EPA Chief concedes climate rule; it's about 'reinventing a global economy'

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

There is a basic assumption made in every scientific experiment: the control must be of the same condition as the subject, with the sole exception of the variables under test. That means, in the context of this thread, that comparisons of growth rates can only be studied under this assumption. If there are conditions that do not alow the control to grow, the experiment is moot.

Without nutrients in the soil, plants cannot grow, conceded. The needed nutrient levels vary from plant to plant however. That's why farmers rotate crops: to use the different nutrient levels at somewhat similar rates. Oklahoma for example (yeah, I've been there plenty of times) has relatively poor soil for most crops, but it is sufficient for that prairie grass to grow.

The difference between soil nutrients and the three variables I mentioned earlier is that all three are common to all green plant life. No nutrient is common to all green plant life. If you had mentioned water, well, that is a common requirement. But there is another difference: adding nutrients or water to the soil beyond the needed threshold for growth does not cause an associated increase in growth rates. Sunlight, heat, and carbon dioxide do.

I'm sorry to hear you are disappointed in your state. But this topic is not about the effects of CO2 on Oklahoma; it is about the effects globally. Globally, as long as conditions are favorable for growth, any increase in CO2 levels will result in increased plant growth rates. An increase in temperature will result in an increase in plant growth rates, as well as a longer growing season. That applies anywhere plants grow: Alabama, Hawaii, Europe, Africa, Asia, and even Oklahoma... if you fertilize, which you apparently do already.

Might I suggest that you will receive a more intellectual experience if you simply pose your points, rather than trying to twist the topic of debate to a secret subject only you are aware of?

TheRedneck

In a scenario where a plant is unconstrained by a lack of nutrients, has its water needs met, experiences appropriate weather, lacks pests and herbivores... yeah, more CO2 is going to make it grow. Problem is, if CO2 causes temperature rise (it does) or climate alterations (it does), how precisely are you going to rely on the controlled experiment that where CO2 is the only variable such as you describe?

Good, you've agreed that you were mistaken. First step to clear thinking, anyway.

Of course, the text following that is just pathetic. Disappointment in my state, hah. Water is an obvious thing, but nutrients are less generally understood. If someone doesn't understand that water is necessary for most plants to grow, quite frankly, they're beyond help.

No nutrients are necessary for every green plant? Hmm... what do you suppose ADP & ATP are made of?

Is Oklahoma uniquely bad in soil quality? Not really:

Earth ain't looking like that experimental scenario you cling to.

I'm not sure what 'secret subject' you're talking about. I think you need to do a bit more research, though.

a reply to: Indigo5

Oh and btw, where is the evidence that CO2 itself causes the massive warming claimed by the AGW camp?

As I wrote in another thread:

Since at least 97% if not more of the greenhouse effect in the Troposphere, the atmospheric layer where all surface weather and climate occurs, is caused by water vapor then the increase in temperature for the past 100 years has been mostly caused by water vapor and not CO2... So out of the 0.8C increase in the last 100 years 0.776C was caused by water vapor...

During a climate change event in which warming occurs, the warmer the planet gets the more water vapor the troposphere(atmosphere) can contain which leads to a feedback effect...

Here is the testimony of one of scientist Hans von Storch, who in 2006 testified before Congress to claim:

...
"Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
...

cstpr.colorado.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...

Yet in 2013 he was one of the authors of the following paper.

Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming?

Hans von Storch(1), Armineh Barkhordarian(1), Klaus Hasselmann(2) and Eduardo Zorita(1)
(1) Institute for Coastal Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht, Germany(2) Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany

In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged as considerably smaller than many had expected. We investigate whether this can be explained by contemporary climate change scenarios. In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period that indicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level. Of the possible causes of the inconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales is a plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or an overestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruled out. The first cause would have little impact of the expectations of longer term anthropogenic climate change, but the second and particularly the third would.
...

www.academia.edu...

