frightening

...

Probably not. Really high CO2 levels go back to when the sun was less brigh t, and we needed better insulation to make sure that the oceans didn't free ze up (as they did, once, early on).

I've not seen a greenie or a politician expressing hatred of either.

The green revolution doesn't seem to have depended on rising CO2 levels.

Since the carefully selected plants in part responsible for the green revol ution were all selected to grow will at atmospheric CO2 levels not much ove r 300ppm, it shouldn't take much wit - more than John Larkin has, but not m uch - to realise that at 450ppm CO2 levels there will be weeds around that will be better adapted to the new normal.

Changing atmospheric circulation on a warmer earth also means that the rain that used to fall on California is now falling somewhere else - plant grow th tends to be water limited rather than CO2 limited (plant leaves from CO2 rich eras have fewer stomata, to let them get the same amount of CO2 while losing less water) - so John Larkin's mindless faith in the virtues of ris ing CO2 levels does ignore some of the second-order real-world consequences .

olution were all selected to grow will at atmospheric CO2 levels not much o ver 300ppm, it shouldn't take much wit - more than John Larkin has, but not much - to realise that at 450ppm CO2 levels there will be weeds around tha t will be better adapted to the new normal.

Not sure I believe that. People increase the level of CO2 in greenhouses f or reasons other than encouraging weeds.

Dan

evolution were all selected to grow will at atmospheric CO2 levels not much over 300ppm, it shouldn't take much wit - more than John Larkin has, but n ot much - to realise that at 450ppm CO2 levels there will be weeds around t hat will be better adapted to the new normal.

for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

Sure. But they are also rather careful to exclude weeds in the first case, and pull out any that show up.

The bulk of the food we eat isn't grown in greenhouses - they are fine if y ou want to grow stuff you can sell at a premium price, but rather expensive for stuff like corn, wheat and rice.

I just want to be clear... are people *really* advocating the increase of CO2 emissions in order to turn the planet into a giant hothouse?

I guess that could solve AGW. If instead of capturing only 2% of the incident sunlight into useful food, we could turn 40% into food, that would greatly lower the heat released into the environment by the sun. But what would be do with all that food? Imagine how the wild plants would take over. We'd have to mow lawns twice a day and our cities would be reclaimed in a matter of months turning the planet back into it's native state.

What CO2 level would be required for that? Could we still breath it and live?

So what you are saying is that there is no data on whether weeds or crops benefit the most from more CO2?

The fact that most food is not grown in greenhouses is not pertinent to the discussion.

Dan

Pessimists don't need data.

ouses for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

ase, and pull out any that show up.

if you want to grow stuff you can sell at a premium price, but rather expe nsive for stuff like corn, wheat and rice.

s benefit the most from more CO2?

Once again you're coming across as a complete idiot, mechanic. Although an idiot like you and the Greenpeace nutcase focus on CO2 is good for plant gr owth, you neglect the other essential ingredients that are adversely affect ed like soil moisture availability and temperature. Agricultural production in many areas will fall drastically as many crops cannot withstand being b eat to death by direct sunlight at high temperatures and low to zero soil m oisture conditions. The USDA has studied this extensively, and they KNOW wh at to expect. We're seeing it unfold right now.

uses for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

se, and pull out any that show up.

if you want to grow stuff you can sell at a premium price, but rather expen sive for stuff like corn, wheat and rice.

benefit the most from more CO2?

Weeds have more genetic diversity, so some weeds are going to benefit more from more CO2 than our carefully selected, genetically uniform crops. Some are also going to benefit less, but they aren't the ones that are going to be invading the land we use for growing crops.

he discussion.

The basis for this discussion is that more CO2 in the atmosphere helps us g row bigger crops which can feed more people. Since greenhouse crops are a l ow volume product, what happens in greenhouses is what's not pertinent to t his discussion.

As I've noticed before, you are impertinent.

The point - which I have to explain to simpletons like you and dca - is that weeds are more genetically diverse than our food crops, many of which are cloned and genetically identical.

One doesn't need much data to know that when you change the environment

- in this case by introducing more CO2 into the air - some species will be better adapted to the new conditions. Since weeds are genetically diverse, some will be even worse at dealing with extra CO2 than our crop plants, but some will be considerably better.

I'd invite you to think about it, if there were any evidence that you could actually think about anything outside of electronics.

revolution were all selected to grow will at atmospheric CO2 levels not muc h over 300ppm, it shouldn't take much wit - more than John Larkin has, but not much - to realise that at 450ppm CO2 levels there will be weeds around that will be better adapted to the new normal.

es for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

Well, Anthony Watts does get loads of money from sort of people who support the denial of anthropogenic global warming

so it's not so much that people are advocating putting more CO2 into the at mosphere, as that people who make money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel - which incidentally dumps on more CO2 into the atmosph ere - are subsidising any money-grubbing nitwit who will claim that this is n't a bad thing.

I think regular plants capture about 0.3% of the energy in the incident lig ht. There are specialised bacteria around who can get close to 10%, but you need to set up an elaborate environment to replace leaves, branches and ro ots (which bacteria don't do). Even they woudn't release significantly less waste heat into the environment.

