Solar and Wind Will Not "Save" the Climate

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

7 hours ago, NickW said:

Most plants today have evolved and do not respond to increasing CO2 above about 1000ppm so the analogy of what happened in 520 million BC is not applicable today. Commercial Greenhouse growers do not lift CO2 levels above 800ppm because it has little or no effect. 

Absurd: Higher concentrations in greenhouses are not done because it is HELLA expensive to get even that high compared to the outside world.

Here is reality: http://www.co2science.org

Site lists all studies done on plants throughout the world that they can get their hands on.  Go to the data section.  Enjoy. 

With double, triple CO2 found at today's levels: Plants use vastly less water, minerals(fertilizer), grow gigantically faster, better quality, at lower temperatures and at elevated temperatures, and the kicker, they have better immunity to disease. 

There is a reason there are stumps(not fossilized) hundreds of miles farther north than where small scrub trees grow today across Canada/Russia.  It was vastly warmer during the midevil warm period.  There is a reason the entire world has fossils of tropical/sub tropical/deciduous/coniferous plants everywhere.  With high CO2, they could literally GROW everywhere. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

10 hours ago, David Jones said:

This made me laugh. It's as if you somehow think that because plants use CO2, it can't be a greenhouse gas. There is no such connection and one does not preclude the other. You are also clearly unaware of the fact that plants have a limit on their efficiency gains with higher CO2 concentrations. This limit has been researched in multiple papers and it is generally considered to begin at about 450ppm to 500ppm. Many plants will begin to lose their capacity to increase their absorption of CO2 once we move past 450ppm and beyond 500ppm, this capacity flattens out rapidly.

Bull Shit: http://www.co2science.org

Rice, wheat, etc LOVE it at 1000ppm.  Grow 100%-->300% and more than today, using less water, fertilizer, bigger grain of higher quality over a much wider temperature range.  Vegetables go Bananas at higher CO2 levels. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

15 hours ago, Red said:

Wind and solar can incorporate storage.  Storage is getting increasingly more affordable.  

Renewables will still be available in a billion years, not that we will be around then, and getting cheaper each year on an energy input basis.  Fossil fuels are increasingly more expensive to extract on an energy input basis, and will not be available in any meaningful quantities beyond a thousands years at best.

You have confused 2 different senses.  Carbon sequestration is a viable means to reduce GHG levels such that global warming trends are mitigated.  

The natural fluxes of CO2 are not at issue, and never have been.   What you and many others who are equally poorly informed do not understand is that the physics of GHG's is immutable.

See my post at end of Page 5.  The Eastern USA power Grid would have to build ~200 equivalent Grand Coulee dams dumping the equivalent of Lake Erie down their tubes for 5 days worth of power. 

As for CO2 being a GHG that will doom the earth... What a crock.  The entire lie was predicated by CO2 being dumped into upper atmosphere in large quantities to absorb a little extra radiation from the sun. 

Well, what did we find out?  No, CO2 in upper atmosphere was NOT massively increasing and the model was off by at MINIMUM 500%...  .... Well anyone with half a brain can figure out that CO2 is a DENSE gas and there is NO WAY IN HELL it could possible reach the upper atmosphere like H2O.  So much for so called "peer review" who are all so utterly ignorant and stupid they did not pass basic chemistry or physics.  Since H2O DOES reach the upper atmosphere, unlike CO2 in large quantities, IT absorbs/emits all the radiation from the sun in the frequency bands that CO2 WOULD have. 

Then there is the "little" problem of the ice age forcing of +/- 10C compared to their CO2 forcing in the extreme(assumes their model was correct with CO2 in upper atmosphere) was a measly 3C. 

What is greater 10C or 3C .... So, natural forcing is good for at minimum of 10C and the WILDEST of CO2 forcing hilarity was ... 3C .... which was proven false due to... weather balloons....

 

Ah, nothing like damned lies to keep the money flowing for your grants...

