Climate Science 101

[Keepitsimple]

The foundation of APG has pretty well collapsed......and the economic hardships that the "solutions" are causing are ever so slowly starting to seep into the MSM mindset. Here in Ontario, power costs will rise by 46% over the next five years - mainly due to the Feed-in-tariff (FIT) that gives producers almost 10 times the market value for every kilowatt injected into the grid - guaranteed for 20 years!

Here's the major underpinnings of APG that are collapsing:

1) Land based thermometer readings are dubious. There's no need to go into detail. With every finding, it becomes obvious that intentional or not, readings have been scewed in favour of warming - whether it's siting problems, "adjustments", or the use of pre-dated adjustments that alter the historical recond to make the past colder - and therefore make it seem like there's been an upshoot of warming.

2) Residence time of CO2 - the IPC says 200 years - the Royal Society says 1000 years or more. Other peer reviewed studies show that it's closer to 10 years.

3) It hasn't been warming for 10 years - some warmists say the heat has been going into the oceans but the AARGO data says that the oceans have been cooling slightly since 2003.

4) And of course, they still haven't found the tropospheric hotspot.....which just HAS to exist according to the APG theory - but nobody can find it.

Debate? The economy will soon say "bring it on" - because people - ordinary people - are starting to catch on.....and they won't stand for it when there pockets are beingt picked.

[Guest TrueMetis]

1) Land based thermometer readings are dubious. There's no need to go into detail. With every finding, it becomes obvious that intentional or not, readings have been scewed in favour of warming - whether it's siting problems, "adjustments", or the use of pre-dated adjustments that alter the historical recond to make the past colder - and therefore make it seem like there's been an upshoot of warming.

Prove it, this just sounds like conspiracy theory bs.

2) Residence time of CO2 - the IPC says 200 years - the Royal Society says 1000 years or more. Other peer reviewed studies show that it's closer to 10 years.

The amount of time it take CO2 to cycle through the atmosphere depends on the surrounding environment. Certain carbon sinks can cycle it out very quickly but almost all of them are being overload by the sheer amount of CO2.

3) It hasn't been warming for 10 years - some warmists say the heat has been going into the oceans but the AARGO data says that the oceans have been cooling slightly since 2003.

There are multiple problem with this statement the most obvious is that is has been warming in the past 10 years.

2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. Since 1880, the year that modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, though there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.

My link

Other problems being we are in a La Nina cycle so a cooling was expected and 10 years isn't enough time to set a trend.

4) And of course, they still haven't found the tropospheric hotspot.....which just HAS to exist according to the APG theory - but nobody can find it.

This one I haven't actually heard but a quick Google search reveals that you are wrong again. The hot spot may or may not be there, it seen on short timescales but not long ones. It is not a necessary part of climate change it has to do with how quickly temperature dissipates as it rise through the atmosphere.

My link

If you want to debate the policies I'm all for that, but stop misrepresenting the science.

[Pliny]

No thats why youre getting this wrong. Breathing doesnt "generate" C02 any more than a fan "generates" air. It basically just moves it around.

From your previous post:

The co2 we breath out comes from a process called "cell respiration" or "cellular oxidation". This is the exothermic process that produces energy in our cellular mitochondria, and provides energy for all other cell functions. The process requires two different "fuels". Oxygen (which we breath in), and glucose which is where the carbon comes from. Oxygen and Glucose combine to make CO2, and thats why we exhale it.

You are getting it wrong. Oxygen and carbon combine to make CO2. The CO2 is generated. The carbon is what you are talking about moving around in a closed system. Carbon is an element and thus fixed in it's amount. CO2 can be produced, and is produced by breathing and other activities.

Its silly to compare moving carbon around in the cycle with adding large ammounts of new carbon in by releasing carbon thats been sequestored for millions of years.

We aren't comparing moving carbon around, we are adding the generation of CO2 from all sources together.

Once again, one person moving carbon around in a closed system is different than 6 billion people moving carbon around in a closed system. If you don't see that an increased population in the closed system you describe doesn't generate more CO2 from breathing than a single person in a closed system then there isn't much help for you. Breathing, that is, taking carbon from food and combining it with oxygen from the air produces CO2.

