Scary CO2

Posted on December 23, 2015 by Tony Heller

photosynthesis-dream-renewable-energy_1_02842012

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

116 Responses to Scary CO2

  1. elcrustace says:
    December 23, 2015 at 3:56 am

    That looks horrible.. That grey CO2 polluting this pure green leef…

    Reply
  2. au1corsair says:
    December 23, 2015 at 4:38 am

    “Where did you get the coconuts?” (Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

    No source for sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide, eh?

    Because obviously the President hates green plants, starving them of fuel like that.

    Reply
  3. Marsh says:
    December 23, 2015 at 4:53 am

    The scary part is not having enough CO2..!! Currently we have near 400 ppm & “if” planet Earth fell to 200 ppm, we would undoubtedly face starvation ; don’t need a hypothesis, it’s a fact.!
    ……………….
    It is not simply Crops taking longer to reach harvest… most would not ripen at all and many would fail to mature seasonally ; those that did, would produce insufficient yields…
    ………………..
    With less CO2, means less Tree & plant life overall.! This means less conversion to Oxygen through photosynthesis & less cleansing of the natural environment.
    …………………
    Most scary part ; many AGW Alarmists actually “think” we should aim for zero CO2 because in their blind faith ; CO2 causes Global Warming? Yet they can’t see the “real” path to extinction.!
    ………………….

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      December 23, 2015 at 4:26 pm

      Martin Smith said @ December 23, 2015 at 12:41 pm

      “…Gates is talking about anthropogenic CO2. He is saying that we must not add CO2 to the system, because the system is in balance….”

      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      AHHHhhh yes another one of the really big CAGW LIES.

      The earth has NEVER been ‘in balance’ there is no such thing.

      The first law of thermodynamics says we can’t get somethin’ for nothin’.
      The second law of thermodynamics says everything tends towards chaos.
      The third law of thermodynamic says the entropy of a perfect crystal is zero @ absolute zero. ( The entropy of the crystal increases as it’s temperature increases with the thermal motion leading to increasing disorder.)

      A system adding and subtracting energy (and matter) can NEVER be ‘in balance’ it can only be striving for balance (and you get oscillations.)

      So when an Alarmist says “…we must not add CO2 to the system, because the system is in balance….” what is he actually saying?

      He is saying ITS MINE and you can’t touch it! WAAAaaaaa, sniff

      http://www.trollsonline.com/storefront/images/nyform/nyform_troll_048.jpg

      Reply
  4. JPinBalt says:
    December 23, 2015 at 7:35 am

    I would have to find the paper, but if remember correctly, and pretty sure correct, as opposed to an identical rise, something like a fall of CO2 by 100 ppm would wipe out 1/3 out all plant life on planet Earth, obviously leading to mass starvation and devastation on a massive scale. Biomass has increased with CO2. There has been a massive increase in crop yields per acre partly attributed to rise in CO2 [IPCC agriculture assessments are opposite and joke.] I would rather have a 100 ppm increase in CO2 than 100 ppm decrease any day. [And as far as theoretic effect on temperature, logarithmic as wavelength absorption band gets saturated, thus an increase in CO2 does little to heat planet, but a decrease would do much relatively to cool, and in any case a warming would be beneficial, a cooling would lead to devastation just like 70s ice age scare, ditto same prefer benevolent of beneficial increase in CO2, can I grow grapes in London like 1000 years ago when warmer than today?]

    All those green political adherents who think CO2 is anti-green and results in deserts burning up planet should have brains examined for something green growing there which replaced the gray matter, but guess they do not know much beyond what BS lies politicians, or NYT, or Guardian, et al, tells them. On their green minds is to “save” planet and be environmentally conscious, but guess the blind green feel good dopamine rush with pathological altruism destroyed their gray matter. It is completely the absolute opposite, more CO2 leads to a greener planet.

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      December 23, 2015 at 9:55 am

      Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California.
      This is the study that was originally used to lower the level C3 starve at by relying on the ‘New’ Ice Core data derived from air bubbles within the ice cores.

      “…The CO2 concentration found in air bubble and in secondary air cavities of deep Vostok and Bryd cores range from 178 and 296 ppm…

      According to Barnola et al (1987) the level of CO2 in the global atmosphere during many tens of thousands of years spanning 30,000 to110,000 BP were below 200ppm. If this were true then the growth of C3 plants should be limited at the global scale because their net Photosynthesis is depressed as CO2 concentration in air decreases to less than about 250ubar (less than about 250ppmv)(McKay et al 1991) This would lead to the extinction of C3plant species . This has however not been recorded by paleobotanists (Manum 1991). http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf

      The ice core analysis method switched from an analysis of the WHOLE SAMPLE to analysis of the CO2 left in the air bubble. This newer method gives much lower CO2 numbers. that do not agree with the older numbers or with the plant stomata data. SEE: link

      Stomata data by Wagner, Aaby and Visscher prove conclusively that the ice core data is seriously in error. The ice core data can be corrected using J.J.Drake’s correlation, the profile does not change but the ppm values do so the analysis is still valid.
      http://www.pnas.org/content/99/19/12011.full.pdf

      In general the stomata research totally destroys the ice core data

      A decade ago when I first comment on this there was a Peer-reviewed paper saying C3 plants starve below 200 ppm. It was of course removed from the internet.

      So now we have to go to the people who know and depend on the truth – FARMERS (Farmers overwhelmingly think CAGW is organic fertilizer. Iowa State Univ polled nearly 5,000 farmers. 66 % believed climate change is occurring, but only 41 percent believed humans bore any part of the blame for global warming, thus 75% rejected CAGW. Other studies show numbers over 80% reject CAGW.)

