Elevated CO2

[Shady]

Isolated for 42 days in chambers of ambient and elevated CO2 concentrations, we periodically document the growth of cowpea plants (Vigna unguiculata) via time-lapse photography.

Looks good to me!

[waldo]

whaaa!

ok, ok... I hereby designate this thread the official "Shady Pap Smear" thread!

from his friends at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), more Shady Pap Smear:

[waldo]

and more... from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), more Shady Pap Smear:

[Shady]

whaaa!

ok, ok... I hereby designate this thread the official "Shady Pap Smear" thread!

from his friends at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), more Shady Pap Smear:

Just as I thought. You're unable to refute the science. Some may say you're even denying it!

[Shady]

and more... from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), more Shady Pap Smear:

Again, more science denial.

[waldo]

Looks good to me!

Just as I thought. You're unable to refute the science. Some may say you're even denying it!

we can have some real fun here, Shady... how about you start it off - something other than a blind link to a video touting the prowess of CO2 as "plant food" ... perhaps you could also highlight the background of the originators of that video - the infamous Idso father/brother clan of deniers. There's a veritable treasure trove of information we could bring forward about the Idso's... should we start there, Shady?

I expect it's a request you'll scurry away from... since you've yet to do anything other than blindly link to your denier sites or dishonest tabloid fabricators... but how about you surprise MLW and, for once, clearly make/state your case - actually step up and state the specific science you'd like refuted. I appreciate it's a stretch for you to put your own thoughts together, but... really... aren't you even a little bit embarrassed to keep trotting out your blind links without actually adding your own thoughts and interpretations. C'mon, Shady... be proud of your denial - be loud and proud! Make/state your case - actually step up and state the specific science you'd like refuted.

you throw up a blind link to your "Seeing is Believing", Idso denier clan video... and state, "Looks good to me!" C'mon, Shady - would you like a refutation of "Looks good to you!"

[Shady]

something other than a blind link

What's a blind link?

to a video touting the prowess of CO2 as "plant food" ... perhaps you could also highlight the background of the originators of that video - the infamous Idso father/brother clan of deniers. There's a veritable treasure trove of information we could bring forward about the Idso's... should we start there, Shady?

I expect it's a request you'll scurry away from... since you've yet to do anything other than blindly link to your denier sites or dishonest tabloid fabricators... but how about you surprise MLW and, for once, clearly make/state your case - actually step up and state the specific science you'd like refuted. I appreciate it's a stretch for you to put your own thoughts together, but... really... aren't you even a little bit embarrassed to keep trotting out your blind links without actually adding your own thoughts and interpretations. C'mon, Shady... be proud of your denial - be loud and proud! Make/state your case - actually step up and state the specific science you'd like refuted.

you throw up a blind link to your "Seeing is Believing", Idso denier clan video... and state, "Looks good to me!" C'mon, Shady - would you like a refutation of "Looks good to you!"

How about instead of all of that, you actually address the science? I know it's a bit of a change from your usual character assassinating and messenger attacking. But it might be refreshing, instead of constantly skirting the issues with McCarthy-like tactics.

[waldo]

we can have some real fun here, Shady... how about you start it off - something other than a blind link to a video touting the prowess of CO2 as "plant food" ... perhaps you could also highlight the background of the originators of that video - the infamous Idso father/brother clan of deniers. There's a veritable treasure trove of information we could bring forward about the Idso's... should we start there, Shady?

I expect it's a request you'll scurry away from... since you've yet to do anything other than blindly link to your denier sites or dishonest tabloid fabricators... but how about you surprise MLW and, for once, clearly make/state your case - actually step up and state the specific science you'd like refuted. I appreciate it's a stretch for you to put your own thoughts together, but... really... aren't you even a little bit embarrassed to keep trotting out your blind links without actually adding your own thoughts and interpretations. C'mon, Shady... be proud of your denial - be loud and proud! Make/state your case - actually step up and state the specific science you'd like refuted.

you throw up a blind link to your "Seeing is Believing", Idso denier clan video... and state, "Looks good to me!" C'mon, Shady - would you like a refutation of "Looks good to you!"

