Wingnut: Belief in Climate Change Insults God

Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance comes up with a novel new argument against climate change, which is that it’s an “insult to God” to believe in global warming because He made the world strong and robust. And he’s still making the bizarre argument that carbon dioxide is “fertilizer” for plants and helps them grow more.

139 comments on this post.
  1. Bronze Dog:

    One thing that’s really annoying to deal with in fundie science denialists is that some can’t seem to handle the idea that things can have more than one cause, more than one effect, act differently depending on circumstances, or be a mixed blessing by having both good and bad effects.

  2. raven:

    Yesterday’s article:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Wild weather is taking a toll on roads, airports, railways and transit systems across the country.

    That’s leaving states and cities searching for ways to brace for more catastrophes like Superstorm Sandy that are straining the nation’s transportation lifelines beyond what their builders imagined.

    Despite their concerns about intense rain, historic floods and record heat waves,

    some transportation planners find it too politically sensitive to say aloud a source of their weather worries: climate change. continues

    Global warming is here now. It’s gotten to the point where the people who keep our civilization running (literally), have to start making plans.

    Rising sea levels threaten the coasts and coastal cities.

    Extreme heat waves and droughts threaten our food supply.

    Our transportation infrastructure was not designed for the world we have now or the one we will have in the future.

    We will have to adapt and that will take hundreds of billions of dollars. Already NYC is talking about $20 billion in Dutch style storm surge protection. That sounds like a lot of money until you realize one recent storm cost them $30 billion.

    Climate change deniers will go the way of Heliocentrism deniers who think the sun orbits the earth. No matter how dumb something is, at least 20% of the population will believe it anyway, often for religious reasons.

  3. raven:

    Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance comes up with a novel new argument against climate change, which is that it’s an “insult to God”..

    Beisner insults the intelligence of just about anyone without a brain twisted and warped by toxic religion.

    And how does he know what god thinks anyway? Those voices in people’s heads all say different things for some reason.

  4. Jasper of Maine (I feel safe and welcome at FTB):

    Is there any indication that merely having more CO2 present makes them grow more?

    The limiting factor is sunlight, which drives the photosynthesis process. That produces glucose, which the plants then use for building starches for cell structure, or used the glucose with oxygen to respirate.

  5. shouldbeworking:

    For sale in Edmonton Alberta
    Family set of cross country skis
    Ice fishing rods, reels, and shelter
    Assorted sleds and toboggans
    2 sets of snow tires used only 1 season

  6. Michael Heath:

    Ed’s post here goes hand-in-hand with another of Ed’s blogs today, which is about the incoherency of conservative Christians passionately and obediently supporting some policy positions based on scanty ambiguous bits of dogma while simultaneously obstructing the promotion of biblical edicts given paramount importance within the Bible.

    I’ve previously posted about my own informal research on trying to understand why conservative Christians decided to deny that human activity is causing climate change and that this poses a threat to humans now and a catastrophic threat to humans and extant species in the future. There’s certainly no compelling biblical reason to deny this reality and a few clear passages they have an obligation to defend the environment. When I was doing this research in the early-2000s, I lacked an understanding of rightwing authoritarianism and how it plays out in the American conservative movement, including the conservative wing of libertarianism, which is the only wing with any influence or political power.

    I found then their denialism was developed simply because their religious and political leaders told them it wasn’t true. They accepted these arguments in spite of the fact the people and arguments presented were obviously dishonest, ignorant, logically incoherent, and coming from people illiterate in even remedial science. The motivation of their leaders was to continue to grow a submissive voting base under their influence. Conservative Chrstians are a particularly attractive voting base because they’re so gullible, loyal, and willing to vote even against their own interests, let alone the country’s and humanity in general.

    Abortion has been the predominant issue which has motivated conservative Christians to both vote and vote for Republicans, regardless of how bad the Republican candidate was in their ability to govern. Given the incredible significance of the threat posed by climate change, abortion alone might not keep all these voters loyal to the GOP as they’ve been. Climate change was a real threat to the GOP if the party’s political leaders and primary financial constituents decided to obstruct mitigation efforts. Then, within weeks of the Bush Administration taking office, VP Dick Cheney was able to quickly reverse the GOP’s increasing willingness to fight climate change, which also had the Bush Administration completely reversing its direction in spite of President Bush’s 2000 campaign promises and initial behavior, like appointing NJ’s ex-Gov. Christine Whitman as head of the EPA – a person who was not a reality-denier and wanted to fight the threat from climate change. These religious leaders knew that:
    a) climate change could split their sheeple’s party affiliation and they’d lose both power and influence, and
    b) getting their sheeple to deny climate change was an awesome opportunity to further entrench themselves these religious leaders into the power structure of the GOP.

    These religious and other influential leaders, like Fox News and AM talk radio hosts, succeeded, they delivered even more blindly submissive voters to Republican candidates who were now quickly following Cheney’s lead and denying the very existence of the threat. Since 2001, we trended to the point I’m not sure there is even one single Republican entering the next Congress who concedes the reality of the threat climate change poses as understood and confidently communicated by the climate science community. At best the saner-appearing Republican leaders concede the planet is warming while denying the consensus of who caused it, the harm it’s caused, the sensitivity of the climate, and therefore the threat posed if we continue business and usual as the GOP and its supporters promote. So their saneness is relative to their voting base, from a normative perspective they’re stark-raving mad.

    I don’t think it’s a coincidence that by the early-2000s we began to encounter a significant increase of research into the psychology of U.S. conservatives given how delusional a person would have to be in order to actually buy the absurdly idiotic claims which now keep conservative Christians as faithful proponents of the Republican party and its policies. So now we understand why:
    a) these set of Christians are psychologically incapable of forming a coherent set of standards they consistently apply when voting and supporting varying issues, and
    b) the motivation by religious and political leaders, along with conservative media which has greatly helped both sets of leaders, to continue to develop an increasingly delusional voting base.

  7. w00dview:

    You know, I’m glad the fundies seem to be owning climate change denial for the simple reason that it might wake up climate change denying atheists to see what complete and utter anti science fuckwits they were and that these were the people that they decided to ally with. I have seen many a “rational skeptic” come up with the same “CO2 is good for plants” bullshit argument. The atheist deniers piss me off more because they exude a smug arrogance that they are completely correct whilst using the exact same arguments a rabid fundie teabagger would use against AGW. They uncritically accept bullshit that they would never tolerate from a creationist or an anti vaxxer. Pisses me off.

  8. Michael Heath:

    woodview writes:

    You know, I’m glad the fundies seem to be owning climate change denial for the simple reason that it might wake up climate change denying atheists to see what complete and utter anti science fuckwits they were and that these were the people that they decided to ally with. I have seen many a “rational skeptic” come up with the same “CO2 is good for plants” bullshit argument. The atheist deniers piss me off more because they exude a smug arrogance that they are completely correct whilst using the exact same arguments a rabid fundie teabagger would use against AGW. They uncritically accept bullshit that they would never tolerate from a creationist or an anti vaxxer. Pisses me off.

    The commenters at the Wall Street Journal are overwhelmingly conservative, while using predominately secular arguments; not what we encounter from a standard-issue conservative Christian. I began reading the comments in that forum for the same motivation you do, in hopes these more secular conservatives would realize how the conclusions they were previously supporting were being falsified where their only allies was the wingnut set of Christianity.

    What I’ve since learned is that these secular conservatives generally possess the very same thinking attributes of conservative Christians, they’re both rightwing authoritarians. In fact we’re encountering amplifying feedback, political conservatism and religious fundamentalism are feeding each other in a manner that’s causing all members of both overlapping populations to become even more unable to think critically and therefore more extreme who they support and what positions they take. That’s relative to the current center, at least they’re not lynching black people or burning heretics at the stake. It’s my observation that political ideology overwhelms the religious motivation when it comes to taking positions and who to favor as candidates, the religion now mostly serves to provide the religionists with arguments motivated by their politics. So I don’t expect secular conservatives to heal themselves anytime soon, the closed nature of their thinking, equivalent to conservative Christians, demands they don’t.

  9. raven:

    the religion now mostly serves to provide the religionists with arguments motivated by their politics.

    Fundie xianity is mostly right wing extremist politics with a few crosses stuck on it for show.

    I’d say xianity has all but died and no one even noticed or cared. It’s just a cover for the normal human drives for power and money.

  10. w00dview:

    Michael Heath, you’re correct. It is all simple authoritarianism. And the secular conservatives are being played for saps. I take back what I said about it being good that climate denial is now a sacred tenet of fundie xtianity. It will now make it even harder for the US government to tackle climate change in any meaningful way, especially when the fundies think Jesus is coming to take them to heaven so why bother preserving the earth? The effect this could have on the planet could bring about tremendous suffering. Climate change denial might well prove itself to be the most damaging and destructive woo out there if these psychos get their way.

  11. bobo:

    #6 “Conservative Chrstians are a particularly attractive voting base because they’re so gullible, loyal, and willing to vote even against their own interests, let alone the country’s and humanity in general. ”

    And this, imo, is why I don’t think the GOP can successfully rebrand itself to appeal to moderates. If they swing too far into ‘reality’ they risk alienating their base. And they run the risk of the moderates and lefties NOT buying it and just seeing it as more lies to get votes, Rmoney style!

  12. composer99:

    Since Dr Beisner is essentially arguing that his interests in… well, I don’t know what, exactly, since I doubt he’s rolling in the megabucks for his denial efforts – but anyway, he’s basically saying ‘fuck you’ to young people & the global poor.

    I believe I know the appropriate response…

  13. Dr X:

    So after all the fish in the Cuyahoga River were dead and the river caught fire, God was furious with government regulators who enacted pollution controls. He wasn’t insulted by human beings filling his clean river with toxic waste. He was insulted when they decided to stop dumping waste into the river.

  14. Michael Heath:

    me earlier:

    Conservative Chrstians are a particularly attractive voting base because they’re so gullible, loyal, and willing to vote even against their own interests, let alone the country’s and humanity in general.

    bobo responds:

    And this, imo, is why I don’t think the GOP can successfully rebrand itself to appeal to moderates. If they swing too far into ‘reality’ they risk alienating their base. And they run the risk of the moderates and lefties NOT buying it and just seeing it as more lies to get votes, Rmoney style!

    Another factor which makes it even more difficult for the Republican party to become moderate is the Democratic party sits almost squarely on top of the spot once held by Republican moderates. The only exception is the Democratic’ voting base continued antipathy and lack of appreciation for business and the risks business-people take; though the leaders of the Democrats now get this. Where this isn’t much of a current weakness for Democrats given the horrible examples of businesspeople presented by the Republicans via Mitt Romney and Herman Cain.

    So the Republican party has navigated into a corner and now possesses thinking skills which deny their problem is their inability to govern, but merely a demographic problem. This is why it should be so unsurprising to see conservative Christians and even some secular conservatives advocate they recruit Hispanics to the party merely by supporting amnesty for in-country illegal immigrants. It’s a natural reaction which in no way addresses the root weaknesses that cause them to be so incompetent; instead success in getting the Hispanic vote would further entrench conservatives ever-worsening political ideology.

  15. w00dview:

    composer99:

    but anyway, he’s basically saying ‘fuck you’ to young people & the global poor.

    Climate change denial in a nutshell. Pure distilled misanthropy.

  16. lancifer:

    There is nothing “bizarre” about the idea that elevated levels of CO2 enhance plant growth. It is a mundane fact exploited by commercial greenhouses that routinely grow plants with CO2 levels of up to 1000 ppm, almost triple the current atmospheric level.

    Here is a quote from an Ontario Minsistry of Agriculture “fact Sheet”.

    For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.

  17. Michael Heath:

    Ed writes:

    And he’s still making the bizarre argument that carbon dioxide is “fertilizer” for plants and helps them grow more.

    lancifer responds:

    There is nothing “bizarre” about the idea that elevated levels of CO2 enhance plant growth. It is a mundane fact exploited by commercial greenhouses that routinely grow plants with CO2 levels of up to 1000 ppm, almost triple the current atmospheric level.

    Greenhouse results are completely irrelevant to this topic, precisely because certain CO2 levels in the atmosphere, not greenhouses, changes other climatic factors which threaten fauna.

    I currently presume you didn’t first listen to what Calvin Beisner said in the video Ed embedded that’s attendant to what you respond to here. If correct, I suggest listening to the audio and then posting again. It’s a mere 1:48 long. And yes, it does matter, because Mr. Beisner’s argument that Ed responds to here is absolutely bizarre as Ed describes it. In fact it’s beyond bizarre, it’s both incredibly idiotic and ignorant where Ed’s correctly captured that idiocy.

  18. naturalcynic:

    There is not a smooth dose response with increases in CO2 in real ecosystems. Most of the studies that showed increased growth held temperature, nitrogen and water constant. That will not reliably happen in nature since there will be fairly complex interactions in the real world. In many cases with different levels of three variables + increased CO2, many cases showed decreased growth in a large Stanford ecosystem study conducted more than a decade ago.

    This is one example if you remember that Google is your friend

  19. iknklast:

    Jasper – good question. In fact, in laboratory conditions, increased carbon dioxide does increase plant growth. But in field conditions, where you have to contend with increased heat, and possiblly decreased rainfall, the findings have been miserable.

    Also, in increased CO2 conditions, plants put on fewer stomata (the structures that allow them to take up the carbon dioxide) so they may not take up more CO2 at all.

    And, in most settings, plants are not CO2 limited, as you surmised. They are limited by nitrogen or phosphorus, or some other vital resource, such as water. In areas of low CO2, plants have adapted a new way of photosynthesis that allows them to cope with the low CO2 conditions. So we might see a diminshing of those types of plants in favor of plants adapted to a higher CO2 condition (one of these ‘adapted’ plants is corn, but hey, that’s not such an important crop plant, is it?).

    I am a Botanist, and teach Plant Science to Ag students, and I suspected this argument years ago. As the research is coming in, it doesn’t look too good for the CO2 is good for plants arguments.

  20. Freodin:

    Why can’t they at least accept that God punishes America (rest of the world is neglectible) by climate change? They would still not agree with a change in politics to fight it and blame it on the gheys and God-haters… but at least they would stop denying it!

  21. Mal Adapted:

    Raven:

    some transportation planners find it too politically sensitive to say aloud a source of their weather worries: climate change. continues

    My brother lives 11 ft. above mean (for now) high tide in tidewater Virginia. Being reality-based, he accepts that rising sea level will make his house unsaleable, not to mention uninhabitable, at some point in the not-too-distant future. Not far from where he lives, however, proposals last year to plan for sea-level rise were shouted down by deniers who think AGW is a hoax:

    “Environmentalists have always had an agenda to put nature above man,” said Donna Holt, leader of the Virginia Campaign for Liberty, a tea party affiliate with 7,000 members. “If they can find an end to their means, they don’t care how it happens. If they can do it under the guise of global warming and climate change, they will do it.”

    Superstorm Sandy struck Hampton Roads a glancing blow, causing little damage there. One wonders what Donna Holt would say if it had been a direct hit.

