frightening

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 17 October 2015 08:07:01 UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:32:37 -0700, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

This is frightening:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-powerful-annual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/

After we dig up and burn all the oil and coal and NG that we can
access, what will we do then to make more CO2?

<snip>

If one is going to one extreme (his) then one could take the opposite....

And he rattles on essentially praising to the sky (heavens? with
crystal sphere and all that) the benefits of excess CO2.

Not excess, certainly by past history, like 8000 PPM or so, every
river running free fizzy water. But "enough." The longterm threat to
life on Earth is running out of CO2, not having too much. Earth
invented humans to dig it up and put it back into circulation.

Probably not. Really high CO2 levels go back to when the sun was less bright, and we needed better insulation to make sure that the oceans didn't freeze up (as they did, once, early on).

Yea, unto the ends of the (flat) earth, may he breath such...

I liked his point about the green revolution, the combination of GM
crops and high CO2 levels that can feed the human population, reduce
the acreage farmed, and green the planet. All things that the greenies
and politicos hate.

I've not seen a greenie or a politician expressing hatred of either.

The green revolution doesn't seem to have depended on rising CO2 levels.

Since the carefully selected plants in part responsible for the green revolution were all selected to grow will at atmospheric CO2 levels not much over 300ppm, it shouldn't take much wit - more than John Larkin has, but not much - to realise that at 450ppm CO2 levels there will be weeds around that will be better adapted to the new normal.

Changing atmospheric circulation on a warmer earth also means that the rain that used to fall on California is now falling somewhere else - plant growth tends to be water limited rather than CO2 limited (plant leaves from CO2 rich eras have fewer stomata, to let them get the same amount of CO2 while losing less water) - so John Larkin's mindless faith in the virtues of rising CO2 levels does ignore some of the second-order real-world consequences..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[rickman]

On 10/16/2015 5:06 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:32:37 -0700, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

This is frightening:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-powerful-annual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/

After we dig up and burn all the oil and coal and NG that we can
access, what will we do then to make more CO2?



Hmmm...this guy SITS on a seal,and possibly killing it (how can it
breathe properly), and say that the clubbers did the dirty deed?
One could argue that the clubbers "saved" the seal.

Do seals go to heaven?

If one is going to one extreme (his) then one could take the opposite...

And he rattles on essentially praising to the sky (heavens? with
crystal sphere and all that) the benefits of excess CO2.

Not excess, certainly by past history, like 8000 PPM or so, every
river running free fizzy water. But "enough." The longterm threat to
life on Earth is running out of CO2, not having too much. Earth
invented humans to dig it up and put it back into circulation.

Yea, unto the ends of the (flat) earth, may he breath such...

I liked his point about the green revolution, the combination of GM
crops and high CO2 levels that can feed the human population, reduce
the acerage farmed, and green the planet. All things that the greenies
and politicos hate.

I don't know what is up with those damn Greenies. Why don't they want
the planet to be fed? What's wrong with them?

--

Rick

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:08:27 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Since the carefully selected plants in part responsible for the green revolution were all selected to grow will at atmospheric CO2 levels not much over 300ppm, it shouldn't take much wit - more than John Larkin has, but not much - to realise that at 450ppm CO2 levels there will be weeds around that will be better adapted to the new normal.


Bill Sloman, Sydney

Not sure I believe that. People increase the level of CO2 in greenhouses for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

Dan

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 17 October 2015 23:57:03 UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:08:27 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


Since the carefully selected plants in part responsible for the green revolution were all selected to grow will at atmospheric CO2 levels not much over 300ppm, it shouldn't take much wit - more than John Larkin has, but not much - to realise that at 450ppm CO2 levels there will be weeds around that will be better adapted to the new normal.

Not sure I believe that. People increase the level of CO2 in greenhouses for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

Sure. But they are also rather careful to exclude weeds in the first case, and pull out any that show up.

