As atmospheric CO2 has increased, so have crop yields.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Erasing 1921
- “the world’s most eminent climate scientists”
- Warming Toledo
- One Year Left To Save The Planet
- Cold Hurricanes
- Plant Food
- President Trump Gets Every Question Right
- The Inflation Reduction Act
- Saving The Ecosystem
- Two Weeks Past The End Of The World
- Desperate State Of The Cryosphere
- “most secure in American history”
- “Trump moves to hobble major US climate change study”
- April 11, 1965 Tornado Outbreak
- The CO2 Endangerment Finding
- Climate Correlation
- What Me Worry?
- Heatwaves Of 1980
- More Proof Of Global Warming
- Shutting Down The Climate
- ChatGPT Research Proposal
- Warming Twice As Fast
- Understanding Climate Science
- Recycling The Same News Every Century
- Arctic Sea Ice Declining Faster Than Expected
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Erasing 1921
- Russell Cook on President Trump Gets Every Question Right
- gordon vigurs on “the world’s most eminent climate scientists”
- Crashex on “the world’s most eminent climate scientists”
- Allan Shelton on “the world’s most eminent climate scientists”
- Luigi on “the world’s most eminent climate scientists”
- Luigi on “the world’s most eminent climate scientists”
- D. Boss on Warming Toledo
- gordon vigurs on Plant Food
- Bob G on President Trump Gets Every Question Right
“the Gulf of Mexico”: my dear Sir, how archaic!
I propose a compromise that everyone can use: the Gulf of Cuba.
Greenhouses should be so hot, no one could go inside. I see the Alarmists are at it lowering the amount of co2 in greenhouses from 1200 ppm to 1000. I guess some may use 1,000 ppm, but with either number, let’s take Venus as an example, sure Venus has a higher amount of co2, but the amount of w/m^2 is less. Can you believe that in this case clouds affect the w/m^2 on Venus but not on earth??? The temperature in the greenhouse would be hot enough to produce steam. Gosh, free energy! I’ve seen experiments on growth rates with increased co2, I’ve never seen one that mentions temperature or increased temperature because of additional co2. Some years ago, PEI sponsored a study looking for bad things in plants due to increased co2. They didn’t find any, so sad, too bad. I guess the study wasn’t done carefully enough to get the results the Alarmists wanted. I can’t watch the clips on Google or TWC without a full court press on scientists that are sounding the alarm over what they supposedly found because of Climate Change.
This year in NJ, it was cold. People are questioning the narrative. The world temp peaked at 0.96 C above, nothing is said about the 0.5 C drop in a few months. Oh, it went into the oceans, yeah, sure, thermal expansion is a real thing. Somehow, I just don’t see that thermal expansion. How many centimeters are we talking here? Not millimeters.
Alarmists apparently cannot tell the difference between power, energy and temperature, and when it comes to energy cannot distinguish internal energy from enthalpy. Little wonder that we end up with absurdities like a surface heat flow which is 47% greater than that supplied by the Sun. Yes, the ‘greenhouse effect’ creates thermal power from nothing! As ‘irrefutable settled science’ is concerned, it has much in common with the once ‘irrefutable settled science’ of eugenics, requiring similar levels of coercion to force it on to a skeptical public.
I read somewhere that 1400 is the ideal number… the optimum number for a man-made greenhouse on Earth… 1400…. never mind Venus…. if memory serves the planet Mars atmosphere is almost all CO2… but yet cold. very cold. not going to grow any soybeans and corn on the planet Mars