  22. w00dview:

    “Environmentalists have always had an agenda to put nature above man,” said Donna Holt, leader of the Virginia Campaign for Liberty, a tea party affiliate with 7,000 members. “If they can find an end to their means, they don’t care how it happens. If they can do it under the guise of global warming and climate change, they will do it.”

    I love it when tea baggers accuse environmentalists of hating humans when they think people should just die on the streets for not having medical insurance. Also, seeing the natural world as always secondary to profits == caring about your fellow man.

  23. caseloweraz:

    I was going to respond to Lancifer (#16) but I see that others have done so. Let me just add that the higher temperatures that more CO2 brings can inhibit plant growth. Rice, for example, does not germinate above 35°C. Summer temperatures have reached that point before, and will do so more often in coming years.

  24. caseloweraz:

    Note too that Dr. Beisner falls back on the bogus idea that CO2 cannot have a major harmful effect because it is such a tiny percentage of the atmosphere.

    However, he asserts that same “tiny percentage increase” can have a major beneficial effect.

    Actually, of course, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen by almost 40 percent since the Industrial Revolution began. There’s nothing tiny about that.

  25. Michael Heath:

    It’s worth visiting the Wikipedia site on the Cornwall Alliance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_Alliance

  26. slc1:

    Re MH @ #17

    Mr. Lancelot is the poster child of atheist climate change denial. Considering that his expertise, such as it is, is in physics, perhaps he should pay attention to the commenter @ #19 who is a botanist who, unlike him, knows what he’s talking about.

    Re MH @ #6

    I believe I have cited this example previously on this blog but, since it bolster’s MH’s argument, it is, perhaps worth repeating.

    Back in 2006 when the Democrats briefly took over the House of Representatives, a joint committee was formed to evaluate the evidence for climate change. The Rethuglicans, in the person of then Minority leader Boehner, was supposed to appoint some of their caucus to the committee. Two Rethuglicans who had a science background, Vernon Ehlers (degree in physics) and Roscoe Bartlett (degrees in physiology and organic chemistry) applied to join the committee. Boehner turned both of them down because he concluded that they were too likely to evaluate the evidence for climate change, based on scientific principles, rather then ideology. A textbook example of the scorn with which the Rethuglican base holds towards education in general and science in particular.

  27. lancifer:

    Beisner’s appeal to the bible is idiotic.

    Much of the rest of what he said is not. An increase in CO2 would most certainly be beneficial to the vast majority of plant species. The vast majority of photoautotrophs evolved during periods of higher atmospheric CO2 than is present today, not to mention warmer temperatures.

  28. iknklast:

    lancier@27:

    Please go back and read my post at #17. This is simply not a true statement, and research results are showing that.

    In addition, a study of herbarium specimes that goes back hundreds of years has shown that, in fact, there are definite changes in the plants. Plants now have measurably fewer stomata than prior to the Industrial Revolution, so they are already adjusting to the conditions by NOT taking in more CO2.

    Perhaps you could spend a bit of the time you spend posting studying botany textbooks.

  29. bobo:

    I believe the botanist, not lancifer

    :)

  30. lancifer:

    iknklast,

    What part of what I said is “not a true statement”? Please be specific.

    I have read your post, twice. Crops are provided with nitrogen compounds and in some cases water, so the limiting factor in many cases is CO2.

    That is why greenhouse operators of almost all crops infuse the air with CO2.

    This is hardly a controversial point.

    It is also a mundane fact that the vast majority of plants extant evolved during warmer geological periods that also had higher ambient CO2.

  31. lancifer:

    iknklast,

    You specifically mention corn. Here is a study that anticipated that higher CO2 might not increase corn growth, as you mentioned, but found just the opposite.

    *Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA, wPhotosynthesis Research Unit, Agricultural
    Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

    Abstract
    The C4 grass Zea mays (maize or corn) is the third most important food crop globally in terms of production and demand is predicted to increase 45% from 1997 to 2020. However, the effects of rising [CO2] upon C4 plants, and Z. mays specifically, are not sufficiently understood to allow accurate predictions of future crop production.

    A rainfed, field experiment utilizing free-air concentration enrichment (FACE) technology in the primary area of global corn production (US Corn Belt) was undertaken to determine the effects of elevated [CO2] on corn. FACE technology allows experimental treatments to be imposed upon a complete soil–plant–atmosphere continuum with noneof the effects of experimental enclosures on plant microclimate. Crop performance was compared at ambient [CO2] (354 lmol mol1) and the elevated [CO2] (549 lmol mol1)predicted for 2050.

    Previous laboratory studies suggest that under favorable growing conditions C4 photosynthesis is not typically enhanced by elevated [CO2]. However,stomatal conductance and transpiration are decreased, which can indirectly increase photosynthesis in dry climates. Given the deep soils and relatively high rainfall of the US Corn Belt, it was predicted that photosynthesis would not be enhanced by elevated[CO2]. The diurnal course of gas exchange of upper canopy leaves was measured in situ across the growing season of 2002. Contrary to the prediction, growth at elevated [CO2]significantly increased leaf photosynthetic CO2 uptake rate (A) by up to 41%, and 10% on average. Greater A was associated with greater intercellular [CO2], lower stomatal conductance and lower transpiration. Summer rainfall during 2002 was very close to the 50-year average for this site, indicating that the year was not atypical or a drought year.

    The results call for a reassessment of the established view that C4 photosynthesis is insensitive to elevated [CO2] under favorable growing conditions and that the production potential of corn in the US Corn Belt will not be affected by the global
    rise in [CO2].

  32. Michael Heath:

    Lancifer writes:

    An increase in CO2 would most certainly be beneficial to the vast majority of plant species. The vast majority of photoautotrophs evolved during periods of higher atmospheric CO2 than is present today, not to mention warmer temperatures.

    Cite requested more CO2 would improve the status of fauna in light of present and ‘business as usual’ projected levels of CO2. Also, please provide at least two more cites which independently validate your claim and the article you cite. A consensus paper would be most welcomed.

  33. lancifer:

    iknklast,

    “Perhaps you could spend a bit of the time you spend posting studying botany textbooks.”

    I have no doubt that your training as a Botanist gives you insights and data that I, as a physicist, do not share. I am eager to have you impart some of that knowledge to me.

    Childish sarcasm, not so much.

    The vast majority of posters here at Free Thought Blogs have very few “free thoughts” when it comes to the topic of climate change and turn abusive very quickly. This no doubt gives them a rush of moralistic pleasure, especially knowing that most of the other posters here will be only to happy to reward their churlish remarks by piling on with ever more insulting retorts.

    I would hope, as a fellow scientist, you would disdain this type of behavior.

  34. lancifer:

    Michael Heath writes,

    Cite requested more CO2 would improve the status of fauna in light of present and ‘business as usual’ projected levels of CO2. Also, please provide at least two more cites which independently validate your claim and the article you cite. A consensus paper would be most welcomed.

    Here is a link to a database with many such papers.

    Nice try slipping in the word “consensus” by the way. Consensus has no value in science. Consensus is just a word for the fallacy of the majority or the appeal to popularity.

  35. composer99:

    lancifer:

    In #30 you state:

    I have read your post, twice. Crops are provided with nitrogen compounds and in some cases water, so the limiting factor in many cases is CO2.

    Your analysis there, and in #31, appears to continue to make the unwarranted assumption that all other things will remain equal.

    In particular, your appeal to paleoclimate ignores the current rate of change, which is effectively unprecedented in the geological record – and where there is precedent, it is not pleasant.

  36. lancifer:

    composer99,

    You are the one making unwarranted assumptions based on a trivial 0.8C change over 100+ years and little else.

    As I asked iknklast, show me where I have made a counter-factual statement.

    Also, let’s keep it to the topic of whether increased CO2 is good for plants, not whether other (as yet unknown and unverifiable) factors will obviate that benefit). I really have no interest in the kind of nasty exchange that this invariably produces.

  37. Michael Heath:

    lancifer writes:

    Here is a link to a database with many such papers.

    No link was provided. I also requested specific citations not “many such papers” since I have no confidence you can provide any that are related to the topic of this blog post which you attempt to rebut.

    lancifer writes:

    Nice try slipping in the word “consensus” by the way. Consensus has no value in science. Consensus is just a word for the fallacy of the majority or the appeal to popularity.

    I’m not sure how a person “slips” in anything in writing. In addition I requested a consensus paper in addition to specific cites. Such a document would provide a multitude of articles, so the consensus would rise or fall based on the quality of the body of cites embedded within that document. And you’re flat out wrong such documents have no value in science, actual practicing and publishing scientists participate in such efforts all the time. Those collaborative efforts provide enormous opportunities for scientists to develop a better understanding of how their independent efforts fit into a broad understanding.

    As for the supposed fallacy of this particular majority, i.e., those involved in climate science and related disciplines, how many articles are being published which even attempt to discredit the current consensus position? My understanding is that rate approaches zero.

  38. Michael Heath:

    lancifer writes:

    You are the one making unwarranted assumptions based on a trivial 0.8C change over 100+ years and little else.

    Citation requested that climate scientists find that rate of change “trivial”. The last time I challenged you on that you were unable to provide even one citation.

  39. lancifer:

    Michael Heath,

    Apologies, the link didn’t post. Perhaps I used an illegal format.

    I’ll try again.

    http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

  40. lancifer:

    I have little patience with you Heath, especially while you childishly address posts to “lancifer writes”.

    It always reminds me of when children say, “Tell Billy he is wrong” when they are sitting right next to Billy but think that this will hurt little Billy’s feelings.

  41. Michael Heath:

    lancifer writes:

    let’s keep it to the topic of whether increased CO2 is good for plants, not whether other (as yet unknown and unverifiable) factors will obviate that benefit).

    Uh no, the topic of this blog post was in fact the effects of increased CO2 to the earth’s fauna in our time. That was what the wingnut on the audio raised and Ed rebutted. Your attempt to change the goal posts with your dishonest red herring diversion of supposed results in greenhouses doesn’t change what Ed posted about and what the rest of us are discussing.

    And the reason you get grief on this topic is your rampant dishonesty as we encounter once again in this thread and every single time you engage on the climate. If you want to be treated with respect, earn it by being honest and making cogent arguments.

  42. Michael Heath:

    lancifer,

    Your link directed me to a webpage that presented zero articles, let alone an article that validates, “more CO2 would improve the status of fauna in light of present and ‘business as usual’ projected levels of CO2.”

    If one or two articles exists at that site, please link to them.

  43. raven:

    It’s true that under some conditions, some times, that CO2 can benefit plants.

    It’s not obvious that this will make any difference in the real world or offset the deleterious effects of rising CO2.

    This is because rising CO2 levels effect a lot more than just plant growth, sometimes, maybe.

    The benefits of CO2 going up can be offset by droughts or rising temperatures that impact plant growth. CO2 has almost doubled and it didn’t help our corn crop during the still ongoing midwest drought.

    Here in the west, we are losing huge forests to insect beetle damage. Apparently, it is no longer cold enough in the winter to knock pests down and too hot and dry in the summer, which stresses the trees and makes them susceptible to insects. A dead pine tree doesn’t care about more available CO2.

    And plant growth isn’t going to make any difference to rising sea levels flooding coastal areas or causing larger storms which destroys infrastructure. Which is occurring now. NYC or New Orleans really didn’t care how well plants are growing when they got flooded.

  44. Artor:

    @ Michael Heath;
    Do you have your own blog somewhere? Or failing that, would you mind offering a list of other blogs you read & comment on regularly? You always have informative & insightful commentary to add to everything Ed posts, and I think I’ve seen you on a few other forae as well. I would very much appreciate the opportunity to hear what you have to say more often.

  45. Michael Heath:

    Heads-up, the cite lancifer links is funded by the Heartland Institute:

    Idso is a lead author of the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),[7][8] a project sponsored by the Heartland Institute.[9] An unauthorized release of documents indicate Idso received $11,600 per month in 2012 from the Heartland Institute.[10]

    Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change

    Here’s an example of the quality of one of these three family members’ work:

    In the 1998 paper, CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change [Sherwood] Idso said:
    “Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air’s CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere.” [Wow, was he wrong.]

    Cite: http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v10/n1/p69-82/ (according to the Wikipedia page for this guy). It should also be noted no one collaborated with this yahoo on his paper, in spite of the fact his background is in soil science. Strong evidence he’s at best, a crank.

  46. lancifer:

    Michael Heath,

    Now Michael, just read the instructions on the page.

    In this section of our web site we maintain an ever-expanding archive of the results of peer-reviewed scientific studies that report the growth responses of plants to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Results are tabulated according to two types of growth response (Dry Weight and Photosynthesis). To begin, click on the response you are interested in below.

    Dry Weight (Biomass)
    Photosynthesis (Net CO2 Exchange Rate)

    At your finger tips will be an alphabetized list of hundreds of peer reviewed articles and a synopsis of their results.

  47. lancifer:

    Nice job of trying to poison the well Michael. Pathetic smear tactics. You are shameless.

    This is why I don’t discuss this topic with you anymore.

    Why don’t you try reading the actual scientific papers and their results instead of playing disgusting political games?

  48. Michael Heath:

    artor writes:

    Or failing that, would you mind offering a list of other blogs you read & comment on regularly?

    I use Google Reader and have a wide variety of feeds coming into that page. Relevant to this topic I get feeds from ScienceDaily.com which I read daily on global warming. I read realclimate. I read Andrew Sullivan daily. I read a lot of books, which I review at Amazon using the same name I use here.

    I also use Google Reader to feed me articles from the science section of BBC and the NYTs. I also read the news section of the Wall Street Journal and get feeds from a variety of economists / economic commenters, including ones who support Republican administrations and those of the more liberal persuasion, e.g., Fiscal Times, The Economist, Greg Mankiw, Donald Marron (I’m reading his latest book now), Brad Delong, Bruce Bartlett and Matt Ygelsias. I read the Drudge Report (biased towards conservatives) and the Huffington Post (biased towards liberals). I’m a big fan of Ezra Klein, Tom Ricks and Daniel Larison, especially their ability to actually frame policy debates on what the relevant premises are.

    I learn a lot from many of the commenters in this forum. I don’t read everything from all these people except on climate change; on that topic I read everything coming out published in the aforementioned venues, especially ScienceDaily.com since that is almost entirely dedicated to scientific articles.

  49. Michael Heath:

    lancifer writes:

    Why don’t you try reading the actual scientific papers and their results instead of playing disgusting political games?

    Which articles? So far you’ve presented zero articles. Please, provide us with articles which find that:

    “more CO2 would improve the status of fauna in light of present and ‘business as usual’ projected levels of CO2.”

    You get two links while avoiding moderation, let’s start there.

