Seeing Is Believing: How Do Plants React to 42 Days of Elevated CO2?

Truth is, CO2 levels increasing have nothing to do with global warming

BS!

Now go see:

What the science says...

An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.

The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

So because you were tricked by the thing you seeded you now want all the other mistruths explained as well?

Face it you've amassed a pile a non knowledge on the topic. The answers to all your misconceptions are out there. You would prefer to pretend in an imaginary hoax.

Climategate did your side in.

It really didn't change much. But let's take your side. A police officer gets a speeding ticket. Not all of them and not murder. Well I guess that does all of law enforcement in because as we know according to you a minor infraction by one member of a group is grounds to disregard them all. Let's kill the preists, peaches, reverends, teachers, and cub scout master too since at least one of them is less than perfect.

Sscott, it appears that you haven't looked into the CRU email hack any further than what you could glean from "skeptic" blogs. Two consecutive inquiries have exonerated the researchers and cleared them of any wrongdoing.

I said "inquiries," and there have been. And you're simply incorrect about the second; it was not about "finding the hacker." It didn't go into "why the data were deleted and manipulated" because there has never been any evidence that data were intentionally falsified or mishandled. Repeating the assertion does not make it true.

Oh, the credulity with which "skeptics" approach such blog articles. Never mind that the "Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA)" turns out to be nothing more than propaganda from a "think tank" linked to Putin (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100020210/climategate-why-the-russians-experts-might-not-have-our-best-interests-at-heart/), and in fact the Hadley Centre doesn't even pick and choose which stations to use:

The World Meteorological Organisation chooses a set of stations evenly distributed across the globe and provides a fair representation of changes in mean temperature on a global scale over land. We don't pick them so we can't be accused of fixing the data.

But even though the claims from that article you linked have been thoroughly debunked for several months, they still linger in the conservative blogosphere, apparently.

sscott

Anyone can post links. When you can answer the questions I posed above in 1.5, then we'll talk. Here's a link for you.

So you post illogical questions and then because nobody answers them, assume climate change is a hoax? Delusional. Your questions are the problem.

Tell me, how did the last Ice age end, and how did man cause it?

The question is irrelevant. Nobody ever claimed humans had an impact on any ice age starting or ending. It's a bad question.

And then Explain what happened to the glaciers in the Northern portion of the US.

What glaciers? From what period of world history? And how do glaciers in the Northern United States have anything to do with humans speeding up climate change?

Then explain how the Vikings were able to make wine in Norway in the 9th century. When Grapes can not be grown on that scale now.

No, 1st you need to explain what your point is, and give references to validity, before you expect anyone to debunk a debatable "fact".

Green house operators have been pumping CO2 into their structures for decades to speed growth and increase plant size, so what? Is this what we should do to the whole planet? This whole line of thought isn't even a good rationalization!

A recent three-year study does contradict some of the assumptions in the logic above : "researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change – namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil."

Just because it's better for plants (in the short-run) doesn't lead to the conclusion that it's better for the planet, is the logic.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I am trying to understand the argument being used here (message 2.1, above):

"Truth is, CO2 levels increasing... is a good thing."

Cheesus, I believe that you are correct in your logic-tracing on the avenue of reasoning being employed.

How many farms did the planet support at that time?

What was the impact on wheat, corn, and the other grasses we depend on? (they didn't exist in that environment)

(#9) When you come with some real experiments - other than the You-Dumb-Tube variety - then post them.

RobPlumley, here is an experiment that you can test the AGW claim that the residual heat retaining properties of atmospheric CO2 causes increased temperatures, to wit:

Just build two (2) identical size frameworks, ....... say 20' x 10' x 8' square, .... outside in an area where each will receive the same amount of Sunshine, ....... out of 1/2" plastic pipe, .... place temperature sensors inside of them, .........cover them "air tight" with 4 mil clear plastic sheeting ...... and when the night time temperatures in both stabilizes and reads the same, ........ then at 3 AM inject enough CO2 in one of them to increase the 385+- ppm of CO2 to say 700 ppm.

Then record the temperatures in each structure ...... and again every hour on the hour (or every half hour, or ten minutes) ....... for the next 24 hours.