The bulk of the food we eat isn't grown in greenhouses - they are fine if you want to grow stuff you can sell at a premium price, but rather expensive for stuff like corn, wheat and rice.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:56:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Not sure I believe that. People increase the level of CO2 in greenhouses for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

Sure. But they are also rather careful to exclude weeds in the first case, and pull out any that show up.

The bulk of the food we eat isn't grown in greenhouses - they are fine if you want to grow stuff you can sell at a premium price, but rather expensive for stuff like corn, wheat and rice.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

So what you are saying is that there is no data on whether weeds or crops benefit the most from more CO2?

The fact that most food is not grown in greenhouses is not pertinent to the discussion.

Dan

 

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 2:00:15 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:46:47 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:56:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Not sure I believe that. People increase the level of CO2 in greenhouses for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

Sure. But they are also rather careful to exclude weeds in the first case, and pull out any that show up.

The bulk of the food we eat isn't grown in greenhouses - they are fine if you want to grow stuff you can sell at a premium price, but rather expensive for stuff like corn, wheat and rice.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

So what you are saying is that there is no data on whether weeds or crops benefit the most from more CO2?

Pessimists don't need data.

Once again you're coming across as a complete idiot, mechanic. Although an idiot like you and the Greenpeace nutcase focus on CO2 is good for plant growth, you neglect the other essential ingredients that are adversely affected like soil moisture availability and temperature. Agricultural production in many areas will fall drastically as many crops cannot withstand being beat to death by direct sunlight at high temperatures and low to zero soil moisture conditions. The USDA has studied this extensively, and they KNOW what to expect. We're seeing it unfold right now.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/873725/impactofrising.pdf
That's just one of numerous readily accessible white papers on the subject based on real science. You ignore this because you're an irrational simpleton who never learned to reason properly, consequently you're opinion is not worth much.

 

[rickman]

On 10/17/2015 8:56 AM, dcaster@krl.org wrote:

On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:08:27 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


Since the carefully selected plants in part responsible for the green revolution were all selected to grow will at atmospheric CO2 levels not much over 300ppm, it shouldn't take much wit - more than John Larkin has, but not much - to realise that at 450ppm CO2 levels there will be weeds around that will be better adapted to the new normal.


Bill Sloman, Sydney

Not sure I believe that. People increase the level of CO2 in greenhouses for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

I just want to be clear... are people *really* advocating the increase
of CO2 emissions in order to turn the planet into a giant hothouse?

I guess that could solve AGW. If instead of capturing only 2% of the
incident sunlight into useful food, we could turn 40% into food, that
would greatly lower the heat released into the environment by the sun.
But what would be do with all that food? Imagine how the wild plants
would take over. We'd have to mow lawns twice a day and our cities
would be reclaimed in a matter of months turning the planet back into
it's native state.

What CO2 level would be required for that? Could we still breath it and
live?

--

Rick

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:46:47 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
<dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:56:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Not sure I believe that. People increase the level of CO2 in greenhouses for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

Sure. But they are also rather careful to exclude weeds in the first case, and pull out any that show up.

The bulk of the food we eat isn't grown in greenhouses - they are fine if you want to grow stuff you can sell at a premium price, but rather expensive for stuff like corn, wheat and rice.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

So what you are saying is that there is no data on whether weeds or crops benefit the most from more CO2?

Pessimists don't need data.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 18 October 2015 04:46:55 UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:56:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Not sure I believe that. People increase the level of CO2 in greenhouses for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

Sure. But they are also rather careful to exclude weeds in the first case, and pull out any that show up.

The bulk of the food we eat isn't grown in greenhouses - they are fine if you want to grow stuff you can sell at a premium price, but rather expensive for stuff like corn, wheat and rice.

So what you are saying is that there is no data on whether weeds or crops benefit the most from more CO2?

Weeds have more genetic diversity, so some weeds are going to benefit more from more CO2 than our carefully selected, genetically uniform crops. Some are also going to benefit less, but they aren't the ones that are going to be invading the land we use for growing crops.