  50. raven:

    USDAclimatereport:

    The report estimates that in the next 30 years, CO2 concentrations are expected to have increased about 60 ppm, from today’s 380 ppm to about 440 ppm, and temperatures over the contiguous United States are expected to have increased by an average of 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit. 1

    Impacts on Western forests include:

    •Dying Forests: “Insects and pathogens are significant disturbances to forest ecosystems in the United States, costing $1.5 billion annually. Extensive reviews of the effects of climate change on insects and pathogens have reported many cases where climate change has affected and/or will affect forest insect species range and abundance.” 2 Examples of ongoing pest damage include a bark beetle infestation that has killed more than 3 million acres of pinyon pine in the Southwest, mountain pine beetle attacks on nearly 660,000 acres in Colorado, and spruce beetle attacks on 3.7 million acres in Alaska and western Canada. 3

    •Pest Infestations: Rising temperatures and drought are predicted to increase the range of a host of pests, strengthen their ability to attack forests, expand to new tree species and make trees more vulnerable to these attacks. “Rising temperature is the aspect of climate change most influential on forest insect species through changes in insect survival rates, increases in life cycle development rates, facilitation of range expansion, and effects on host plant capacity to resist attack.” 4 The mountain pine beetle, southern pine beetle, spruce beetle, ips beetle and spruce budworm are predicted to continue expanding their ranges. 5

    •More Forest Fires: Trends in “wildfire and climate in the western United States from 1974-2004 . . . show that both the frequency of large wildfires and fire season length increased substantially after 1985, and that these changes were closely linked with advances in the timing of spring snowmelt, and increases in spring and summer air temperatures.” 6 The report also predicts that wildfires will increase in size and frequency in the coming decades. 7

    •Loss of Carbon Storage: The report estimates that forests and “long-lived wood products” absorb approximately 20 percent of all U.S. fossil fuel carbon output. 8 But dead forests release that stored carbon back into the atmosphere, which has the potential to increase climate change impacts. “More frequent fire will increase emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols and . . . though many forests will regrow and sequester the carbon released in the fire, forests burned in the next few decades can be sources of CO2 for decades and not recover the carbon lost for centuries–an important consideration for slowing the increase in atmospheric CO2.” 9 In addition, the report says that the trees killed by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will, as they decompose, release nearly 115.7 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere–an amount equal to annual net carbon absorption in all U.S. forests. 10

    Here is what the USDA says is going to happen to western forests. It isn’t good. Dying forests, more pest infestations, more forest fires, loss of carbon storage.

    This is BTW, happening now. Global warming is here.

    Just about anyone who isn’t emotionally, religiously, economically, or politically invested in climate denial is facing it. Because it is happening whether you “believe” it or not. Reality doesn’t care what you believe.

  51. lancifer:

    Heath,

    I gave you a link to hundreds of such papers.

    Please, provide us with articles which find that:
    “more CO2 would improve the status of fauna in light of present and ‘business as usual’ projected levels of CO2.”

    That’s your quote why don’t you prove it.

    Raven,

    You are not addressing the direct affects of CO2. You are talking about the proposed and unproven indirect causes of the warming of the last century.

    Try to stay on topic.

  52. dingojack:

    The FoAW notes:
    Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).

    “Global temperatures rose by about 6 °C (11 °F) over a period of approximately 20,000 years. That is a 0.0003 °C (.00055 °F) increase per year. Many benthic foraminifera and terrestrial mammals became extinct, but numerous modern mammalian orders emerged. The event is linked to a prominent negative excursion in carbon stable isotope (δ13C) records from across the globe, and dissolution of carbonate deposited on all ocean basins. The latter observations strongly suggest that a massive input of 13C-depleted carbon entered the hydrosphere or atmosphere at the start of the PETM. Recently, geoscientists have begun to investigate the PETM to better understand the fate and transport of increasing greenhouse-gas emissions over millennial time scales’

    .

    Lance is try to convince someone, anyone, that the ‘trivial’ increase of 0.8 degrees C over a century is nothing to worry about.

    That’s over 26 times faster than the PETM. Neo-Oligocene, anyone?

    Dingo

  53. cag:

    Belief in god insults intelligence.

  54. lancifer:

    Dingo,

    You might want to look up the word “resolution” as it applies to reconstructions. Also your citation is from Wikipedia.

    Seriously?

  55. lancifer:

    cag,

    “Belief in god insults intelligence.”

    I tend to agree with you from a personal perspective, but sadly I know many highly intelligent believers.

    Go figure.

  56. dingojack:

    at least I actually provide links to sources – you?
    Dingo
    —–
    BTW, apparently Lance is the only one who recognises that the FoAW (Font of All Wisdom) is a suspect source. all hail the Lance!
    (Yes Lance that was sarcasm)
    The resolution of the duration of the PETM is quite settled among climate scientists.
    Your theory falls down unless, of course, you have a citation suggesting it was <750 years in onset (that is >0.8/100yrs).

  57. composer99:

    (I have a comment in moderation upthread which I dare say won’t make it out until Ed wakes up tomorrow.)

    lancifer, you say to raven:

    You are talking about the proposed and unproven indirect causes of the warming of the last century.

    That is unequivocally false.

    All:
    As far as the Idsos’ website (CO2Science) is concerned, it has a reputation for not accurately reporting the results of the myriad papers which are posited to show that either the Medieval Climate Anomaly was warmer than the present or that “moar CO2 plz” is necessarily merrier.

  58. composer99:

    lancifer:

    Perhaps you can show where the Wikipedia article on the PETM misrepresents the papers used as its sources?

    Otherwise, aren’t you engaging in the exact same behaviour you accused Michael Heath of?

  59. lancifer:

    composer,

    Taking an article from Wikipedia and using it to compare the short and unremarkable warming of the last hundred or so years to a 20,000 year period that occurred tens of millions of years ago using a study that has a resolution on the order of thousands of years is ridiculous.

    There are plenty of studies that show the recent warming is unremarkable even in the last few thousand years. You may have heard of the Medieval Warm Period, or perhaps the Roman Climate Optimum or perhaps the Minoan Warm Period? These periods were all as warm or warmer than the current warming trend.

    For reference you may wish to check out the following peer reviewed studies.(Dansguard et al., 1968; Schönwiese, 1995; Keigwin, 1996)Huang et al. (1997)

  60. dingojack:

    what part of:
    0.008 degrees C per year (current warming), as opposed to
    0.0003 degrees C per year (PETM)
    are you having difficulty with?

    If the current trend continued for the next 20,000 years the world average temperature would be 160 degrees C higher than the long-term average.
    The PETM (one of the fastest know climate-change events) raised temperatures by around 0.03 degrees C per century. (A rate that is 3.75% of the current rate of change).

    Dingo

  61. lancifer:

    Dingo,

    If the current trend continued for the next 20,000 years the world average temperature would be 160 degrees C higher than the long-term average.

    By your logic, since I initially accelerate from my seat to get a cup of tea at a rate of 10 m/s^2 I should break the sound barrier by the time I reach my stove.

    Please, also read the entire article which has statements like.

    “There is other evidence to suggest that warming predated the δ13C excursion by some 3,000 years.[15]” So there is evidence that the warming predated the increase in CO2 by thousand of years.

    And this,

    “The assumption underpinning this approach is that the mass of exogenic carbon was the same in the Paleogene as it is today – something which is very hard to confirm.”

    And again you might want to check into the resolution of the reconstructions before talking about a per year rate of warming.

  62. mildlymagnificent:

    And again you might want to check into the resolution of the reconstructions before talking about a per year rate of warming.

    The resolution for these things is in 10 to 20 thousand year chunks. For a rough comparison, you can simply average the known total rise over the known total timespan. 6C rise over 20000 years is not a sophisticated mathematical challenge.

  63. Michael Heath:

    lancifer writes:

    I gave you a link to hundreds of such papers.

    That’s a lie, you’ve provided zero articles which validate, in your words @ 27:

    An increase in CO2 would most certainly be beneficial to the vast majority of plant species.

    Also, where’s the cite a 0.8 C increase in global temperature in 130 years is, “trivial”, as you claim @ 36? Especially in light of the reality climate scientists are almost monolithically alarmed at the ramifications of such.

  64. Michael Heath:

    artor writes (to me):

    Or failing that, would you mind offering a list of other blogs you read & comment on regularly?

    I’d like to add to the post I published @ 48. Having a custom aggregator like Google Reader provides enormous utility when it comes to one’s productivity in reading the news.

    I can scan through far more articles, dozens in a few seconds, read headlines and ledes, and then dig into full articles far more prodigiously than one could using traditional methods. It explodes the old paradigm of reading a newspaper daily and perhaps a handful of periodical magazines though I still do both now, just not as much on the periodicals. The old way would have you encountering merely dozens of articles in a week while I do that now in mere seconds.

    The trick is to subscribe to credible sources (I don’t subscribe to Drudge or Huffington Post), and then organize those subscriptions into topical folders. That way you can scan a folder and see dozens of recently published articles from credible sources about a topic, say “global warming” or “climate change”. I also have a folder on news in general with a subscription to particular news feeds which provide a subset of articles from the NYTs, WSJ, Politico, Time, BBC, and CNN, and for me to get the wire service feeds like the Associated Press, a newspaper such as The San Jose Mercury News. I think Yahoo provides the same service on wire service feeds.

    Another nice tool is having a feature or extension in your browser to archive articles you encounter which appear interesting, but you don’t have time to read at the time you find the article. On my computer I use the Google Chrome extension, “Read Later Fast”. On my iPhone I use Safari’s “Reading List”. I try to catch up on what I’ve archived at both during the weekend.

  65. Michael Heath:

    lancifer writes:

    You are talking about the proposed and unproven indirect causes of the warming of the last century.

    composer99 responds (with embedded cite seen here as well):

    That is unequivocally false.

    Thanks for the insightful article. I’m already well-versed in what Wigler and Santer report since it’s merely a re-analysis of findings we’ve had now for at least several years. I post here about that SkepticalScience article on Wigler & Santer for two reasons.

    I was very surprised there are people who misconstrue what the IPCC means when those reports use the term, “very likely”. Precisely because the IPCC reports make that and related terms blatantly clear. It’s one of the easiest topical matters to digest in the IPCC reports. If they can’t even get that right . . .

    I was also surprised that some supposed experts are still falsely claiming that the IPCC is overly-alarmist. Those reports’ predictions were knowingly overly-conservative because some key factors/observations couldn’t be modeled with a level of confidence and precision enjoyed by the factors/observations which were modeled. As time goes on and we continue to make more observations where those un-modeled factors are observed to contribute to the effects of climate change, the lies are getting ever-larger given the distance our observations are to what these liars assert.

    One of the most disconcerting things about the denialist movement is how it provides an opportunity for fame and influence by being a liar. Far more people know who Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, and Patrick Michaels are than the thousands of scientists who contribute to our understanding, precisely because those denialists lie and those lies are leveraged to misconstrue reality.

    Mr. Spencer’s notable here because he’s a member of the same outfit the wingnut Ed posts about here is involved with, the Cornwall Alliance. Here’s two statements by them:

    The Cornwall Declaration further sets forth an articulate and Biblically-grounded set of beliefs and aspirations in which God can be glorified through a world in which “human beings care wisely and humbly for all creatures” and “widespread economic freedom…makes sound ecological stewardship available to ever greater numbers.”

    and

    We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

    Roy Spencer’s false claims about the IPCC’s charter and the scientific findings within their reports was also linked to in SkepticalScience’s analysis of the Wigler and Santos paper: http://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

  66. slc1:

    Re MH @ #65

    Roy Spencer is also an evolution denier.

  67. lancifer:

    Michael Heath,

    I don’t engage in discussions with people that call me a liar.

    You are an irrational zealot when it comes to the topic of climate change. You’ve proven it over and over again.

    Good day.

  68. lancifer:

    composer99,

    “As far as the Idsos’ website (CO2Science) is concerned, it has a reputation for not accurately reporting the results of the myriad papers which are posited to show that either the Medieval Climate Anomaly was warmer than the present or that “moar CO2 plz” is necessarily merrier.”

    Here’s an idea; why don’t you actually read the papers and decide for yourself.

    Or is it more comfortable to be told by people with the same beliefs as you not to read them because Mr. Idso has different beliefs?

  69. iangould:

    “I have little patience with you Heath, especially while you childishly address posts to “lancifer writes”.”

    Yeah and referring to him as “Heath” doesn’t come off as childish or dickish at all.

  70. iangould:

    “At your finger tips will be an alphabetized list of hundreds of peer reviewed articles and a synopsis of their results.”

    Have you read any of them?

  71. iangould:

    W”e believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.”

    So, acid rain, Minamata disease and The Great Smog were all part of God’s great plan?

  72. iangould:

    “Here’s an idea; why don’t you actually read the papers and decide for yourself.

    Or is it more comfortable to be told by people with the same beliefs as you not to read them because Mr. Idso has different beliefs?”

    Assuming that you have done so, it shouldn’t be that difficult for you to select, say, three papers that you feel best support your position.

  73. iangould:

    “I was very surprised there are people who misconstrue what the IPCC means when those reports use the term, “very likely”. Precisely because the IPCC reports make that and related terms blatantly clear. It’s one of the easiest topical matters to digest in the IPCC reports. If they can’t even get that right . . .

    I was also surprised that some supposed experts are still falsely claiming that the IPCC is overly-alarmist. Those reports’ predictions were knowingly overly-conservative because some key factors/observations couldn’t be modeled with a level of confidence and precision enjoyed by the factors/observations which were modeled.”

    Not to mention that they were consensus statements and China, Saudi Arabia and the Bush administration fought tooth-and-nail over every line of text to minimize the likely impacts.

  74. bobo:

    #44 “Do you have your own blog somewhere? Or failing that, would you mind offering a list of other blogs you read & comment on regularly? You always have informative & insightful commentary to add to everything Ed posts, and I think I’ve seen you on a few other forae as well. I would very much appreciate the opportunity to hear what you have to say more often.”

    Agreed. I enjoy reading “Heath’s” analyses, keep up the good work!

    and go fuck yourself lancifer

  75. Mal Adapted:

    Lancifer, you claim to be a “physicist”, but it seems unlikely you’re a working scientist in any field. Consider your assertion:

    Consensus has no value in science. Consensus is just a word for the fallacy of the majority or the appeal to popularity.

    If you were a working scientist, you’d understand that scientific knowledge can only accumulate through consensus. A succinct explanation is here. Summary:

    Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science)…But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory…There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time.

    I’m afraid that to the working scientists on this blog, you sound like another unfortunate victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

  76. Nibi:

    Mal Adapted says:

    Lancifer, you claim to be a “physicist”, but it seems unlikely you’re a working scientist in any field. Consider your assertion:

    Consensus has no value in science. Consensus is just a word for the fallacy of the majority or the appeal to popularity.

    If you were a working scientist, you’d understand that scientific knowledge can only accumulate through consensus.

    The real fallacy here is one of equivocation, where lancifer is equivocating on the meaning of the word consensus. In the more general, or colloquial sense, consensus means a majority agreement on a point without regards to evidence or perhaps even being subject to evidence. So we all agree that we’ll get the pizza with half pepperoni.

    Science, of course, is decidedly undemocratic and as you point out consensus has an entirely different meaning.