So, the AGW scientists themselves can't understand why it hasn't gotten warmer as they predicted? Perhaps as the above paper states there was a overestimation on the influence of CO2 on climate change and instead there is an influence of unaccounted external forcing factors?...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Greven
...
You might remember the whole Dust Bowl thing. That was significantly our fault - a lack of knowledge in how to farm the land with terraced fields and contour farming. A lack of water from drought didn't help any, which meant ploughed and dry topsoil just blew away with our windy weather. Windbreaks helped with that, but trees take time to grow.
...

Wrong... the "Dust Bowl thing" wasn't caused by us...

Article

Climate Dynamics

January 2016, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 413-426

First online: 08 April 2015
Extraordinary heat during the 1930s US Dust Bowl and associated large-scale conditions

Markus G. Donat , Andrew D. King, Jonathan T. Overpeck, Lisa V. Alexander, Imke Durre, David J. Karoly


Abstract

Unusually hot summer conditions occurred during the 1930s over the central United States and undoubtedly contributed to the severity of the Dust Bowl drought. We investigate local and large-scale conditions in association with the extraordinary heat and drought events, making use of novel datasets of observed climate extremes and climate reanalysis covering the past century. We show that the unprecedented summer heat during the Dust Bowl years was likely exacerbated by land-surface feedbacks associated with springtime precipitation deficits. The reanalysis results indicate that these deficits were associated with the coincidence of anomalously warm North Atlantic and Northeast Pacific surface waters and a shift in atmospheric pressure patterns leading to reduced flow of moist air into the central US. Thus, the combination of springtime ocean temperatures and atmospheric flow anomalies, leading to reduced precipitation, also holds potential for enhanced predictability of summer heat events. The results suggest that hot drought, more severe than experienced during the most recent 2011 and 2012 heat waves, is to be expected when ocean temperature anomalies like those observed in the 1930s occur in a world that has seen significant mean warming.

link.springer.com...

Please learn some history for once.

It seems like you have to be contrarian to any possible fringe item related to climate change. Why is that?

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Greven

I don't need to know, animals pee naturally in the forest, there is no need to use any sort of chemical or organic man made fertilizer. It's all the cause of a bad agricultural management and a disrespect to nature.
Everything a plant need to grow is found withing the natural recycle system of for example forests.
I grow my own food for some time now as did my parents, grandparents and their fathers.
Not once have I EVER used any sort of man-made fabricated fertilizer or biocide.

If we stopped using fertilizer, much of the world's population would soon starve.

Get reading.

originally posted by: Greven

Please learn some history for once.

I actually have learned quite a bit. The following is an actual research paper on what caused the dust bowl...

Article

Climate Dynamics

January 2016, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 413-426

First online: 08 April 2015
Extraordinary heat during the 1930s US Dust Bowl and associated large-scale conditions

Markus G. Donat , Andrew D. King, Jonathan T. Overpeck, Lisa V. Alexander, Imke Durre, David J. Karoly


Abstract

Unusually hot summer conditions occurred during the 1930s over the central United States and undoubtedly contributed to the severity of the Dust Bowl drought. We investigate local and large-scale conditions in association with the extraordinary heat and drought events, making use of novel datasets of observed climate extremes and climate reanalysis covering the past century. We show that the unprecedented summer heat during the Dust Bowl years was likely exacerbated by land-surface feedbacks associated with springtime precipitation deficits. The reanalysis results indicate that these deficits were associated with the coincidence of anomalously warm North Atlantic and Northeast Pacific surface waters and a shift in atmospheric pressure patterns leading to reduced flow of moist air into the central US. Thus, the combination of springtime ocean temperatures and atmospheric flow anomalies, leading to reduced precipitation, also holds potential for enhanced predictability of summer heat events. The results suggest that hot drought, more severe than experienced during the most recent 2011 and 2012 heat waves, is to be expected when ocean temperature anomalies like those observed in the 1930s occur in a world that has seen significant mean warming.

link.springer.com...

originally posted by: Greven
It seems like you have to be contrarian to any possible fringe item related to climate change. Why is that?

I know more than enough about climate change, and this topic in specific not to make sweeping and completely false statements such as "CO2 lifetime is over hundreds to thousands of years"... Which is patently false and you have made, among others.