      Hydroponic Shop

      …Plants use all of the CO2 around their leaves within a few minutes leaving the air around them CO2 deficient, so air circulation is important. As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels of below 200 ppm will generally cease to grow or produce… http://www.thehydroponicsshop.com.au/article_info.php?articles_id=27

      GREENAIR

      As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels – below 200 PPM – will cease to grow or produce. …Plants use all of the CO2 around their leaves within a few minutes leaving the air around them CO2 deficient. Without air circulation and ventilation the plant’s stomata are stifled and plant growth stunted…. https://greenair.com/old/pdf/efs/co2-efs.pdf

      HYDROFARM

      ….With the advent of home greenhouses and indoor growing under artificial lights and the developments in hydroponics in recent years, the need for CO2 generation has drastically increased. Plants growing in a sealed greenhouse or indoor grow room will often deplete the available CO2 and stop growing. The following graph will show what depletion and enrichment does to plant growth:

      CO2 vs Plant Growth GRAPH
      https://www.hydrofarm.com/sites/default/files/co2.jpg

      Below 200 PPM, plants do not have enough CO2 to carry on the photosynthesis process and essentially stop growing. Because 300 PPM is the atmospheric CO content, this amount is chosen as the 100% growth point. You can see from the chart that increased CO can double or more the growth rate on most normal plants. Above 2,000 PPM, CO2 starts to become toxic to plants and above 4,000 PPM it becomes toxic to people….. http://www.hydrofarm.com/articles/co2_enrichment.php

      Reply
      • AndyG55 says:
        December 23, 2015 at 10:14 am

        Everything points to the OPTIMUM level of atmospheric CO2 being in the range say 700-1200ppm.

        As I’ve said many times..

        TOWARDS 700ppm+

        Reply
        • Gail Combs says:
          December 23, 2015 at 11:25 am

          AndyG,
          I would prefer 1500 ppm CO2.

          Remember if the ClimAstrologists (and more importantly Henry’s law ) are correct, when the oceans cool down going forward the CO2 levels will fall. The ClimAstrologists are saying glacial CO2 is ~180 ppm to 200+ ppm.

          A piece of less obvious evidence is while C3 plants maybe able to just barely survive at ~200 ppm THEY CAN NOT GROW MUCH OR PRODUCE SEED! Also the less CO2 the slower the growth and the longer to maturity. During Little Ice Ages or true glaciation this means plants bump up against

          #1. Lower CO2 due to colder oceans and Henry’s law.
          #2. Last frost/first frost problems as the season shortens.
          #3. More stomata and thus more water loss under the drier conditions and greatly expanded deserts during glaciation.

          And the CAGW types never mention…

          …About 85% of plant species are C3 plants. They include the cereal grains: wheat, rice, barley, oats. Peanuts, cotton, sugar beets, tobacco, spinach, soybeans, and most trees are C3 plants. Most lawn grasses such as rye and fescue are C3 plants…

          Moore, et al. say that only about 0.4% of the 260,000 known species of plants are C4 plants…

          Moore, et al. point to Flaveria (Asteraceae), Panicum (Poaceae) and Alternanthera (Amarantheceae) as genera that contain species that are intermediates between C3 and C4 photosynthesis. These plants have intermediate leaf anatomies that contain bundle sheath cells that are less distinct and developed than the C4 plants….
          Systems of Photosynthesis – HyperPhysics

          (Has a nice explanation of C3, C4 and CAM chemistry)

          … these wide grasslands are an extremely recent feature in the region’s history. There isn’t solid evidence of animals consuming C4 plants until a scanty 10 million years ago (mya), and grasslands did not become widespread until the late Pliocene and Pleistocene. This recent birth of what is now a dominant feature of the landscape brings to mind many important questions. Specifically, after C4 plants started to become a food source in the Oligocene, how long did it take different herbivore species to adapt to eating this new type of greenery? Which species were early adopters, and which made the most complete shift from C3 to C4 plants? The process of adapting to a new resource—the relatively young C4 plants—had profound effects on community ecology of eastern Africa, as it provided new ways for large herd animals to both exploit new food sources and partition resources in order to facilitate coexistence and/or higher densities….
          You are What You Eat: Using Stable Isotopes to Trace Dietary Shifts in Ancient African Hebivores

          Also animals have major problems consuming C4 plants. Johnsongrass and other grasses as well as white clover (C3 legume) can be toxic to livestock if stressed. Johnsongrass and its other toxic relatives in the Sorghum genus are C4

          The drawback to C4 photosynthesis is the extra energy in the form of ATP that is used to pump the 4-carbon acids to the bundle sheath cell and the pumping of the 3-carbon compound back to the mesophyll cell for conversion to PEP. This loss to the system is why C3 plants will outperform C4 plants if there is a lot of water and sun.….
          http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/phoc.html

        • DD More says:
          December 23, 2015 at 6:05 pm

          Gail – A piece of less obvious evidence is while C3 plants maybe able to just barely survive at ~200 ppm THEY CAN NOT GROW MUCH OR PRODUCE SEED!

          Under stress the seeds will not even start.