    See also: Evolution is just a theory

  77. slc1:

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #67

    Would Sir Lancelot care to inform us as to his qualifications to dispute what the the individual @ #19, Mr. iknklast, who is a botanist, said? As far as I can make out, Sir Lancelot has none whatsoever. I don’t know whether MH’s characterization of Sir Lancelot as a liar is correct, but the latter is certainly a fucken asshole.

  78. Michael Heath:

    lancifer writes:

    I don’t engage in discussions with people that call me a liar.

    You are an irrational zealot when it comes to the topic of climate change. You’ve proven it over and over again.

    Good day.

    Once again Lance avoids providing citations to back up claims the climate science community overwhelmingly and confidently rejects. Not once has Lance actually presented a citation in this forum, not one, which supported positions he takes which are rejected by the climate science community.

    This time when challenged he dances all over the place and then when called out on his bad behavior, in this case lying by claiming he provided a cite when he in fact, let me repeat that, in fact did not do. He then leaps at the opportunity to cowardly avoid backing up his statements because he present that pesky thing actual scientists use which I ask for once again, evidence.

    And why? My guess is that lancifer, as always, had no evidence in spite of claiming otherwise. So he lies, and then he lies some more. What a dishonest coward you are lancifer.

  79. Michael Heath:

    lancifer projects on to me:

    You are an irrational zealot when it comes to the topic of climate change. You’ve proven it over and over again.

    So in lancifer’s world, my asking for scientific evidence is irrational zealotry. While lancifer is on the record as advocating our government avoid any consideration of the threat of climate change when developing public policy, in spite of the fact climate scientists make their assertions with both a high level of confidence and with near-unanimity; both in terms of the rate of publishing climate scientists who concur and the share of articles they publish which support the consensus position.

    Cites for my assertions are available upon request except perhaps for lancifer’s political position since that was published in a comment on one of Ed’s scienceblog.com blog posts, where NatGeo has arichived the blog posts, but sometimes don’t publish the comment threads. I still have that actual blog post bookmarked.

    That was the same blog post thread where lancifer ignorantly proclaimed our current warming rate was no big deal, which of course totally ignores all the paleoclimate warming trends which caused mass extinction events, in spite of those trends being far more modest than our current rate of warming. We see in this thread, at least to the point of what I quote here from lancifer, that lancifer has learned nothing about the history of our planet in spite of our correcting him on that fact years ago. Given his projection here, it’s obvious who is demonstrating irrational zealotry.

  80. d.c.wilson:

    It’s gotten to the point where the people who keep our civilization running (literally), have to start making plans.

    Not to worry. More and more states like South Carolina will just pass laws making it illegal to take global warming into account when making plans.

    See? Problem solved!

  81. lancifer:

    Jumpin’ Jesus on a pogo stick. I don’t post for a few hours and look at the nonsense that has accumulated. Most of it is childish name calling and personal insults.

    No reason to respond to any of that.

    Climate change is so far off the national political radar that it was hardly even mentioned during the recent presidential election and it has really gotten some of your panties in a twist I see.

    The question at hand was whether the remark that “CO2 was fertilizer for plants” was “bizarre” or not.

    Look at the amount of venom and vitriol that some of you poor devils have whipped up.

    I’m enjoying the fact that your Chicken Little doom crying has fallen on the deaf ears of the public. I look forward to it being a smaller and smaller part of the political landscape as global temperatures continue to disappoint you carbonphobes.

    Cheers!

  82. Michael Heath:

    lancifer writes:

    The question at hand was whether the remark that “CO2 was fertilizer for plants” was “bizarre” or not.

    No it wasn’t. Instead the dissent from Ed which you criticized was the wingnut Ed blogged about arguing more CO2 would help promote plant life, which you supported with your assertion:

    An increase in CO2 would most certainly be beneficial to the vast majority of plant species.

    You then dug your hole even deeper with an even more absurd claim:

    You [composer99] are the one making unwarranted assumptions based on a trivial 0.8C change over 100+ years and little else.

    Where this “irrational zealot” continues to request citations validating for both your claims.

  83. Friendly:

    I’m enjoying the fact that your Chicken Little doom crying has fallen on the deaf ears of the public.

    Chicken Little, like you, had no evidence to back up her claims. But I’m sure that, for a brief time, she really enjoyed the fact that the public believed those claims anyway.

  84. Nibi:

    lancifer

    Climate change is so far off the national political radar that it was hardly even mentioned during the recent presidential election and it has really gotten some of your panties in a twist I see.

    Also, Willie Horton was off the political radar this year. Conclusion?

    The question at hand was whether the remark that “CO2 was fertilizer for plants” was “bizarre” or not.

    Well, certainly no more bizarre than “oxygen is people food”.

    I’m enjoying the fact that your Chicken Little doom crying has fallen on the deaf ears of the public.

    The public is not deaf. They are right now most concerned with their immediate economic security – a circumstance which favors denialism, but is orthogonal to the reality of climate change.

    I look forward to it being a smaller and smaller part of the political landscape as global temperatures continue to disappoint you carbonphobes.

    I’d welcome disappointment here. The rapid atrophy of the Arctic icecap, however, suggests otherwise.

    Cheers!

    Likewise, I’m sure.

  85. iangould:

    “Jumpin’ Jesus on a pogo stick. I don’t post for a few hours and look at the nonsense that has accumulated. Most of it is childish name calling and personal insults.

    No reason to respond to any of that.”

    So asking you to name the three best papers out of the hundreds you claim support your position is a personal insult?

  86. Michael Heath:

    lancifer writes:

    I’m enjoying the fact that your Chicken Little doom crying has fallen on the deaf ears of the public. I look forward to it being a smaller and smaller part of the political landscape as global temperatures continue to disappoint you carbonphobes.

    This is obviously not the first time lancifer has defamed both science and scientific methodology, all while he whines about others being mean to him when we point out his demonstrated failures in both character and logic.

    The pattern I’m picking up is the following:
    1) lancifer puts out a standard denialist assertion; refuted long ago by actual scientists. Frequently all one needs to know is the basic physics and the basic methodological approach scientists use to see he’s full of shit.
    2) He gets challenged; cites please.
    3) He dances around the challenge.
    4) He gets called out for dancing around the challenge.
    5) He whines about being mistreated ; claims his supposedly being mistreated is justification for not having the integrity to provide the requested cites.
    6) He accuses people of behaving not like they’re actually behaving, but how lancifer is behaving.
    7) Declare victory!

    Here’s the concerning part; this person is supposedly a teacher.

  87. lancifer:

    Michael Heath,

    Why don’t you have the decency to address me directly instead of acting like a petulant child? In your mind is their some grand audience your are addressing? The five or six people following this thread know you are talking to me. Get over yourself.

    I said,

    The question at hand was whether the remark that “CO2 was fertilizer for plants” was “bizarre” or not.”

    You said,

    No it wasn’t.

    I guess, by your standards, this makes you a “liar”. I would normally just point out that you are mistaken but since you insist on being a dickhead on this topic, as usual, I guess I’ll reply in kind.

    Here is the part of Ed’s original post to which I responded,

    And he’s still making the bizarre argument that carbon dioxide is “fertilizer” for plants and helps them grow more.

    To which I replied in my first post on this thread,

    There is nothing “bizarre” about the idea that elevated levels of CO2 enhance plant growth. It is a mundane fact exploited by commercial greenhouses that routinely grow plants with CO2 levels of up to 1000 ppm, almost triple the current atmospheric level.

    So you are a lying asshole.

  88. lancifer:

    Heath,

    Your list is amusing.

    First of all I am the only one in this thread that has posted any cites to scientific studies on the topic at hand.

    Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA, wPhotosynthesis Research Unit, Agricultural
    Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

    Which I also posted the abstract showing that an in the field study showed the exact opposite of what iknklast had said about corn and CO2.

    Then I posted three more cites

    Dansguard et al., 1968

    Schönwiese, 1995;

    Keigwin, 1996)

    Huang et al. (1997)

    Then I gave you a link to hundreds of studies showing the beneficial effects of elevated CO2 on a wide variety of plants.

    You of course chose to ignore that data base and insist, idiotically, that I post them individually (while maligning the accomplished scientist that had done some of those studies and compiled the database).

    Of course you aren’t interested in reading anything that contradicts your own emotionally held, politically inspired beliefs.

    That you are the resident blowhard pseudo-intellectual of a site called “Free Thoughts” is ironic in the extreme.

  89. lancifer:

    Heath,

    Here’s the concerning part; this person is supposedly a teacher.

    This is low, even for you. First of all you have misused the word “concerning”. The correct word is disconcerting.

    As to “supposedly” being a teacher, I have posted my real name and where I teach, here and at several other websites.

    You are pathetic.

  90. dingojack:

    Lance is teacher, who doesn’t know the difference between disconcerting and concerning, hope his former pupils enjoy asking “you want fries with that?”

    Dingo
    —–

    Ed – May I humbly nominate Lance for the Bryan Fischer Award for this sterling effort:
    Michael Heath, … You are an irrational zealot when it comes to the topic of climate change. You’ve proven it over and over again“.
    Bravo!

  91. slc1:

    Re Sir Lancelot

    Mr. iknklast @ #19, who is a botanist, basically says that Sir Lancelot is full of shit. Give the readers here a good reason to take Sir Lancelot’s opinion over that of of Mr. iknklast. As I have stated previously, I have a PhD in elementary particle physics and would not presume to second guess a botanist in his area of expertise, just as I would take exception to a botanist second guessing a physicist relative to quantum mechanics or cosmology.

    Unfortunately, all too many scientists presume that expertise in their particular field qualifies them to pontificate on other areas of scientific research. Some bad examples include Linus Pauling and William Shockley, who greatly damaged their scientific reputations by proclaiming nonsense in fields outside chemistry and physics respectively.

  92. lancifer:

    slc1,

    inklst took an insulting pockshot and claimed corn responded negatively to more CO2.

    I posted a peer reviewed paper that showed otherwise.

    Ian Gould,

    The data base to which I linked has a wide variety of papers showing positive plant response to increased CO2. Obviously each one is based on a specific plant species or genus. Why don’t you invest the twenty minutes or so it would take to prove to yourself the rather unremarkable fact that plants like CO2?

    Also, sorry that I didn’t exempt your remarks from the many other insulting posts. Then again you have certainly insulted me on this topic, here and at Deltoid, before so I may be forgiven for not noticing that your most recent posts were civil.

    This thread is rather typical of climate change alarmists. You can’t even admit that increased CO2 might actually have some benefits even if thinking the net result would be negative.

  93. lancifer:

    Dingo,

    Sad that even after being shown that concerning isn’t a synonym for disconcerting that you boldly proclaim your ignorance.

    May I suggest that you and Mr.Heath read the following?

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concerning

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/disconcerting

  94. dingojack:

    Lance – You don’t need to be ashamed of being a functional illiterate*, with help you can master reading comprehension, even as an adult.
    :( Dingo
    —–
    * a functional illiterate has even been elected President of the US

  95. Michael Heath:

    So lancifer, still no cites? Why am I not surprised. Lots of dancing though, as ugly as that was.

  96. slc1:

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #92

    inklst took an insulting pockshot and claimed corn responded negatively to more CO2.

    This is what Mr. iknklast said about corn:

    So we might see a diminishing of those types of plants in favor of plants adapted to a higher CO2 condition (one of these ‘adapted’ plants is corn, but hey, that’s not such an important crop plant, is it?)

    Once again, Sir Lancelot provides proof of MH’s contention that he is either a liar or has severe reading comprehension problems. Given his mischaracterization of what iknklast said, we can have no confidence that he is accurately characterizing the conclusions of any papers that he cites.

  97. lancifer:

    slc1,

    Well, I did misread what inknklst had written. My mistake.

  98. lancifer:

    Heath,

    Here are the cites for the many papers that show the beneficial effects of enhanced CO2 for just rice.

    Aben, S.K., Seneweera, S.P., Ghannoum, O. and Conroy, J.P. Nitrogen requirements for maximum growth and photosynthesis of rice, Oryza sativa L. cv. Jarrah grown at 36 and 70 Pa CO2. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 26: 759-766.

    Alberto, A.M.P., Ziska, L.H., Cervancia, C.R. and Manalo, P.A. 1996. The influence of increasing carbon dioxide and temperature on competitive interactions between a C3 crop, rice (Oryza sativa) and a C4 weed (Echinochloa glabrescens). Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 23: 795-802.

    Baker, J.T. 2004. Yield responses of southern US rice cultivars to CO2 and temperature. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 122: 129-137.

    Baker, J.T., Albrecht, S.L., Pan, D., Allen Jr., L.H., Pickering, N.B. and Boote, K.J. 1994. Carbon dioxide and temperature effects on rice (Oryza sativa L., cv. ‘IR-72′. Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida, Proceedings 53: 22-25.

    Baker, J.T., Allen Jr., L.H., Boote, K.J. and Pickering, N.B. 1997. Rice responses to drought under carbon dioxide enrichment. 1. Growth and yield. Global Change Biology 3: 119-128.

    Baker, J.T., Allen, L.H., Jr. and Boote, K.J. 1990. Growth and yield responses of rice to carbon dioxide concentration. Journal of Agricultural Science 115: 313-320.

    Baker, J.T., Laugel, F., Boote, K.J. and Allen, L.H., Jr. 1992. Effects of daytime carbon dioxide concentration on dark respiration in rice. Plant Cell and Environment 15: 231-239.

    Bannayan, M., Kobayashi, K., Kim, H.-Y., Lieffering, M., Okada, M. and Miura, S. 2005. Modeling the interactive effects of atmospheric CO2 and N on rice growth and yield. Field Crops Research 93: 237-251.

    Baysa, M.C., Tremmel, D.C., Reynolds, J.F., Rivero, G.C. and Tabbada, R.A. 2003. The interactive effects of elevated CO2, temperature and N supply on N concentration and allocation in rice (Oryza sativa L.). The Philippine Agricultural Scientist 86: 117-122.

    Chen, F., Wu, G., Ge, F. and Parajulee, M.N. 2011. Relationships between exogenous-toxin quantity and increased biomass of transgenic Bt crops under elevated carbon dioxide. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 74: 1074-1080.

    Cheng, W., Sakai, H., Hartley, A., Yagi, K. and Hasegawa, T. 2008. Increased night temperature reduces the stimulatory effect of elevated carbon dioxide concentration on methane emission from rice paddy soil. Global Change Biology 14: 644-656.

    Cheng, W., Sakai, H., Yagi, K. and Hasegawa, T. 2009. Interactions of elevated [CO2] and night temperature on rice growth and yield. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 149: 51-58.

    Cheng, W., Yagi, K., Xu, H., Sakai, H. and Kobayashi, K. 2005. Influence of elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 on CH4 and CO2 entrapped in rice-paddy soil. Chemical Geology 218: 15-24.

    Cheng, W., Yagi, K., Sakai, H. and Kobayashi, K. 2006. Effect of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations on CH4 and N2O emission from rice soil: an experiment in controlled-environment chambers. Biogeochemistry 77: 351-373.

