|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 21, 2009 19:58:00 GMT
If that cost-benefit analysis showed "mass starvation and forced mass emigration " despite all the *pertinent* research showing higher CO2 level results in BOTH higher crop yields AND the ability to grow crops in areas where they would not otherwise grow at all; AND ignored historical evidence of the positive impact of warmer temps on Mankind, then let me amend my statement: I would want to see a cost-benefit analysis from a REPUTABLE source that included scientists covering multiple fields of expertise. What one has to do here is look at our past climate optimum and see WHERE agriculture flourished, or could have flourished. The idea of mass starvation is a new one to me as everything I have read shows that the area of the earth suitable for ag grows dramatically with warmer temps and decreases dramatically with cooler temps. Also, plants are not efficient at present levels of co2. Seems most current ag plants must have mutated during higher levels of co2, as raising co2 in a greenhouse environment really enhances a plants ability to ward of disease, too much water or drought type conditions. In fact, greenhouses now add co2 to have plants grow faster and healthier.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Aug 22, 2009 11:51:09 GMT
Steve makes the classic fallacy, the one that AGW promotion depends on: greenhouse = AGW Hunter, your sentence doesn't make sense. Steve, thank you for making my point. AGW believers falsely conclude that since there is a greenhouse effect, the AGW interpretation of how CO2 acts in the atmosphere is correct. That is a conclusion not supported by reality; only by models and hype.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 22, 2009 12:14:35 GMT
If that cost-benefit analysis showed "mass starvation and forced mass emigration " despite all the *pertinent* research showing higher CO2 level results in BOTH higher crop yields AND the ability to grow crops in areas where they would not otherwise grow at all; AND ignored historical evidence of the positive impact of warmer temps on Mankind, then let me amend my statement: I would want to see a cost-benefit analysis from a REPUTABLE source that included scientists covering multiple fields of expertise. While the pertinent research from reputable sources show an increase in crop growth due to increased levels of CO2, research by the same sources show, for example, likely reduced crop growth in many key areas due to higher temperatures and higher levels of near surface ozone.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 22, 2009 12:21:12 GMT
Hunter, your sentence doesn't make sense. Steve, thank you for making my point. AGW believers falsely conclude that since there is a greenhouse effect, the AGW interpretation of how CO2 acts in the atmosphere is correct. That is a conclusion not supported by reality; only by models and hype. I haven't made your point. You haven't said anything substantive or true.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Aug 22, 2009 13:12:10 GMT
If that cost-benefit analysis showed "mass starvation and forced mass emigration " despite all the *pertinent* research showing higher CO2 level results in BOTH higher crop yields AND the ability to grow crops in areas where they would not otherwise grow at all; AND ignored historical evidence of the positive impact of warmer temps on Mankind, then let me amend my statement: I would want to see a cost-benefit analysis from a REPUTABLE source that included scientists covering multiple fields of expertise. While the pertinent research from reputable sources show an increase in crop growth due to increased levels of CO2, research by the same sources show, for example, likely reduced crop growth in many key areas due to higher temperatures and higher levels of near surface ozone. Citations please. Even better: real data SHOWING the decline in crop yields as opposed to model fantasies.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 22, 2009 13:19:00 GMT
If that cost-benefit analysis showed "mass starvation and forced mass emigration " despite all the *pertinent* research showing higher CO2 level results in BOTH higher crop yields AND the ability to grow crops in areas where they would not otherwise grow at all; AND ignored historical evidence of the positive impact of warmer temps on Mankind, then let me amend my statement: I would want to see a cost-benefit analysis from a REPUTABLE source that included scientists covering multiple fields of expertise. While the pertinent research from reputable sources show an increase in crop growth due to increased levels of CO2, research by the same sources show, for example, likely reduced crop growth in many key areas due to higher temperatures and higher levels of near surface ozone. I don't know the physics of why there would be more ozone. I do know plant metabolism and its relation to co2. Finally, a subject that I have lotsssss of knowledge in. 1. An increase in co2 causes plants to become so much more efficient that they thrive and produce more with LESS inputs. 2. They are much less subject to disease threats as they are so much healthier. 3. Corn, as an example, will produce the SAME level of output with 2/3 of the moisture with increase of co2. That increase is one of the main reasons that production continues to increase. Yes, genetics have helped, but the underlying genetics do not account for the straight line increase in yields the past 20 years. I won't go on. Steve, that study that you read, I would like to see it and the variables in it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 22, 2009 13:28:18 GMT