Growing biomass, converting it into carbon-rich bio-char and burying that w ould be a way of rcovering CO2 from the atmosphere, but it would be a lot c heaper not to put it there in the first place.

No more than the plants could.

nhouses for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

case, and pull out any that show up.

ne if you want to grow stuff you can sell at a premium price, but rather ex pensive for stuff like corn, wheat and rice.

ops benefit the most from more CO2?

n idiot like you and the Greenpeace nutcase focus on CO2 is good for plant growth, you neglect the other essential ingredients that are adversely affe cted like soil moisture availability and temperature. Agricultural producti on in many areas will fall drastically as many crops cannot withstand being beat to death by direct sunlight at high temperatures and low to zero soil moisture conditions. The USDA has studied this extensively, and they KNOW what to expect. We're seeing it unfold right now.

Without reading the whole thing, it looks like the data support increased y ield with increased CO2.

They cite others factors, as you have.

The sum of those factors should show in crop yields.

As compared to..

IOW, the White House predicts AGW will produce - flood, and - drought, and will - hurt food yields.

t based on real science. You ignore this because you're an irrational simpl eton who never learned to reason properly, consequently you're opinion is n ot worth much.

Likewise, we've been told

- the last two years have been the warmest ever, and

- warmer weather will cause more storms, and more energetic storms.

That's a testable hypothesis. If true we should see it immediately: (storms respond to current local conditions). Instead, we have fewer storms, and weaker, right?

Cheers, James Arthur

We may have to use solar furnaces to unlease life-saving CO2 from limestone.

Thanks heaven for solar energy!

Cheers, James Arthur

What's actually frightening is the damage that the whole climate hysteria thing will do to "science" and to scientists.

People are noticing that crop yields are going up, hurricanes are not trashing the USA, it still snows in winter, and the West Side Highway is not under water.

Let's use nukes.

As long as everyone has to buy the seed from Monsanto...

e:

eenhouses for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

st case, and pull out any that show up.

fine if you want to grow stuff you can sell at a premium price, but rather expensive for stuff like corn, wheat and rice.

crops benefit the most from more CO2?

an idiot like you and the Greenpeace nutcase focus on CO2 is good for plan t growth, you neglect the other essential ingredients that are adversely af fected like soil moisture availability and temperature. Agricultural produc tion in many areas will fall drastically as many crops cannot withstand bei ng beat to death by direct sunlight at high temperatures and low to zero so il moisture conditions. The USDA has studied this extensively, and they KNO W what to expect. We're seeing it unfold right now.

yield

ality-report.pdf

e,

rt,

to

an

loods, drought and pests would harm food yields and concluded, for example, that cranberry production may no longer be possible by 2050 in its East Co ast heartland."

ect based on real science. You ignore this because you're an irrational sim pleton who never learned to reason properly, consequently you're opinion is not worth much.

If you cherry-pick your period - perhaps. In reality, someone did a respect able study and found that we'd had enough extra CO2 in the atmosphere for l ong enough for there to be a robust correlation with more numerous "extreme weather" events.

It was all over the web a year or so ago, but you've managed to forget it. No surprises there.

te:

reenhouses for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

rst case, and pull out any that show up.

fine if you want to grow stuff you can sell at a premium price, but rather expensive for stuff like corn, wheat and rice.

crops benefit the most from more CO2?

h an idiot like you and the Greenpeace nutcase focus on CO2 is good for pla nt growth, you neglect the other essential ingredients that are adversely a ffected like soil moisture availability and temperature. Agricultural produ ction in many areas will fall drastically as many crops cannot withstand be ing beat to death by direct sunlight at high temperatures and low to zero s oil moisture conditions. The USDA has studied this extensively, and they KN OW what to expect. We're seeing it unfold right now.

d yield

uality-report.pdf

re,

ort,

to

an

floods, drought and pests would harm food yields and concluded, for example , that cranberry production may no longer be possible by 2050 in its East C oast heartland."

ject based on real science. You ignore this because you're an irrational si mpleton who never learned to reason properly, consequently you're opinion i s not worth much.

It's been done before.

first with tobacco - the cigarette companies in fact set up the organisatio ns that are now telling gullible idiots like John Larkin that he doesn't ha ve to worry about anthropogenic global warming - and there are enough gulli ble idiots around to make it worthwhile for the fossil-carbon extraction in dustry to spend money on fooling some of the people, some of the time.

It doesn't do anything much to science or scientists - anybody with any sen se knows what's going on - and I suppose it does have the advantage that th e gullible idiots identify themselves to everybody else.

But keep watching this space. Anthropogenic global warming got under way wi th the industrial revolution, about 1750 - but it took until 1983 for the C O2 level to hit 340ppm, and only another thirty years to get to the 400ppm we've got today. It used to be pretty slow, and the effects were pretty har d to separate from the natural climate noise until about 1990, and there's still plenty of noise about for the gormless optimists to pin their hopes t o.

Aren't you nervous about starting Bethe-cycle nuclear carbon-burning going in the atmosphere?

Who knows, you might be silly enough to be nervous about that while denying anthropogenic global warming.

Yet :)

Jamie