Edited February 8, 2019 by Wastral

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

21 hours ago, NickW said:

No one has argued for a CO2 free atmosphere

No - I haven't forgotten about water vapour - without that the temperature would be more like Mars. 

Bull: All you have to do is look at IPCC's own absorption radiation frequency chart or any biology book and the major gases in our atmosphere.  There is only one small section that CO2 partially helps in that a thicker water vapor would not. 

http://earthonlinemedia.com/ebooks/tpe_3e/energy/atmospheric_absorption.html

CO2 helps a small bit.  Not required other than for life...

Got some more anti science Bull you wish to peddle?

Edited February 8, 2019 by Wastral

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Welcome, @Wastral.  Look forward to reading more of your comments.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Dan Warnick

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

5 hours ago, David Jones said:

What the heck? SNIP

I'm sure if you look around you will find other articles confirming their findings and the reason ICEVs lose range in cold weather especially when executing short trips is because the ICE works less efficiently when it is cold. You obviously did not know this.

It's quite likely

😅

Thermodynamic efficiency is what again?  Th/Tc......

Colder air is denser or less dense holding less or more oxygen in your universe....  Please do inform us. We are waiting with baited breath how your own personal universe works.

Decreasing Tc efficiency goes which direction again?

😂

[MUI + 92]

5 hours ago, David Jones said:

I'm sure if you look around you will find other articles confirming their findings and the reason ICEVs lose range in cold weather especially when executing short trips is because the ICE works less efficiently when it is cold. You obviously did not know this.

I beg to differ. An internal combustion engine does perform better when it's operating temperature is increased (hence the reason for thermostats in the cooling system) but that has nothing to do with cold weather performance once the engine has reached operating temperature (thermostat has opened at least once). After this initial warm-up period, the engine will perform better in cold weather due to the air charge being more dense (contracted due to being colder). It is simply the fact that there is more oxygen in a given volume of said air at lower temps. This is why manufacturers go to the expense of installing intercoolers on turbocharged engines.

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, Wastral said:

Here is reality: http://www.co2science.org

No, that's a site which selectively cites sections from science papers to show the potential for an event or circumstance which supports the unscientific beliefs of the website's masters.

I realise threads wander, but why not open a specific topic in CO2's effects on plant life rather than do what all climate science deniers like you do, which is divert attention from the real problem.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

3 minutes ago, Red said:

No, that's a site which selectively cites sections from science papers to show the potential for an event or circumstance which supports the unscientific beliefs of the website's masters.

I realise threads wander, but why not open a specific topic in CO2's effects on plant life rather than do what all climate science deniers like you do, which is divert attention from the real problem.

Do you even read?  They only tabulate any source they can find as it is published. It is not selective at all if you had bothered to read.  There is not a major food source NOT in their tabulated data.  Assuming the journals weren't lying that is...

And what is the "real" problem... Still waiting for it.  Do use science.  Tough call as the IPCC can't be bothered with science. 

Not mantra diatribes or slander. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

21 minutes ago, MUI said:

I beg to differ. An internal combustion engine ...... It is simply the fact that there is more oxygen in a given volume of said air at lower temps. This is why manufacturers go to the expense of installing intercoolers on turbocharged engines.

Intercoolers are only installed to keep the fuel air mixture from PRE detonating in the air plenum, and yes, to make it easier to squeeze more oxygen in using less work.   Blowing up your plenum is not a cool thing to do.  Well it is a rather exciting thing to do.... once.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Wastral

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, Wastral said:

My comments are in red

See my post at end of Page 5.  The Eastern USA power Grid would have to build ~200 equivalent Grand Coulee dams dumping the equivalent of Lake Erie down their tubes for 5 days worth of power.   That would just be stupid engineering based on poor thinking.  Increasing the height of storage dams increases energy.  However, it's a poor way of addressing an issue which has multiple solutions where none involve fossil fuels.

As for CO2 being a GHG that will doom the earth... What a crock.  Given the science is about warming the planet, "doom" is just a term science deniers lob in for a drum roll because they just don't understand climate. The entire lie was predicated by CO2 being dumped into upper atmosphere in large quantities to absorb a little extra radiation from the sun.  No.  That is false.  There are thousands of science papers available to confirm you have no idea about this topic.