    De Costa, W.A.J.M., Weerakoon, W.M.W., Herath, H.M.L.K. and Abeywardena, R.M.I. 2003. Response of growth and yield of rice (Oryza sativa) to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide in the subhumid zone of Sri Lanka. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 189: 83-95.

    De Costa, W.A.J.M., Weerakoon, W.M.W., Chinthaka, K.G.R., Herath, H.M.L.K. and Abeywardena, R.M.I. 2007. Genotypic variation in the response of rice (Oryza sativa L.) to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and its physiological basis. Journal of Agronomy & Crop Science 193: 117-130.

    De Costa, W.A.J.M., Weerakoon, W.M.W., Herath, H.M.L.K., Amaratunga, K.S.P. and Abeywardena, R.M.I. 2006. Physiology of yield determination of rice under elevated carbon dioxide at high temperatures in a subhumid tropical climate. Field Crops Research 96: 336-347.

    Fan, G., Cai, Q., Li, X., Xie, H. and Zhu, J. 2010. Yield components and its conformation responded to elevated atmospheric CO2 in three rice (Oryza sativa L.) generations. African Journal of Biotechnology 9: 2118-2124.

    Imai, K., Coleman, D.F., and Yanagisawa, T. 1985. Increase in atmospheric partial pressure of carbon dioxide and growth and yield of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Japanese Journal of Crop Science 54: 413-418.

    Imai, K. and Murata, Y. 1979. Effect of carbon dioxide concentration on growth and dry matter production of crop plants. Japanese Journal of Crop Science 48: 409-417.

    Jitla, D.S., Rogers, G.S., Seneweera, S.P., Basra, A.S., Oldfield, R.J. and Conroy, J.P. 1997. Accelerated early growth of rice at elevated CO2. Plant Physiology 115: 15-22.

    Khan, M.A.H., and Madsen, A. 1986. Leaf diffusive resistance and water economy in carbon dioxide-enriched rice plants. New Phytologist 104: 215-223.

    Kim, H.Y., Lieffering, M., Miura, S., Kobayashi, K. and Okada, M. 2001. Growth and nitrogen uptaike of CO2-enriched rice under field conditions. New Phytologist 150: 223-230.

    Kim, H.-Y., Lieffering, M., Kobayashi, K., Okada, M., Mitchell, M.W. and Gumpertz, M. 2003. Effects of free-air CO2 enrichment and nitrogen supply on the yield of temperate paddy rice crops. Field Crops Research 83: 261-270.

    Kim, H.-Y., Lim, S.-S., Kwak, J.-H., Lee, D.-S., Lee, S.-M., Ro, H.M. and Choi, W.J. 2011. Dry matter and nitrogen accumulation and partitioning in rice (Oryza sativa L.) exposed to experimental warming with elevated CO2. Plant and Soil 342: 59-71.

    Li, J.-Y., Liu, X.-H., Cai, Q.-S., Gu, H., Zhang, S.-S., Wu, Y.-Y. and Wang, C.-J. 2008. Effects of elevated CO2 on growth, carbon assimilation, photosynthate accumulation and related enzymes in rice leaves during sink-source transition. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 50: 723-732.

    Li, Z., Tang, S., Deng, X., Wang, R. and Song, Z. 2010. Contrasting effects of elevated CO2 on Cu and Cd uptake by different rice varieties grown on contaminated soils with two levels of metals: Implication for phytoextraction and food safety. Journal of Hazardous Materials 177: 352 -361.

    Liu, H., Yang, L., Wang, Y., Huang, J., Zhu, J., Yunxia, W., Dong, G. and Liu, G. 2008. Yield formation of CO2-enriched hybrid rice cultivar Shanyou 63 under fully open-air field conditions. Field Crops Research 108: 93-100.

    Lou, Y., Inubushi, K., Mizuno, T., Hasegawa, T., Lin, Y., Sakai, H., Cheng, W. and Kobayashi, K. 2008. CH4 emission with differences in atmospheric CO2 enrichment and rice cultivars in a Japanese paddy soil. Global Change Biology 14: 2678-2687.

    Ma, H.-L., Zhu, J.-G., Liu, G., Xie, Z.-B., Wang, Y.-L., Yang, L.-X. and Zeng, Q. 2007b. Availability of soil nitrogen and phosphorus in a typical rice-wheat rotation system under elevated atmospheric [CO2]. Field Crops Research 100: 44-51.

    Ma, H., Zhu, J., Xie, Z., Liu, G., Zeng, Q. and Han, Y. 2007a. Responses of rice and winter wheat to free-air CO2 enrichment (China FACE) at rice/wheat rotation system. Plant and Soil 294: 137-146.

    Makino, A., Harada, M., Kaneko, K., Mae, T., Shimada, T. and Yamamoto, N. 2000a. Whole-plant growth and N allocation in transgenic rice plants with decreased content of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase under different CO2 partial pressures. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 27: 1-12.

    Makino, A., Nakano, H., Mae, T., Shimada, T. and Yamamoto, N. 2000b. Photosynthesis, plant growth and N allocation in transgenic rice plants with decreased Rubisco under CO2 enrichment. Journal of Experimental Botany 51: 383-389.

    Morison, J.I.L. and Gifford, R.M. 1984. Plant growth and water use with limited water supply in high CO2 concentrations. II. Plant dry weight, partitioning and water use efficiency. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 11: 375-384.

    Olszyk, D.M. and Wise, C. 1997. Interactive effects of elevated CO2 and O3 on rice and flacca tomato. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 66: 1-10.

    Olszyk, D.M., Centeno, H.G.S., Ziska, L.H., Kern, J.S. and Matthews, R.B. 1999. Global climate change, rice productivity and methane emissions: comparison of simulated and experimental results. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 97: 87-101.

    Pang, J., Zhu, J.-G., Xie, Z.-B., Liu, G., Zhang, Y.-L., Chen, G.-P., Zeng, Q. and Cheng, L. 2006. A new explanation of the N concentration decrease in tissues of rice (Oryza sativa L.) exposed to elevated atmospheric pCO2. Environmental and Experimental Botany 57: 98-105.

    Sasaki, H., Aoki, N., Sakai, H., Hara, T., Uehara, N., Ishimaru, K. and Kobayashi, K. 2005a. Effect of CO2 enrichment on the translocation and partitioning of carbon at the early grain-filling stage in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Production Science 8: 8-15.

    Sasaki, H., Hara, T., Ito, S., Miura, S., Hoque, M.M., Lieffering, M., Kim, H.-Y., Okada, M. and Kobayashi, K. 2005b. Seasonal changes in canopy photosynthesis and respiration, and partitioning of photosynthate, in rice (Oryza sativa L.) grown under free-air CO2 enrichment. Plant and Cell Physiology 46: 1704-1712.

    Sasaki, H., Hara, T., Ito, S., Uehara, N., Kim, H.-Y., Lieffering, M., Okada, M. and Kobayashi, K. 2007. Effect of free-air CO2 enrichment on the storage of carbohydrate fixed at different stages in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Field Crops Research 100: 24-31.

    Sakai, H., Hasegawa, T. and Kobayashi, K. 2006. Enhancement of rice canopy carbon gain by elevated CO2 is sensitive to growth stage and leaf nitrogen concentration. New Phytologist 170: 321-332.

    Schrope, M.K., Chanton, J.P., Allen, L.H. and Baker, J.T. 1999. Effect of CO2 enrichment and elevated temperature on methane emissions from rice, Oryza sativa. Global Change Biology 5: 587-599.

    Seneweera S. 2011. Effects of elevated CO2 on plant growth and nutrient partitioning of rice (Oryza sativa L.) at rapid tillering and physiological maturity. Journal of Plant Interactions 6: 35-42.

    Shimono, H. and Bunce, J.A. 2009. Acclimation of nitrogen uptake capacity of rice to elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration. Annals of Botany 103: 87-94.

    Shimono, H., Okada, M., Yamakawa, Y., Nakamura, H., Kobayashi, K. and Hasegawa, T. 2008. Rice yield enhancement by elevated CO2 is reduced in cool weather. Global Change Biology 14: 276-284.

    Shimono, H., Okada, M., Yamakawa, Y., Nakamura, H., Kobayashi, K. and Hasegawa, T. 2009. Genotypic variation in rice yield enhancement by elevated CO2 relates to growth before heading, and not to maturity group. Journal of Experimental Botany 60: 523-532.

    Tako, Y., Arai, R., Otsubo, K. and Nitta, K. 2001. Application of crop gas exchange and transpiration data obtained with CEEF to global change problem. Advances in Space Research 27: 1541-1545.

    Teramura, A.H., Sullivan, J.H. and Ziska, L.H. 1990. Interaction of elevated ultraviolet-B radiation and CO2 productivity and photosynthetic characteristics on wheat, rice, and soybean. Plant Physiology 94: 470-475.

    Tokida, T., Fumoto, T., Cheng, W., Matsunami, T., Adachi, M., Katayanagi, N., Matsushima, M., Okawara, Y., Nakamura, H., Okada, M., Sameshima, R. and Hasegawa, T. 2010. Effects of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) and soil warming on CH4 emission from a rice paddy field: impact assessment and stoichiometric evaluation. Biogeosciences 7: 2639-2653.

    Uprety, D.C., Dwivedi, N., Jain, V. and Mohan, R. 2002. Effect of elevated carbon dioxide concentration on the stomatal parameters of rice cultivars. Photosynthetica 40: 315-319.

    Watling, J.R. and Press, M.C. 2000. Infection with the parasitic angiosperm Striga hermonthica influences the response of the C3 cereal Oryza sativa to elevated CO2. Global Change Biology 6: 919-930.

    Weerakoon, W.M., Olszyk, D.M. and Moss, D.N. 1999. Effects of nitrogen nutrition on responses of rice seedlings to carbon dioxide. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 72: 1-8.

    Xu, Z., Zheng, X., Wang, Y., Han, S. and Huang, Y. 2004. Effects of elevated CO2 and N fertilization on CH4 emissions from paddy rice fields. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18: 10.1029/2004GB002233.

    Xu, Z., Zheng, X., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Huang, Y. and Zhu, J. 2006. Effect of free-air atmospheric CO2 enrichment on dark respiration of rice plants (Oryza sativa L.). Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 115: 105-112.

    Yamakawa, Y., Saigusa, M., Okada, M. and Kobayashi, K. 2004. Nutrient uptake by rice and soil solution composition under atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Plant and Soil 259: 367-372.

    Yang, L., Huang, J., Yang, H., Dong, G., Liu, G., Zhu, J. and Wang, Y. 2006a. Seasonal changes in the effects of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) on dry matter production and distribution of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Field Crops Research 98: 12-19

    Yang, L., Huang, J., Yang, H., Zhu, J., Liu, H., Dong, G., Liu, G., Han, Y. and Wang, Y. 2006b. The impact of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) and N supply on yield formation of rice crops with large panicle. Field Crops Research 98: 141-150.

    Yang, L., Huang, J., Yang, H., Dong, G., Liu, H., Liu, G., Zhu, J. and Wang, Y. 2007a. Seasonal changes in the effects of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) on nitrogen (N) uptake and utilization of rice at three levels of N fertilization. Field Crops Research 100: 189-199.

    Yang, L., Liu, H., Wang, Y., Zhu, J., Huang, J., Liu, G., Dong, G. and Wang, Y. 2009. Yield formation of CO2-enriched inter-subspecific hybrid rice cultivar Liangyoupeijiu under fully open-air condition in a warm sub-tropical climate. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 129: 193-200.

    Yang, L., Liu, H., Wang, Y., Zhu, J., Huang, J., Liu, G., Dong, G. and Wang, Y. 2009b. Impact of elevated CO2 concentration on inter-subspecific hybrid rice cultivar Liangyoupeijiu under fully open-air field conditions. Field Crops Research 112: 7-15.

    Yang, L., Wang, Y., Dong, G., Gu, H., Huang, J., Zhu, J., Yang, H., Liu, G. and Han, Y. 2007. The impact of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) and nitrogen supply on grain quality of rice. Field Crops Research 102: 128-140.

    Yang, L., Wang, Y. Kobayashi, K., Zhu, J., Huang, J., Yang, H., Wang, Y., Dong, G., Liu, G., Han, Y., Shan, Y., Hu, J. and Zhou, J. 2008. Seasonal changes in the effects of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) on growth, morphology and physiology of rice root at three levels of nitrogen fertilization. Global Change Biology 14: 1844-1853.

    Yoshimoto, M., Oue, H. and Kobayashi, K. 2005. Energy balance and water use efficiency of rice canopies under free-air CO2 enrichment. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 133: 226-246.

    Yun, S.-I., Kang, B.-M., Lim, S.-S., Choi, W.-J., Ko, J., Yoon, S., Ro, H.-M. and Kim, H.-Y. 2012. Further understanding CH4 emissions from a flooded rice field exposed to experimental warming with elevated [CO2]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 154-155: 75-83.

    Zeng, Q., Liu, B., Gilna, B., Zhang, Y., Zhu, C., Ma, H., Pang, J., Chen, G. and Zhu, J. 2011. Elevated CO2 effects on nutrient competition between a C3 crop (Oryza sativa L.) and a C4 weed (Echinochloa crusgalli L.). Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 89: 93-104.

    Zheng, X., Zhou, Z., Wang, Y., Zhu, J., Wang, Y., Yue, J., Shi, Y., Kobayashi, K., Inubushi, K., Huang, Y., Han, S., Xu, Z., Xie, B., Butterbach-Bahl, K. and Yang, L. 2006. Nitrogen-regulated effects of free-air CO2 enrichment on methane emissions from paddy rice fields. Global Change Biology 12: 1717-1732.

    Zhong, L., Yagi, K., Sakai, H. and Kobayashi, K. 2004. Influence of elevated CO2 and nitrogen nutrition on rice plant growth, soil microbial biomass, dissolved organic carbon and dissolved CH4. Plant and Soil 258: 81-90.

    Zhu, C., Zeng, Q., Ziska, L.H., Zhu, J., Xie, Z. and Liu, G. 2008. Effect of nitrogen supply on carbon dioxide-induced changes in competition between rice and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli). Weed Science 56: 66-71.

    Ziska, L.H., Manalo, P.A. and Ordonez, R.A. 1996. Intraspecific variation in the response of rice (Oryza sativa L.) to increased CO2 and temperature: growth and yield response of 17 cultivars. Journal of Experimental Botany 47: 1353-1359.

    Ziska, L.H., Namuco, O., Moya, T. and Quilang, J. 1997. Growth and yield response of field-grown tropical rice to increasing carbon dioxide and air temperature. Agronomy Journal 89: 45-53.

    Ziska, L.H. and Teramura, A.H. 1992. Intraspecific variation in the response of rice (Oryza sativa) to increased CO2 — photosynthetic, biomass and reproductive characteristics. Physiologia Plantarum 84: 269-276.