          The biology of seeds can be divided in three important phases: development that includes zygotic embryogenesis, dormancy that prevents seeds from germinating under unfavorable conditions and germination (seed emergence). The transition between dormancy and germination represents a critical stage in the life cycle of higher plants and it is an important ecological and commercial trait. Seed germination is regulated by endogenous hormonal cues and external environmental signals such as water, low temperature and light, which influence whether an imbibed seed completes germination or remains dormant. Seed dormancy, a temporary quiescent state that is observed in seeds from many plants species, prevents untimely germination and ensures plant survival by adjusting vegetative development to seasonal changes in the environment. A dynamic balance between synthesis and catabolism of the abscisic acid (ABA) and gibberellins (GAs) controls the equilibrium between dormancy and germination. At the molecular level, the ABA/GA balance is in part determined by the antagonistic control of ABA and GA on each other through their reciprocal regulation of the transcription of their metabolic genes.

          The ABA, derived from epoxycarotenoid cleavage, serves as a plant-specific signal during development and in response to environmental stresses such as cold, drought and high concentrations of salt in the soil. The ABA also elicits, among others numerous physiological functions, the closure of stomatal pores to restrict transpiration, adjustment of metabolism to tolerate desiccation and cold temperatures, and inhibition seedlings growth. Likewise, ABA represses germination and is presumed to function to stabilize the dormant state. ABA, like other hormones, functions through a complex network of signaling pathways where the cell response is initiated by ABA perception which triggers downstream signaling cascades to induce the final physiological effects. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819511/

          Plant talk – “Mommy told me not to come out until I could grow big and strong.”

      • Gail Combs says:
        December 23, 2015 at 10:53 am

        BOY, I mucked up that formating (need that morning cuppa)

        There is another more subtle aspect to the CO2 starvation level and that is partial pressure.
        Impact of lower atmospheric carbon dioxide on tropical mountain ecosystems

        …. Carbon limitation due to lower ambient CO2 partial pressures had a significant impact on the distribution of forest on the tropical mountains, in addition to climate. Hence, tree line elevation should not be used to infer palaeotemperatures….

        Effect of Low Glacial Atmospheric CO2 on Tropical African Montane Vegetation

        Abstract

        Estimates of glacial-interglacial climate change in tropical Africa have varied widely. Results from a process-based vegetation model show how montane vegetation in East Africa shifts with changes in both carbon dioxide concentration and climate. For the last glacial maximum, the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration alone could explain the observed replacement of tropical montane forest by a scrub biome. This result implies that estimates of the last glacial maximum tropical cooling based on tree- line shifts must be revised.

        Eco Physics Lab PDF

        …While [CO2] does not vary with elevation, CO2 partial pressure decreases in proportion to total atmospheric pressure. Under modern conditions, partial pressures of CO2 at high-elevation sites are 10–30% lower than at low-elevation sites, producing an even more conservative comparison between glacial and modern conditions….

        That means if the CO2 level is around 210 ppm you can kiss trees and other C3 plants growth much above sea level good by and that is most of the earth. Most of our veggies are C3 plants.

        …According to Barnola et al (1987) the level of CO2 in the global atmosphere during many tens of thousands of years spanning 30,000 to110,000 BP were below 200ppm. If this were true then the growth of C3 plants should be limited at the global scale because their net Photosynthesis is depressed as CO2 concentration in air decreases to less than about 250ubar (less than about 250ppmv)(McKay et al 1991) This would lead to the extinction of C3plant species . This has however not been recorded by paleobotanists (Manum 1991).” http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf

        Lower CO2 levels PLUS lower moisture with a boot from glaciation did however lead to the evolution of C4 and CAM plants which use a different but more energy expensive chemical pathway to conserve water.

        Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution

        The Evolution of C4 Photosynthesis

        SUMMARY
        C4 photosynthesis is a series of anatomical and biochemical modifications that concentrate CO2 around the carboxylating enzyme Rubisco, thereby increasing photo-synthetic efficiency in conditions promoting high rates of photo-respiration. The C4 pathway
        independently evolved over 45 times in 19 families of angiosperms, and thus represents one of the most convergent of evolutionary phenomena. Most origins of C4 photosynthesis occurred in the dicots, with at least 30 lineages. C4 photosynthesis first arose in grasses, probably during the Oligocene epoch (24–35 million yr ago). The earliest C4 dicots are likely members of the Chenopodiaceae dating back 15–21 million yr; however, most C4 dicot lineages are estimated to have appeared relatively recently, perhaps less than 5 million yr ago. C4 photosynthesis in the dicots originated in arid regions of low latitude, implicating combined effects of heat, drought and/or salinity as important conditions promoting C4 evolution. Low atmospheric CO2 is a significant contributing factor, because it is required for high rates of photorespiration. Consistently, the appearance of C4 plants in the evolutionary record coincides with periods of increasing global aridification and declining atmospheric CO2. Gene duplication followed by neo- and nonfunctionalization are the leading mechanisms for creating C4 genomes, with selection for carbon conservation traits under conditions promoting high photo respiration being the ultimate factor behind the origin of C4 photosynthesis.

        https://i1.wp.com/jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.jpg

        https://i2.wp.com/jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/65_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.jpg

        Reply
      • Marsh says:
        December 23, 2015 at 11:45 am

        Gail : that’s great info, the only points I disagree with are on the upper CO2 limits.
        ( 2,000 ppm starts to become toxic ) most plant types can handle many times that,
        tests have shown that even 50,000 ppm can be tolerated by some plant species.
        http://www.co2science.org/subject/v/summaries/veryhighco2.php
        ……………………………………………………
        ( 4,000 ppm it becomes toxic to humans ) only under adverse work conditions, the US Navy Submariners go for many weeks at 8,000 ppm as long as O2 is sufficient.
        http://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5
        …………………………………………………….
        I’ve worked with CO2 for many years in Hospitals ; it’s not that dangerous provided that the Oxygen saturation, has not been compromised in the area of breathing.