Well, what did we find out?  No, CO2 in upper atmosphere was NOT massively increasing and the model was off by at MINIMUM 500%... ?????  .... Well anyone with half a brain can figure out that CO2 is a DENSE gas and there is NO WAY IN HELL it could possible reach the upper atmosphere like H2O.  ?????  So much for so called "peer review" who are all so utterly ignorant and stupid they did not pass basic chemistry or physics.  ????? - actually, you are the one who remains clueless   Since H2O DOES reach the upper atmosphere, ?????- I hope you realise this has nothing to do with climate science as the concept is just a crazy idea you have.  - unlike CO2 in large quantities, IT absorbs/emits all the radiation from the sun in the frequency bands that CO2 WOULD have. ????? water vapour is a "feedback" - do you know what that means? 

Then there is the "little" problem of the ice age forcing of +/- 10C compared to their CO2 forcing in the extreme(assumes their model was correct with CO2 in upper atmosphere) was a measly 3C. ????? omg, where does this dribble come from? 

What is greater 10C or 3C .... So, natural forcing is good for at minimum of 10C and the WILDEST of CO2 forcing hilarity was ... 3C .... which was proven false due to... weather balloons....?????  where does your inability to make sense come from? 

Ah, nothing like damned lies to keep the money flowing for your grants... ????? - the usual denier nonsense again showing.

[Red + 252]

10 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Do you even read?  They only tabulate any source they can find as it is published. It is not selective at all if you had bothered to read.  There is not a major food source NOT in their tabulated data.  Assuming the journals weren't lying that is...

And what is the "real" problem... Still waiting for it.  Do use science.  Tough call as the IPCC can't be bothered with science. 

Not mantra diatribes or slander. 

Unlike you, I read for understanding.  I also probably read more widely given that I could offer a context showing the inherent bias of most of the papers your preferred site links to.

Here's a very recent example.  There's a link to this.  What the paper does not tell you is what is happening in the real world.  That's where we use the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) to show that ecosystems are experiencing rapid ecological change in response to climate warming.  So while it may be true that you can grow plants that sequester more CO2 in a CO2 rich atmosphere, the places you can grow them diminish.  Additionally, while temperature increases to a region will change crop type, there is no evidence that the soils will be supportive as the nutrient mix and other factors were  conducive to a different plant ecology.

The clincher is where posters like you cannot appreciate your flawed logic.  It is not smart to link to selective science in support of your views while simultaneously suggesting that collaborating scientists across the globe aren't really doing science.

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, Wastral said:

So, NO, you have never opened a wind rose graph by month ....

So, No, you have never opened a graph of solar insolation where majority of people live.

Bravo!  Golf clap... Bravo!

PS: your "train" idea is so laughable as to be absurd.  It makes pumped hydro look cheap and like childs play.  Genius alert: You need GIGAWATTS; hundreds of them.  Eastern USA power grid is 660GW in Winter and well over 700 in Summer. 

Take for instance Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia river.  Nameplate is ~7GW(less actually), drops 550ft, and its penstock diameter through the Turbines are 18 penstocks ~10ft diameter and 6 penstocks 40ft  in diameter and a couple minor ones which don't count.  Running 24/7.   Each BIG penstock dumps 1000cubic meters/second through the turbines.  Times 6.  Generating half the power.  The 18 smaller ones dump total of approx 6000cubic meters/second as well for the other half of the power.  Total dumpage is roughly 12,000 cubic meters/s at maximum power for a drop of 550ft generating ~7GW  And it needs to run 24/7 for upwards of MONTHS during the winter when the sun does not shine, the wind does not blow, or it blows to hard, or it is ice and turbines cannot spin. 