While the pertinent research from reputable sources show an increase in crop growth due to increased levels of CO2, research by the same sources show, for example, likely reduced crop growth in many key areas due to higher temperatures and higher levels of near surface ozone. Citations please. Even better: real data SHOWING the decline in crop yields as opposed to model fantasies. Google ozone crop damage. It's not a controversial idea I think your reaction is one to add to Sentient's psychological profile.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 22, 2009 13:43:46 GMT
Citations please. Even better: real data SHOWING the decline in crop yields as opposed to model fantasies. Google ozone crop damage. It's not a controversial idea I think your reaction is one to add to Sentient's psychological profile. Steve, I understand ozone crop damage. But to have said damage would infer that ozone levels increase. I don't know if that is true or not.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 22, 2009 13:50:29 GMT
Google ozone crop damage. It's not a controversial idea I think your reaction is one to add to Sentient's psychological profile. Steve, I understand ozone crop damage. But to have said damage would infer that ozone levels increase. I don't know if that is true or not. Steve, To have widespread ozone crop damage.......IMHO, I don't think it is possible. The increase in lower level ozone would have to be astranomical for it to occur. Please cite literature that would show the cause of such an increase if you would?
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Aug 22, 2009 14:43:20 GMT
Steve, thank you for making my point. AGW believers falsely conclude that since there is a greenhouse effect, the AGW interpretation of how CO2 acts in the atmosphere is correct. That is a conclusion not supported by reality; only by models and hype. I haven't made your point. You haven't said anything substantive or true. Steve, You have reduced yourself to the bare bones AGW: "it is the way I say it is, because I say it is". AGW is not basic physics. It is sold as if it were. AGW is not = to greenhouse effect. Appeal to authority, what you are trying (and failing) to do, only works with the faithful.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Aug 22, 2009 15:39:04 GMT
Citations please. Even better: real data SHOWING the decline in crop yields as opposed to model fantasies. Google ozone crop damage. It's not a controversial idea I think your reaction is one to add to Sentient's psychological profile. Hi Steve. We've got Sigurdur here, who's a farmer, telling you that your "non-controverisal idea" about ozone-damaged crops is bunk. My uncle is a raisin producer in California. He hasn't seen ozone-related crop damage. I grow a fair portion of the vegetables for my own table. No ozone-related crop damage in my yard. On the other hand, you've got studies, like this one www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071027203000.htm, based on human-determined parameters that fuel alarmism such as yours. (Speaking of psychology.) "While others have looked at how changes in climate and in carbon dioxide concentrations may affect vegetation, Reilly and colleagues added to that mix changes in tropospheric ozone. Moreover, they looked at the combined impact of all three environmental "stressors" at once. (Changes in ecosystems and human health and other impacts of potential concern are outside the scope of this study.) They performed their analysis using the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, which combines linked state-of-the-art economic, climate and agricultural computer models to project emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone precursors based on human activity and natural systems." Lions and tigers and bears -- Oh, my!!! I have actually heard of Google, by the way, and intend to try it some day. It sounds like you're great at it, though. Did you want to produce a single study with DATA of reduced crop yields due to ozone?
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Aug 22, 2009 19:01:07 GMT
Steve,
Not to belabor the point, because you are quite correct that ozone can reduce crop yields. However, very solid and repeated open air CO2 fertilization work by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne (UIUC) shows that the positive benefits of CO2 fertilization on common American crop plants (Soybean and Corn) very much out-weighed any negative consequences from ozone. This is intuitive but it is also proven by the excellent crop yields in areas downwind of cities with ground level ozone problems. CO2 also had significant advantages for nutrient use efficiency (including water).
An very solid and repeated over several years open air study of the effect of increasing CO2 concentrations (CO2 pipes into a corn field, heavily monitored and corrected for winds, etc.) from ambient 380 ppm to 550 ppm (to simulate the expected CO2 level in 2100), showed that soybean yields increased on average 19% and used 5% less water and were much more resistant to drought conditions. This was not too unexpected given previous studies on soybean. However the results for Corn fertilization were even more dramatic. They showed a 40% !! increase in yield and about a 10% reduction in water usage. It seems that CO2, in addition to increasing yields, also allows the plant to use nutrients more efficiently.