And if CO2 is the "global warming" gas that all the proponents of AGW claims it is, then when the Sun rises in the morning and starts shining on the structures, the temperature in the structure containing 700 ppm CO2 ....... should start increasing sooner and faster and reach a greater temperature than in the other structure ..... and when the Sun starts setting the temperature inside the structure with 700 ppm CO2 should remain higher than it is in the other structure up until and past the 3 AM starting point.

And if it doesn't, then the CO2 causing AGW claims are totally FUBAR.

Just to repeat as you continue to post the flawed box experiment.

Take an infrared picture though each box with the background being the same. One will let less infrared light though. You may have to greatly increase the accuracy of the measurement to make up for the difference that your trying to measure and effect in 8 feet that occurs over several thousand feet.

Other guidelines would be the "clear plastic sheet must be clear across all infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths orq your just measuring the heating of plastics.

Another item that could help is putting the air boxes inside a box containing containing no air at all since the earth sits in a vacuum not in a larger atmosphere that would take away the heat.

Next time same can you just cut and paste this in. Thanks.

Is that a joke, SamC? Or do you really deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and you think it's that simple to test?

Then your being intellectually dishonest. Poor conductor of heat as compared to what non-particulate gas? Nitrogen? And of course you don't worry much about CO2 an inert gas compared to gases and other things that want to oxidize.

It is not only a very poor conductor of heat, but we also don't test for it as a hazard, like we do hydrogen, CO, and LEL (explosive) gases. Wonder why?

None of which has much to do with how the greenhouse effect works.

But none of the PHD's, Double PHD's, double engineers, and real research scientists believe that CO2 is much of a problem.

Much of a problem for what, for capturing heat on our planet? None of them believe that happens, or none of them believe it is a problem? Or ever will be a problem?

I'm going to use your words. So, if CO2 isn't a good conductor then it must be a good insulator meaning that it reflects the heat back down to earth.

I mean like it was said in 9.7 that's not really how it works anyhow but using your terms I still can't see how your own words are proving your point.

insulator meaning that it reflects the heat back down to earth.

That is exactly what CO2 does, and the reason it is a problem. It's less like a jacket holding warmth in and more like a mirror reflecting warmth back toward the earth.

You seem quite intelligent, sscott, can't deny that, and you seem reasonable as well even though that was not my 1st impression, and I apologize for that. But I have to ask, what ultimately is your point?

Do you believe the planet is not heating up more rapidly than should be "natural"? Do you believe burning fossil fuels have no impact upon the environment, positive or negative? Do you believe humans cannot, regardless of their actions, have an impact upon our planet? etc.

I'm just looking for the end goal in this conversation.

Not necessarily. Just because something is not a good heat conductor, that doesn't make it a reflector.

Heat is in many different forms as well. Different gases pass different spectrums of light at different rates.

Precisely.

One of the lab researchers said that from his experience with GC's, that other gases in the atmosphere are far more likely to cause problems, especially Dihydrogen monoxide.

Then your lab researcher friend doesn't know much about the global system (which is not surprising, since it's not his field). I've said it multiple times here already, say it with me now: water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, but water vapor acts as a feedback, not a forcing.

it also is not much of a problem in the minute quantities that are in the atmosphere, and the atmosphere has had much more CO2 in it historicaly than it does now.

Millions of years ago, yes. Not particularly relevant to out current situation.

Sscott, I don't think everyone got the Dihydrogen monoxide joke. that's so sad. It's ok, I saw it - props to you.

So one graph, from one location in the world that shows a steadily increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is your argument against climate change?

Your reply would have been just as pertinent to the discussion if you had said my argument was "against the Boll Weavel eating up the cotton crop".

Actual climate change and the claims of Global Warmingists are as different as kumquats and jellybeans.

I provided the scientific evidence ...... now counter it big boy.

It's been explained to you before. CO2 from all sources is reabsorbed. Man-made CO2 isn't different from natural sources. The issue is that the earth is not absorbing all of what is emitted so the leftover is still there.

You basically asked why every single molecule of CO2 isn't still floating around. 60% isn't. It's the 40% that does that is the issue.

Here ya go, big boy:

• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.

• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

LINK

The entire global warming theory, unlike your argument, does not hinge solely upon CO2 levels as detected from Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii.

No, this is not quite true.

YADA, …. YADA, ….. YADA, ….. straight from the horse’s mouths, to wit:

Human activity—from coal-fired power plants to car tailpipes—is responsible for nearly 30 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide wafting into the atmosphere yearly. We know that roughly 15 billion metric tons remains in the atmosphere for a century or more. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nasas-new-carbon-satellite

and ..

Every year humans add over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by these processes, and it is up thirty percent since 1750 http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

SamC, if you take the time to read that first article you linked, it's all about how climate researchers know that most of the added carbon is being absorbed. Even the portion you quoted says that only half remains in the atmosphere, and researchers are quoted later saying that a net of only 4 billion tons/year is added.

So Belfrey, the rule for "The New Age Science" is ....

One should ignore and disregard all mistakes, errors, exaggerations, false claims, lies, distortions, mathematical errors and/or any other verbiage that might distort or negate any claims made by the authors of any studies, scientific papers and/or reports ...... and only consider the verbiage therein that is or might be accurate or true and which confirms and/or substantiates the claims, assertions and guesses of said author(s) of said paper ...... even if said claims, assertions and guesses are based in/on the aforementioned items that one must ignore and/or disregard.

Whatever turns their crank.

I would suggest taking articles in popular media sources with a grain of salt, and looking at what climate researchers themselves say. Science reporting is notoriously terrible.

We would appear to be on a temperature upswing from an ice age about 20,000 years ago. That means our temperatures (without human interactions) will probably get warmer for about 30,000 years, and then cool off for 50,000 years.

It's not quite that simple. If you look at the evidence from ice cores, the temperature variation isn't like a nice sine curve, gradually reaching regular peaks and valleys. The changes often have involved relatively rapid increases from a glacial low, sometimes followed by relatively stable warm periods, followed by gradual decline into a glacial period, which sometimes remained for some time. The last glacial period ended about 11-12,000 years ago, and was followed by a quite rapid rise in temperature to a relatively stable maximum by about 9,000 years ago. So, it's simply not true that we've been in a state of steady increase since the last glacial period.

Based on the Milankovitch cycle (which is also more complex than you're making out), the next glacial period has been predicted variously to be 23-50,000 in the future.

(#13) We would appear to be on a temperature upswing from an ice age about 20,000 years ago. That means our temperatures (without human interactions) will probably get warmer for about 30,000 years, and then cool off for 50,000 years.

Belfrey, it is silly of you to criticize the above statement, check the following cited Graph, to wit:

Antarctica Ice Core Data to 400K years BP – Temperature and CO2

http://www.fcpp.org/images/publications/ME036%20Graph%201.jpg

Belfrey, it is silly of you to criticize the above statement, check the following cited Graph, to wit:

Antarctica Ice Core Data to 400K years BP – Temperature and CO2

http://www.fcpp.org/images/publications/ME036%20Graph%201.jpg

Yes, I suggest that you look carefully at that graph, specifically the part leading up to the present. It shows that the temperature has not been steadily increasing from an ice age for 20,000 years, but rather has been at a relatively steady high for approximately 10K years, after a rapid increase from a relatively stable low. It's hard to see because in a graph with a 400K+ time period it gets a bit squashed. Here, I just made a graph of the last 30K years from the Vostok temperature data:

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj182/BelfreyE/Vostok30K.jpg

As you can see, the often-repeated claim that we've been in a constant warming trend since the last glacial period is simply not true.

I just made a graph of the last 30K years from the Vostok temperature data:

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj182/BelfreyE/Vostok30K.jpg

As you can see, the often-repeated claim that we've been in a constant warming trend since the last glacial period is simply not true.

Belfrey, maybe you had better check this graph and accompany verbiage out, where you can also see the relationship between temperature and CO2, wherein the atmospheric CO2 ppm increase ALWAYS lags behind the increase in temperature.

http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=374569

Belfrey, maybe you had better check this graph and accompany verbiage out, where you can also see the relationship between temperature and CO2, wherein the atmospheric CO2 ppm increase ALWAYS lags behind the increase in temperature.