CO2 from whatever source is the concern, is it not? The CO2 we produce from breathing must then be included in the total sum of CO2 that is generated.

The carbon added by burning fossil fuels adds more CO2 not more carbon. The amount of carbon is fixed.

Is carbon the concern in global warming or is CO2? Your argument seems to imply that carbon is the problem and not the production of CO2.

First of all carbon is an element. We cannot change carbon. We can combine it with other elements to make different compounds. We cannot increase or decrease the amount of carbon in the world. Carbon cannot be created and cannot be destroyed. The amount is stable - closed. What is being attempted is controlling the amount of CO2 production.

There seems to be two points here. CO2 the GHG, and carbon itself. Do we have a problem with added carbon or added CO2? I think, as regards AGW, we are concerned about CO2 because it is a GHG. I believe what is being worked on is sinking the overall amount of carbon in the atmosphere out of the system that has been generated and will thus reduce CO2. Too much carbon being combined with oxygen to make too much CO2 is the problem not an increase in the amount of carbon which is impossible.

[Pliny]

Mr. Wizard... again - as several people keep telling you: exhaled CO2 has already been accounted for... by breathing (cellular respiration), we are simply returning to the atmosphere the same carbon that was there to begin with. It's not a difficult concept, Pliny... it's fundamental/basic - why do you struggle so?

Correction: Exhaled carbon in the form of CO2 has already been accounted for - not the increased combining of carbon with oxygen to form CO2.

[Pliny]

If you want to debate the policies I'm all for that, but stop misrepresenting the science.

You, it follows, are representing science.

[waldo]

Mr. Wizard... again - as several people keep telling you: exhaled CO2 has already been accounted for... by breathing (cellular respiration), we are simply returning to the atmosphere the same carbon that was there to begin with. It's not a difficult concept, Pliny... it's fundamental/basic - why do you struggle so?

Correction: Exhaled carbon in the form of CO2 has already been accounted for - not the increased combining of carbon with oxygen to form CO2.

that's too Pliny Deep™ for me... take it up with the U.S. EPA - hey, Pliny?

How much carbon dioxide do humans contribute through breathing?

The average person, through the natural process of breathing, produces approximately 2.3 pounds (1 kg) of carbon dioxide per day. The actual amount depends strongly on the person’s activity level. However, this carbon dioxide is part of a natural closed-loop cycle and does not contribute to the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Natural processes of photosynthesis (in plants) and respiration (in plants and animals) maintain a balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thus, the carbon dioxide from natural process is not included in greenhouse gas inventories.

In contrast, the burning of fossil fuels upsets this natural equilibrium by adding a surplus of carbon dioxide into the system. The carbon in fossil fuels has been stored underground for millions of years and thus is not part of the current natural carbon cycle. When those fuels are burned, the carbon dioxide generated is over and above the amount circulating from natural sources. Land use changes such as deforestation also upset the natural equilibrium by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by forests. Thus, both fossil fuel burning and deforestation are accounted for by scientists who develop greenhouse gas inventories to study how greenhouse gases contribute to climate change.

[waldo]

The foundation of APG has pretty well collapsed...... There's no need to go into detail.

Simple ton... what's with your latest aberration? "APG"??? Really... which of your favoured denier blogs is now pushing that acronym - hey?

as to your nonsensical ramblings:

- surface temperature record? Nope, sorry - your favoured TV weatherman's distortions and/or fabrications concerning the U.S. surface temperature record have been completely and absolutely beat-back by NOAA scientists... we've covered that one off pretty well in other MLW threads. It's to the point that SPPI/Watts have buried their own futile undertaking! Would you like just a few of the related previous MLW posts played back to you... just so many linked references to choose from? Would you like... more?

- CO2 residence time? Nope, sorry - your favoured molecular view of CO2 persistence means didly in relation to the carbon cycle and the much longer effective residence time relative to the near equilibrium between ocean/atmosphere and atmosphere/biosphere. As previously linked/referenced as recent as your last post in this thread ... see here: "A better approximation of the lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 for public discussion might be 300 years, plus 25% that lasts forever."

