La Nina

[jdobbin]

Come come dobbin, you commented above on using falsehoods to attack scientists who support GW, now YOU are using falsehoods. Isn't that hypocritical? The Tories clearly laid out their plans to reduce emissions when they punted Kyoto, so your claim is at best wildly inaccurate.

And we've already seen with Dion's approach how high Canadians rate Global Warming issues. If this issue was as important to Canadians as it is to you, Dion would be polling in the 50s.

Dion's polling is a result of Dion and the Liberal party. On the issue of global warming, the poll in support for Kyoto and action on emissions runs very high in support of action.

The right wing here doesn't believe in global warming. Harper himself said he was skeptical of the science. Now, the angle is that emissions controls will be an "an all or none" approach. This is code for not doing anything.

Harper is on the wrong side of public opinion when it comes to emissions.

Edited December 1, 2007 by jdobbin

[sharkman]

No, Dion is on the wrong side, or the high polling on GW issues would bleed into support for the party leader who drapes himself in a Kyoto flag. Harper's more sensible approach is not unreasonable since scientists disagree on GW, since the worldwide warming trend peaked in '98, and since following Kyoto would have put Canada in the poor house.

So do you still contend that the Tories are opposed to reducing emissions?

[jdobbin]

No, Dion is on the wrong side, or the high polling on GW issues would bleed into support for the party leader who drapes himself in a Kyoto flag. Harper's more sensible approach is not unreasonable since scientists disagree on GW, since the worldwide warming trend peaked in '98, and since following Kyoto would have put Canada in the poor house.

So do you still contend that the Tories are opposed to reducing emissions?

Yes. And now with this "all or none" approach, they can say they are working to bring the world to reducing emissions while doing nothing in the mean time.

The vast majority of scientists agree on global warming. The scientists that the right wing puts up are often retired, don't do research anymore or appear to be working as paid flacks for industry.

Dion's problem in the polls are related to his own leadership style and to a continued stain on the Liberal brand from past governments.

[Canuck E Stan]

Yes. And now with this "all or none" approach, they can say they are working to bring the world to reducing emissions while doing nothing in the mean time.

The vast majority of scientists agree on global warming. The scientists that the right wing puts up are often retired, don't do research anymore or appear to be working as paid flacks for industry.

Dion's problem in the polls are related to his own leadership style and to a continued stain on the Liberal brand from past governments.

If the issue is to save the world, and this is what the scientists are saying:

United Nation’s annual Human Development Report

The report sets targets and provides a road map to reduce carbon emissions before leaders of 80 countries hold a UN climate summit next week in Bali, Indonesia. Emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere help trap heat and lead to global warming.

“The message for Bali is the world cannot afford to wait. It has less than a decade to change course,” Watkins said.

The UN report said dangerous climate change would be unavoidable if in the next 15 years, emissions followed the same trend as the past 15 years.

So here we have Japan,along with Spain and Italy who are in the process of buying credits to do their part in Kyoto because they can't meet their targets.

Japan, Spain, Italy Face $33 Billion Kyoto Payments

Japan is reluctant to spend vast amounts to comply with Kyoto as the US has never ratified the treaty and India and China have no obligation to cut emissions. Mr Mitsuhashi said Japan had to think about its own taxpayers as well as the environment.

We have the UN saying 15 years before disaster begins affecting the world.

We have countries looking for "deals" in credit buying,because they can't meet their emission goals,and it could hurt their economy.

We have the U.S(responsible for 22% of total emissions).,China(responsible for 18.4 % of total emissions) and India and none of them are in the picture.

And then you have Dion stating if he was in power he still has time and could come close to achieving the first target goal for 2012.

And how would that be?

By writing a cheque for $10 billion? But how will that cut emissions? Kyoto is all wrong for actually cutting emissions.

Bali is next week and the U.S.,India, and China must get on board if anything of significance will be accomplished.

Harper is right.

[Argus]

Dion's polling is a result of Dion and the Liberal party. On the issue of global warming, the poll in support for Kyoto and action on emissions runs very high in support of action.

Yes, a very unspecified "action" with no price tags, costs, consequences or sacrifices.

This is why the Liberals have been very careful to say absolutely nothing about what policies or programs they would implement, or that would need to be implemented to meet Kyoto, and to never mention costs.

[jdobbin]

And how would that be?

By writing a cheque for $10 billion? But how will that cut emissions? Kyoto is all wrong for actually cutting emissions.

Bali is next week and the U.S.,India, and China must get on board if anything of significance will be accomplished.

Harper is right.

Harper will be not making a major effort to get other countries on board. He is skeptical of the science in the first place and all of this is a diversionary tactic. He will make no real effort to reduce emissions and blame China and the U.S. for the situation.

If Harper believes emissions should be cut, he should be working full out to that end in Canada and abroad. His real intent is to sabotage those efforts.

[Argus]

CO2 Science

Martinez-Cortizas et al. conclude, and rightly so, that "for the past 4000 years ... the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were the most important warming periods." And, of course, we hardly need to note that these conclusions totally repudiate (for this small part of the world, at least) the drastically different claims of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) and Mann and Jones (2003), as well as the "consensus" judgment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, while many other studies repudiate the IPCC's position in many other parts of the world

[bush_cheney2004]

If Harper believes emissions should be cut, he should be working full out to that end in Canada and abroad. His real intent is to sabotage those efforts.

Even if he doesn't believe emissions should be cut, he would be no worse than years of Liberal leadership. Canada is a ranked OECD basket case on such things for people who put such faith in these type of benchmarks:

The results prove that Canada has one of the poorest environmental records of the industrialized countries. The primary finding is that for the twenty-five environmental indicators examined, Canada’s overall ranking among OECD nations is a dismal 28th out of 29.

http://www.environmentalindicators.com/htdocs/execsum.htm

[jdobbin]

CO2 Science

Martinez-Cortizas et al. conclude, and rightly so, that "for the past 4000 years ... the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were the most important warming periods." And, of course, we hardly need to note that these conclusions totally repudiate (for this small part of the world, at least) the drastically different claims of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) and Mann and Jones (2003), as well as the "consensus" judgment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, while many other studies repudiate the IPCC's position in many other parts of the world

A little hard to believe Craig Idso when he takes the position that coal plants are good for crops.

His organization is a major recipients of funds from coal companies and Exxon.

Edited December 2, 2007 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

A little hard to believe Craig Idso when he takes the position that coal plants are good for crops.

CO2 promotes plant growth. I don't think anyone argues this point.

His organization is a major recipients of funds from coal companies and Exxon.

So? How about a scientific counter argument instead of a drive by slur? Edited December 2, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

CO2 promotes plant growth. I don't think anyone argues this point.

So? How about a scientific counter argument instead of a drive by slur?

So, many coal plants and even more increased CO2 and other coal plant byproduct is good, right?

You should do a little homework on the latest research on increased CO2 and growing crops.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov02/plant1102.htm

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/24/13430

A new enzyme, RUBISCO activase, was found to be responsible for converting “inactive” to “active” RUBISCO. And, surprise surprise, this new enzyme was found to be inhibited by higher temperatures and also inhibited by higher CO2 concentrations.

Rubisco is an enzyme responsible for converting C02 into organic metabolites.

The drive by slur would appear to be that increased C02 increases crop production.

You've seen plenty of scientists who have said emissions are responsible for present day warming. You just choose to believe otherwise.

Edited December 2, 2007 by jdobbin

[Canuck E Stan]

And then you have Dion stating if he was in power he still has time and could come close to achieving the first target goal for 2012.

And how would that be?

Anybody have an answer for what Dion's solution today that he seemed to forget to implement while he was environment minister?You, J.Dobbin?

[jdobbin]

Anybody have an answer for what Dion's solution today that he seemed to forget to implement while he was environment minister?You, J.Dobbin?

Yes, he would be working towards the targets instead of questioning the science and stating it was an all or none issue.

[Canuck E Stan]

Yes, he would be working towards the targets instead of questioning the science and stating it was an all or none issue.

And of course the Canadian voter will endorse his unstated method whole heartedly..........so you don't know what his bullshit is either.

[jdobbin]

And of course the Canadian voter will endorse his unstated method whole heartedly..........so you don't know what his bullshit is either.

We know what the Tory one is: reject the science and reject the issue.

[Riverwind]

You should do a little homework on the latest research on increased CO2 and growing crops.

Someone should inform these greenhouse operators: http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/scie...co2_nr5.htm#top

[jdobbin]

Someone should inform these greenhouse operators: http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/scie...co2_nr5.htm#top

Published in 1996 before the new research on the enzyme was revealed. Sorry.

Edited December 2, 2007 by jdobbin

[margrace]

The snow this year is beautiful, it will protect my flower beds from the frost. The cold is great it will freeze the lakes so my husband can go ice fishing. We have well over a foot of snow, I love it.

[Leafless]

The snow this year is beautiful, it will protect my flower beds from the frost. The cold is great it will freeze the lakes so my husband can go ice fishing. We have well over a foot of snow, I love it.

Can't blame this one on climate change.

Only the Great White North can bestow Canadians with an abundance of traditional cold crap.

[margrace]

Can't blame this one on climate change.

Only the Great White North can bestow Canadians with an abundance of traditional cold crap.

Well you don't have to stay here, maybe the southern US would suit you better.

[Guest American Woman]

Can't blame this one on climate change.

Only the Great White North can bestow Canadians with an abundance of traditional cold crap.

It's not just Canada. The NE and Midwest got blasted here in the States. I like the change of seasons, but this rain on top of a bunch of snow crap is making Hawaii sound pretty good right about now. I don't mind getting out an shoveling, but when the street is impassable it makes me cranky.

[ScottSA]

Published in 1996 before the new research on the enzyme was revealed. Sorry.

If you've ever grown plants with added CO2, anecdotal evidence is all you'll need. The increase in grown is phenomenal. Whatever this alleged research claims, it's missing or omitting crucial information.

[jdobbin]

If you've ever grown plants with added CO2, anecdotal evidence is all you'll need. The increase in grown is phenomenal. Whatever this alleged research claims, it's missing or omitting crucial information.

Oh yes, anecdotal evidence is all you need. One of the hallmarks of the anti-science movement.

High temperatures and high CO2 inhibit growth in plants by making the key enzyme in photosynthesis inactive.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov02/plant1102.htm

A plant could end up with more inactive than active rubisco if rubisco activase were to somehow become impaired. In fact, the hard-working rubisco activase can be undermined by certain environmental conditions, namely high temperatures and high carbon dioxide. That's what plant physiologists Steven J. Crafts-Brandner and Michael E. Salvucci have shown. Until now, no one had identified rubisco activase as the culprit that limits photosynthesis under these climatic conditions. Crafts-Brandner and Salvucci did the work at the ARS Western Cotton Research Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona.

[Riverwind]

High temperatures and high CO2 inhibit growth in plants by making the key enzyme in photosynthesis inactive.

You don't tell the complete story: http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11655

However, some plants already have mechanisms for concentrating CO2 in their tissues, known as C4 photosynthesis, so higher CO2 will not boost the growth of C4 plants.

...

The fact that watering a cactus can kill it does not mean that water is not good for plant life. In the real world there is competition between different plant species. If atmospheric CO2 increased, certain "high-CO2 optimised" plants would flourish at the expense of others.

...

1 - as already explained, any upper bounds apply to individual plant species but not to the ecosystem as a whole. C4-photosynthesis plants constitute only about 5% of plant biomass. These plants are relatively more efficient at lower CO2 levels so we would expect them to become even less important as atmospheric CO2 levels rise.

2 - the increase in primary productivity of the ENTIRE ecosystem that we would expect from raised atmospheric CO2 levels would also likely prevent certain species that would have gone extinct from doing so. I would suggest it would be highly foolish to predict the effects on speciation of raised CO2 levels. We don't know even vaguely how many species there are on earth as it is.

3 - the idea that plants better able to exploit higher CO2 will outcompete others (with higher atmospheric CO2) is plausible because it is true.

4 - primary productivity in most photosynthetic organisms results in the fixing of atmospheric CO2 into carbohydrates. This necessarily reduces atmospheric CO2 levels. Higher productivity will take more CO2 out of the atmosphere. It is true that increased primary productivity will spur increased energy flows in the rest of the food chain i.e. Animals, and hence increased respiration rates. This increase in respiration will counteract the tendency to reduce atmospheric CO2 but it cannot override it because energy flows in higher levels of the food chain must be lower than at the base (basic principle of ecology).

5 - this is irrelevant to the question at hand which is: do higher atmospheric CO2 levels PER SE increase plant growth? The answer is yes. This claim is therefore rather far from being a 'myth' as your title suggests.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

You don't tell the complete story:

Higher CO2 level and higher heat inhibit plant growth in places already warm.

From the same link:

For instance, while higher temperatures will boost plant growth in cooler regions, in the tropics they may actually impede growth. A two-decade study of rainforest plots in Panama and Malaysia recently concluded that local temperature rises of more than 1ºC have reduced tree growth by 50 per cent (see Don't count on the trees).

That should scare the hell out of people but I'm sure some people in Canada will continue to say: build coal plants for better crop production!