I am of the opinion CO2 effects are not strong enough to prevent an another ice age.
Baccheus is wrong about CO2's effect on plants, an 18yr study on CO2 enriched sour orange trees, found that not only did they grow faster and produce more fruit, but that the vitamin C content was increased, and the leaves contained more protein. http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0SO81TWf...
Plus there is absolutely zero evidence that CO2 will cause more droughts and flooding, that was just an off the cuff remark, and I challenged you to provide evidence and data.
I think the guy was right. Warming to anyone but a warm phobe would be good 95% of the time. When they are inundated by a nonsense and non-science about how bad warming is, it isn't too surprising that some people actually fall for it.
Bacheous was wrong and right. Humans cutting down trees causes some deforestation assuming it is done in a way that is irresponsible. Trees do grow back. It isn't right to suggest our CO2 emissions are causing deforestation. That is baseless
Nitrogen is certainly a limiting factor Jeff but so is water and so are micro nutrients. Just because there is extra CO2 is no guarantee of greater production but just as increased water, or nitrogen, etc is good for growth, so should be CO2 IMO. I fail to see the real point in trying to suggest that nitrogen is limiting the beneficial effect of CO2. It is more like wishful thinking IMO.
Guy Callender was right about carbon dioxide causing warming, but he was wrong about the effects of the warming being beneficial. Any benefits from warming could be gained by moving to a warmer climate. He obviously failed to consider the effect of melting glaciers on the sea level. And so did Svante Arrhenius.
Guy Callender was right that warming would be beneficial. But he was wrong that human emissions of CO2 could actually drive any such warming.
We've had a little NATURAL warming over the last several decades and the result has been Bumper crops WORLDWIDE.
Bumper crops WORLDWIDE has been the result of the slightly warmer weather along with the CO2 enriched atmosphere. (see best answer here for links to bumper crops worldwide) http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
The world is becoming more green.
Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/de...
Tornadoes at record lows:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/20... and http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/i...
Hurricanes also low compared to the past:
http://www.real-science.com/quick-hurric...
Sea level rise is normal, virtually stable sea level conditions:
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2013/07/th...
There has been no catastrophic event during the last 30 years that could be empirically tied to so called man-made Global Warming.
We will miss global warming when it's gone and it's going fast.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/fro...
Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
It's' basic high school biology that given enough light , water , warmth and food the factor that limits plant growth is a lack of co2. It's basic biology guys, verifiable by experiment . Do you geniuses get it , basic --B-A-S-I-C biology. No amount of excuses about nitrogen, excess water etc etc will get you round this basic fact.. commercial growers sometimes increase co2 to 1000ppm.
That's a very annoying thing about warmers, is that even when you've got them bang to rights over a very basic scientific fact they still weasel, twist and turn, try to talk clever and desperately try to keep the lie alive.
Thank god scientific advancement has looked in greater detail at the consequences of what may occur in a warming world isn't it? Of course you could continue living in 1938 if you'd like.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...
As for 'was he right about CO2'. For the most part an increase of CO2 does prove beneficial to plant growth. However, other factors also play a large role which were not factored in to his calculations. Some are still being studied.
http://www.biocon.umn.edu/files/2012/11/...
Edit: JimZ - I guess that is why torrential flooding is good for plants too right? Because more water is good for them. There are many studies showing that nitrogen in an increased CO2 world will limit growth. As stated, it is currently being studied. Various sources state that nitrogen availability will be a limiting factor in carbon uptake. Instead of stating that "you can't see how" how about looking at the studies?
http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/9/...
As stated, though, this aspect is currently under discussion. But not believing in it without at least looking at it is foolish.
One of the causes of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is deforestation. Humans are cutting trees, especially in the rain forests. We are reducing plant life on the planet. So the argument is in part that reducing plant life is good because it helps increase plant life. The net is still a negative to plant life on the planet.
Then there is the argument that increased atmospheric CO2 increases the growth rates specifically of food crops. But crops that grow faster because of CO2 are less nutritious, it does not increase the amount of nutrition available to people. But if there is a slight benefit to crops from CO2 it is far outweighed compared to the strain it puts on water management. More rain in wet areas, more dry in dry areas -- both more flooding and more droughts. That is bad for agriculture.
Yup. But on the other hand, rising sea levels, acid oceans, and droughts are not too good for mankind or the ecology.
yes
