse, paying for all their lame pet projects to 'save the planet.'

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

 

[glockmail]

....every living thing has a maximum growth rate per organism.....

Plant 2 trees instead of one.

 

[KittenKoder]

Plant 2 trees instead of one.

*rae* Okay .. though this makes little sense to what I posted, and no more sense to what you isolated of that post. If you plant them too close together then they will both slow in growth, because of the resources from the ground, it would still have little effect if you pumped large amounts CO2 to them, there would just not be enough minerals in the area of their roots to handle both. Plant them too far and they will likely fall in the next windstorm unless you brace them.

 

[glockmail]

... If you plant them too close together then they will both slow in growth, because of the resources from the ground, it would still have little effect if you pumped large amounts CO2 to them, there would just not be enough minerals in the area of their roots to handle both. Plant them too far and they will likely fall in the next windstorm unless you brace them.

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.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

You are naive in this matter. Those look healthy but tiny, how old are they? Two maybe three years tops by the looks of it. Ever see a giant redwood? They are HUGE! We have one that they had to carve a hole through for the cars to travel once, it finally died (sad thing). Also yes, if they are too far apart they are in more danger of being blown down. In a cluster they act as cushions for the wind, each absorbing a smaller portion of the impact, thus weakening the wind and making it less likely they will fall. Only one tree in a meadow will be blown down ... eventually. Each wind loosening the soil their roots are attached to until ... boom! They fall. Simple physics really, but also gardening. Of the small cluster of baby trees you show, one will likely take over and over grow the others eventually, depending on the breed. Pines don't do that as often, Oaks are very competitive though, Willows ... well, they like being really close to each other.

 

[KittenKoder]

Still, why do you think that increasing CO2 actually increases the speed and size a plant will grow? That is completely illogical and ignorant.

 

[glockmail]

You are naive in this matter. Those look healthy but tiny, how old are they? Two maybe three years tops by the looks of it. ......

Wow I guess you are really smart. Except that picture is of a group of trees in a designated Wilderness area, near Three Finger Jack in Oregon, and are probably about 50 years old, if not older. Nice try though.

 

[KittenKoder]

Wow I guess you are really smart. Except that picture is of a group of trees in a designated Wilderness area, near Three Finger Jack in Oregon, and are probably about 50 years old, if not older. Nice try though.

You missed the point of that, a 50 year old tree should be much thicker in the trunk.

While saying the rise in CO2 is the cause of global warming is another idiotic tactic used to gain money from the rest of us, your whole opposition to it was wrong. As I said, if you are going to argue against something use more intelligence than that. CO2 to plants is what O2 is to us, nothing more. It's not their food, it's the chemical used to process their food. So increasing the amount of it will not make them grow faster or stronger, it merely means they are less likely to suffocate. However, the connection with CO2 and environmental damage is wrong for the environuts as well, it's an effect not a cause. Neither side is smart enough to stop and think "maybe there's more CO2 because there are fewer plants to process it." Which would be the most logical connection, but both you and the environuts failed at logic on this.

 

[KittenKoder]

SULIS - Sustainable Urban Landscape Information Series: U of MN.
Anne Frank Tree – A community
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_t7RAiXAcWbU/SIQNdpeYSUI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/CPwAs583Emw/port8.JPG <- A beautiful healthy Pine. Grew up with three of these in the front yard and four in the back.

 

[glockmail]

You missed the point of that, a 50 year old tree should be much thicker in the trunk.....

Apparently not this species, in this specific location, which was a deep alpine valley at high elevation.