        Reply
        • Gail Combs says:
          December 23, 2015 at 1:03 pm

          Thanks Marsh.
          There are also reports from Russians that more CO2 will help heal lungs link and CO2 is also necessary for keeping the blood stream buffered.link

          Alkalosis caused by hyperventilation increases your blood’s pH. link

        • gator69 says:
          December 23, 2015 at 1:09 pm

          CO2 Concentrations and Effects

          150 ppm – the minimum concentration below which many plants may face problems to run photosynthesis and stop growing

          180 ppm – the concentration during ice ages

          280 ppm – the concentration during interglacials, i.e. also the pre-industrial concentration around 1750

          391 ppm – the concentration today

          500 ppm – the concentration around 2060-2070 (unlikely that before 2050 as they claim)

          560 ppm – the concentration around 2080-2110 (the “doubled CO2” relatively to the pre-industrial values) relevant for the calculations of climate sensitivity); a concentration routinely found outdoors today

          700 ppm – the concentration in an average living room

          900 ppm – concentration in an average kitchen

          1,270 ppm – the concentration used to double the growth of Cowpea in a famous video

          1,700 ppm – the average concentration in the Cretaceous 145-65 million years ago (early mammals came, plus figs, magnolias, birds, modern sharks)

          4,500 ppm – the concentration 444-416 million years ago (the Silurian dominated by corals and mosses); see other values in geological epochs

          10,000 ppm – sensitive people start to feel weaker

          40,000 ppm – the concentration of CO2 in the air we breath out

          50,000 ppm – toxic levels at which the animals like us get weaker in hours; the value is 5 percent of the volume

          180,000 ppm – the concentration of CO2 in exhausts of a healthy motor; that’s 18 percent

          1,000,000 ppm – pure CO2, just to make you sure what the units are

        • AndyG55 says:
          December 23, 2015 at 1:26 pm

          One of the best “helpers” for asthma sufferers is called the Buteyko Method.

          The breathing action help build up the internal CO2 a bit, and keep it up to a reasonable level.

          CO2 is a bronchial dilator, so the effect is obvious.

        • Gail Combs says:
          December 23, 2015 at 1:44 pm

          One of the side bennies of a simple dust mask for asthma suffers is an increase in CO2 that helps the lungs heal.

        • Morgan Wright says:
          December 23, 2015 at 2:31 pm

          CO2 also helps migraine sufferers. Breathe into a paper bag.

    • Gail Combs says:
      December 23, 2015 at 10:34 am

      There is another more subtle aspect to the CO2 starvation level and that is partial pressure.
      Impact of lower atmospheric carbon dioxide on tropical mountain ecosystems

      …. Carbon limitation due to lower ambient CO2 partial pressures had a significant impact on the distribution of forest on the tropical mountains, in addition to climate. Hence, tree line elevation should not be used to infer palaeotemperatures….

      Effect of Low Glacial Atmospheric CO2 on Tropical African Montane Vegetation

      Abstract

      Estimates of glacial-interglacial climate change in tropical Africa have varied widely. Results from a process-based vegetation model show how montane vegetation in East Africa shifts with changes in both carbon dioxide concentration and climate. For the last glacial maximum, the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration alone could explain the observed replacement of tropical montane forest by a scrub biome. This result implies that estimates of the last glacial maximum tropical cooling based on tree- line shifts must be revised.

      Eco Physics Lab PDF

      …While [CO2] does not vary with elevation, CO2 partial pressure decreases in proportion to total atmospheric pressure. Under modern conditions, partial pressures of CO2 at high-elevation sites are 10–30% lower than at low-elevation sites, producing an even more conservative comparison between glacial and modern conditions….

      That means if the CO2 level is around 210 ppm you can kiss trees and other C3 plants growth much above sea level good by and that is most of the earth. Most of our veggies are C3 plants.

      …According to Barnola et al (1987) the level of CO2 in the global atmosphere during many tens of thousands of years spanning 30,000 to110,000 BP were below 200ppm. If this were true then the growth of C3 plants should be limited at the global scale because their net Photosynthesis is depressed as CO2 concentration in air decreases to less than about 250ubar (less than about 250ppmv)(McKay et al 1991) This would lead to the extinction of C3plant species . This has however not been recorded by paleobotanists (Manum 1991).” http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf

      Lower CO2 levels PLUS lower moisture with a boot from glaciation did however lead to the evolution of C4 and CAM plants which use a different but more energy expensive chemical pathway to conserve water.

      Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution

      The Evolution of C4 Photosynthesis
      SUMMARY
      C4 photosynthesis is a series of anatomical and biochemical modifications that concentrate CO2 around the carboxylating enzyme Rubisco, thereby increasing photo-synthetic efficiency in conditions promoting high rates of photo-respiration. The C4 pathway independently evolved over 45 times in 19 families of angiosperms, and thus represents one of the most convergent of evolutionary phenomena. Most origins of C4 photosynthesis occurred in the dicots, with at least 30 lineages. C4 photosynthesis first arose in grasses, probably during the Oligocene epoch (24–35 million yr ago). The earliest C4 dicots are likely members of the Chenopodiaceae dating back 15–21 million yr; however, most C4 dicot lineages are estimated to have appeared relatively recently, perhaps less than 5 million yr ago. C4 photosynthesis in the dicots originated in arid regions of low latitude, implicating combined effects of heat, drought and/or salinity as important conditions promoting C4 evolution. Low atmospheric CO2 is a significant contributing factor, because it is required for high rates of photorespiration. Consistently, the appearance of C4 plants in the evolutionary record coincides with periods of increasing global aridification and declining atmospheric CO2. Gene duplication followed by neo- and nonfunctionalization are the leading mechanisms for creating C4 genomes, with selection for carbon conservation traits under conditions promoting high photo respiration being the ultimate factor behind the origin of C4 photosynthesis.
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.00974.x/pdf

      http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.jpg

      http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/65_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.jpg

      Reply
    • AndyG55 says:
      December 23, 2015 at 8:10 am

      “Ultimately, a grasp of geologic controls on oxygen levels can help us understand whether animal-like life might exist or not on Earth-like planets elsewhere.””