- OHC? Nope, sorry - upper ocean heat content continues to warm - e.g. see here, here: (note: OHC warming continues in spite of specious denier attempts to cherry pick short-term trending time-frames coupled with ignoring recognized early year problems with ARGO float data)

- tropospheric hot spot? Nope, sorry - TrueMetis skepticalscience link is a good reference... this paper's Figure 6 shows quite a nice lil' ole hotspot... don't you think, hey Simple ton?

[GostHacked]

Waldo, is any of that info sanctioned by NOAA at all?

[waldo]

uhhh... at just what level on the GostHacked vagueness scale are we speaking to?

[dre]

Where?

Bout two pages ago.

[dre]

You are getting it wrong. Oxygen and carbon combine to make CO2. The CO2 is generated. The carbon is what you are talking about moving around in a closed system. Carbon is an element and thus fixed in it's amount. CO2 can be produced, and is produced by breathing and other activities.

We aren't comparing moving carbon around, we are adding the generation of CO2 from all sources together.

Once again, one person moving carbon around in a closed system is different than 6 billion people moving carbon around in a closed system. If you don't see that an increased population in the closed system you describe doesn't generate more CO2 from breathing than a single person in a closed system then there isn't much help for you. Breathing, that is, taking carbon from food and combining it with oxygen from the air produces CO2.

CO2 from whatever source is the concern, is it not? The CO2 we produce from breathing must then be included in the total sum of CO2 that is generated.

The carbon added by burning fossil fuels adds more CO2 not more carbon. The amount of carbon is fixed.

Is carbon the concern in global warming or is CO2? Your argument seems to imply that carbon is the problem and not the production of CO2.

First of all carbon is an element. We cannot change carbon. We can combine it with other elements to make different compounds. We cannot increase or decrease the amount of carbon in the world. Carbon cannot be created and cannot be destroyed. The amount is stable - closed. What is being attempted is controlling the amount of CO2 production.

There seems to be two points here. CO2 the GHG, and carbon itself. Do we have a problem with added carbon or added CO2? I think, as regards AGW, we are concerned about CO2 because it is a GHG. I believe what is being worked on is sinking the overall amount of carbon in the atmosphere out of the system that has been generated and will thus reduce CO2. Too much carbon being combined with oxygen to make too much CO2 is the problem not an increase in the amount of carbon which is impossible.

You are getting it wrong. Oxygen and carbon combine to make CO2. The CO2 is generated. The carbon is what you are talking about moving around in a closed system. Carbon is an element and thus fixed in it's amount. CO2 can be produced, and is produced by breathing and other activities.

Iv already explained this too. The CO2 humans breath already came from the atmosphere and it would end up back there regardless of whether we breath or not.

Remember how explained cellular respiration, and how humans turn glucose into the CO2 they exhale?

Lets look at a real world example of where that glucose comes from.

A potato (or any other plant) stores simple sugars (glucose) manufactured during photosynthesis. That process uses CO2 from the atmosphere. A human eats that potato, and turns that glucose back into C02, and then exhales that CO2 back into the atmosphere.

Lets follow the CO2...

1. The CO2 starts out in the atmosphere.

2. Its turned into chains of glucose molecules during photosythesis.

3. Humans eat that glucose and turn it into CO2 during cell respiration.

4. Humans exhale that CO2 back into the atmosphere.

That should make it completely clear for you. Photosynthesis has removed some CO2 from the atmosphere and converted it into simple sugars inside our potatoe. Cellular respiration has converted those simple sugars back into CO2 and put it back into the atmosphere.

You should just drop this now. Its getting silly.

[Pliny]

that's too Pliny Deep™ for me... take it up with the U.S. EPA - hey, Pliny?

How much carbon dioxide do humans contribute through breathing?

How much carbon dioxide do humans contribute through breathing?

The average person, through the natural process of breathing, produces approximately 2.3 pounds (1 kg) of carbon dioxide per day. The actual amount depends strongly on the person’s activity level. However, this carbon dioxide is part of a natural closed-loop cycle and does not contribute to the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Natural processes of photosynthesis (in plants) and respiration (in plants and animals) maintain a balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thus, the carbon dioxide from natural process is not included in greenhouse gas inventories.