If you want to discuss the topic learn to discuss the topic. Inform yourself instead of making up false claims and proclaiming anyone else that presents proof that contradicts your "belief" is wrong, and instead present a concise and intelligent argument.

originally posted by: Greven

If we stopped using fertilizer, much of the world's population would soon starve.

Get reading.

If we start sequestering CO2, which several government agencies and universities have started to implement and have been studying on how to sequester CO2, a much larger percentage of the population of the world will starve and die of thirst...

The Direct Effect of an Increase in CO2

Over the years there have been numerous laboratory experiments which conclude that increases levels of CO2 result in increased plant growth no matter how that plant growth is quantified. Sylvan Wittwer in Food, Climate and Carbon Dioxide tabulates the results. He observes

The effects of an enriched CO2 atmosphere on crop productivity, in large measure, are positive, leaving little doubt as the benefits for global food security …. Now, after more than a century, and with the confirmation of thousands of scientific reports, CO2 gives the most remarkable response of all nutrients in plant bulk, is usually in short supply, and is nearly always limiting for photosynthesis … The rising level of atmospheric CO2 is a universally free premium, gaining in magnitude with time, on which we can all reckon for the foreseeable future.
...

www.sjsu.edu...

Trees use water more efficiently when atmospheric carbon dioxide is high

Date:
May 11, 2015
Source:
Helmholtz Centre Potsdam - GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences
Summary:
Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have already caused large-scale physiological responses of European forests. In particular, the efficiency of water-use of trees, which is coupled to the uptake of carbon dioxide during photosynthesis of leaves and needles has changed significantly. According to the study of a large, interdisciplinary team of researchers, European broadleaf and coniferous trees have increased their water-use efficiency since the beginning of the 20th century by 14% and 22%, respectively.

www.sciencedaily.com...

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So you are just going to ignore the observations, the science and try to make this a political and economic debate.

The science is clear, we are changing the climate with our CO2 output. There is no debating this reality. Your only hope to hide the science is debate politics and economics in regards to the CO2 problem which are ultimately circular debates that accomplish nothing except cast doubt on the reality of human induced climate change.

You are 100% wrong! You are preaching a lie and likely know that. There is NO PROOF of man-made climate change. It is nothing but a theory, not a fact as you claim.

Climate change itself is a fact...not man-made climate change.

The hot Sun emits energetic shortwave radiation such as UV, light, etc.
The radiation that passes through Earth's atmosphere strikes the surface.
Earth's much cooler surface emits less-energetic infrared (longwave) radiation as it heats.
Thus, Earth's surface should follow the black-body law.

Outgoing radiation cools the Earth's surface.
Outgoing radiation warms higher layers of the atmosphere.
The Earth's surface is warming.
The higher layers of the atmosphere are cooling.
Thus, something is redistributing heat in the Earth's atmosphere.

The Stefan–Boltzmann law calculates the temperature of a black-body.
Earth's surface should be ~255K based on the said black-body law.
Earth's surface is ~288K.
Thus, something else is warming the Earth's surface.

H2O, CO2, CH4, and certain gases are each relatively transparent to shortwave radiation.
Shortwave radiation strikes the Earth's surface, which emits longwave radiation.
Said gases are each more opaque to certain bands of longwave radiation.
Thus, these gases intercept some outgoing longwave radiation (let's call them 'greenhouse gases').

Greenhouse gases intercept some outgoing radiation.
Gas molecules that intercept outgoing longwave radiation will re-emit radiation at random.
Thus, longwave radiation in the atmosphere is redistributed by greenhouse gases.

Let's put it together:
Earth's surface should follow the black-body law.
Something else is warming the Earth's surface.
Something is redistributing heat in the Earth's atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases intercept outgoing longwave radiation.
Longwave radiation is redistributed in Earth's atmosphere by greenhouse gases.
Thus, greenhouse gases heat the surface and cool other parts of Earth's atmosphere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey look, there's the oddly-named 'greenhouse effect.' So, what about us?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humans extract fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels are composed of carbon.
Humans burn fossil fuels.
When fossil fuels burn, CO2 is produced.
Thus, humans are introducing more CO2 into the atmosphere (never mind CH4).