      And to maintain those oxygen levels you absolutely MUST be able to sustain the food supply and CO2.

      Earth has been very low on CO2 for a very long time.

      More atmospheric CO2 is absolutely needed if the world is to continue to support life on this planet.

      Reply
      • Gail Combs says:
        December 23, 2015 at 12:08 pm

        Plant endothermic photosynthesis requires 15MJ of energy (sunlight) for every kilogram of glucose that is produced:

        sunlight + 6CO2(g) + H2O(l) = C6H12O6(aq) + 6O2(g)

        Notice that OXYGEN is a waste byproduct of photosynthesis.

        Reply
  7. gator69 says:
    December 23, 2015 at 9:34 am

    I first tried this experiment back in 1977 with soybean plants, and the results are always the same, more CO2 equals larger healthier plants that use less water.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE&feature=player_embedded

    It is clear that our flora are now in a state of near starvation, and that we have never seen healthy forests, as they are malnourished and sickly like concentration camp survivors. If leftists really cared about the planet, they would love CO2.

    Reply
  8. Ted says:
    December 23, 2015 at 10:21 am

    Tony-

    You have your chart labeled wrong. We all know the energy comes from CO2, not the sun. If you’d submitted it for peer review, I’m sure that error would have been corrected.

    Reply
  9. Jon says:
    December 23, 2015 at 10:46 am

    Any source you remember for “many AGW Alarmists actually “think” we should aim for zero CO2” ?

    Reply
    • Marsh says:
      December 23, 2015 at 12:21 pm

      Jon : there’re many sources “if you cared to look” a good one is Bill Gates presenting & referring to Scientists that believe that Zero CO2 is required to stop Global Warming.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUEza10beMY
      …………………………………………………………
      You will find at 3 minutes in,,, Gates makes a complete fool of himself & then repeats this act of stupidity just to make certain; it’s not a mistake, he’s talking like a moron.
      ………………………………………………………….
      The subject of Global Warming is one thing, but to imply or suggest in any way, that Planet Earth could support human kind with near Zero CO2 is beyond stupid..! But there you have it; an AGW advocate, half brilliant in one sense; a halfwit in the other…
      And yes Jon & Martin ; Only a Warmist could be so divorced from reality..!

      Reply
      • Martin Smith says:
        December 23, 2015 at 12:41 pm

        Marsh, you can’t be serious. Gates is talking about anthropogenic CO2. He is saying that we must not add CO2 to the system, because the system is in balance. No one says we should remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere. No one has ever said that.

        Reply
        • gator69 says:
          December 23, 2015 at 12:41 pm

          Martin Smith says:
          December 23, 2015 at 12:19 pm
          Now that you have prevented me from posting, I will take my leave.

          Liars lie.

        • AndyG55 says:
          December 23, 2015 at 1:18 pm

          The system is NOT in balance.. It is still very low on CO2.

          All data shows that the biosphere functions optimally around 700-1200 ppm, and is stunted below those values.

          If you knew ANYTHING about biology, horticulture, plant growth and anatomy, you would know this.

          But like in everything else… YOU ARE IGNORANT.!!

        • Marsh says:
          December 23, 2015 at 1:49 pm

          Martin : The CO2 in atmosphere is approx .04% and is in flux,, it is not fixed and to suggest Zero in a gain context makes “no sense” without a base value to reference…
          What was intended & said, are two different things; either way it’s nonsense at best.

        • Terry says:
          December 23, 2015 at 3:55 pm

          You are scaring the children Martin, please stop!

      • Jon says:
        December 23, 2015 at 11:17 pm

        Thanks Marsh

        Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      December 23, 2015 at 12:53 pm

      Usually it is conversations with ditzy emotive ignorant idiots.

      Here is some of these Ditzy Dudes in action
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

      Cancun COP16 attendees (U.N. Delegates) also fell for it
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzZ_Zcp4PwY

      As did ALISO VIEJO, Calif. City officials

      Reply
  10. Jon says:
    December 23, 2015 at 10:47 am

    PS I find it hard to believe anyone could be that moronic.
    On the other hand …

    Reply
    • Martin Smith says:
      December 23, 2015 at 10:58 am

      Just read the comments on this blog for a while.

      Reply
      • David A says:
        December 23, 2015 at 12:03 pm

        .Martin, you appeared on Q, (see the comment above you) (-;

        Please show the ability to articulate in summary the arguement you link to. I likely know the assertion you are linking to, and it is easily rebutted, but if you are incapable of either summarizing a link, and also demonstrate a complete inability to read or comprehend the post and comments preceeding yours, then your gratuitous general insult and link without summary or comprehension make your communication worthless, dead air.

        Reply
      • gator69 says:
        December 23, 2015 at 12:33 pm

        A little self promotion there Marty?

        Reply
      • AndyG55 says:
        December 23, 2015 at 1:19 pm

        Yep.. just read Mrtin’s comments..

        They will show you just how IGNORANT and MORONIC one person can actually be.