> The fact that most food is not grown in greenhouses is not pertinent to the discussion.

The basis for this discussion is that more CO2 in the atmosphere helps us grow bigger crops which can feed more people. Since greenhouse crops are a low volume product, what happens in greenhouses is what's not pertinent to this discussion.

As I've noticed before, you are impertinent.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 18 October 2015 02:18:33 UTC+11, rickman wrote:

On 10/17/2015 8:56 AM, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:08:27 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


Since the carefully selected plants in part responsible for the green revolution were all selected to grow will at atmospheric CO2 levels not much over 300ppm, it shouldn't take much wit - more than John Larkin has, but not much - to realise that at 450ppm CO2 levels there will be weeds around that will be better adapted to the new normal.

Not sure I believe that. People increase the level of CO2 in greenhouses for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

I just want to be clear... are people *really* advocating the increase
of CO2 emissions in order to turn the planet into a giant hothouse?

Well, Anthony Watts does get loads of money from sort of people who support the denial of anthropogenic global warming

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts

so it's not so much that people are advocating putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, as that people who make money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel - which incidentally dumps on more CO2 into the atmosphere - are subsidising any money-grubbing nitwit who will claim that this isn't a bad thing.

I guess that could solve AGW. If instead of capturing only 2% of the
incident sunlight into useful food, we could turn 40% into food, that
would greatly lower the heat released into the environment by the sun.

I think regular plants capture about 0.3% of the energy in the incident light. There are specialised bacteria around who can get close to 10%, but you need to set up an elaborate environment to replace leaves, branches and roots (which bacteria don't do). Even they woudn't release significantly less waste heat into the environment.

Growing biomass, converting it into carbon-rich bio-char and burying that would be a way of rcovering CO2 from the atmosphere, but it would be a lot cheaper not to put it there in the first place.

But what would be do with all that food? Imagine how the wild plants
would take over. We'd have to mow lawns twice a day and our cities
would be reclaimed in a matter of months turning the planet back into
it's native state.

What CO2 level would be required for that? Could we still breath it and
live?

No more than the plants could.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 2:32:40 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 2:00:15 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:46:47 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:56:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Not sure I believe that. People increase the level of CO2 in greenhouses for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

Sure. But they are also rather careful to exclude weeds in the first case, and pull out any that show up.

The bulk of the food we eat isn't grown in greenhouses - they are fine if you want to grow stuff you can sell at a premium price, but rather expensive for stuff like corn, wheat and rice.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

So what you are saying is that there is no data on whether weeds or crops benefit the most from more CO2?

Pessimists don't need data.

Once again you're coming across as a complete idiot, mechanic. Although an idiot like you and the Greenpeace nutcase focus on CO2 is good for plant growth, you neglect the other essential ingredients that are adversely affected like soil moisture availability and temperature. Agricultural production in many areas will fall drastically as many crops cannot withstand being beat to death by direct sunlight at high temperatures and low to zero soil moisture conditions. The USDA has studied this extensively, and they KNOW what to expect. We're seeing it unfold right now.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/873725/impactofrising.pdf

Without reading the whole thing, it looks like the data support increased yield
with increased CO2.

They cite others factors, as you have.

The sum of those factors should show in crop yields.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/09/25/us-global-crop-production-sets-new-records-2014
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture has forecast record U.S. corn
yields this year as warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons,
more precipitation, and higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
have enhanced crop output."

www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/soybean/seed/docs/2014-USSEC-soybean-quality-report.pdf
"According to the 1 November, 2014 United States Department of Agriculture,
National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) crop production report,
the total US soybean harvested area increased 9.4 percent from last year to
33.8 million hectares harvested (Table 1). Average yields increased to
3.2 MT per ha. The higher yields brought total US soybean production to an
estimated 107.8 million MT. The record 2014 crop is estimated to be 17.8%
larger than the 2013 crop. "

As compared to..