How about instead of all of that, you actually address the science? I know it's a bit of a change from your usual character assassinating and messenger attacking. But it might be refreshing, instead of constantly skirting the issues with McCarthy-like tactics.

you of all people have the audacity to ask someone else to... "address the science"... something you've yet to do in any manner, whatsoever... in any thread/post, whatsoever. Like I said, lil' buddy... make your case - actually step up and state the specific science you'd like refuted. Lay it out, put it down. Any ole simpleton, like you, can link to any ole video, like you... make a dumbass "Looks good to me" comment, like you.

make your case - actually step up and state the specific science you'd like refuted... dumbass!

[Sir Bandelot]

Aside from this silliness, the question of CO2 and it's effect on plant growth makes me think of two things.

- There should be an observeable effect of accelerated growth of plants, worldwide.

- The easiest, most cost effective solution to reducing or stabilizing CO2 levels should be to grow lots and lots of trees. Remember the hysteria about cutting down great swaths of rainforest?

[GostHacked]

we can have some real fun here, Shady... how about you start it off - something other than a blind link to a video touting the prowess of CO2 as "plant food" ... perhaps you could also highlight the background of the originators of that video - the infamous Idso father/brother clan of deniers. There's a veritable treasure trove of information we could bring forward about the Idso's... should we start there, Shady?

CO2 IS plant food, along with water and sunlight. We breathe out CO2, plants turn it into oxygen. More CO2 means more plants!! This was something that was taught in first year science classes in high school (or in some cases earlier)

[Shady]

CO2 IS plant food, along with water and sunlight. We breathe out CO2, plants turn it into oxygen. More CO2 means more plants!! This was something that was taught in first year science classes in high school (or in some cases earlier)

Very good point.

I can't believe I've wasted my time discussing these issues with apparently a colossal idiot who's never heard of photosynthesis!

Waldo may want to retake grade 9 science before lecturing other people on the reality of complex weather phenomenon!

[waldo]

CO2 IS plant food, along with water and sunlight. We breathe out CO2, plants turn it into oxygen. More CO2 means more plants!! This was something that was taught in first year science classes in high school (or in some cases earlier)

Very good point.

I can't believe I've wasted my time discussing these issues with apparently a colossal idiot who's never heard of photosynthesis!

Waldo may want to retake grade 9 science before lecturing other people on the reality of complex weather phenomenon!

hey simpleton... even isolating the discussion towards plant related impacts... and even excluding implications towards the broader effects of increased warming and AGW climate change... what does your and GostHacked's, "grade 9 and first year high school science class", inform you about the effect of increased CO2 on acclimated plants? What effect does CO2 soil saturation have on plants? In a real world - practical - context, what science exists to convincingly link increased CO2 as a tangible net benefit for crops and crop yields? What effect does increased CO2 have on undesired plant growth among invasive weeds? What effect does increased CO2 have on the efficacy of widely used herbicides? What effect does increased CO2 have on the prevalence of pests? In a real world - practical - context, what science exists to speak to elevated CO2 effects having no effect on pasture and rangeland photosynthesis? Etc, etc, etc,.....

of course, we could also extend this discussion around the devastating impact of elevated CO2 on ocean acidification and it's related ecosystems... marine fauna, corals, etc. Of course, we could open it wide up and speak to the broader effects of increased CO2 on warming - on AGW climate change itself... or... we could sit back and beak off fallaciously about the marvels and magic of, Shady's "CO2 as plant food"!

[GostHacked]

hey simpleton... even isolating the discussion towards plant related impacts... and even excluding implications towards the broader effects of increased warming and AGW climate change... what does your and GostHacked's, "grade 9 and first year high school science class", inform you about the effect of increased CO2 on acclimated plants?

Plants will adapt or die. As has been going on for eons before we humans came to be.