        Reply
  11. Martin Smith says:
    December 23, 2015 at 11:00 am

    Before posting on the topic of CO2 levels vs vegetation, you should do some research. Here is probably the best place to start: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

    Reply
  12. Martin Smith says:
    December 23, 2015 at 12:19 pm

    Now that you have prevented me from posting, I will take my leave.

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      December 23, 2015 at 1:15 pm

      Martin Smith says@ December 23, 2015 at 12:19 pm

      “Now that you have prevented me from posting, I will take my leave.”

      ……………..

      AWWWwwwww Poor wittle baby…

      You have been posting with abandon today and especially yesterday and you obviously just posted that.

      No doubt WordUnimpressed booted his comment into the ether as it has done to mine on several occasions (like yesterday) and at different websites.

      I haven’t been able to post a link to John Kehr’s site for over a year.

      Reply
    • AndyG55 says:
      December 23, 2015 at 1:23 pm

      Slimy grub of a goreboy…., go wipe your slime somewhere else.

      Reply
      • Gail Combs says:
        December 23, 2015 at 2:12 pm

        It occurs to me that since we all voted to keep Marty the Gorebot around less that 24 hrs ago for the entertainment value. AND because he is such a classic example of a no-nothing Alarmist to holdup as an example, Climate Alarmism Central decided to yank him.

        Climate Alarmism Central actually does exist. It is part of the Aspen Global Change Institute.

        The Aspen Global Change Institute is a United Nation project though they would never say that.

        Dr. Noel Brown is the former Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, North American Office. After receiving a Ph.D from Yale University, he became an organizer of the Stockholm Conference for the Environment in 1972. Dr. Brown is the President of the Friends of the United Nations, a fellow of the World Academy of Arts and Sciences, a founding member of the Aspen Global Change Institute and Chairman of the International Institute for Peace through Tourism. He also serves in the Board of Directors of the Climate Institute. Dr. Brown teaches environmental policy at the Elizabeth Mann Borghese Dalhousie Marine Institute in Canada.
        (wwwDOT)usacor.org/biographies/

        The actual name of Climate Alarmism Central is Climate Communication.

        Climate Communication is a non-profit science and outreach project supported by grants, including from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Climate Communication operates as a project of the Aspen Global Change Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to furthering the scientific understanding of Earth systems and global environmental change…
        http://www.climatecommunication.org/who-we-are/about-us/

        WHAT WE DO

        We publicize and illuminate the latest climate research in plain language, making the science more accessible to the public and policy makers.

        Examples include our primer on climate change and our feature on extreme weather and its connections to climate change. We’ve also released a report on heat waves and climate change.
        ? We Assist Journalists
        We Support Scientists ?

        And guess who is on the staff of Climate Communication?

        Peter Gleick
        Katharine Hayhoe
        Michael Mann
        Jeff Masters
        Michael Oppenheimer
        Naomi Oreskes
        Jonathan Overpeck
        Benjamin Santer
        Kevin Trenbreth
        Don Wuebbles

        To name just a few.
        >>>>>>>>>>>

        How did I find this connection? You will die laughing – From Trojan Horse Judith Curry’s website. Her business partner is Peter Webster

        This is a few pieces but I suggest reading the whole comment of manacker

        manacker | September 14, 2011 at 1:18 pm |

        Who is “Climate Communication” and what are the organization’s mission, goals and objectives?

        CLIMATE COMMUNICATION IS…
        …dedicated to improving public understanding of climate change.

        We combine expertise in climate science with excellence in communication

        “Excellence in communication” = good PR (propaganda)

        ….How did the ClimateWorks Foundation start? Who was behind it? The ClimateWorks Foundation emerged from a study commissioned by six foundations: the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Energy Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and the Oak Foundation. The 2007 study “Design to Win: Philanthropy’s Role in the Fight Against Global Warming” (pdf), sought to answer a critical question: What would it take to achieve a real “win” in the battle against climate change? The authors of Design to Win interviewed more than 150 of the world’s leading experts on energy, climate change, and forests to identify the top priorities for avoiding dangerous climate change. Using cost curves and other research, the Design to Win analysts ranked investments by their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and their ability to prevent the “lock-in” of long-lived, carbon-intensive infrastructure. The ClimateWorks Foundation was built on the principles identified in the Design to Win study and launched in 2008 with the support of three foundations: the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and the McKnight Foundation. (Learn more about the founding story of the ClimateWorks Foundation at: http://www.climateworks.org/about/our_history/)

        http://www.myphilanthropedia.org/top-nonprofits/bay-area/climate-change/climateworks-foundation

        From “Design to Win, Philanthropy’s Role in the Fight Against Global Warming ”, the stated manifesto for The ClimateWorks Foundation:
        design_to_win_final_8_31_07.pdf

        http://climatecommunication.org

        OUR CONCLUSIONS
        Our analysis yielded a short list of the initiatives with the most potential to set the world on a low-carbon path. Four overarching priorities orient our investment road map:
        First, don’t lose – the battle could be lost in the next decade.

        Catastrophic climate change – far worse than anything we have experienced – will be unavoidable if we don’t prevent a massive “lock-in” of emissions from new coal-fired power plants, long-lived industrial infrastructure, inefficient buildings, car-centric cities, and irreversible deforestation (Figure 1). The First Rule of Holes: when you’re in one, stop digging….

        Reply
        • Gail Combs says:
          December 23, 2015 at 2:21 pm

          On top of that we have all notice how ‘inconvenient’ data disappears from the internet. Well I followed the trail on internet censorship with COMMENTS STARTING HERE.

          So as usual the Alarmists are accusing skeptics of the actions they are thenselves taking.