In contrast, the burning of fossil fuels upsets this natural equilibrium by adding a surplus of carbon dioxide into the system. The carbon in fossil fuels has been stored underground for millions of years and thus is not part of the current natural carbon cycle. When those fuels are burned, the carbon dioxide generated is over and above the amount circulating from natural sources. Land use changes such as deforestation also upset the natural equilibrium by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by forests. Thus, both fossil fuel burning and deforestation are accounted for by scientists who develop greenhouse gas inventories to study how greenhouse gases contribute to climate change.

This tells me that about 15 billion pounds of CO2 released into the atmosphere from breathing is not counted in the total amount as it is part of the natural cycle of carbon.

It's saying Carbon from the burning of fossil fuels is the only thing that counts because it adds excess carbon to the current natural carbon cycle.

So is total CO2 in the atmosphere the problem of global warming or just the part generated from the burning of fossil fuels?

I've always understood the problem of AGW to be too much CO2 and ignoring approximately 15 billion pounds of of CO2 added to the atmosphere daily is not an insignificant amount. Luckily the CO2 doesn't last for like a thousand years or something.

The fact of the matter is that, if there are more humans then more carbon is added in the natural cycle of carbon increasing the size of the closed loop. If there is deforestation it upsets the balance further.

You know what that seems to say to me?. It says that AGW is a fabrication. If they discount 15 billion pounds of CO2 put into the atmosphere daily, and it seems CO2 in the atmosphere is the concern of AGW, then they can't ignore it just because it is part of the natural cycle. Why would we be only concerned about part of the CO2 in the atmosphere?

The person who wrote that answer is obviously parro....er... reading the same political journals as you are Waldo.

[waldo]

You are getting it wrong.

You should just drop this now. Its getting silly.

Mr. Wizard says it's all being done wrong!

I purposely linked that EPA reference/quote expecting Pliny to either finally drop his boring idiocy... or... double-down against it. Of course, Pliny came through - big time. Apparently, Pliny doesn't recognize (or doesn't care) that the EPA is officially mandated with maintaining the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions inventory... just as every country has an agency/organization that is similarly mandated to maintain their respective inventories, as agreed to by being signatories to the UNFCCC. Clearly, everything revolves around the inventories in climate change policy negotiations; effectively the single point of attention in establishing agreements that will bind the world together in an effort to limit future greenhouse gas emissions... requiring accurate estimates of existing emissions, negotiating on emission reduction levels, auditing/monitoring changes over time, etc. I suggested Mr. Wizard take up his concerns with the EPA... given his latest response let's invite Mr. Wizard to also take up his concerns with, uhhh... say... the National Academies (Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Methods to Support International Climate Agreements)... or, perhaps the IPCC (2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories)... or, perhaps directly to the UNFCCC (GHG data from UNFCCC)

... time is running short on the upcoming Cancun negotiations - can Pliny git er dun?

[jbg]

Mr. Wizard says it's all being done wrong!

Sir, have you no sense of decorum?

[waldo]

Sir, have you no sense of decorum?

how dare you sir! You jbg, you sir, have you no sense of decency?

[Pliny]

[\quote]

Iv already explained this too. The CO2 humans breath already came from the atmosphere and it would end up back there regardless of whether we breath or not.

And how would it wind up in the atmosphere? There has to be a process to combine carbon and oxygen to make CO2.

Remember how explained cellular respiration, and how humans turn glucose into the CO2 they exhale?

Lets look at a real world example of where that glucose comes from.

A potato (or any other plant) stores simple sugars (glucose) manufactured during photosynthesis. That process uses CO2 from the atmosphere. A human eats that potato, and turns that glucose back into C02, and then exhales that CO2 back into the atmosphere.

Lets follow the CO2...

1. The CO2 starts out in the atmosphere.

It has to originate out of a process combining carbon and oxygen.

2. Its turned into chains of glucose molecules during photosythesis.

The carbon is turned into chains of glucose molecules during photosynthesis and the oxygen is released into the atmosphere.

3. Humans eat that glucose and turn it into CO2 during cell respiration.

Right.