    Ziska, L.H., Tomecek, M.B. and Gealy, D.R. 2010. Competitive interactions between cultivated and red rice as a function of recent and projected increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Agronomy Journal 102: 118-123.

  99. lancifer:

    So who still want to claim that increased CO2 won’t help plants?

    Talk about “denialism”.

  100. Nibi:

    lancifer

    So who still want to claim that increased CO2 won’t help plants?

    Talk about “denialism”.

    Oh for fuck’s sake. A Gish Gallop of citations that demonstrate … who knows what because nobody is actually going read all of them.

    Note the multiple repetition of authors. This, of course, is not surprising since researchers build and expand upon their previous work. However, it misleadingly suggests there are multiple independent results supporting … who knows what because nobody is going to read all of that stuff.

    How about selecting a couple of these papers which you feel provide a compelling reason for us not to be concerned about the impact of global warming on our principal food crops? Be sure to account for the large uncertainty in the frequency, quantity, and distribution of moisture under a new climate regime.

  101. Michael Heath:

    Lancifer asserted @ 27:

    An increase in CO2 would most certainly be beneficial to the vast majority of plant species.

    Heath repeatedly requests citations validating this assertion. lancifer submits @ 98:

    Aben, S.K., Seneweera, S.P., Ghannoum, O. and Conroy, J.P. Nitrogen requirements for maximum growth and photosynthesis of rice, Oryza sativa L. cv. Jarrah grown at 36 and 70 Pa CO2. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 26: 759-766.

    lancifer, this citation does not appear relevant to your assertion, which would require you to validate an increase in CO2 would be, “beneficial to the vast majority of plant species”. On to the second citation:

    Alberto, A.M.P., Ziska, L.H., Cervancia, C.R. and Manalo, P.A. 1996. The influence of increasing carbon dioxide and temperature on competitive interactions between a C3 crop, rice (Oryza sativa) and a C4 weed (Echinochloa glabrescens). Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 23: 795-802.

    Again, unrelated to the topic at hand. Color me surprised we encounter a classic Gish Gallop. lancifer, did you even read the references you pasted into your comment post, let alone the abstracts and articles for that which you cite?

  102. bobo:

    increase co2 and warmer temps are great for weeds, too

    http://www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/III.1Weeds.pdf

  103. Nibi:

    bobo

    increase co2 and warmer temps are great for weeds, too

    http://www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/III.1Weeds.pdf

    This is an important point – rapid changes in selective pressure favor generalists.

    I welcome our new kudzu, rattus, and cockroach overlords.

  104. slc1:

    Re MH @ #101

    I would be willing to bet that most, if not all of the references cited describe experiments performed in enclosed environments, probably greenhouses. These have little or no relevance to plants growing in open environments which other factors such as uncontrolled temperatures, precipitation amounts, and humidity levels come into play.

    I would also say that not only is it unlikely that Sir Lancelot has read any of the papers cited but it is unlikely that he would understand them if he had.

    Re Nibi @ #100

    Just a quick perusal indicates the following: Baker co-author of five papers, Yang co-author of 7 papers, Cheng co-author of 4 papers, Sasaki co-author of 3 papers, etc. As Mr. Nibi points out, these are not independent publications.

    I have no doubt that, if everything else is held constant, increases in CO(2) levels may well yield modest increases in plant productivity. Unfortunately, it is not possible to hold everything else constant in uncontrolled environments.

  105. dingojack:

    As noted above, higher carbon dioxide levels in uncontrolled environments tend to deplete the water and phosphorus levels in the soil, leading to reduced plant productivity.
    This favours plants adapted to leached, free-draining, phosphorus-poor soils.
    I welcome our Eucalypt, Banksia, Boronia, Hakea and Grevillea overlords!
    :) Dingo

  106. lancifer:

    1.) Heath whines that I haven’t provided specific cites.

    2.) I provide dozens.

    3.) He whines that I provide too many.

    4.) Sycophants join his chorus.

    Why do I waste my time here?

  107. lancifer:

    Nibi,

    …because nobody is actually going read all of them.

    Yeah, you wouldn’t want to actually read any scientific papers when you can just believe what you want based on you own biases.

  108. lancifer:

    And those are just the ones on rice. But it’s not like rice is the main food crop worldwide or anything.

    Oh, wait.

  109. TCC:

    lancifer, why are you persisting? I’m not sure that you’re actually receiving resistance to the idea that CO2 increases plant productivity, ceteris paribus, but to the idea that CO2′s effects on ecosystems would be far more detrimental than beneficial. You’ve even been given specific reasons why CO2 might not have quite the benefit that you would expect because plants aren’t CO2-limited. You’ve stopped arguing actual points and are now merely trying to score rhetorical points against people you perceive as your adversaries. It really doesn’t make you seem like a fair commentator on the issue. Perhaps you should take a step back from these exchanges before you comment further.

  110. dingojack:

    3.) He whines that I provide too many“. [/comic sans]

    Let me repeat – there’s no shame in being functionally illiterate…

    So Lance thinks that rice plants, grown in a water and nutrient controlled greenhouse environment, are ‘the vast majority of plant species’*, does he?

    Dingo
    —–
    * that was what you claimed Lance (#27), remember? So far not a scrap of of evidence has been produced to bolster this position. I refer you the link provided by the botanist naturalcynic (#18) for a study into the way actual natural systems respond to higher carbon dioxide levels.

  111. Michael Heath:

    lancifer writes:

    1.) Heath whines that I haven’t provided specific cites.

    2.) I provide dozens.

    3.) He whines that I provide too many.

    4.) Sycophants join his chorus.

    Why do I waste my time here?

    Your propensity for lying is stupendous, more than anyone I encounter on the Internet, going beyond even Sarah Palin or Michele Bachman. You provided dozens of cites unrelated to your assertions, which were:

    An increase in CO2 would most certainly be beneficial to the vast majority of plant species.

    and

    You [composer99] are the one making unwarranted assumptions based on a trivial 0.8C change over 100+ years and little else.

    If you were actually citing responses which supported your assertions, you could quote what in those papers directly supports your assertions. But you can’t because it doesn’t exist in those papers, and then lie about that. I too wonder why a virulently anti-science dishonest denialist like you cares to publish easily refutable posts in a place like this where truth actually matters and the readers are, unlike you, literate in both scientific methodology and climate science. Are you a masochist?

    What does reconcile is the beliefs of the wingnut Ed posts about regarding CO2 and fauna compared to your own assertion regarding that relationship which I quote here. That’s fine company you keep.

  112. Michael Heath:

    I wrote in the above post:

    What does reconcile is the beliefs of the wingnut Ed posts about regarding CO2 and fauna compared to your own assertion regarding that relationship which I quote here. That’s fine company you keep.

    That should obviously be “flora”, not “fauna”.

  113. Nibi:

    lancifer

    Yeah, you wouldn’t want to actually read any scientific papers when you can just believe what you want based on you own biases.

    Me:

    How about selecting a couple of these papers which you feel provide a compelling reason for us not to be concerned about the impact of global warming on our principal food crops?

    I don’t think anyone here questions that, under certain environmental conditions, some plants will have better growth. The concern is how, under a changing regime of temperature and moisture, our actual food crops and other ecosystems will be affected.

  114. bobo:

    hey, as an added bonus to all this plant ‘productivity’ as a result of warmer temps and more co2 we also get…tropical diseases!!!

    malaria has already been spotted in oregon I believe, amongst some lizards…

  115. baal:

    I think I ate a whole bucket of popcorn reading this thread.

    Lancifer, you’re on the wrong side of real science and it’s been more than pointed out to you. Please note that the original statement is still bizarre even though higher CO2 does support more plant growth in certain contexts. It’s bizarre because hyper focusing on one narrow little case overlooks a huge bigger problem in the context. It’s like worrying about a splinter in your finger when you’re on the train tracks and a train is comming. Yes, the taking the splinter out would be a good thing but realy, it’s tiny in compareson to the over all context.

    As to rice, much of that is paddy rice – i.e. grown in water. Getting increased growth by CO2, as noted repeated in this thread, can only happen when other limiting factors are solved first. The other limits are generally dryness or changed (usu hotter) temp. in agricultural regions. Your obstinance on this point beggars credulity.

  116. plutosdad:

    The key is the extra CO2 will make the GREEN parts of the plant grow more, but that will sap energy away from growing the rest of the plant. Anyone who grows root vegetables will tell you that if you over-fertilize, you get small roots. The same goes for CO2, root vegetables will grow smaller and smaller. For grasses, the green non-edible parts will grow.

    Basically, CO2 is only good for green leafy vegetables, but not so much for other plants that we eat.

    Plenty of universities are doing research on this already. I was just on a tour at the University of Chicago greenhouse where they talked about all the elevated CO2 research they are doing, and how it is going to affect the plants.

  117. composer99:

    Not having had a chance to get back here this weekend, I’m sorry I missed all the fun.

    A few things:
    (1) My comment deconstructing lancifer’s pooh-poohing of scientific consensus appears to still be in moderation (too many links).

    (2) lancifer wonders why I won’t give CO2Science the time of day, to which my response is, well, I don’t go visiting WND or Free Republic either.

  118. Michael Heath:

    composer99 writes:

    lancifer wonders why I won’t give CO2Science the time of day, to which my response is, well, I don’t go visiting WND or Free Republic either.

    I did visit that site by googling two of the articles lancifer references @ 98, that sent me to that site. Neither article was relevant to the assertions lancifer made, and yet these are his cites and called out on that, claims they’re his cites. So I don’t know if that site is fundamentally dishonest since I found nothing relevant to this this thread; I suspect it is dishonest by design based on the Heartland Institute funding this site and what I read about the three family members who manage the site.

    In case you’re new to this dialogue with lancifer, he’s commented in Ed’s blog now for a couple of years. I don’t recall him ever, even once, pointing to a peer-reviewed article that challenges the scientific consensus confidently held by climate scientists or related disciplines. In spite of being asked to do so at least many dozens of times, if not hundreds.

  119. bobo:

    Just for kicks, I have also heard the excuse that, co2 from humans is a drop in the bucket compared to what a volcano expels so what does it matter?

    Volcanoes do worse so…humans can just keep on doing what they are doing?

    Nice logic eh?

  120. Nibi:

    bobo

    Just for kicks, I have also heard the excuse that, co2 from humans is a drop in the bucket compared to what a volcano expels so what does it matter?

    Volcanoes do worse so…humans can just keep on doing what they are doing?

    Nice logic eh?

    It’s more a problem of fact than logic. Emissions due to humans are over a hundred times that of volcanoes. Another zombie falsehood that refuses to die.

    USGS on volcanic gases and climate

  121. slc1:

    Relative to the claims and beliefs of Sir Lancelot on climate change, IMHO, these are based on his libertarian ideology in that he recognizes that addressing the problem will require substantial governmental action. Since he is a true believer in small government, such interventions are an anathema to him and thus denial is his best line of defense.

  122. bobo:

    #120
    Nibi, the freaky think, I head this argument on facebook from idiots who considered themselves to be *environmentalists*. They just didn’t think co2 was a problem or would ever be, and that we should be worried about real things, like pollution

    /boggle

    p.s. or maybe they weren’t real enviros, paid trolls perhaps

  123. Raging Bee:

    Much of the rest of what he said is not. An increase in CO2 would most certainly be beneficial to the vast majority of plant species.

    Just like doubling the percentage of oxygen in our atmosphere would “most certainly” be beneficial to oxygen-breathing creatures, right? Lance, you’re a fucking simpleton. Not to mention a tool.

    I have little patience with you Heath, especially while you childishly address posts to “lancifer writes”.

    How does that standard means of citing a previous comment invalidate the substance of Heath’s response to you? I find Heath’s commentary (and the other comments refuting your asinine arguments) far more credible than anything you’ve said here, ever.

    Your silly-assed tone trolling, in response to a comment that is clearly more informed than yours, is yet another admission that you’ve lost the argument, as usual.

    It always reminds me of when children say, “Tell Billy he is wrong” when they are sitting right next to Billy but think that this will hurt little Billy’s feelings.

    That’s probably because you still have a grade-school child’s mindset, and still interpret every dispute at that level of maturity, without paying any attention to what’s actually being said.

    …let’s keep it to the topic of whether increased CO2 is good for plants, not whether other (as yet unknown and unverifiable) factors will obviate that benefit).

    Yeah, let’s not pay attention to facts that don’t support your simpleminded opinions.

    I don’t engage in discussions with people that call me a liar.

    So you lie until you get the inevitable response, then you have a convenient excuse to run away from yet another losing argument.

    Jumpin’ Jesus on a pogo stick. I don’t post for a few hours and look at the nonsense that has accumulated. Most of it is childish name calling and personal insults. No reason to respond to any of that.

    Then why did you come back here to respond to it, after promising to bugger off?

    Look at the amount of venom and vitriol that some of you poor devils have whipped up.

    I dunno about you, but we find it more useful to look at the factual commentary and citations on this thread. Funny how you seem to prefer to deal with insults than with facts.

    I’m enjoying the fact that your Chicken Little doom crying has fallen on the deaf ears of the public.

    I thought you said concensus was meaningless and had no place in science.

  124. Michael Heath:

    lancifer writes @ 67 (directed at me):

    I don’t engage in discussions with people that call me a liar.

    This was a response to my post at 63 which revealed he was lying about providing requested cites when he hadn’t and still hasn’t provided even one cite that’s relevant to claims he’s made here which I’ve challenged. .

    Raging Bee responds to lancifer’s post @ 67:

    So you lie until you get the inevitable response, then you have a convenient excuse to run away from yet another losing argument.

    Regrettably true, but a special kind of losing argument causes lancifer to cowardly seek out excuses to not directly respond to credible challenges. They all fall under lancifer’s propensity to say something incredibly ignorant and idiotic about the physics and findings regarding the climate, and then when challenged with a request for a cite supporting his assertions, this sort of bad behavior begins instead.

    The interesting question here is whether he’s so emotionally immature he knowingly gets off on such juvenile behavior, or whether he’s oblivious to his fierce avoidance of his own demonstrated failings. Either way, lancifer has no business teaching anyone, he simply lacks character.

  125. lancifer:

    slci,

    I have no problem with large government solutions to problems that actually exist. I am fine with the federal government handling national problems, economies of scale and all of that.

    IMHO the projected level of CO2 for the foreseeable future isn’t a problem that requires action at any level of governance.

    The narrow point I made in this post was that CO2 is most certainly beneficial to most plants.

    baal,

    As to rice, much of that is paddy rice – i.e. grown in water. Getting increased growth by CO2, as noted repeated in this thread, can only happen when other limiting factors are solved first. The other limits are generally dryness or changed (usu hotter) temp. in agricultural regions. Your obstinance on this point beggars credulity.

    Really, the fact that I have concluded, based on the evidence of multiple scientific studies, not to mention rather common knowledge, that increasing CO2 will help plant growth “beggars credulity”? You are apparently a rather credulous fellow.