What effect does CO2 soil saturation have on plants? In a real world - practical - context, what science exists to convincingly link increased CO2 as a tangible net benefit for crops and crop yields?

Well the simple fact is that CO2 is food for the plant. Plants cannot survive in an oxygen rich or mostly oxygenated atmosphere. You breath in probably more C02 than oxygen on every breath.

However high concentrations of CO2 is not good for humans.

What effect does increased CO2 have on undesired plant growth among invasive weeds?

*raises hand* Ummm, they will grow?

What effect does increased CO2 have on the efficacy of widely used herbicides?

Actually the correct question is what affect do herbicides have on plants?

What effect does increased CO2 have on the prevalence of pests? In a real world - practical - context, what science exists to speak to elevated CO2 effects having no effect on pasture and rangeland photosynthesis? Etc, etc, etc,.....

The jury is still out on that one.

of course, we could also extend this discussion around the devastating impact of elevated CO2 on ocean acidification and it's related ecosystems... marine fauna, corals, etc. Of course, we could open it wide up and speak to the broader effects of increased CO2 on warming - on AGW climate change itself... or... we could sit back and beak off fallaciously about the marvels and magic of, Shady's "CO2 as plant food"!

Actually that is my line. "C02 is plant food". I just about disagree with everything else shady has posted, but he is correct in this thread. I know I feel kind of dirty defending Shady, but .. there you go.

Let's go back shall we?

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

Photosynthesis (from the Greek φώτο- [photo-], "light," and σύνθεσις [synthesis], "putting together", "composition") is a process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight.[1] Photosynthesis occurs in plants, algae, and many species of bacteria, but not in archaea. Photosynthetic organisms are called photoautotrophs, since they can create their own food. In plants, algae and cyanobacteria photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide and water, releasing oxygen as a waste product. Photosynthesis is vital for life on Earth. As well as maintaining the normal level of oxygen in the atmosphere, nearly all life either depends on it directly as a source of energy, or indirectly as the ultimate source of the energy in their food[2] (the exceptions are chemoautotrophs that live in rocks or around deep sea hydrothermal vents). The amount of energy trapped by photosynthesis is immense, approximately 100 terawatts:[3] which is about six times larger than the power consumption of human civilization.[4] As well as energy, photosynthesis is also the source of the carbon in all the organic compounds within organisms' bodies. In all, photosynthetic organisms convert around 100,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon into biomass per year.[5]

If you want to reduce the amount of C02 in the atmosphere the solution is dead simple. Start planting plants!

Is this stuff even taught anymore?

Edited May 6, 2010 by GostHacked

[waldo]

Actually that is my line. "C02 is plant food". I just about disagree with everything else shady has posted, but he is correct in this thread. I know I feel kind of dirty defending Shady, but .. there you go.

If you want to reduce the amount of C02 in the atmosphere the solution is dead simple. Start planting plants!

Is this stuff even taught anymore?

my gawd! Eureka! Just plant more trees!!! Somehow... somehow... even the most fervent proponents of geoengineering, those hell bent on keeping the status quo towards uninterrupted and increased reliance on fossil fuels... even those guys, don't jump on the, "just plant more trees" solution. Hmmmm....

other than that - other than linking to a wiki reference to photosynthesis... do you actually have anything?

[GostHacked]

my gawd! Eureka! Just plant more trees!!! Somehow... somehow... even the most fervent proponents of geoengineering, those hell bent on keeping the status quo towards uninterrupted and increased reliance on fossil fuels... even those guys, don't jump on the, "just plant more trees" solution. Hmmmm....

I don't think you should be looking towards those guys for any reliable or well thought out solution. It can be that simple. Not everything needs a complex system that only a few can ever make heads or tails of.

other than that - other than linking to a wiki reference to photosynthesis... do you actually have anything?

Yes, I have a suggestion. Learn what it does, then use your brain a little.

[waldo]

I don't think you should be looking towards those guys for any reliable or well thought out solution. It can be that simple. Not everything needs a complex system that only a few can ever make heads or tails of.