An increase in greenhouse gases will increase the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect warms the surface and cools other parts of the atmosphere.
Humans are increasing greenhouse gases.
Thus, humans are increasing surface warming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, are we done here?

International Journal of Physical Sciences Vol. 4 (1), pp. 044-046, January, 2009
Available online at www.academicjournals.org...
ISSN 1992 - 1950 © 2009 Academic Journals
Short Communication
The possible role of dynamic pressure from the
interplanetary magnetic field on global warming
Michael A. Persinger
Biophysics Section, Biomolecular Sciences Program, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 2C6. E-mail:
[email protected]. Fax: 01-705-671-3844.
Accepted 24 December, 2008

Quantitative analyses suggest that the increase in global warming by about 1°C over the last century is related to the increase in geomagnetic activity. Maintained small increases in dynamic pressure in the order of a nanoPascal from the solar wind due to the expansion of the solar magnetic corona may be sufficient to produce the energy that has resulted in the increase of surface temperatures on the Earth and Mars. A 1 nPa increase in dynamic pressure is equivalent to the increase of about 16 nT in aa (average antipodal index) values observed over the last 100 years. The results support the hypothesis of El-Borie and Al-Thoyaib that geomagnetic activity can partially predict global mean temperatures.
Key words:
Geomagnetic induction, solar corona expansion, global warming, solar wind, aa values.

www.academicjournals.org...

Remember that claim by the AGW camp that the Sun's activity stopped increasing in the 1950s or 1980s, take your pick? I have shown you how magnetic storms in the sun had been increasing in intensity, but you among some others kept claiming the graphs weren't showing that despite the fact that they did.

Nature 399, 437-439 (3 June 1999) | doi:10.1038/20867; Received 21 December 1998; Accepted 12 April 1999

A doubling of the Sun's coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years

M. Lockwood1, R. Stamper1 & M. N. Wild1

World Data Centre C-1 for STP, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot OX11 0QX, UK

Correspondence to: M. Lockwood1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to M.L. (e-mail: Email: [email protected].)

Top of page
Abstract

The solar wind is an extended ionized gas of very high electrical conductivity, and therefore drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field1,2. Magnetic reconnection—the merging of oppositely directed magnetic fields—between the interplanetary field and the Earth's magnetic field allows energy from the solar wind to enter the near-Earth environment. The Sun's properties, such as its luminosity, are related to its magnetic field, although the connections are still not well understood3,4. Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate5. Here we show that measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964: surrogate measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field indicate that the increase since 1901 has been by a factor of 2.3. This increase may be related to chaotic changes in the dynamo that generates the solar magnetic field. We do not yet know quantitatively how such changes will influence the global environment.

www.nature.com...

Yes, that research is from 1999 and it shows that back then scientists knew of this connection, it is not the only research from that time either.

International Journal of the Physical Sciences Vol.
7(4), pp.
660
-
663
, 23 January, 2012
Available online at www.academicjournals.org...
DOI: 10.5897/IJPS11.1194
ISSN 1992
-
1950 © 2012 Academic Journals
Full Length Research Paper

Correlations between ocean water temperature and related parameters from the Victoria experimental network under the sea (VENUS) and
geomagnetic activity: Implications for climate change

Noa Gang 1 and Michael A. Persinger1,2*
1 Department of Biology, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario,
P3E 2C6, Canada.
2 Biophysics Section, Biomolecular Sciences Program Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 2C6. Canada.

Accepted 04 January, 2012

Factor analyses of sample daily variables of temperature, conductivity, density, oxygen concentration and salinity of sea water from the Victoria Experimental Network Under the Sea (VENUS) project reflected a single factor. Once temporal (serial) effects had been removed, the residuals for this factor were significantly and positively correlated (r=0.60) with the global geomagnetic activity during the days of and before and after the measurements, but not for the second and third days before or after the measurements. These results suggest that increased geomagnetic activity can influence the shared recondite sources of variance within sea water that affect temperature and associated basic parameters. The slope for the significant correlation between increased global geomagnetic activity and increased water temperature revealed changes that were consistent with the empirical measurements.