In ONE day(86,400s) x 12,000 cubic meters = 1E9 cubic meters of water.  One cubic kilometer of water is 1E9

SO, 1 CUBIC Kilometer of water, dropped 550ft is a measly 7GW of power.  Eastern USA Grid is 660GW

Assuming no population growth or reindustrialization of the USA, Eastern USA ONLY would need 660GW/7GW or roughly 100 Grand Coulee Dams dropping 1 CUBIC kilometer of water every day down to a LOWER dam.  NOTE: I used the LOWER winter total, not the summer peak.  Summer has better wind and sun obviously. 

FUN FACT: Lake Erie is roughly 500 Cubic Kilometers of water and 550ft above SEA LEVEL. 

SO, IF you EMPTIED 100% of Lake Erie down 550ft(sea level), that would power the Eastern USA for ~5days....

PPS: In case you are ignorant: Texas/Oklahoma is on its own power grid and so is Western USA. 

Show me a windrose or an insolation graph (except in the Antarctic & Arctic) where the wind doesn't blow for a month and the sun doesn't shine? By this I mean on Earth - not the Moon or Pluto.

-----------------------------------------

I said using trains as a means by which to store energy was being developed. Here is an example. Care to quote the costs you moot but don't actually put any figures too?

https://www.aresnorthamerica.com/

The concept has been around for many years. This railway generates more electricity than it consumes utilising regenerative braking for full Iron ore trains descending from high altitude to the coast. 

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

Globally there is a large stock of passenger electric trains with regenerative braking that are at the end of their passenger carrying lives but could be redeployed as automated trains in the fashion described. The company I work for have 50 trains in this category and if we don't punt them off to some developing world operator a scheme like this could be a runner. 50 trains,  each with 500 KW regen braking. Likewise plenty of wagons available and Iron ore is cheap and very heavy to help increase the mass. 

These systems are not designed to store weeks or months of power but are short term storage to assist in providing operating reserve. Pumped Hydro being another type. Contemporary battery systems are now more cost effective than Open cycle gas turbines for instant / quick response. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The last part of you post is the usual fevered assumption that for a renewable orientated system you have to have months of back up. 

As stated before you don't have weeks let along months without any solar or wind output over a region or country. 

Where you have isolated regions increasingly HVDC interconnectors help overcome that.

While wind and solar is intermittent other renewables are not. Biomass, waste to energy, and biogas are all dispatchable and are quite scalable for utility level demands. The UK is rapidly developing biogas and by about 2050 is estimated to be producing approx 150TWH of gas (1/6th of its current usage).

I am fairly pragmatic and accept the need for some FF generation, preferably gas in CCGT installations. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, Wastral said:

Absurd: Higher concentrations in greenhouses are not done because it is HELLA expensive to get even that high compared to the outside world.

Here is reality: http://www.co2science.org

Site lists all studies done on plants throughout the world that they can get their hands on.  Go to the data section.  Enjoy. 

With double, triple CO2 found at today's levels: Plants use vastly less water, minerals(fertilizer), grow gigantically faster, better quality, at lower temperatures and at elevated temperatures, and the kicker, they have better immunity to disease. 

There is a reason there are stumps(not fossilized) hundreds of miles farther north than where small scrub trees grow today across Canada/Russia.  It was vastly warmer during the midevil warm period.  There is a reason the entire world has fossils of tropical/sub tropical/deciduous/coniferous plants everywhere.  With high CO2, they could literally GROW everywhere. 

Evidently you don't even read your own links. 

The site you quote, and i accept prima facie the research is genuine trials plant growth in the ranges of 300, 600, and and occasionally 900ppm increases in CO2 concentration. Funny that because I said the response starts flattening out at 1000ppm. 

Furthermore if you click on the actual links you will find that these experiments are run in glass houses without any other limiting factors coming into play such as sparseness of water or lack of micronutrients. Try replaying that one in the real world where water availability and micronutrients may not be so readily available. 

This may come as a surprise to you but Bishop Usher was wrong and the Earth was not created on the  22 October 4004 BC but is approx 4.5 bn years old. The plants that grew in the Carboniferous era are not the same plants we have today. Plants have evolved over 100's millions of years to a much lower CO2 environment. 