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/18/us-climate-food-idUSTRE55H3YI20090618
"The White House published this week a report which forecast that heat, floods, drought and pests would harm food yields and concluded, for example, that cranberry production may no longer be possible by 2050 in its East Coast heartland."

IOW, the White House predicts AGW will produce
- flood, and
- drought, and will
- hurt food yields.

> That's just one of numerous readily accessible white papers on the subject based on real science. You ignore this because you're an irrational simpleton who never learned to reason properly, consequently you're opinion is not worth much.

Likewise, we've been told
- the last two years have been the warmest ever, and
- warmer weather will cause more storms, and more energetic storms.

That's a testable hypothesis.
If true we should see it immediately: (storms respond to current local
conditions). Instead, we have fewer storms, and weaker, right?


Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 10:56:02 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

This is frightening:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-powerful-annual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/

After we dig up and burn all the oil and coal and NG that we can
access, what will we do then to make more CO2?

We may have to use solar furnaces to unlease life-saving CO2 from limestone.

Thanks heaven for solar energy!

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 18/10/2015 5:00 AM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:46:47 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:56:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Not sure I believe that. People increase the level of CO2 in greenhouses for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

Sure. But they are also rather careful to exclude weeds in the first case, and pull out any that show up.

The bulk of the food we eat isn't grown in greenhouses - they are fine if you want to grow stuff you can sell at a premium price, but rather expensive for stuff like corn, wheat and rice.

So what you are saying is that there is no data on whether weeds or crops benefit the most from more CO2?

Pessimists don't need data.

The point - which I have to explain to simpletons like you and dca - is
that weeds are more genetically diverse than our food crops, many of
which are cloned and genetically identical.

One doesn't need much data to know that when you change the environment
- in this case by introducing more CO2 into the air - some species will
be better adapted to the new conditions. Since weeds are genetically
diverse, some will be even worse at dealing with extra CO2 than our crop
plants, but some will be considerably better.

I'd invite you to think about it, if there were any evidence that you
could actually think about anything outside of electronics.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Robert Baer]

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:32:37 -0700, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

This is frightening:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-powerful-annual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/

After we dig up and burn all the oil and coal and NG that we can
access, what will we do then to make more CO2?



Hmmm...this guy SITS on a seal,and possibly killing it (how can it
breathe properly), and say that the clubbers did the dirty deed?
One could argue that the clubbers "saved" the seal.

Do seals go to heaven?

If one is going to one extreme (his) then one could take the opposite...

And he rattles on essentially praising to the sky (heavens? with
crystal sphere and all that) the benefits of excess CO2.

Not excess, certainly by past history, like 8000 PPM or so, every
river running free fizzy water. But "enough." The longterm threat to
life on Earth is running out of CO2, not having too much. Earth
invented humans to dig it up and put it back into circulation.

Yea, unto the ends of the (flat) earth, may he breath such...

I liked his point about the green revolution, the combination of GM
crops and high CO2 levels that can feed the human population, reduce
the acerage farmed, and green the planet. All things that the greenies
and politicos hate.


As long as everyone has to buy the seed from Monsanto...

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:02:27 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 10:56:02 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
This is frightening:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-powerful-annual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/

After we dig up and burn all the oil and coal and NG that we can
access, what will we do then to make more CO2?

We may have to use solar furnaces to unlease life-saving CO2 from limestone.

Let's use nukes.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 19:56:07 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 2:32:40 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 2:00:15 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:46:47 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:56:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Not sure I believe that. People increase the level of CO2 in greenhouses for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

Sure. But they are also rather careful to exclude weeds in the first case, and pull out any that show up.

The bulk of the food we eat isn't grown in greenhouses - they are fine if you want to grow stuff you can sell at a premium price, but rather expensive for stuff like corn, wheat and rice.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

So what you are saying is that there is no data on whether weeds or crops benefit the most from more CO2?

Pessimists don't need data.