Key words: Geomagnetic activity, sea water, temperature , climate change, Victoria Experimental Network Under the Sea (VENUS) project.

www.academicjournals.org...

Article

Acta Geophysica

October 2011, Volume 59, Issue 5, pp 1044-1056

First online: 02 June 2011
Climate changes associated with high-amplitude Sq geomagnetic variations

Taha Rabeh , Joao Carvalho, Ahmed Khalil, Esmat A. El-Aal, Ibrahim El-Hemaly


Abstract

When the solar irradiance propagates between the outer magnetospheric regions and the ionosphere, dynamic processes of the magnetosphere-ionosphere-thermosphere system are affected at the lower end of their paths by the interaction of radiation with the neutral troposphere. The main target of this work is to investigate the relationship between the diurnal magnetic field variations resulting from solar activities and the variation in the troposphere temperature. Meteorological and geomagnetic data acquired from different observatories located in Egypt, Portugal and Slovakia in a long-term and daily-term scales were analyzed.

The long-term results show that there is a close relationship between the diurnal Sq magnetic field variations and the tropospheric temperature. The rate of temperature increase at mid-latitude areas is higher than at high-latitude. During the period of investigation, it is found that the troposphere temperature has increased by about 0.033 °C/year at Helwan, Egypt, 0.03 °C/year at Coimbra, Portugal, and 0.028 °C/year in Hurbanovo/Stará Lesná, Slovakia. The Sq geomagnetic variations depend on the intensity of the electric currents generated by the effect of solar radiation in the ionosphere.

link.springer.com...

Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics

Volume 60, Issue 2, January 1998, Pages 145–169

Geomagnetic forcing of changes in climate and in the atmospheric circulation

Václav Bucha, 1, , Václav Bucha Jr2

Abstract

Common features in records of solar and geomagnetic activity as well as of climatic parameters can be observed. High correlation coefficients were found between geomagnetic activity, the sea level atmospheric pressure and the surface air temperature, occurring with a positive sign in the middle and southern Europe, in the south-eastern part of North America and in the western Atlantic but with a negative sign in the northern Atlantic and Canada.
...

www.sciencedirect.com...

Small changes which have been occurring for a long time. Small temperature increases continuously occurring over time cause very dramatic temperature increases since our oceans continue to store heat which is later released in events like el Niño. Now there is a super El Niño which does cause global temperatures to increase. At the same time the Earth's magnetic field keeps weakening allowing more solar wing particles to enter Earth's atmosphere. An atmosphere charged with more energy causes changes in the upper atmosphere. If such events continue to happen, which they have, eventually energy is transferred to the lower layers of Earth's atmosphere as well and into the Troposphere.

March 2005> Stratosphere–Troposphere Coupling in the Southern Hemisphere

Stratosphere–Troposphere Coupling in the Southern Hemisphere
David W. J. Thompson
Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado Mark P. Baldwin
Northwest Research Associates, Bellevue, Washington Susan Solomon
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Aeronomy Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

Abstract

This study examines the temporal evolution of the tropospheric circulation following large-amplitude variations in the strength of the Southern Hemisphere (SH) stratospheric polar vortex in data from 1979 to 2001 and following the SH sudden stratospheric warming of 2002. In both cases, anomalies in the strength of the SH stratospheric polar vortex precede similarly signed anomalies in the tropospheric circulation that persist for more than 2 months. The SH tropospheric circulation anomalies reflect a bias in the polarity of the SH annular mode (SAM), a large-scale pattern of climate variability characterized by fluctuations in the strength of the SH circumpolar flow. Consistent with the climate impacts of the SAM, variations in the stratospheric polar vortex are also followed by coherent changes in surface temperatures throughout much of Antarctica. The results add to a growing body of evidence that suggests that stratospheric variability plays an important role in driving climate variability at Earth’s surface on a range of time scales.

Corresponding author address: David W. J. Thompson, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1371. Email: [email protected]

journals.ametsoc.org...