Your comment about the medieval 'warm' period is completely superfluous to this debate. 

Edited February 8, 2019 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, Wastral said:

Bull Shit: http://www.co2science.org

Rice, wheat, etc LOVE it at 1000ppm.  Grow 100%-->300% and more than today, using less water, fertilizer, bigger grain of higher quality over a much wider temperature range.  Vegetables go Bananas at higher CO2 levels. 

Can you provide an actual link to some bonafide research that shows that more CO2 means plants need less micronutrients? Every piece of research I have seen shows that to utilise an enriched CO2 atmosphere plants need corresponding increases of micronutrients. 

I accept that some plants need less water because the higher CO2 levels allow for shorter periods where their stomata are open. 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, Wastral said:

Bull Shit: http://www.co2science.org

Rice, wheat, etc LOVE it at 1000ppm.  Grow 100%-->300% and more than today, using less water, fertilizer, bigger grain of higher quality over a much wider temperature range.  Vegetables go Bananas at higher CO2 levels. 

In your fevered imagination are you actually suggesting that as plants grow faster they need less nitrogen, phosphates, Pottasium etc? 

can you please explain why? Perhaps some bonafide studies - not that link in your post which if anything would help disprove what you say. 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, Wastral said:

Bull Shit: http://www.co2science.org

Rice, wheat, etc LOVE it at 1000ppm.  Grow 100%-->300% and more than today, using less water, fertilizer, bigger grain of higher quality over a much wider temperature range.  Vegetables go Bananas at higher CO2 levels. 

I quote from that site:

In the "Experimental Conditions" column of each table, we provide a brief description of growing conditions, including how the plants were grown, i.e., in pots, growth chambers, open-top chambers, FACE, etc.

So basically all these experiments were controlled condition glass house experiments on a one off basis.

Try rerunning that, especially in an agricultural scenario where crops are removed and progressively depleting the nutrients in the soil. 

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

1 hour ago, Red said:

 

As for CO2 being a GHG that will doom the earth... What a crock.  Given the science is about warming the planet, "doom" is just a term science deniers lob in for a drum roll because they just don't understand climate. The entire lie was predicated by CO2 being dumped into upper atmosphere in large quantities to absorb a little extra radiation from the sun.  No.  That is false.  There are thousands of science papers available to confirm you have no idea about this topic.

Well, what did we find out?  No, CO2 in upper atmosphere was NOT massively increasing and the model was off by at MINIMUM 500%... ?????

Your reply in red shows you do not have a clue how the basis for Anthropogenic global warming was and IS still postulated... IE manmade CO2 being added into the upper atmosphere to absorb heat (doesn't radiate as well) as water on certain wavelengths.

CO2 MUST be in the upper atmosphere in ever increasing amounts.  CO2 at low elevations does almost nothing other than VERY slightly increasing total air pressure around the earth......  WHY?  Because the water vapor in the upper atmosphere will have already absorbed the energy before hitting the CO2(see the graph for radiance absorption).  That is why Hanson et al were hot to trot to get data on CO2 in upper atmosphere. Data came back.  While CO2 was increasing... it was very minor compared to what was predicted by well under 500%..... When this happened, AGW vanished to be replaced by "Climate change" which is utterly nebulous BS because the error bands are so enormous that what they measured in upper atmosphere could be attributed to just about ANYTHING. 

DUH.  Climate has always been changing.  Sahara desert used to be Savannah a couple thousand years ago.  Used to grow vineyards in upper Scotland a few hundred years ago.....  We have tree stumps in the arctic hundreds of miles further north from any living tree.  They haven't rotted and disappeared yet.  WE have lateral morraines at maximum around 1850 where the only greater ice extent morraines are left over from the Ice age.  Says the climate has changed all by itself.  Radically changed and it wasn't caused by humans.  Almost all of the "warming" done in the last 150 years was done before 1960 when it wasn't humans dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.  Earth is warming all by itself. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

59 minutes ago, NickW said:

Evidently you don't even read your own links. 