    Can you not understand that many plants are not limited by other factors and will indeed benefit from increased CO2? Your argument is like discounting using nitrogen fertilizers because plants may occasionally be limited by sunshine or other weather conditions.

    composer99,

    Why don’t you check the studies themselves? The CO2 Science website’s funding is a rather poorly crafted red herring.

    Michael Heath,

    The interesting question here is whether he’s so emotionally immature he knowingly gets off on such juvenile behavior, or whether he’s oblivious to his fierce avoidance of his own demonstrated failings. Either way, lancifer has no business teaching anyone, he simply lacks character.

    Your comments are truly despicable. Each more petty and deranged than the last.

    The frustration shown by you proponents of “climate disruption”, or whatever scary term is being floated these days, is palpable. You simply cannot accept that reasonable, honest people may hold a different view of the evidence on the threat from human induced climate change.

    Disgusting really.

    In the university school of science where I teach, people have different opinions on this topic but we manage to discuss it without resorting to the juvenile and reprehensible conduct show here.

    I guess some of it is to be expected from anonymous posters on a mostly political website.

    It is still unseemly.

  126. dingojack:

    So Lance thinks that plants are not limited by things like soil nutrients and water availability? Where would this be Lance, in your head?

    Perhaps it’s true of grasses – back to Oligocene (as noted way back when), just >26 times faster. Watch out for the mass-extinction.

    Dingo

  127. bobo:

    #124 quote “The interesting question here is whether he’s so emotionally immature he knowingly gets off on such juvenile behavior, or whether he’s oblivious to his fierce avoidance of his own demonstrated failings. Either way, lancifer has no business teaching anyone, he simply lacks character.”

    its simple Micheal Heath, Lancifer is all ego, no substance :P

  128. dingojack:

    ” …without resorting to the juvenile and reprehensible conduct show here”.

    Yep – asking for proof of the bald assertion that higher carbon dioxide levels would benefit ‘the vast majority of plant species’, is both juvenile and reprehensible (in Lance-world).

    I feel sorry for the students at the school where Lance is employed as a ‘teacher’. Won’t anyone think of the children?!?

    :( Dingo

  129. lancifer:

    Dingo,

    Another clear example of you misrepresenting what I said. With a childish insult thrown in for good measure.

    This is why I rarely respond to your remarks.

  130. lancifer:

    Here is a summary of the increase in bio mass due to increased CO2 and warmth from various regions of Asia, with cites and references.

    Biospheric Productivity (Asia: Other Countries) — Summary
    Climate alarmists are continually warning the world about potentially-catastrophic negative consequences of CO2-induced global warming, which they contend will wreck havoc with Earth’s natural and agro-ecosystems. In this summary we review how vegetative productivity has fared throughout various countries in Asia outside of China over the past few decades, when air temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen to levels that climate alarmists claim are unprecedented over thousands (temperature) to millions (CO2 concentration) of years. For if these two factors are really as devastating as climate alarmists claim they are, we should surely see signs of their negative impacts on terrestrial vegetation over this crucial period of time. So what’s been happening in this regard?
    Starting with the southern portion of Asia near Africa, we begin with the work of Grunzweig et al. (2003), who tell the tale of the Yatir forest (a 2800-hectare stand of Aleppo and other pine trees) that had been planted some 35 years earlier at the edge of the Negev Desert in Israel. An intriguing aspect of this particular forest, which they characterize as growing in poor soil of only 0.2 to 1.0 meter’s depth above chalk and limestone, is that although it is located in an arid part of Asia that receives less annual precipitation than all of the other scores of FluxNet stations in the global network of micrometeorological tower sites that use eddy covariance methods to measure exchanges of CO2, water vapor and energy between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere (Baldocchi et al., 2001), the forest’s annual net ecosystem CO2 exchange was just as high as that of many high-latitude boreal forests and actually higher than that of most temperate forests. But how could this possibly be?

    Grunzweig et al. note that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration that has occurred since pre-industrial times should have improved water use efficiency (WUE) in most plants by increasing the ratio of CO2 fixed to water lost via evapotranspiration. That this hypothesis is indeed correct has been demonstrated by Leavitt et al. (2003) within the context of the long-term atmospheric CO2 enrichment experiment of Idso and Kimball (2001) on sour orange trees. It has also been confirmed in nature by Feng (1999), who obtained identical (to the study of Leavitt et al.) CO2-induced WUE responses for 23 groups of naturally-occurring trees scattered across western North America over the period 1800-1985, which response, Feng concludes, “would have caused natural trees in arid environments to grow more rapidly, acting as a carbon sink for anthropogenic CO2,” which is exactly what Grunzweig et al. found to be happening in the Yatir forest on the edge of the Negev Desert. In addition, the latter researchers report that “reducing water loss in arid regions improves soil moisture conditions, decreases water stress and extends water availability,” which “can indirectly increase carbon sequestration by influencing plant distribution, survival and expansion into water-limited environments.”

    Further eastward, Singh et al. (2011) used U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellite-derived Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) data, together with the Global Production Efficiency Model (GloPEM) developed by Prince and Goward (1995), to calculate annual NPP over all of India for the period 1981-2000. According to the five researchers, regression analysis of the 20-year NPP database showed a significant increase in the temporal trend of NPP over India (r=0.7, p 0.3): their area increased by 66%,” while “the areas of open and sparse forests (0.1 < canopy density < 0.3, and canopy density < 0.1) increased by 16 and 8%, respectively, whereas the background area became 19% smaller." In addition, they report that the rates of expansion of larch onto tundra "for sparse, open, and normal stands were estimated at 3, 9, and 11 m per year, respectively." However, they remark that "since sparse stands are at the forefront of advancement to the tundra, the rate for this class (approximately 3 m per year) should be regarded as the rate of larch expansion in general," and that "the above rates reflect not only the expansion of trees into the tundra, but also an increase in the density of sparse and open stands."

    With respect to the cause of the changes identified, Kharuk et al. feel that they were "induced by climatic trends," and that the continuation of this process "will result in the expansion of larch to the Arctic coast," which they describe as a "phenomenon that took place in the Holocene." Thus, it would appear that the Ary Mas forest is merely reclaiming that which had previously been lost by the progressive cooling of the planet after the Holocene Climatic Optimum, which cooling culminated in the record interglacial cold of the Little Ice Age from which the Earth and its biosphere are now making an impressive comeback.

    In another forest-related study from Russia, Lapenis et al. (2005) analyzed trends in forest biomass in all 28 ecoregions of the Russian territory, based on data collected from 1953 to 2002 within 3196 sample plots comprised of about 50,000 entries, which database, in their words, "contains all available archived and published data." This work revealed that over the period 1961-1998, as they describe it, "aboveground wood, roots, and green parts increased by 4%, 21%, and 33%, respectively," such that "the total carbon density of the living biomass stock of the Russian forests increased by ~9%." They also report there was a concomitant increase of ~11% in the area of Russian forests. In addition, the team of US, Austrian and Russian scientists reported that "within the range of 50-65° of latitude [the range of 90% of Russian forests], the relationship between biomass density and the area-averaged NDVI is very close to a linear function, with a slope of ~1," citing the work of Myneni et al. (2001). Therefore, as they continue, "changes in the carbon density of live biomass in Russian forests occur at about the same rate as the increase in the satellite-based estimate in the seasonally accumulated NDVI," which observation strengthens the findings of all satellite-based NDVI studies.

    Acknowledging that remote sensing data suggest that tundra vegetation in North America may be responding to recent warming via enhanced photosynthetic activity (Goetz et al., 2005; Verbyla , 2008), Forbes et al. (2010) write that "at a circumpolar scale, the highest photosynthetic activity and strongest growth trends are reported in locations characterized by erect shrub tundra (Reynolds et al., 2006)," noting that "live leaf phytomass from deciduous shrubs, shown to have increased in northern Alaska during the second half of the last century (Sturm et al., 2001; Tape et al., 2006), is believed to be a key driver of the observed trends (Jia et al., 2003; Goetz et al., 2005; Verbyla, 2008)." Against this backdrop and working with Salix lanata L. (sensu latu) — an abundant deciduous dioecious willow with nearly circumpolar geographic distribution from the northern boreal forest of Russia to the northern limits of the Low Arctic — Forbes et al. analyzed annual ring growth for 168 stem slices of 2- to 3-cm thickness that they collected from 40 discrete individuals spread across 15 sample sites within an area of approximately 3 x 2.3 km, which was located at about 68°40'N, 58°30'E.

    The three researchers say their work revealed "a clear relationship with photosynthetic activity for upland vegetation at a regional scale for the period 1981-2005, confirming a parallel 'greening' trend reported for similarly warming North American portions of the tundra biome," and they state that "the standardized growth curve suggests a significant increase in shrub willow growth over the last six decades." Additionally, while noting that "the quality of the chronology as a climate proxy is exceptional," Forbes et al. state that their findings "are in line with field and remote sensing studies that have assigned a strong shrub component to the reported greening signal since the early 1980s," adding that the growth trend agrees with the qualitative observations of nomadic reindeer herders, which suggest there have been "recent increases in willow size in the region." In fact, they say that their analysis "provides the best proxy assessment to date that deciduous shrub phytomass has increased significantly in response to an ongoing summer warming trend."

    Still in Russia, but focusing in on the arid lands of Central Asia, Lioubimtseva et al. (2005) describe a number of findings pertinent to the subject at hand that are generally not available to the international scientific community, due to their publication in the Russian language. According to the four-member team of Russian and American scientists, "there has been a general warming trend in Central Asian republics on the order of 1-2°C since the beginning of the 20th century," but they add that it is expressed most strongly in winter and that "the amplitude of this trend seems to be comparable with Holocene climate variability," suggesting that it is nothing unusual nor does it require an anthropogenic explanation. Citing the IPCC (2001), on the other hand, they report that precipitation has remained basically unchanged throughout the 20th century, stating that "there were no discernible trends in annual precipitation during 1900-95 for the region as a whole, nor in most parts of this region."

    In the face of unchanging precipitation and significant warming, it might be expected that the aridity of Central Asia would have increased significantly in recent years, especially throughout the 1990s, when climate alarmists claim the world saw its most oppressive heat of both the 20th century and the past two millennia. However, Lioubimtseva et al. report that "analyses of the NOAA AVHRR temporal series since the 1980s showed a decrease in aridity from 1991-2000 compared to 1982-1990 in the northern part of the region and a southward shift of the northern boundary of the desert zone in Central Asia," citing the work of Zolotokrylin (2002). So what's the explanation for this unexpected development? Lioubimtseva et al. suggest it could well have been the historical rise in the air's CO2 content.

    The scientists begin their elucidation of this hypothesis by noting that "an increased atmospheric CO2 concentration has direct and relatively immediate effects on two important physiological processes in plants: it increases the photosynthetic rate, but decreases stomatal opening and therefore the rate at which plants lose water," so that "the combination of these two factors, increased photosynthesis and decreased water loss, implies a significant increase of water [use] efficiency (the ratio of carbon gain per unit water loss) and … a reduction in the sensitivity to drought stress in desert vegetation as a result of elevated atmospheric CO2," citing the work of Smith et al. (2000) in support of this concept. As a result, they note that these effects could "increase productivity and biomass of natural desert vegetation," which would, of course, make the land appear (and effectively be) less arid.

    Buttressing this reasoning with experimental evidence obtained from the region itself, Lioubimtseva et al. report that "CO2-enrichment experiments (both chamber and free-air) conducted in the Kara Kum (Voznesensky, 1997) and Kyzyl Kum (Voznesensky, 1997; Zelensky, 1977) deserts showed a 2-4 times increase in the photosynthetic rate under the saturating CO2 concentrations," and that "three Kara Kum species (Eminium lehmanii, Rhemum turkestanuikum and Ephedra stobilacea) responded with a six-fold increase in photosynthetic rate (Nechaeva, 1984)." In addition, they report that "the CO2 fertilization effects included not only higher vegetation but also microphytic communities including mosses, lichens, fungi, algae, and cyanobacteria," which communities, in their words, "form biogenic crusts on the soil surface varying from a few millimeters to several centimeters in thickness and play a significant role in the desert ecosystems controlling such processes as water retention and carbon and nitrogen fixation in soils."

    In examining a larger area of Asia, Zhou et al. (2001) analyzed satellite-derived Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) data from July 1981 to December 1999, between 40 and 70° N latitude. In doing so they found a persistent increase in growing season vegetative productivity in excess of 12% over this broad contiguous swath of Asia stretching from Europe through Siberia to the Aldan plateau, where almost 58% of the land is forested. And in a companion study, Bogaert et al. (2002) determined that this productivity increase occurred at a time when this vast Asian region showed an overall warming trend "with negligible occurrence of cooling."

    In another study encompassing all of Asia, Ichii et al. (2005) simulated and analyzed carbon fluxes over the period 1982-1999 "using the Biome-BGC prognostic carbon cycle model driven by National Centers for Environmental Prediction reanalysis daily climate data," after which they "calculated trends in gross primary productivity (GPP) and net primary productivity (NPP)." In doing so, solar radiation variability was found to be the primary factor responsible for interannual variations in GPP, followed by temperature and precipitation variability. In terms of GPP trends, the authors report that "recent changes in atmospheric CO2 and climate promoted terrestrial GPP increases with a significant linear trend in all three tropical regions." More specifically, they report the rate of GPP increase for Asia to have been about 0.3 PgC year-1 per decade. As for the major cause of the increased growth, Ichii et al. favored carbon dioxide, reporting that "CO2 fertilization effects strongly increased recent NPP trends in regional totals."

    In one final study designed to examine a large portion of the Northern Hemisphere (East Asia, including China, Japan, Korea and Mongolia), the eleven researchers of Piao et al. (2011) used three process-based ecosystem models — the Lund-Potsdam-Jena Dynamic Global Vegetation Model (LPJ-DGVM) described by Sitch et al. (2003), the ORganizing Carbon and Hydrology In Dynamic Ecosystems (ORCHIDEE) model described by Krinner et al. (2005), and the Sheffield model described by Woodward and Lomas (2004) — to investigate East Asia's net primary productivity (NPP) response to the climatic change and rising atmospheric CO2 concentration of the past century, which they did by running each of the three models from 1901 to 2002, using observed values of monthly climatology and annual global atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

    Results indicated that between 1901 and 2002, modeled NPP "significantly increased by 5.5-8.5 Tg C per year (15-20% growth)," and the authors say that this increase in NPP "caused an increased cumulated terrestrial carbon storage of about 5-11 Pg C," about 50-70% of which "is located in vegetation biomass." And they add that "40-60% of the accumulated carbon uptake of the 20th century is credited to the period of 1980-2002," which latter interval, according to climate alarmists, was the warmest two-decade-interval of that century-long period. Thus, it is readily evident that as the air's CO2 concentration and temperature rose to their highest values of the past century — or millennium (purportedly) — they only served to enhance the terrestrial vegetative productivity of East Asia.

    In light of the many observations described above, plant productivity across Asia is not fairing anywhere near as badly as climate models suggest it should. In fact, rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures have actually been a great blessing for this portion of Earth's biosphere, especially for its water-stressed deserts and arid regions that appear to be thriving.