So although I would very much welcome higher temperatures and higher CO2 because of the benefits for mankind (very significant for ALL crop plants and forests), I don't believe that we are going to get them. I don't believe that we are going to get that much higher CO2 because economically recoverable fossil fuel reserves (especially oil and coal) are running low and there is just not enough of them (ECONOMICALLY RECOVERABLE) to raise the atmospheric concentration to 550 ppm. I don't think we are going to get the higher temperatures because the purported effect of CO2 seems to be exaggerated (at best).
I very much welcome your contrary views and I hope you will allow me to dissent from your statements as honest disagreement.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by gahooduk on Aug 22, 2009 23:07:38 GMT
If that cost-benefit analysis showed "mass starvation and forced mass emigration " despite all the *pertinent* research showing higher CO2 level results in BOTH higher crop yields AND the ability to grow crops in areas where they would not otherwise grow at all; AND ignored historical evidence of the positive impact of warmer temps on Mankind, then let me amend my statement: I would want to see a cost-benefit analysis from a REPUTABLE source that included scientists covering multiple fields of expertise. having spent the last day updating my family geneoalogy family tree for 1600-1700, i came on here for abreak.. but just reading famine..and mAUNDER brougth this to my mind, my family tree of quite a high status farming family in sedgefield 1600=-1680 average lifespan of 40-max 45 years during mimimum while 1700-1800 average lifetime 80 -max 88 years so how are we going to feed 60m people in the UK
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Aug 23, 2009 1:25:26 GMT
Steve, Not to belabor the point, because you are quite correct that ozone can reduce crop yields. However, very solid and repeated open air CO2 fertilization work by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne (UIUC) shows that the positive benefits of CO2 fertilization on common American crop plants (Soybean and Corn) very much out-weighed any negative consequences from ozone. This is intuitive but it is also proven by the excellent crop yields in areas downwind of cities with ground level ozone problems. CO2 also had significant advantages for nutrient use efficiency (including water). An very solid and repeated over several years open air study of the effect of increasing CO2 concentrations (CO2 pipes into a corn field, heavily monitored and corrected for winds, etc.) from ambient 380 ppm to 550 ppm (to simulate the expected CO2 level in 2100), showed that soybean yields increased on average 19% and used 5% less water and were much more resistant to drought conditions. This was not too unexpected given previous studies on soybean. However the results for Corn fertilization were even more dramatic. They showed a 40% !! increase in yield and about a 10% reduction in water usage. It seems that CO2, in addition to increasing yields, also allows the plant to use nutrients more efficiently. So although I would very much welcome higher temperatures and higher CO2 because of the benefits for mankind (very significant for ALL crop plants and forests), I don't believe that we are going to get them. I don't believe that we are going to get that much higher CO2 because economically recoverable fossil fuel reserves (especially oil and coal) are running low and there is just not enough of them (ECONOMICALLY RECOVERABLE) to raise the atmospheric concentration to 550 ppm. I don't think we are going to get the higher temperatures because the purported effect of CO2 seems to be exaggerated (at best). I very much welcome your contrary views and I hope you will allow me to dissent from your statements as honest disagreement. Ian Don't worry, there is plenty of coal. Oil shale and oil tar sands are very plentiful as well.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 23, 2009 12:38:59 GMT
I haven't made your point. You haven't said anything substantive or true. Steve, You have reduced yourself to the bare bones AGW: "it is the way I say it is, because I say it is". AGW is not basic physics. It is sold as if it were. AGW is not = to greenhouse effect. Appeal to authority, what you are trying (and failing) to do, only works with the faithful. Hunter, I can never see the point with getting to grips with what you say because you have a simple view of the subject. There is nothing controversial in the physics of AGW science. I have not said that AGW is = to greenhouse effect - I've referred enough to the *increase* in CO2. Your stuff about "the faithful" applies to you as you have come to your opinion without showing any sort of understanding of what your opponent is saying. I've said the last sentence a few times in response to you, but I've for the most part given up saying it.
|
|