Once again you're coming across as a complete idiot, mechanic. Although an idiot like you and the Greenpeace nutcase focus on CO2 is good for plant growth, you neglect the other essential ingredients that are adversely affected like soil moisture availability and temperature. Agricultural production in many areas will fall drastically as many crops cannot withstand being beat to death by direct sunlight at high temperatures and low to zero soil moisture conditions. The USDA has studied this extensively, and they KNOW what to expect. We're seeing it unfold right now.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/873725/impactofrising.pdf
Without reading the whole thing, it looks like the data support increased yield
with increased CO2.

They cite others factors, as you have.

The sum of those factors should show in crop yields.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/09/25/us-global-crop-production-sets-new-records-2014
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture has forecast record U.S. corn
yields this year as warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons,
more precipitation, and higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
have enhanced crop output."

www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/soybean/seed/docs/2014-USSEC-soybean-quality-report.pdf
"According to the 1 November, 2014 United States Department of Agriculture,
National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) crop production report,
the total US soybean harvested area increased 9.4 percent from last year to
33.8 million hectares harvested (Table 1). Average yields increased to
3.2 MT per ha. The higher yields brought total US soybean production to an
estimated 107.8 million MT. The record 2014 crop is estimated to be 17.8%
larger than the 2013 crop. "

As compared to..

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/18/us-climate-food-idUSTRE55H3YI20090618
"The White House published this week a report which forecast that heat, floods, drought and pests would harm food yields and concluded, for example, that cranberry production may no longer be possible by 2050 in its East Coast heartland."

IOW, the White House predicts AGW will produce
- flood, and
- drought, and will
- hurt food yields.

That's just one of numerous readily accessible white papers on the subject based on real science. You ignore this because you're an irrational simpleton who never learned to reason properly, consequently you're opinion is not worth much.

Likewise, we've been told
- the last two years have been the warmest ever, and
- warmer weather will cause more storms, and more energetic storms.

That's a testable hypothesis.
If true we should see it immediately: (storms respond to current local
conditions). Instead, we have fewer storms, and weaker, right?


Cheers,
James Arthur

What's actually frightening is the damage that the whole climate
hysteria thing will do to "science" and to scientists.

People are noticing that crop yields are going up, hurricanes are not
trashing the USA, it still snows in winter, and the West Side Highway
is not under water.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 18 October 2015 13:56:14 UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 2:32:40 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 2:00:15 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:46:47 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:56:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Not sure I believe that. People increase the level of CO2 in greenhouses for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

Sure. But they are also rather careful to exclude weeds in the first case, and pull out any that show up.

The bulk of the food we eat isn't grown in greenhouses - they are fine if you want to grow stuff you can sell at a premium price, but rather expensive for stuff like corn, wheat and rice.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

So what you are saying is that there is no data on whether weeds or crops benefit the most from more CO2?

Pessimists don't need data.

Once again you're coming across as a complete idiot, mechanic. Although an idiot like you and the Greenpeace nutcase focus on CO2 is good for plant growth, you neglect the other essential ingredients that are adversely affected like soil moisture availability and temperature. Agricultural production in many areas will fall drastically as many crops cannot withstand being beat to death by direct sunlight at high temperatures and low to zero soil moisture conditions. The USDA has studied this extensively, and they KNOW what to expect. We're seeing it unfold right now.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/873725/impactofrising.pdf
Without reading the whole thing, it looks like the data support increased yield
with increased CO2.

They cite others factors, as you have.

The sum of those factors should show in crop yields.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/09/25/us-global-crop-production-sets-new-records-2014
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture has forecast record U.S. corn
yields this year as warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons,
more precipitation, and higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
have enhanced crop output."

www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/soybean/seed/docs/2014-USSEC-soybean-quality-report.pdf
"According to the 1 November, 2014 United States Department of Agriculture,
National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) crop production report,
the total US soybean harvested area increased 9.4 percent from last year to
33.8 million hectares harvested (Table 1). Average yields increased to
3.2 MT per ha. The higher yields brought total US soybean production to an
estimated 107.8 million MT. The record 2014 crop is estimated to be 17.8%
larger than the 2013 crop. "

As compared to..