    References
    Baldocchi, D., Falge, E., Gu, L.H., Olson, R., Hollinger, D., Running, S., Anthoni, P., Bernhofer, C., Davis, K., Evans, R., Fuentes, J., Goldstein, A., Katul, G., Law B., Lee, X.H., Malhi, Y., Meyers, T., Munger, W., Oechel, W., Paw U, K.T., Pilegaard, K., Schmid, H.P., Valentini, R., Verma, S., Vesala, T., Wilson, K. and Wofsy, S. 2001. FLUXNET: A new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem-scale carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy flux densities. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82: 2415-2434.

    Bogaert, J., Zhou, L., Tucker, C.J, Myneni, R.B. and Ceulemans, R. 2002. Evidence for a persistent and extensive greening trend in Eurasia inferred from satellite vegetation index data. Journal of Geophysical Research 107: 10.1029/2001JD001075.

    Feng, X. 1999. Trends in intrinsic water-use efficiency of natural trees for the past 100-200 years: A response to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 63: 1891-1903.

    Forbes, B.C., Fauria, M.M. and Zetterberg, P. 2010. Russian Arctic warming and 'greening' are closely tracked by tundra shrub willows. Global Change Biology 16: 1542-1554.

    Goetz, S.J., Bunn, A.G., Fiske, G.J. and Houghton, R.A. 2005. Satellite-observed photosynthetic trends across boreal North America associated with climate and fire disturbance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102: 13,521-13,525.

    Grunzweig, J.M., Lin, T., Rotenberg, E., Schwartz, A. and Yakir, D. 2003. Carbon sequestration in arid-land forest. Global Change Biology 9: 791-799.

    Gurney, K.R., Law, R.M., Denning, A.S., Rayner, P.J., Baker, D., Bousquet, P., Bruhwiler, L., Chen, Y.-H., Ciais, P., Fan, S., Fung, I.Y., Gloor, M., Heimann, M., Higuchi, K., John, J., Maki, T., Maksyutov, S., Masarie, K., Peylin, P., Prather, M., Pak, B.C., Randerson, J., Sarmiento, J., Taguchi, S., Takahashi, T. and Yuen, C.-W. 2002. Towards robust regional estimates of CO2 sources and sinks using atmospheric transport models. Nature 415: 626-630.

    Ichii, K., Hashimoto, H., Nemani, R. and White, M. 2005. Modeling the interannual variability and trends in gross and net primary productivity of tropical forests from 1982 to 1999. Global and Planetary Change 48: 274-286.

    Idso, S.B. and Kimball, B.A. 2001. CO2 enrichment of sour orange trees: 13 years and counting. Environmental and Experimental Botany 46: 147-153.

    Jia, G.J., Epstein, H.E. and Walker, D.A. 2003. Greening of arctic Alaska, 1981-2001. Geophysical Research Letters 30: 31-33.

    Kharuk, V.I., Ranson, K.J., Im, S.T. and Naurzbaev, M.M. 2006. Forest-tundra larch forests and climatic trends. Russian Journal of Ecology 37: 291-298.

    Krinner, G., Viovy, N., de Noblet-Ducoudre, N., Ogee, J., Polcher, J., Friedlingstein, P., Ciais, P., Sitch, S. and Prentice, I.C. 2005. A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere system. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 19: 10.1029/2003GB002199.

    Lapenis, A., Shvidenko, A., Shepaschenko, D., Nilsson, S. and Aiyyer, A. 2005. Acclimation of Russian forests to recent changes in climate. Global Change Biology 11: 2090-2102.

    Leavitt, S.W., Idso, S.B., Kimball, B.A., Burns, J.M., Sinha, A. and Stott, L. 2003. The effect of long-term atmospheric CO2 enrichment on the intrinsic water-use efficiency of sour orange trees. Chemosphere 50: 217-222.

    Lioubimtseva, E., Cole, R., Adams, J.M. and Kapustin, G. 2005. Impacts of climate and land-cover changes in arid lands of Central Asia. Journal of Arid Environments 62: 285-308.

    Myneni, R.B., Dong, J., Tucker, C.J., Kaufmann, R.K., Kauppi, P.E., Liski, J., Zhou, L., Alexeyev, V. and Hughes, M.K. 2001. A large carbon sink in the woody biomass of Northern forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 98: 14,784-14,789.

    Nechaeva, N.T. (Ed.). 1984. Resursy biosphery pustin Srednei Azii i Kazakhstana. Nauka, Moscow, Russia.

    Peylin, P., Bousquet, P., Le Que´re´, C., Sitch, S., Friedlingstein, P., McKinley, G., Gruber, N., Rayner, P. and Philippe Ciais. 2005. Multiple constraints on regional CO2 flux variations over land and oceans. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 19: 10.1029/2003GB002214.

    Piao, S., Ciais, P., Lomas, M., Beer, C., Liu, H., Fang, J., Friedlingstein, P., Huang, Y., Muraoka, H., Son, Y. and Woodward, I. 2011. Contribution of climate change and rising CO2 to terrestrial carbon balance in East Asia: A multi-model analysis. Global and Planetary Change 75: 133-142.

    Prince, S.D. and Goward, S.J. 1995. Global primary production: A remote sensing approach. Journal of Biogeography 22: 316-336.

    Reynolds, M.K., Walker, D.A. and Maier, H.A. 2006. NDVI patterns and phytomass distribution in the circumpolar Arctic. Remote Sensing of Environment 102: 271-281.

    Singh, R.P., Rovshan, S., Goroshi, S.K., Panigrahy, S. and Parihar, J.S. 2011. Spatial and temporal variability of net primary productivity (NPP) over terrestrial biosphere of India using NOAA-AVHRR based GloPEM model. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing 39: 345-353.

    Sitch, S., Smith, B., Prentice, I.C., Arneth, A., Bondeau, A., Cramer, W., Kaplan, J.O., Levis, S., Lucht, W., Sykes, M.T., Thonicke, K. and Venevsky, S. 2003. Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model. Global Change Biology 9: 161-185.

    Smith, S.D., Huxman, T.E., Zitzer, S.F., Charlet, T.N., Housman, D.C., Coleman, J.S., Fenstermaker, L.K., Seemann, J.R. and Nowak, R.S. 2000. Elevated CO2 increases productivity and invasive species success in an arid ecosystem. Nature 408: 79-82.

    Stephens, B.B., Gurney, K.R., Tans, P.P., Sweeney, C., Peters, W., Bruhwiler, L., Ciais, P., Ramonet, M., Bousquet, P., Nakazawa, T., Aoki, S., Machida, T., Inoue, G., Vinnichenko, N., Lloyd, J., Jordan, A., Heimann, M., Shibistova, O., Langenfelds, R.L., Steele, L.P., Francey, R.J. and Denning, A.S. 2007. Weak northern and strong tropical land carbon uptake from vertical profiles of atmospheric CO2. Science 316: 1732-1735.

    Sturm, M., Racine, C. and Tape, K. 2001. Increasing shrub abundance in the Arctic. Nature 411: 546-547.

    Tape, K., Sturm, M. and Racine, C.H. 2006. The evidence for shrub expansion in northern Alaska and the Pan-Arctic. Global Change Biology 32: 686-702.

    Verbyla, D. 2008. The greening and browning of Alaska based on 1982-2003 satellite data. Global Ecology and Biogeography 17: 547-555.

    Voznesensky, V.L. 1977. Fotosyntez pustinnih rastenij. Nauka, Leningrad, Russia.

    Woodward, F.I. and Lomas, M.R. 2004. Vegetation dynamics-simulating responses to climatic change. Biological Reviews 79: 643-670.

    Zelensky, O.B. 1977. Ecologo-fisiologicheskije aspekti izuchenija fotosinteza. Nauka, Leningrad, Russia.

    Zhou, L., Tucker, C.J., Kaufmann, R.K., Slayback, D., Shabanov, N.V. and Myneni, R.B. 2001. Variations in northern vegetation activity inferred from satellite data of vegetation index during 1981-1999. Journal of Geophysical Research 106: 20,069-20,083.

    Zolotokrylin, A.N. 2002. The indicator of climate aridity. Arid Ecosystems 8: 49-57.

    Last updated 28 November 2012
    Printer Friendly Version
    Copyright © 2012. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. All Rights Reserved.

  131. dingojack:

    Lancifer said (#27) –

    “Beisner’s appeal to the bible is idiotic.

    Much of the rest of what he said is not. An increase in CO2 would most certainly be beneficial to the vast majority of plant species. The vast majority of photoautotrophs evolved during periods of higher atmospheric CO2 than is present today, not to mention warmer temperatures”*.

    [/comic sans]

    Yep – quoting what someone actually claimed is ‘misrepresenting’ their argument.
    Found any evidence for this bold claim yet, Lance?
    No, I mean a real peer-reviewed paper.

    Dingo
    —–
    * Emphasis mine

  132. dingojack:

    J. M. Grunzweig et al. 2003.
    Not a natural environment, only one species, carbon levels in the soil not significantly higher, not about growth rate, biodiversity or biomass. does not show ‘vast majority’ benefit.
    Baldocchi et al., 2001.
    Cocludes that:

    “The science
    generated so far indicates that rates of net carbon
    uptake by tropical and temperate forests are
    substantial and exceed estimates previously generated
    with biospheric modeling systems. Gross primary
    productivity of forest ecosystems may not be constant,
    but may depend on plant architecture (e.g., on leaf
    area), foliage photosynthetic capacity, and the amount
    of sunlight absorbed.
    Carbon net ecosystem exchange of broadleaved
    deciduous forests strongly depends on length of growing
    season, but is sensitive to perturbations such as
    droughts, clouds, winter snow cover, and early thawing,
    too. Concerning conifer forests, the conclusions
    are not as unifying. Seasonal and annual sums of net
    carbon exchange by boreal, semiarid, temperate, and
    humid conifers differ among one another and for
    different physiological reasons.
    The response of canopy-scale CO2 exchange to
    sunlight varies with cloud cover as clouds alter the direction
    of incoming sunlight and how it penetrates into
    a canopy. The response of canopy-scale CO2 exchange
    to temperature is sensitive to the local climate. The
    temperature optima for canopy photosynthesis are different
    for similar functional forest types in Europe and
    North America.

    Note no hint about changes in biodiversity, growth rates or biomass. also note they note that other factors may change the CO2 fluxes such as land disturbences, changes in H2O availablity (due to changes in precipitation and human use) and changes in cloud cover.
    Dingo

  133. lancifer:

    Dingo Jack,

    Look at the time of my post you stupid moron. It was in reference to a different post.

    I have posted dozens of paper showing the benefits of increased CO2.

    You have posted idiotic drivel.

  134. dingojack:

    Leavitt et al. 2003.
    Again, not about biomass, diversity. Not about ‘a majority of plants’. Concludes with:

    “All of these observations, including ours, provide
    substantial support for the conclusions of Feng (1999),
    specifically, that the long-term trends in iWUE in naturally
    occurring trees ‘are largely caused by the anthropogenic
    increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration,’
    and that this phenomenon ‘would have caused natural
    trees in arid environments to grow more rapidly, acting
    as a carbon sink for anthropogenic CO2. ’ They also
    suggest that the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content
    could continue to do the same for Earth’s trees in the
    future, subject to limitations of other nutrients (e.g.,
    nitrogen) and ultimate saturation of the carbon-fixing
    enzyme (Rubisco) when CO2 concentrations reach 800–
    1000 μmol/mol
    (Körner and Bazzaz, 1996).

    [Emphasis mine]
    That is: as long as they are fertised. Remember Grunweig? Little difference in soil C sesquestrartion, large loss of N.
    Dingo

  135. dingojack:

    So you don’t believe that* and yet you are arguing that?
    Bwhahahahahaha!
    Dingo
    —–
    * I also note, with some amusement, you’ve moved from denial to blame-shifting

  136. Michael Heath:

    lancifer writes:

    I am fine with the federal government handling national problems, economies of scale and all of that.

    IMHO the projected level of CO2 for the foreseeable future isn’t a problem that requires action at any level of governance.

    So policy makers should ignore what climate scientists almost monolithically assert and with high confidence. Not just their explanatory models, but also deny the reality of the facts climate science has found regarding current observations and the facts regarding how climate changes.

    When should policy makers accept what science asserts and when should they ignore such warnings as you advocate here? Right now it appears that you advocate policy makers should reject what science asserts when its politically inconvenient to personal beliefs you hold which are steeped in ignorance and where you demonstrate the inability to even consider what science has found on this matter.

    Even if climate scientists’ confidence levels were around 50%, the most simplistic cost/benefit analysis would yield only one defendable answer, mitigation is a worthy hedge. Of course this reality doesn’t exist, instead we have facts and high confidence, so such mitigation efforts are not a mere hedge, but instead a required investment if we’re protect current and future GDP and changes in GDP. Therefore your argument is incredibly idiotic.

  137. Michael Heath:

    lancifer now lies on top of his lies @ 125:

    The narrow point I made in this post was that CO2 is most certainly beneficial to most plants.

    No, you stated @ 27, which is the assertion we’ve challenged:

    An increase in CO2 would most certainly be beneficial to the vast majority of plant species.

    You did attempt in that same comment post to dishonestly change the goal posts from the topic of the blog post, which was CO2 in the climate, not a controlled environment like a greenhouse as you dishonestly inserted into your argument. But when we challenged you on this statement in the context of the climate, which was the topic raised by the wingnut which Ed ridiculed, you dishonestly began to claim you provided cites when up to 125, you have certainly done no such thing.

    In addition, this comment here @ 125 is idiotic. No one in this thread is arguing plants don’t find CO2 “beneficial”, we learn in the earliest science classes we take in late-elementary or early-middle school that CO2 is a requirement for plant life.

    In addition you also claimed @ 36:

    You [composer99] are the one making unwarranted assumptions based on a trivial 0.8C change over 100+ years and little else.

    That assertion has gone uncited, just like the first time you entered this forum and began to lie, where this is one of the first absurd claims you made.

  138. composer99:

    lancifer:

    My problem with CO2Science isn’t its funding (although perhaps it should be).

    It’s that it’s a crank site, engaged in cargo cult science.

  139. Michael Heath:

    lancifer writes to me:

    The frustration shown by you proponents of “climate disruption”, or whatever scary term is being floated these days, is palpable. You simply cannot accept that reasonable, honest people may hold a different view of the evidence on the threat from human induced climate change.

    Disgusting really.

    First, I condemn you precisely because of your:
    a) dishonesty and,
    b) inability to reason. As demonstrated by your frequently relying on rhetorical and logical fallacies while avoiding what climate scientists find and explain which falsifies your worldview.

    Your repugnant behavior in this thread which validates what I assert here is no different than any thread where I’ve seen you engage on the climate.

    It is frickin’ hilarious you establish a framework for those who are deserving of dialogue and debate in good faith, and prove in that very same thread you fail to even come close to meeting that same standard.

Leave a comment

You must be