Yes, I have a suggestion. Learn what it does, then use your brain a little.

good luck with your just plant more trees brainchild solution. Yes... clearly... AGW climate change is simply nothing but a minuscule irritant that completely overlooks the subtle and glaringly obvious significance of photosynthesis. You bet!

[Shady]

Yes... clearly... AGW climate change is simply nothing but a minuscule irritant that completely overlooks the subtle and glaringly obvious significance of photosynthesis. You bet!

Nice strawman. That was never said.

[waldo]

Nice strawman. That was never said.

oh good - you're back... are you now prepared to specifically state the science you would like refuted? Specific, lay it out - make your case - state it clearly and back it up with supportive study/citation. Go for it.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I read somewhere that elavated CO2 lead to plants being less nutritous, I'll see If I can dig that up.

[Shady]

oh good - you're back... are you now prepared to specifically state the science you would like refuted? Specific, lay it out - make your case - state it clearly and back it up with supportive study/citation. Go for it.

First can you explain a blind link?

[wyly]

I read somewhere that elavated CO2 lead to plants being less nutritous, I'll see If I can dig that up.

I saw something on that on tv last year, researchers in Japan found elevated CO2 while it increased growth the nutritional the value of the food declined...

[waldo]

I can't believe I've wasted my time discussing these issues with apparently a colossal idiot who's never heard of photosynthesis!

In a real world - practical - context, what science exists to convincingly link increased CO2 as a tangible net benefit for crops and crop yields?

Well the simple fact is that CO2 is food for the plant. Plants cannot survive in an oxygen rich or mostly oxygenated atmosphere. You breath in probably more C02 than oxygen on every breath.

Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations

Abstract: Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050, the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses. The CO2 fertilization factors used in models to project future yields were derived from enclosure studies conducted approximately 20 years ago. Free-air concentration enrichment (FACE) technology has now facilitated large-scale trials of the major grain crops at elevated [CO2] under fully open-air field conditions. In those trials, elevated [CO2] enhanced yield by ~50% less than in enclosure studies. This casts serious doubt on projections that rising [CO2] will fully offset losses due to climate change.

enclosure studies, Shady... like your Idso denier clan videos enclosed hood, artificial environment, "Seeing is Believing" pap smear!

[waldo]

I can't believe I've wasted my time discussing these issues with apparently a colossal idiot who's never heard of photosynthesis!

What effect does increased CO2 have on the efficacy of widely used herbicides? What effect does increased CO2 have on the prevalence of pests?

Anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide compromises plant defense against invasive insects

Abstract: Elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), a consequence of anthropogenic global change, can profoundly affect the interactions between crop plants and insect pests and may promote yet another form of global change: the rapid establishment of invasive species. Elevated CO2 increased the susceptibility of soybean plants grown under field conditions to the invasive Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica) and to a variant of western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera) resistant to crop rotation by down-regulating gene expression related to defense signaling [lipoxygenase 7 (lox7), lipoxygenase 8 (lox8), and 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate synthase (acc-s)]. The down-regulation of these genes, in turn, reduced the production of cysteine proteinase inhibitors (CystPIs), which are specific deterrents to coleopteran herbivores. Beetle herbivory increased CystPI activity to a greater degree in plants grown under ambient than under elevated CO2. Gut cysteine proteinase activity was higher in beetles consuming foliage of soybeans grown under elevated CO2 than in beetles consuming soybeans grown in ambient CO2, consistent with enhanced growth and development of these beetles on plants grown in elevated CO2. These findings suggest that predicted increases in soybean productivity under projected elevated CO2 levels may be reduced by increased susceptibility to invasive crop pests.

[bush_cheney2004]

Anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide compromises plant defense against invasive insects

Cool...that's yet another American source to Argentinian eggheads? Fantastico!

"NAS" = 10 pts.

[waldo]

Cool...that's yet another American source to Argentinian eggheads? Fantastico!

"NAS" = 10 pts.

again... predictably, on cue - you truly are a parody... of yourself.