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/18/us-climate-food-idUSTRE55H3YI20090618
"The White House published this week a report which forecast that heat, floods, drought and pests would harm food yields and concluded, for example, that cranberry production may no longer be possible by 2050 in its East Coast heartland."

IOW, the White House predicts AGW will produce
- flood, and
- drought, and will
- hurt food yields.

That's just one of numerous readily accessible white papers on the subject based on real science. You ignore this because you're an irrational simpleton who never learned to reason properly, consequently you're opinion is not worth much.

Likewise, we've been told
- the last two years have been the warmest ever, and
- warmer weather will cause more storms, and more energetic storms.

That's a testable hypothesis.
If true we should see it immediately: (storms respond to current local
conditions). Instead, we have fewer storms, and weaker, right?

If you cherry-pick your period - perhaps. In reality, someone did a respectable study and found that we'd had enough extra CO2 in the atmosphere for long enough for there to be a robust correlation with more numerous "extreme weather" events.

It was all over the web a year or so ago, but you've managed to forget it. No surprises there.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 18 October 2015 14:55:01 UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 19:56:07 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 2:32:40 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 2:00:15 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:46:47 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:56:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Not sure I believe that. People increase the level of CO2 in greenhouses for reasons other than encouraging weeds.

Sure. But they are also rather careful to exclude weeds in the first case, and pull out any that show up.

The bulk of the food we eat isn't grown in greenhouses - they are fine if you want to grow stuff you can sell at a premium price, but rather expensive for stuff like corn, wheat and rice.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

So what you are saying is that there is no data on whether weeds or crops benefit the most from more CO2?

Pessimists don't need data.

Once again you're coming across as a complete idiot, mechanic. Although an idiot like you and the Greenpeace nutcase focus on CO2 is good for plant growth, you neglect the other essential ingredients that are adversely affected like soil moisture availability and temperature. Agricultural production in many areas will fall drastically as many crops cannot withstand being beat to death by direct sunlight at high temperatures and low to zero soil moisture conditions. The USDA has studied this extensively, and they KNOW what to expect. We're seeing it unfold right now.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/873725/impactofrising.pdf
Without reading the whole thing, it looks like the data support increased yield
with increased CO2.

They cite others factors, as you have.

The sum of those factors should show in crop yields.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/09/25/us-global-crop-production-sets-new-records-2014
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture has forecast record U.S. corn
yields this year as warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons,
more precipitation, and higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
have enhanced crop output."

www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/soybean/seed/docs/2014-USSEC-soybean-quality-report.pdf
"According to the 1 November, 2014 United States Department of Agriculture,
National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) crop production report,
the total US soybean harvested area increased 9.4 percent from last year to
33.8 million hectares harvested (Table 1). Average yields increased to
3.2 MT per ha. The higher yields brought total US soybean production to an
estimated 107.8 million MT. The record 2014 crop is estimated to be 17.8%
larger than the 2013 crop. "

As compared to..

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/18/us-climate-food-idUSTRE55H3YI20090618
"The White House published this week a report which forecast that heat, floods, drought and pests would harm food yields and concluded, for example, that cranberry production may no longer be possible by 2050 in its East Coast heartland."

IOW, the White House predicts AGW will produce
- flood, and
- drought, and will
- hurt food yields.

That's just one of numerous readily accessible white papers on the subject based on real science. You ignore this because you're an irrational simpleton who never learned to reason properly, consequently you're opinion is not worth much.

Likewise, we've been told
- the last two years have been the warmest ever, and
- warmer weather will cause more storms, and more energetic storms.

That's a testable hypothesis.
If true we should see it immediately: (storms respond to current local
conditions). Instead, we have fewer storms, and weaker, right?

What's actually frightening is the damage that the whole climate
hysteria thing will do to "science" and to scientists.