Here is a graph showing the weakening of the solar polar fields.



wso.stanford.edu...

What is happening to Earth is happening in the entire solar system, it is not CO2 causing these changes.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Greven

Please learn some history for once.

I actually have learned quite a bit. The following is an actual research paper on what caused the dust bowl...

Article

Climate Dynamics

January 2016, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 413-426

First online: 08 April 2015
Extraordinary heat during the 1930s US Dust Bowl and associated large-scale conditions

Markus G. Donat , Andrew D. King, Jonathan T. Overpeck, Lisa V. Alexander, Imke Durre, David J. Karoly


Abstract

Unusually hot summer conditions occurred during the 1930s over the central United States and undoubtedly contributed to the severity of the Dust Bowl drought. We investigate local and large-scale conditions in association with the extraordinary heat and drought events, making use of novel datasets of observed climate extremes and climate reanalysis covering the past century. We show that the unprecedented summer heat during the Dust Bowl years was likely exacerbated by land-surface feedbacks associated with springtime precipitation deficits. The reanalysis results indicate that these deficits were associated with the coincidence of anomalously warm North Atlantic and Northeast Pacific surface waters and a shift in atmospheric pressure patterns leading to reduced flow of moist air into the central US. Thus, the combination of springtime ocean temperatures and atmospheric flow anomalies, leading to reduced precipitation, also holds potential for enhanced predictability of summer heat events. The results suggest that hot drought, more severe than experienced during the most recent 2011 and 2012 heat waves, is to be expected when ocean temperature anomalies like those observed in the 1930s occur in a world that has seen significant mean warming.

link.springer.com...

originally posted by: Greven
It seems like you have to be contrarian to any possible fringe item related to climate change. Why is that?

I know more than enough about climate change, and this topic in specific not to make sweeping and completely false statements such as "CO2 lifetime is over hundreds to thousands of years"... Which is patently false and you have made, among others.

If you want to discuss the topic learn to discuss the topic. Inform yourself instead of making up false claims and proclaiming anyone else that presents proof that contradicts your "belief" is wrong, and instead present a concise and intelligent argument.

Again, it was a combination of factors. Drought was not new to the Great Plains when the Dust Bowl occurred. It was a severe drought, to be sure, but human activities exacerbated the problem. Our farming methods removed the hardy natural grasslands and replaced it with plants that just couldn't cope with those sorts of droughts. We didn't use contour farming. We didn't plant windbreaks. We did everything wrong, and it bit our butts.

Yet, you want to claim that it was solely due to the heat and the drought? Why didn't the Dust Bowls happen before the 1930s, then? Why didn't they happen after? These areas experienced droughts before and after.

Regarding 'my claim' ... have I? Hmm, this seems familiar... where have I seen that...

originally posted by:ElectricUniverse
i did...still makes as much sense as your recent claim that "CO2 lifetime in Earth's atmosphere is hundreds to thousands of years"... which is a bs claim you made up "to try to sway opinion with lies"...

originally posted by: Greven
Interesting. Cite this claim in your reply to this post, if you can.

To which I was met with silence. Care to enlighten me about my claim yet?

Blah blah blah 'no you're misinformed' crap. Give it a rest.

a reply to: Greven

How? By realizing that we are talking about two variables. All else being equal and sufficient, an increase in heat (within limits, better put that in so you don't go off on another tangent) will cause an increase in growth rates. All else being equal and sufficient, an increase in CO2 levels will cause an increase in growth rates. It therefore follows logically that an increase in both variables will also lead to an increase in growth rates.

I am really amazed. Oklahoma is primarily agricultural, yet you can't seem to follow that plants grow better in warmer temperatures, use CO2 in photosynthesis, or have different nutrient requirements between different species. Truly amazing.

TheRedneck

ETA: I'm glad I put that remark in about 'within limits'... the very next post you try to turn it into fire!

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Oh good, random other crap that says stuff like:

Plants grow faster at a higher temperature providing they have adequate levels of CO2, water, sunlight and plant nutrients.

I wonder if 'higher temperature' applies to fire? Kind of a balancing act, I suspect.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
ETA: I'm glad I put that remark in about 'within limits'... the very next post you try to turn it into fire!

Yeah, me too, because it just shows that you can't read the rest of the sentence nor look at the image I presented earlier and interpret it within that context.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

How? By realizing that we are talking about two variables. All else being equal and sufficient, an increase in heat (within limits, better put that in so you don't go off on another tangent) will cause an increase in growth rates. All else being equal and sufficient, an increase in CO2 levels will cause an increase in growth rates. It therefore follows logically that an increase in both variables will also lead to an increase in growth rates.

I am really amazed. Oklahoma is primarily agricultural, yet you can't seem to follow that plants grow better in warmer temperatures, use CO2 in photosynthesis, or have different nutrient requirements between different species. Truly amazing.

TheRedneck

Except for the scientific articles I've linked saying the whole 'all else being equal' is 'it ain't all equal.'

But keep up with your 'amazement.' Do I have to re-link them for you?

Again, do you know what ATP/ADP are? You've neatly skirted this question. Perhaps you can practice condescension on yourself by literally making # up about yourself instead of me?

originally posted by: Greven
...
Yet, you want to claim that it was solely due to the heat and the drought? Why didn't the Dust Bowls happen before the 1930s, then? Why didn't they happen after? These areas experienced droughts before and after.

The 1930s were extremely warm...

July 2012 Hottest Ever in the U.S.? Hmmm….I Doubt It
August 8th, 2012 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Using NCDC’s own data (USHCN, Version 2), and computing area averages for the last 100 years of Julys over the 48 contiguous states, here’s what I get for the daily High temps, Low temps, and daily Averages (click for large version):

As far as daily HIGH temperatures go, 1936 was the clear winner. But because daily LOW temperatures have risen so much, the daily AVERAGE July temperature in 2012 barely edged out 1936.

Now, of course, we have that nagging issue of just how much urban heat island (UHI) effect remains in the data. The NCDC “homogenization” procedures are not really meant to handle long-term UHI warming, which has probably occurred at most of the 1218 stations used in the above plot.
...

www.drroyspencer.com...

originally posted by: Greven

Blah blah blah 'no you're misinformed' crap. Give it a rest.

Then how about instead of making false claims that my statements are "fringe" learn to discuss the topic... I have presented evidence, peer-reviewed evidence that supports my argument, yet you want to claim it's a "fringe argument"?...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Then how about instead of making false claims that my statements are "fringe" learn to discuss the topic... I have presented evidence, peer-reviewed evidence that supports my argument, yet you want to claim it's a "fringe argument"?...

Give me a citation of my claimed statement.

Or shut up about it because you can't and you're wrong.

Choose one.

P.S. can you read English? Because I didn't say your statements were 'fringe.' I mean really, reading comprehension ain't fully required to parse what I was saying here.

a reply to: Greven

Give me proof the argument I have been presenting is fringe and contrarian to what scientists studying these events are actually stating.

If you can't then shut up about it "because you can't and won't".

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Greven

Give me proof the argument I have been presenting is fringe and contrarian to what scientists studying these events are actually stating.

If you can't then shut up about it "because you can't and won't".

WHEN DID I SAY YOUR ARGUMENT IS FRINGE?

Seriously, is English not your first language here? I mean c'mon.

a reply to: Greven

Wow... the amazement never ceases.

So far, I have refuted the claim that CO2 does not support life because carbon monoxide is an asphyxiant... that plant life is impossible without commercial fertilizer... that CO2 does not promote plant growth... that plant growth is independent of temperature... and now I am faced with the prospect of debating whether some locations having poor soil negates the last two facts above. Oh, yes, and you want an explanation of ATP and ADP.

They're 3-letter acronyms.

Sorry, but I don't tutor biology, just math, computer science, and engineering. If I were to explain the known metabolic pathways to you, I believe you would find another imagined reason to dispute it. Google is your friend.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Greven

Are we really now going to go over what you were implying in your own argument?

Since when are events occurring during a climate change "fringe items"?... Never heard/read anyone label events occurring during climate change as "fringe items"...