The site you quote, and i accept prima facie the research is genuine trials plant growth in the ranges of 300, 600, and and occasionally 900ppm increases in CO2 concentration. Funny that because I said the response starts flattening out at 1000ppm. 

Furthermore if you click on the actual links you will find that these experiments are run in glass houses without any other limiting factors coming into play such as sparseness of water or lack of micronutrients. Try replaying that one in the real world where water availability and micronutrients may not be so readily available. 

This may come as a surprise to you but Bishop Usher was wrong and the Earth was not created on the  22 October 4004 BC but is approx 4.5 bn years old. The plants that grew in the Carboniferous era are not the same plants we have today. Plants have evolved over 100's millions of years to a much lower CO2 environment. 

Your comment about the medieval 'warm' period is completely superfluous to this debate. 

If you click the links to the journal articles and read one or two of them, you would know that experiments on heating, cooling, increased CO2, less water, nutrients, etc etc etc are very random etc depending on WHO did the experiment at which university around the world.  NO standards at all.  No one has gone out of their way to do much experimentation in this field as it is a mere curiosity unless you happen to live next to a gas or coal fired plant and have access to free CO2 for a greenhouse.  The best example of this is all of the RICE experiments which show categorically that increased CO2 decreases their need for certain nutrients per kg of rice harvested along with increased temperature range, shorter growing season required etc.  Another experiment showed while many nutrients decreased others increased(force fed at high rates though) and they do not know why and NO ONE has gone back and done a control group.  Is it a linear relationship?  NO. 

Carboniferous: Actually, not true about the plants then and now.  WE have multitudes of fossilized plants which are no different today than 100MY ago from the fossils.  Truth is, you can't really know from a fossil, so your absolute statement is an epic joke.  Though I will admit I really wish we still had the hollow root floating tree mats....

[Red + 252]

21 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Your reply in red shows you do not have a clue how the basis for Anthropogenic global warming was and IS still postulated... IE manmade CO2 being added into the upper atmosphere to absorb heat (doesn't radiate as well) as water on certain wavelengths.

CO2 MUST be in the upper atmosphere in ever increasing amounts.  CO2 at low elevations does almost nothing other than VERY slightly increasing total air pressure around the earth......  WHY?  Because the water vapor in the upper atmosphere will have already absorbed the energy before hitting the CO2(see the graph for radiance absorption).  That is why Hanson et al were hot to trot to get data on CO2 in upper atmosphere. Data came back.  While CO2 was increasing... it was very minor compared to what was predicted by well under 500%..... When this happened, AGW vanished to be replaced by "Climate change" which is utterly nebulous BS because the error bands are so enormous that what they measured in upper atmosphere could be attributed to just about ANYTHING. 

DUH.  Climate has always been changing.  Sahara desert used to be Savannah a couple thousand years ago.  Used to grow vineyards in upper Scotland a few hundred years ago.....  We have tree stumps in the arctic hundreds of miles further north from any living tree.  They haven't rotted and disappeared yet.  WE have lateral morraines at maximum around 1850 where the only greater ice extent morraines are left over from the Ice age.  Says the climate has changed all by itself.  Radically changed and it wasn't caused by humans.  Almost all of the "warming" done in the last 150 years was done before 1960 when it wasn't humans dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.  Earth is warming all by itself. 

You are utterly inept in this matter.

The "upper atmosphere" is of minimal importance to AGW.

Your ideas are not consistent with physics.  It's difficult to even reply to you because your ideas bear no semblance to intelligible constructs..

The scientific concept of climate change is not the same as the lay idea that the climate does change.  The latter is trivial.  The former has a scientific basis for determination at generational time scales.