          I really do not think, since they are paid or organized by those who are paid, they can conceive of an actual grass roots movement that is not paid and directed from the outside.

        • willys36 says:
          December 23, 2015 at 2:23 pm

          The less you consume leave more for me. Thanx! Proud to say my carbon foot print is very wide and extremely long and I have not slowed down consuming energy one bit. I have a case of 100W light bulbs that will last many decades. BURN BABY BURN!!

      • Andy DC says:
        December 23, 2015 at 4:14 pm

        We have to make a distinction between natural CO2, which is in perfect balance with nature and CO2 produced as part of the evil capitalist system, that enriches straight white males at the expense of everyone else. Even if it is at the same levels as in our past, plants can most definitely tell the difference between pristine CO2 and evil Mann-made CO2! We are all going to die!

        Reply
    • AndyG55 says:
      December 23, 2015 at 1:29 pm

      Cry me a river, child-mind.

      FFS.. you are so PATHETIC !!!

      Reply
    • Paul Homewood says:
      December 23, 2015 at 2:27 pm

      Says Martin, who has apparently been preventing from posting!!

      Reply
    • Latitude says:
      December 23, 2015 at 4:53 pm

      Martin Smith says:
      December 23, 2015 at 12:19 pm

      Now that you have prevented me from posting, I will take my leave.
      ====
      It’s hard to be paranoid about some things….
      …and not paranoid about every thing

      Reply
    • wizzum says:
      December 23, 2015 at 7:11 pm

      Yet again Marty, you simply amaze me. If you are being prevented from posting then how could you post that you are being prevented from posting?

      Reply
  13. Gail Combs says:
    December 23, 2015 at 1:50 pm

    Martin Smith says @ December 23, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    “wow, Stephen. Apparently you don’t know who wrote the analysis. It was Dana Nuccitelli. He’s an actual scientist. Steven Goddard is not….”

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-v4833RhLE_E/Tw22kabjfSI/AAAAAAAACSE/BuGRpVFctFQ/s1600/ROTFLMAO%255B1%255D.jpg

    You really really have to stop believing in your own propaganda Marty.

    …I am a lifelong environmentalist. I testified at my first Congressional subcommittee hearing at age 15 in Kanab, Utah, in support of a wilderness area – very close to the one which President Obama recently set aside. I worked to get the Clean Air Act passed. I worked as a volunteer wilderness ranger for two summers in the Cibola and Santa Fe National Forests in New Mexico. I worked on the Safety Analysis Report for DOE’s nuclear waste disposal site in New Mexico. I probably have the smallest electricity bill in Columbia, Maryland because I am very careful not to waste. I have never turned on my heat or air conditioning.

    I have degrees in Geology and Electrical Engineering, and worked on the design team of many of the world’s most complex designs, including some which likely power your PC or Mac. I have worked as a contract software developer on climate and weather models for the US government. — Steven Goddard

    Reply
    • willys36 says:
      December 23, 2015 at 2:18 pm

      I am a 67 year old petroleum engineer (still working strong) and have dedicated my life to laying down the longest, widest carbon footprint I can afford. Can’t compete with Hussein, Mich, Mrs. Bill Clinton, Algore, SanfranNan, et al, but am doing pretty well. And my efforts support a bunch of evil capitalist Americans and their families. Have to go, need to drive my 13mi/gal hot rod down to Sonic Drive-In, run thru a tank or two of gas cruising the parking lot.

      Reply
      • Ted says:
        December 23, 2015 at 4:31 pm

        13 mpg???

        You must not even running a big block. Or a blower.
        Come on, you can do better than that.

        Reply
        • rah says:
          December 23, 2015 at 5:19 pm

          CW I have no idea why someone would build such a thing. Look at the ground clearance. I doubt one could make even a regular 90 deg turn on that thing and keep it between the lines and the curb on any road that wasn’t absolutely level. Notice the scratches on the frame. I guess at least you can’t lay it down and that’s a good thing because it would take a wrecker to get it back up again.

        • Colorado Wellington says:
          December 23, 2015 at 6:42 pm

          The beat up frame was the first thing I noticed. I thought it would take at least your trucker skills to get that thing turned around. It’s a silly machine and I don’t have a clue why they built it but I am happy they were free to do it. The world would be a better place if all Progressive busybodies*) found themselves a hobby**) and stopped bothering normal people.
          —–
          *) WS, cfxyz, etc.
          **) John Cook could have a Nazi dress-up outfit

  14. willys36 says:
    December 23, 2015 at 2:12 pm

    Don’t forget CO2 dissolving in water forming marble and being mined for fancy floors and counter tops for tree-hugging 1%ers.

    Reply
  15. bleakhouses says:
    December 23, 2015 at 2:47 pm

    Heston had it wrong; CO2 is people.

    Reply
  16. Robertv says:
    December 23, 2015 at 4:28 pm

    More scary stuff.

    ‘Religion’ of peace forbids Christmas.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35167726

    Somalia’s government has banned the celebration of Christmas, warning that such Christian festivities could threaten the nation’s Muslim faith.

    “Those celebrations are not in any way related to Islam,” an official at the religious affairs ministry said.

    Reply
    • rah says:
      December 23, 2015 at 4:34 pm

      Yes but to show you that it is a complicated world Robertv. Here is this from an email I received a few days ago.

      Christmas in Damascus:

      https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12347886_10153856855809604_6744285604048390430_n.jpg?oh=e0e0236b7531267f18ec01bec0af49c0&oe=571C80CD

      Reply
    • DD More says:
      December 23, 2015 at 8:17 pm

      Rob – celebration of Christmas, warning that such Christian festivities could threaten the nation’s Muslim faith.