Yes, that's correct - CO2 is not thought to be the primary factor driving climate change during previous glacial cycles, but rather acted as a long term feedback. The difference between then and now is that we now have a widespread brainy ape species that's actively releasing massive amounts of geologically sequestered carbon.

(#13.6) Yes, that's correct - CO2 is not thought to be the primary factor driving climate change during previous glacial cycles, but rather acted as a long term feedback. The difference between then and now is that we now have a widespread brainy ape species that's actively releasing massive amounts of geologically sequestered carbon.

AAAWWW, Belfrey, ..... why do you people persist in averting both your eyes and your minds to the Scientific FACTS when they are put right in front of your eyeballs and explained to you?

There is hardly any difference in the plotted data on the graph for the 20k start of the Current Interglacial Period, that can be seen by clicking here, …… and any of the other four (4) past Interglacial Periods 20k starts, and which all five (5) can be seen by clicking this.

And Belfrey, even a bald headed blind man with his big toe missing on his left foot can see from the graphical data of both pictured graphs that CO2 does not play any part in any long term temperature feedback.

Belfrey, the ocean, permafrost and waste biomass are the primary entities that play a role in “long term feedback” and it is CO2 that they “feedback” to the atmosphere when their temperature starts increasing.

Whenever their temperature increases: the oceans and lakes outgas CO2, ….. the permafrost melts and its biomass starts decaying and thus outgases CO2 …… and the decay rate or rotting of waste biomass increases with the increase of temperature and thus CO2 outgasing increases.

And Belfrey, every mother and most little school children knows that just because the air temperature gets up to 80 or 90 degrees the 1^st of April they can’t go jump in the Swimming Pool. They are smart enough to know that the water in the Swimming Pool will not warm up enough to swim in until maybe the 1^st of or middle of June and doesn’t get really warm until July. And that my friend is the reason for the atmospheric CO2 “lag” behind any increase in air temperatures.

There is hardly any difference in the plotted data on the graph for the 20k start of the Current Interglacial Period, that can be seen by clicking here, …… and any of the other four (4) past Interglacial Periods 20k starts, and which all five (5) can be seen by clicking this.

Yes, like I said, CO2 is not considered to be a primary factor driving climate in previous glacial cycles.

And Belfrey, even a bald headed blind man with his big toe missing on his left foot can see from the graphical data of both pictured graphs that CO2 does not play any part in any long term temperature feedback.

No, that is not a logical conclusion from those graphs. Maybe you don't understand what is meant by "feedback." What that means is that something else caused the initial rise in temperature, and that caused more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere, which in turn amplified the warming.

Belfrey, the ocean, permafrost and waste biomass are the primary entities that play a role in "long term feedback" and it is CO2 that they "feedback" to the atmosphere when their temperature starts increasing.

Whenever their temperature increases: the oceans and lakes outgas CO2, ….. the permafrost melts and its biomass starts decaying and thus outgases CO2 …… and the decay rate or rotting of waste biomass increases with the increase of temperature and thus CO2 outgasing increases.

Umm... yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. Increased temperature caused greater CO2 (and methane) to be released into the atmosphere, and those greenhouse gases in turn amplified the warming.

But in the present day, humans are increasing these greenhouse gases directly, and there are no increases in natural forcings (such as solar inputs) to act as the primary cause, so CO2 is a primary cause now (unlike in the past glacial cycles), not just a feedback effect (although those feedbacks are still expected to occur, magnifying the direct anthropogenic inputs).

And Belfrey, every mother and most little school children knows that just because the air temperature gets up to 80 or 90 degrees the 1^st of April they can't go jump in the Swimming Pool. They are smart enough to know that the water in the Swimming Pool will not warm up enough to swim in until maybe the 1^st of or middle of June and doesn't get really warm until July. And that my friend is the reason for the atmospheric CO2 "lag" behind any increase in air temperatures.

Well, one is temp and one is CO2 diffusion, but in general you're right that there is a lag as the ocean reaches its equilibrium in either case. That doesn't help your case any.

Debating with SamC is a waste of time. See 11.2 and 11.4, etc.