It's been done before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

first with tobacco - the cigarette companies in fact set up the organisations that are now telling gullible idiots like John Larkin that he doesn't have to worry about anthropogenic global warming - and there are enough gullible idiots around to make it worthwhile for the fossil-carbon extraction industry to spend money on fooling some of the people, some of the time.

It doesn't do anything much to science or scientists - anybody with any sense knows what's going on - and I suppose it does have the advantage that the gullible idiots identify themselves to everybody else.

People are noticing that crop yields are going up, hurricanes are not
trashing the USA, it still snows in winter, and the West Side Highway
is not under water.

But keep watching this space. Anthropogenic global warming got under way with the industrial revolution, about 1750 - but it took until 1983 for the CO2 level to hit 340ppm, and only another thirty years to get to the 400ppm we've got today. It used to be pretty slow, and the effects were pretty hard to separate from the natural climate noise until about 1990, and there's still plenty of noise about for the gormless optimists to pin their hopes to.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 18 October 2015 14:55:52 UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:02:27 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 10:56:02 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
This is frightening:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-powerful-annual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/

After we dig up and burn all the oil and coal and NG that we can
access, what will we do then to make more CO2?

We may have to use solar furnaces to unlease life-saving CO2 from limestone.

Let's use nukes.

Aren't you nervous about starting Bethe-cycle nuclear carbon-burning going in the atmosphere?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle

Who knows, you might be silly enough to be nervous about that while denying anthropogenic global warming.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:56:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/09/25/us-global-crop-production-sets-new-records-2014
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture has forecast record U.S. corn
yields this year as warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons,
more precipitation, and higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
have enhanced crop output."

The Heartland Institute is a phony shill institute, and the USDA made no such statement about atmospheric CO2 contributing to crop yields. You're just a lying little political hack.
Here's how yields are actually modeled:
http://www.usda.gov/oce/forum/presentations/Westcott_Jewison.pdf
Warmer temperatures reduce yield, and add in below average precipitation and the yields plummet. Note that CO2 as an independent variable doesn't figure into the equation, its effects are more appropriately gauged through resulting climate change.

www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/soybean/seed/docs/2014-USSEC-soybean-quality-report.pdf
"According to the 1 November, 2014 United States Department of Agriculture,
National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) crop production report,
the total US soybean harvested area increased 9.4 percent from last year to
33.8 million hectares harvested (Table 1). Average yields increased to
3.2 MT per ha. The higher yields brought total US soybean production to an
estimated 107.8 million MT. The record 2014 crop is estimated to be 17.8%
larger than the 2013 crop. "

That was for one year with abnormally cooler growing season and abnormally higher precipitation. Abnormal conditions are not usually given much weight in determining trends, except by political hacks.

Another effect you and the other ignoramus are ignoring is the dependence of many food crops on cold. Many types of fruit and nut producers REQUIRE several hundred hours of HARD FREEZE prior to the growing season for production. The hard freeze will be doing a disappearing act in many places as the climate warms.

Here is another example of an industry in rapid decline:
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/New_England_includes/Publications/0605mpl.pdf

As compared to..

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/18/us-climate-food-idUSTRE55H3YI20090618
"The White House published this week a report which forecast that heat, floods, drought and pests would harm food yields and concluded, for example, that cranberry production may no longer be possible by 2050 in its East Coast heartland."

IOW, the White House predicts AGW will produce
- flood, and
- drought, and will
- hurt food yields.

That's just one of numerous readily accessible white papers on the subject based on real science. You ignore this because you're an irrational simpleton who never learned to reason properly, consequently you're opinion is not worth much.

Likewise, we've been told
- the last two years have been the warmest ever, and
- warmer weather will cause more storms, and more energetic storms.

That's a testable hypothesis.
If true we should see it immediately: (storms respond to current local
conditions). Instead, we have fewer storms, and weaker, right?

You don't know the first thing about interpreting climate data, and you're too dumb to learn.

Cheers,
James Arthur