4. Humans exhale that CO2 back into the atmosphere.

That should make it completely clear for you. Photosynthesis has removed some CO2 from the atmosphere and converted it into simple sugars inside our potatoe. Cellular respiration has converted those simple sugars back into CO2 and put it back into the atmosphere.

I get it. The 15 billion pounds of CO2 we breathe into the atmosphere daily is cycled out of the atmosphere in the natural carbon cycle. The added CO2 from burning fossil fuels is all that the EPA counts in global warming because it is excess carbon dioxide. If I understand correctly the CO2 from breathing is in the atmosphere in the form of CO2 more or less as a constant.

So my question is if CO2 is the big concern regarding GW why is the amount of CO2 constantly in the atmosphere from the natural carbon cycle of no concern? Also population growth coupled with deforestation must be increasing that constant on an exponential level.

You see, the more people there are the more carbon is necessary to sustain the population and the more carbon consumed from the "glucose" in plants the more volume of CO2 is generated. In other words, the closed cycle of carbon becomes larger.

Seven billion people generate about 15 billion pounds of CO2 daily. Half that population would decrease the size of the natural carbon cycle and generate about 7.5 billion pounds of CO2 daily. While doubling the population would double the "constant" in the natural carbon cycle to 30 billion pounds of CO2. Why is it insignificant?

Is that too complicated?

You should just drop this now. Its getting silly.

It seems I'm often on the other side of "science". But really am I?

I am against politicians and skeptics who claim to be the "representatives of science" who prematurely give legs to concepts or theories that, may even have a consensus, but are still just concepts or theories. A prime example is the theory of a chemical imbalance in the brain that produces odd behavior. Fact is there is no test in existence that has determined a chemical imbalance. It just sounds good, and if chemicals such as neuroleptics, ritalin and SSRI's affect behavior it must be true. It's an unproven theory which is recklessly and enthusiastically pursued and promoted by pharmaceutical companies.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Pliny

[GostHacked]

Pliny !!!!

BUT BUT ... it's a laughable idea to think that CO2 is plant food. Planting more trees is not feasible. It would also cost to much. But the cost of a carbon tax and cap n trade is actually higher and allows money to change hands without getting to the root of the issue.

[waldo]

BUT BUT ... it's a laughable idea to think that CO2 is plant food. Planting more trees is not feasible. It would also cost to much. But the cost of a carbon tax and cap n trade is actually higher and allows money to change hands without getting to the root of the issue.

just keep teeing em up, hey? Trust in Monckton-Shimkus... GostHacked does!!!

[jbg]

how dare you sir! You jbg, you sir, have you no sense of decency?

At least you recognize the Attorney Welch statement from which I draw that line. One of the great moments in American history where a true right-wing, reactionary piece of garbage was unmasked.

Edited November 23, 2010 by jbg

[GostHacked]

just keep teeing em up, hey? Trust in Monckton-Shimkus... GostHacked does!!!

No idea who he is. But if you deny that CO2 is plant food, then you are saying that photosynthesis is not true. Or did you skip grade 10 biology?

[waldo]

At least you recognize the Attorney Welch statement from which I draw that line. One of the great moments in American history where a true right-wing, reactionary piece of garbage was unmasked.

Welch??? And here I thought that was the inimitable Keith Olbermann... where he also speaks to another, 'true right-wing, reactionary piece of garbage'... George Walker Bush - dubbya!

[waldo]

No idea who he is. But if you deny that CO2 is plant food, then you are saying that photosynthesis is not true. Or did you skip grade 10 biology?

what's your point? You've already played that stoopid "CO2 is plant food" meme, several times now... and now you bleat it out... again. Again? What's your point?

[GostHacked]

what's your point? You've already played that stoopid "CO2 is plant food" meme, several times now... and now you bleat it out... again. Again? What's your point?

The point is you think photosynthesis does not happen.

[jbg]

Welch??? And here I thought that was the inimitable Keith Olbermann... where he also speaks to another, 'true right-wing, reactionary piece of garbage'... George Walker Bush - dubbya!

Nope. See link.

Mr. WELCH. You wont need anything in the record when I have finished telling you this.

Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Fred Fisher is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came into my firm and is starting what looks to be a brilliant career with us.