Agreed. Belfrey seems to know what s/he is talking about.

But then, I'm not talking about Belfrey...

I agree that the climate cycle is not that simple, but I'm trying to generalize things over the course of the entire period... and in that sense things have been warming up.

Yeah, there are some plateaus present, and some research shows that we're currently in one. Others show that things are increasing, and still others attempt to show a temperature decrease. A lot of these arguments depend upon the scale used, and that was my main point. The big picture is necessary, and it's impossible to reduce our climate change to the effect of a single molecule's presence (although this may give some leads to other, related changes).

Our climate is a complex system -- and it should be treated as such. Reductionist perspectives continue to complicate an already ill-defined issue, and misinterpretation of data based upon small timescales only exacerbate these difficulties.

I agree that the climate cycle is not that simple, but I'm trying to generalize things over the course of the entire period... and in that sense things have been warming up.

But that would be a false generalization. Things have not "been warming up" since the last glacial period. They did warm up after the last glacial period. This distinction is important, because "skeptics" often try to claim that we've been in an upward temperature trend since the last glacial period, which is false according to all available evidence.

Yeah, there are some plateaus present, and some research shows that we're currently in one. Others show that things are increasing, and still others attempt to show a temperature decrease. A lot of these arguments depend upon the scale used, and that was my main point. The big picture is necessary, and it's impossible to reduce our climate change to the effect of a single molecule's presence (although this may give some leads to other, related changes).

To what natural forcing would you attribute the warming observed in recent decades?

I would cite the primary cause for the massive thermal changes (on the 100k cycle) as orbital variation. See the link above for a more detailed description of this phenomena.

The climate trends may show variations over shorter periods, but the periodic nature that we have observed over hundreds of thousands of years indicate that we will see a general trend of warming for tens of thousands of years. This means very little in terms of what we will see over the next thousand years, and especially over the next hundred years, because there are significant variations in the temperature over the course of the 100k year cycle. It's not a linear trend, and I think many are misinterpreting short timeframes as indicating long-term (thousands of years) trends.

I know some of you don't care what will happen in 10,000 years... but it is through the investigation of these larger patterns that we will come to better understand the impact of our actions today.

I would cite the primary cause for the massive thermal changes (on the 100k cycle) as orbital variation. See the link above for a more detailed description of this phenomena.

I familiar with the Milankovitch cycle effects, and I don't disagree with regard to past glacial/interglacial cycles. However, they do not explain the warming in recent decades, because those cycles have not been in a phase that results in increased temperature in recent decades.

The climate trends may show variations over shorter periods, but the periodic nature that we have observed over hundreds of thousands of years indicate that we will see a general trend of warming for tens of thousands of years. This means very little in terms of what we will see over the next thousand years, and especially over the next hundred years, because there are significant variations in the temperature over the course of the 100k year cycle. It's not a linear trend, and I think many are misinterpreting short timeframes as indicating long-term (thousands of years) trends.

One can also mininterpret long-term phenomena by applying a linear fit to non-linear data and calling it a "general trend."

Marked as advertising.

I don't get it. Al Gore is not a scientist. What exactly do the papers debunk?

That's your opinion. As this thread hasn't done anything to prove humans aren't having a negative impact upon the environment and accelerating the warming process of the planet, I don't believe being concerned for our environment is remotely close to "a hoax. A lie. A flim-flam."

And again, Gore is no scientist, so either a lot of scientists are in on the "hoax", or there might really be a problem. Additionally, is it wiser to err on the side of caution or to say fck it, everything is fine with much evidence to the contrary?

I just do not believe in man-made climate change. I don't think we make much of a difference. Not as much as natural sources like volcanoes. and the skeptics on the site I seeded are scientists, like the ones I work with by the way, that have evidence to support their positions.

I suggest you get over yourself a bit. I'm a scientist who works with scientists, too, but none of us (your scientists or mine) are climate researchers. If you think that the seeded link is somehow surprising or damning to those who study global climate, it only suggests that your knowledge and understanding of the topic is very limited.

Volcanoes can have a cooling effect. but it's temporary. They do release CO2, but the amount is very small compared to what humans are releasing (and of course there are also geological carbon sinks).