      Pretty wimpy religion if it cannot stand having a few parties, a Jolly Ol Guy in a red suit, a few presents and a sparkley tree.

      Guess W. Eaton was right – From one of the leaders during the time of “to the shores of Tripoli”

      Eaton’s stark and stereotyping view of Islam and Muslims can be seen when he describes these segments of society as being not only “abject slaves to the despotism of their government,” but also “humiliated by tyranny, the worst of all tyranny, the despotism of priestcraft. They live in more solemn fear of the frowns of a bigot who has been dead and rotten above a thousand years, than of a living despot whose frown would cost them their lives.”
      73 William Eaton, 10 August 1799, 123.

      Reply
  18. omanuel says:
    December 23, 2015 at 7:46 pm

    Merry Christmas and Best Wishes for 2016!

    Global warming is a worldwide scam supported by:

    1. Religious leaders since Copernicus reported the Sun’s dominant control of the solar system in 1543;

    2. Capitalist publishers merging into giant propaganda operations (Nature, Mcmillian, Springer, etc.) . . .

    http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2015/01/nature-publisher-merge-world-s-second-biggest-science-publisher

    3. Communist tyrants, like Stalin and his friends

    http://membercentral.aaas.org/blogs/scientia/interview-father-global-warming

    Reply
    • omanuel says:
      December 23, 2015 at 8:21 pm

      If I had not been such an angry, arrogant fool I might have gotten to the public earlier the information my research mentor – the late Paul Kazuo Kuroda – had risked his life to get to you:

      https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/STALINS_SCIENCE.pdf

      World leaders and puppet scientists retain the illusion of control of the world by denying the Sun’s dominant influence on the solar system and its planets:

      Toth, Peter (1977-11-10). “Is the Sun a pulsar?”. Nature 270 (5633): 159–160. doi:10.1038/270159a0

      Reply
    • omanuel says:
      December 23, 2015 at 8:29 pm

      My research mentor risked his life to get the following information to the public:

      https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/STALINS_SCIENCE.pdf

      The primary objective of world leaders and puppet scientists after WWII was to retain the illusion of control of the world by denying Sun’s dominant control of the solar system and its planets:

      Toth, Peter (1977-11-10). “Is the Sun a pulsar?”. Nature 270 (5633): 159–160. doi:10.1038/270159a0

      Reply
  19. Gail Combs says:
    December 23, 2015 at 7:47 pm

    DD More says: @ December 23, 2015 at 6:05 pm
    “….Under stress the seeds will not even start….”

    Thanks for that link.

    I have notice when reading the Alarmist papers that if you read them carefully they plan the experiment in such a way that they get the results they want. In one paper (I can’t find it) The plants were grown at normal CO2 levels and then subjected to low CO2 levels for ONLY TEN DAYS! And on the basis of that they reported that the plants could survive at low CO2 levels.

    The plants of course had the chance to germinate and store sugar before being subjected to the low levels. Not what I would call a fair trial.

    Reply
    • Latitude says:
      December 23, 2015 at 8:21 pm

      Gail, put this in your bookmarks…….they found the cut off was 220 ppm….not 200
      I don’t know where people got the idea that it’s 150 and keep repeating that….220 stops them

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/pdf

      Reply
      • Gail Combs says:
        December 23, 2015 at 8:38 pm

        THANKS! That is what my old link said.

        Reply
      • AndyG55 says:
        December 23, 2015 at 8:39 pm

        I recall a study somewhere that at 250ppm, stomata are packed as tightly as they can be.

        So the 220ppm cut-off value makes sense.

        Reply
        • Latitude says:
          December 23, 2015 at 8:46 pm

          ..and we’re only 150 over that
          If people had any idea how close we really are..
          Almost over night we could all crash and die…

        • Marsh says:
          December 24, 2015 at 12:16 am

          Yes, remember that Crops in many “arid regions” are barely viable today. Whilst the 220 ppm CO2 maybe the tipping point on a global scale ; many places would struggle with just a 50 ppm drop due to stress… most of the public simply don’t realize…
          ………………..
          Seriously, we would all be better off with 700 – 800 ppm given the world population.!

        • Gail Combs says:
          December 24, 2015 at 12:55 am

          Ya, Latitude, that is what is so freaking amazing. The whole con is really unbelievable when you think about it.

          The livable scale is ~250 ppm to ~5,000 ppm and we are a heck of a lot closer to the starvation end than I really like to see. I would prefer 1500 to 2500 ppm.

          Any HONEST person with training in geology would agree.

          http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

        • Latitude says:
          December 24, 2015 at 1:18 am

          Looks to me like biology had lowered CO2 levels to where it became limiting..
          ..plants etc slowed down to where CO2 uptake ‘almost’ matched output
          Plants were evolving….C4’s

          and we came long and saved the day

          People talk about all the destruction we are doing….and don’t realize what was about to happen

        • AndyG55 says:
          December 24, 2015 at 1:36 am

          When you look at those zig-zag curves from Vostok you realise just how close the world’s plant life came to NOT BEING HERE.

          http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif

          Man’s release of accidentally sequestered CO2 has probably SAVED the world !!

  20. Gail Combs says:
    December 24, 2015 at 1:22 am

    Marsh, I think I just read there has been a 38%?? increase in crop yields between 350 and 400 ppm. The general public doesn’t have a clue about water stress and CO2. Even C4 crops have better water-use efficiency. http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/summaries/c4plantwue.php

    Water Use Efficiency (Agricultural Species) — Summary

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *