A Few Things Ill Considered

CCW – The Earth is carbon starved

Greenman’s latest:



Entertaiing and informative, as usual!

I did not know there was a “theological” debate about CO2 levels in the atmosphere, interesting.

Comments

  1. #1 Tor Bertin
    August 27, 2010

    I’m pretty sure that the “theological argument” he refers to is the misguided idea that humans were placed on the Earth by God, therefore God would not let anything happen that could possibly do them or the world at large any long lasting harm.

    Those kind of beliefs are not only absurd, but dangerous.

  2. #2 Dappledwater
    August 27, 2010

    That Shinkus from Illinois, is a total egg. Carbon starved??. Has he not noticed all the things around him made from carbon?.

  3. #3 Vernon
    August 27, 2010

    Actually, plants are carbon starved for CO2. Why do you think there has been a “greening” of the planet since CO2 has increased.

  4. #4 mandas
    August 27, 2010

    Waiting for the evidence there Vernon.

  5. #5 Vernon
    August 27, 2010

    Mandas,

    Type into Google Scholar “CO2 Plant Growth” and read for yourself.

  6. #6 Ian Forrester
    August 27, 2010

    Vernon said:

    Why do you think there has been a “greening” of the planet since CO2 has increased.

    Once again Vernon is either cherry picking or he does not keep up with the scientific literature.

    Here is a quote from a recent paper:

    Terrestrial net primary production (NPP) quantifies the amount of atmospheric carbon fixed by plants and accumulated as biomass. Previous studies have shown that climate constraints were relaxing with increasing temperature and solar radiation, allowing an upward trend in NPP from 1982 through 1999. The past decade (2000 to 2009) has been the warmest since instrumental measurements began, which could imply continued increases in NPP; however, our estimates suggest a reduction in the global NPP of 0.55 petagrams of carbon. Large-scale droughts have reduced regional NPP, and a drying trend in the Southern Hemisphere has decreased NPP in that area, counteracting the increased NPP over the Northern Hemisphere. A continued decline in NPP would not only weaken the terrestrial carbon sink, but it would also intensify future competition between food demand and proposed biofuel production.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/5994/940

    “Drought-Induced Reduction in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 2000 Through 2009″
    Maosheng Zhao* and Steven W. Running

    Science 20 August 2010:
    Vol. 329. no. 5994, pp. 940 – 943

    You see Vernon, you can’t just make projections for elevated CO2 alone but must allow for the other effects increased levels of CO2 will have. Changes in climate being one effect but not the only one.

    Too many of you deniers live in one dimensional linear world whereas the real world that intelligent people inhabit is multi-dimensional and non-linear.

  7. #7 mandas
    August 27, 2010

    Vernon

    As Ian has already pointed out, just because elevated CO2 may stimulate plant growth, the secondary effects of increased drought is reducing the overall level of plant biomass.

    But it gets worse. Carbon is just one of the elements that plants need. Larger plants need more macro-nutrients such as Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Potassium (NPK), as well as more micro-nutrients. And while some plants may respond by growing larger under conditions of elevated CO2, their available nutrient content actually falls. In other words, the plants are bigger, but we will get less food from them, as per:

    “…..While the magnitude of the effect of elevated CO2 varied depending on the experimental procedures, a reduction in protein concentration was consistently found for most crops. These findings suggest that the increasing CO2 concentrations of the 21st century are likely to decrease the protein concentration of many human plant foods….”

    source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01511.x/abstract

    Or this:

    “…We studied the responses to elevated CO2 and different nutrient availability of 12 herbaceous plant species differing in their investment into secondary compounds. Caterpillars of the generalist herbivore Spodoptera littoralis were reared on the leaves produced and their consumption and growth rates analysed. Elevated CO2 resulted in a similar increase of biomass in all plant species, whereas the positive effect of fertilization varied among plant species. Specific leaf weight was influenced by elevated CO2, but the effect depended on nutrient level and identity of plant species. Elevated CO2 increased the C/N ratio of the leaves of most species. Caterpillars consumed more leaf material when plants were grown under elevated CO2 and low nutrients….”

    source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01319.x/abstract

    So, as Ian has also suggested, stop looking at the world through one-dimensional, denialist glasses, and think a little more broadly about the real issues and real facts of climate change. But of course, as an avid researcher through Google Scholar, you must have have known all that, because you would have already read the papers when you were doing the same research that you suggested I do.

  8. #8 Dappledwater
    August 28, 2010

    Vernon @ 3 – oh yeah right, so all these fat podgers trundling around in society, indicates that previous generations were starved too eh?. Two words – carbon & starved, those were the claims, that’s why Shinkus is an egg.

  9. #9 crakar24
    August 29, 2010

    To Ian and Mandas,

    I assume these studies have been peer reviewed but have they been verified yet? I would hate for any of us to jump the gun on this subject.

  10. #10 mandas
    August 29, 2010

    crakar

    Here’s a thought – why don’t you go and read them, and then check to see if you can see any other studies which confirm or reject the findings. You know, do some reasearch into the subject before commenting.

    Speaking of which, would you care to apologise for your mis-statement about the number of ‘thermometers’ in the Arctic?

  11. #11 crakar24
    August 29, 2010

    “you know do some research blah, blah , blah”

    No Mandas we have already been through this before, you dont accept a study which does not suit your twisted point of view so you throw up the “its not validated yet” excuse.

    Well are these studies peer reviewed and validated yet? If not then i suggest you dont use them as a crutch to lean on in your efforts to shout down Vernon.

    Let me ask you this, will a plant survive without CO2? If not then it stands to reason that as you increase CO2 from 280ppm to 388ppm the plant will be more happy. Yes i agree as you say there is more to growth than just CO2 but just as an amusement answer the question.

    In regards to the Arctic read the other thread.

  12. #12 mandas
    August 30, 2010

    crakar

    “……Let me ask you this, will a plant survive without CO2? If not then it stands to reason that as you increase CO2 from 280ppm to 388ppm the plant will be more happy….”

    Do you really think that by increasing the quantity of just one of the elements a living organism needs to survive, then it will automatically be better off? Come on, even you couldn’t possibly be that stupid.

  13. #13 Witgren
    August 30, 2010

    Crakar,

    Using that logic, we ought to all wear oxygen masks, because we need oxygen to survive and so therefore more is better. Problem is, excessive oxygen can have side effects like seizures, retinal detachment, and organ damage at prolonged exposure. That’s why the FDA is not overly thrilled with the idea of oxygen bars and warns people with health problems to stay away from them – there’s not that much benefit, and those probably don’t outweigh the risks.

    And of course we all need water to survive, but excessive water intake can cause water intoxication or death, caused by substantial changes in electrolyte levels that affect the brain and nervous system. And of course really excessive water intake…well, that’s called drowning.

    More is not always better.

  14. #14 pough
    August 30, 2010

    Let me ask you this, will a plant survive without CO2? If not then it stands to reason that as you increase CO2 from 280ppm to 388ppm the plant will be more happy. Yes i agree as you say there is more to growth than just CO2 but just as an amusement answer the question.

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! More oxygen, salt and sugar for crakar! More!

  15. #15 adelady
    August 30, 2010

    N’, no, no, don’t destroy crakar’s argument!!! I can use it!

    We all know that fats and sugars are beneficial to human physiology. I’ve decided that my diet will now consist entirely of icecream. That’ll work.

  16. #16 mandas
    August 30, 2010

    adelady

    What, no chocolate?

  17. #17 crakar24
    August 30, 2010

    Mandas,

    here is my quote in full

    “Let me ask you this, will a plant survive without CO2? If not then it stands to reason that as you increase CO2 from 280ppm to 388ppm the plant will be more happy. Yes i agree as you say there is more to growth than just CO2 but just as an amusement answer the question.”

    Your doctored quote is shown here

    “”……Let me ask you this, will a plant survive without CO2? If not then it stands to reason that as you increase CO2 from 280ppm to 388ppm the plant will be more happy….”

    Notice the subtle change? By doing this you allowed yourself to ask if even i could be that stupid….it turns out you are the stupid one.

  18. #18 crakar24
    August 30, 2010

    By the way somewhere around here i mentioned the phrase “the precautionary principle” and how you lot have adapted it to suit your needs re AGW.

    I then asked why we dont dont adopt the same principle to being hit by an asteroid.

    Skip was the first to respond by claiming this would never happen and even if it did we would jus hit it with a few bottle rockets (he watches too many hollywood movies) in the end he simply said it was another Crakarism thus he as usual had no opinion and the rest of you lemmings followed suit.

    I could have responded by saying several chunks of rock have ploughed into Jupiter recently but could not be bothered.

    I could have mention the Tunguska event in 1908 but could not be bothered.

    I could have responded by saying Apophis will pass between the Earth and its geo stationary satellites (thats real close)in 2029 only to return in 2036 but i could not be bothered.

    But now we have another large chunk of rock heading our way

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/milewide-asteroid-heading-towards-earth-poses-greatest-threat-yet-scientists-warn-649383.html

    Of course this rock may not hit us but the next one might so as a precaution………

  19. #19 crakar24
    August 30, 2010

    Damn it!!!!! I forgot the punchline, this story has the same apocalyptic scenario as the global warmists own, but missing that vital ingredient for a new mass faith – a narrative of human sin and the punishment to come.

  20. #20 mandas
    August 30, 2010

    crakar

    Wow – way to change the subject there!!!!

    How are you going with your apology for your mis-statement about there being no thermometers in the Arctic?

  21. #21 crakar24
    August 30, 2010

    Once again you only read what you want to hear.

    Of all the thermometers in the Arctic circle how many are used by GISS when calculating the global temp and what is the distance between these thermometers?

    I will answer that for you Mandas, GISS claim the Arctic has warmed by 4C they do this by extrapolating the temp over 1200K’s. Thats like taking the temp in Hobart and claiming it is the same temp 1200K’s further south.

  22. #22 skip
    August 30, 2010

    Crakar:

    You’re actually half right about the “precautionary principle”–a remarkable fraction considering your record.

    The precautionary principle proper, as I understand it, is essentially if it ain’t clearly broke don’t fix it. In other words, we are cautious about changing what we’re currently doing so as to avoid unintended/foreseen consequences of the change. In this sense, if it is the more common one, the P.P. says, in essence, “Be very careful before you start altering your energy budget to address global warming; the cure might be worse than the disease.”

    But we aren’t saying, literally, “Act on the precautionary principle proper.” We’re saying, “Act to avert a *known* threat of *highly likely* negative consequences, especially since the precautions necessary *have to made for other reasons at some point anyway.*

    This is why your ELE meteor analogy is such a dud. The preposterous “bunker” fix is neither (a) the best way to address the problem, nor (b) pursuant to other goals. Reducing fossil fuel use is at least part of the former and definitely satisfies the latter.

    I will confess to having previously misused the expression before, but only because it was the label that a *denier* writer, Lawrence Solomon had used, to describe my position.

  23. #23 crakar24
    August 30, 2010

    From Wiki so take it or leave

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

    Based on this everything i have said seems to be in order.

  24. #24 mandas
    August 30, 2010

    crakar

    You made this statement:

    “…..what is even more alarming is that there is no thermometer within 1200 kilometers of the pole….”

    I have said it before and I will say it again, even though I know you will dodge the issue and attempt to change the subject. We have unequivocally proved you are wrong – I don’t care what it said in the Advertiser. Besides, haven’t I told you over and over again not to rely on newspapers as reliable sources of information.

    So – we know you are wrong, you know you are wrong, how about you man up and admit it and apologise as I have now suggested on several occasions.

    Now, with regard to the precautionary principle, you should actually try and understand it just a little before you bandy it around and use ridiculuous analogies about asteroids. Even though you quoted wikipedia as a reference – which I have also told not to do – I will accept the ‘quote’ from your link as reliable.

    “….In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation….”

    You may note that if you read this, it has a few important qualifiers. Firstly, it says that states shall apply it ‘according to their capabilities’. In the case of an asteroid striking Earth, what capabilities do you think most states – indeed all states – possess to do something about it?

    Secondly, it says ‘cost-effective’. You do know what that means, right? So spending billions of dollars in an attempt to prevent a possible asteriod impact that may not even occur for millions of years is – to my mind and I suspect most people – hardly likely to fall under the banner of cost effective.

    Lastly and most importantly, I am glad that it was you of all people who raised it as an issue. I seem to recall a debate we had recently about the accuracy of models. So tell me in the light of the precautionary principle requirement that “….lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation….”

    That seems pretty clear to me. If we follow the precautionary principle, as you appear to be urging in the case of aan asteroid impact, then we must do something about AGW, even though the models are not perfect. Do you disagree?

  25. #25 skip
    August 30, 2010

    Two questions:

    (a) Have you actually *read* your own link?
    (b) What is your point?

  26. #26 adelady
    August 30, 2010

    mandas

    I was going to digress into important food groups, but favoured brevity. Food groups? I’m sure an icecream diet could incorporate three of the four major groups. Dark chocolate, milk chocolate and crushed chocolate biscuits, no problem. Getting enough mud cake is a challenge for a nutritional expert.

  27. #27 crakar24
    September 2, 2010

    Mandas,

    Why after reading your posts i feel like a naughty school boy and you are the teacher, maybe its the way you expect everyone to conform to your views.

    Firstly i am not advocating will build a bunker every 100 meters in case of an asteroid strike i am just using it as an example of the stupidity shown by some that irrespective of the uselessness of climate models that say AGW is gunna gitcha so just in case we should act now before it (might be) too late.

    Second i did not just get the info about August temps from the paper it was a quote from the BOM in the paper.

    Cost effectiveness, tell me how a carbon tax to reduce our emissions by 5% or from 1.4% of world emissions to 1.33% is cost effective when compared to how much temp drop we will get.

    Thirdly i urge no such thing as to follow any bullshit principles. The PP is simply a mechanism for indecisive morons. You either have the evidence or you dont and you act accordingly. Can you imagine if our judicial system used the PP? It would work like this “well we dont have enough evidence to convict him of the crime so we must let him go”….”but what if he is guilty?, as a precaution i suggest we lock him up and throw away the key…just in case”.

    We can see where the PP got us in Iraq, “we think he has WMD but we cannot find them”…..”he must be hidding them”…”as a precaution we will invade anyway”….”after years of searching we have found nothing”….”yes but at the time it was the right thing to do….wasnt it”. Well was it?

    It all comes down to knowledge, the more knowledge you have the better informed you are and then there is no reason to guess, now i do not want to make light of this subject but i know a couple of women who have a family history of breast cancer and based on the precautionary principle they had the operation prior to being diagnosed “just in case” then along came a test that showed they had no genetic disposition.

    As i said it all comes down to knowledge and at this stage we do not have enough in my opinion at least.

    As i said i

  28. #28 mandas
    September 2, 2010

    crakar

    From your post, it appears that – once again – you have failed to understand the precautionary principle. To state that it is a mechanism for indecisive morons and that you either have evidence or you don’t is – not to put to fine a point on it – fucking stupid.

    You never have 100% absolute certainty about anything. And evidence is just that – evidence. Just because you have evidence for something does not mean it is 100% certain.

    And your analogies about justice or WMD or breast cancer are not relevant at all.

    We do apply precautionary principles in the justice system – but in the opposite way to what you are suggesting.
    We did not invade Iraq because we thought they had WMD – that was just an excuse.
    Those women were right to have an operation. Just because later information changed that means nothing. Precaution is just that – it is never 100% certain and mistakes can and will be made. That’s what uncertaintly means.

    Regarding climate change, although the precautionary principle has its roots in other areas, the real widespread application regarding the environment comes from the Rio Declaration of 1992. Principle 15 states:

    “….In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation….”

    Note carefully what it says. And how anyone can read that and still suggest we do nothing about AGW is beyond me. Is there a threat of serious or irreversible damage? Of course there is. So just because we don’t know everything is no reason not to do something to try and fix the problem – within the limits of cost effectiveness and capabilities.

    Why would you object to that?

  29. #29 skip
    September 3, 2010

    the uselessness of climate models

    is a premise that exists in your mind and like-minded denialists only, Crakar. You will repeat it endlessly; I accept that, and will endlessly chastise you for it–very much like a naughty school boy. You, either through incompetence or design, conflate “unable to predict temperature perfectly” with “useless”. Its another of these dumb premises to which you cling; again, I have just made my peace with it.

    tell me how a carbon tax to reduce our emissions by 5% or from 1.4% of world emissions to 1.33% is cost effective when compared to how much temp drop we will get.

    What would be the point? You’ll simply deny the predicted estimated temp drop, as after all, in your mind the models are “useless”.

    Your criminal courts and Iraq analogies are as poor as your asteroid one, as perfectly illustrated by this true statement

    It all comes down to knowledge, the more knowledge you have the better informed you are and then there is no reason to guess . . .

    Indeed.

    And how does one acquire knowledge? One can deliberately ignore anything contrary to what one wishes to be the case (to the point of plagiarizing phony science in defense of dogma), or one can consult with the *experts* in a given arena.

    The *experts* in foreign intelligence were clear that Iraq posed no threat; how fascinating that it was the purveyors of *fraudulent* information (sound familiar?) in the Bush Administration who led us into the pointless war based on the strategic intelligence equivalents of Lord Monckton and Roy Spencer. (For a really sordid and agonizing read on this subject pick up Richard Clarke’s *Against All Enemies* . . . probably more poignant for an American.)

    Similarly, *experts* in criminal law–the judges and lawyers involved in it–typically understand what constitutes “reasonable doubt” and why it is a necessary standard to surpass in conviction.

    Your tortured hypothetical use of the PP, Crakar, suggests that the PP requires us to *ignore* the best available evidence. In fact it is *your* argument that we should ignore what the preponderance of expertise in the field (climate) says, Crakar. How right and how wrong they are only another century or of science will tell, but the fact remains *you* are on the opposite side of the expertise on this issue.

    In other words, you have more in common with Donald Rumsfeld and a lynch mob that anyone genuinely applying the “precautionary principle”.

Current ye@r *