When I decided to work for this committee I asked Jim St. Clair, who sits on my right, to be my first assistant. I said to Jim, Pick somebody in the firm who works under you that you would like. He chose Fred Fisher and they came down on an afternoon plane. That night, when he had taken a little stab at trying to see what the case was about, Fred Fisher and Jim St. Clair and I went to dinner together. I then said to these two young men, Boys, I dont know anything about you except I have always liked you, but if there is anything funny in the life of either one of you that would hurt anybody in this case you speak up quick.

Fred Fisher said, Mr. Welch, when I was in law school and for a period of months after, I belonged to the Lawyers Guild, as you have suggested, Senator. He went on to say, I am secretary of the Young Republicans League in Newton with the son of Massachusetts' Governor, and I have the respect and admiration of the 25 lawyers or so in Hale & Dorr.

I said, Fred, I just dont think I am going to ask you to work on the case. If I do, one of these days that will come out and go over national television and it will just hurt like the dickens.

So, Senator, I asked him to go back to Boston.

Little did I dream you could be so reckless and cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true he is still with Hale & Dorr. It is true that he will continue to be with Hale & Dorr. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I will do so. I like to think I am a gentleman, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me.

Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman.

Senator MUNDT. Senator McCarthy?

Senator MCCARTHY. May I say that Mr. Welch talks about this being cruel and reckless. He was just baiting; he has been baiting Mr. Cohn here for hours, requesting that Mr. Cohn, before sundown, get out of any department of Government anyone who is serving the Communist cause.

I just give this mans record, and I want to say, Mr. Welch, that it has been labeled long before he became a member, as early as 1944

Mr. WELCH. Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild, and Mr. Cohn nods his head at me. I did you, I think, no personal injury, Mr. Cohn.

Mr. COHN. No, sir.

Mr. WELCH. I meant to do you no personal injury, and if I did, beg your pardon.

Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? Senator MCCARTHY. I know this hurts you, Mr. Welch. But I may say, Mr. Chairman, on a point of personal privilege, and I would like to finish it

Mr. WELCH. Senator, I think it hurts you, too, sir.

Senator MCCARTHY. I would like to finish this.

Mr. Welch has been filibustering this hearing, he has been talking day after day about how he wants to get anyone tainted with communism out before sundown. I know Mr. Cohn would rather not have me go into this. I intend to, however, Mr. Welch talks about any sense of decency. If I say anything which is not the truth, then I would like to know about it.

The foremost legal bulwark of the Communist Party, its front organizations, and controlled unions, and which, since its inception, has never failed to rally to the legal defense of the Communist Party, and individual members thereof, including known espionage agents.

Now, that is not the language of Senator McCarthy. That is the language of the Un-American Activities Committee. And I can go on with many more citations. It seems that Mr. Welch is pained so deeply he thinks it is improper for me to give the record, the Communist front record, of the man whom he wanted to foist upon this committee. But it doesnt pain him at allthere is no pain in his chest about the unfounded charges against Mr. Frank Carr; there is no pain there about the attempt to destroy the reputation and take the jobs away from the young men who were working in my committee.

And, Mr. Welch, if I have said anything here which is untrue, then tell me. I have heard you and every one else talk so much about laying the truth upon the table that when I hearand it is completely phony, Mr. Welch, I have listened to you for a long timewhen you say Now, before sundown, you must get these people out of Government, I want to have it very clear, very clear that you were not so serious about that when you tried to recommend this man for this committee.

And may I say, Mr. Welch, in fairness to you, I have reason to believe that you did not know about his Communist-front record at the time you recommended him. I dont think you would have recommended him to the committee, if you knew that.

I think it is entirely possible you learned that after you recommended him.

Edited November 23, 2010 by jbg

[waldo]

No idea who he is. But if you deny that CO2 is plant food, then you are saying that photosynthesis is not true. Or did you skip grade 10 biology?

what's your point? You've already played that stoopid "CO2 is plant food" meme, several times now... and now you bleat it out... again. Again? What's your point?

The point is you think photosynthesis does not happen.

nonsense... about you playing that, "CO2 is plant food" meme before (several times now). What's your point?

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!

...

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"!