[NickW + 2,714]

12 minutes ago, Wastral said:

If you click the links to the journal articles and read one or two of them, you would know that experiments on heating, cooling, increased CO2, less water, nutrients, etc etc etc are very random etc depending on WHO did the experiment at which university around the world.  NO standards at all.  No one has gone out of their way to do much experimentation in this field as it is a mere curiosity unless you happen to live next to a gas or coal fired plant and have access to free CO2 for a greenhouse.  The best example of this is all of the RICE experiments which show categorically that increased CO2 decreases their need for certain nutrients per kg of rice harvested along with increased temperature range, shorter growing season required etc.  Another experiment showed while many nutrients decreased others increased(force fed at high rates though) and they do not know why and NO ONE has gone back and done a control group.  Is it a linear relationship?  NO. 

Carboniferous: Actually, not true about the plants then and now.  WE have multitudes of fossilized plants which are no different today than 100MY ago from the fossils.  Truth is, you can't really know from a fossil, so your absolute statement is an epic joke.  Though I will admit I really wish we still had the hollow root floating tree mats....

They are not random - they are all effectively glasshouse experiments where limiting factors are not in place. 

This article provides a more reasoned explanation

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, Red said:

You are utterly inept in this matter.

The "upper atmosphere" is of minimal importance to AGW.

Your ideas are not consistent with physics.  It's difficult to even reply to you because your ideas bear no semblance to intelligible constructs..

The scientific concept of climate change is not the same as the lay idea that the climate does change.  The latter is trivial.  The former has a scientific basis for determination at generational time scales.

This is the burden of arguing with idiots😄

[NickW + 2,714]

17 minutes ago, Wastral said:

If you click the links to the journal articles and read one or two of them, you would know that experiments on heating, cooling, increased CO2, less water, nutrients, etc etc etc are very random etc depending on WHO did the experiment at which university around the world.  NO standards at all.  No one has gone out of their way to do much experimentation in this field as it is a mere curiosity unless you happen to live next to a gas or coal fired plant and have access to free CO2 for a greenhouse.  The best example of this is all of the RICE experiments which show categorically that increased CO2 decreases their need for certain nutrients per kg of rice harvested along with increased temperature range, shorter growing season required etc.  Another experiment showed while many nutrients decreased others increased(force fed at high rates though) and they do not know why and NO ONE has gone back and done a control group.  Is it a linear relationship?  NO. 

Carboniferous: Actually, not true about the plants then and now.  WE have multitudes of fossilized plants which are no different today than 100MY ago from the fossils.  Truth is, you can't really know from a fossil, so your absolute statement is an epic joke.  Though I will admit I really wish we still had the hollow root floating tree mats....

You are making the claim so its incumbent on you to back this up with some real links to the research that shows this. 

I can fully accept that rice will grow faster in a CO2 enriched environment. What I'm calling BS on is your claim that a CO2 enriched environment will reduce the requirements for micro nutrients. 

I am happy to be proven wrong - but lets see the evidence😊

[NickW + 2,714]

36 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Your reply in red shows you do not have a clue how the basis for Anthropogenic global warming was and IS still postulated... IE manmade CO2 being added into the upper atmosphere to absorb heat (doesn't radiate as well) as water on certain wavelengths.

CO2 MUST be in the upper atmosphere in ever increasing amounts.  CO2 at low elevations does almost nothing other than VERY slightly increasing total air pressure around the earth......  WHY?  Because the water vapor in the upper atmosphere will have already absorbed the energy before hitting the CO2(see the graph for radiance absorption).  That is why Hanson et al were hot to trot to get data on CO2 in upper atmosphere. Data came back.  While CO2 was increasing... it was very minor compared to what was predicted by well under 500%..... When this happened, AGW vanished to be replaced by "Climate change" which is utterly nebulous BS because the error bands are so enormous that what they measured in upper atmosphere could be attributed to just about ANYTHING. 

DUH.  Climate has always been changing.  Sahara desert used to be Savannah a couple thousand years ago (1).  Used to grow vineyards in upper Scotland a few hundred years ago(2).....  We have tree stumps in the arctic hundreds of miles further north from any living tree.  They haven't rotted and disappeared yet (3).  WE have lateral morraines at maximum around 1850 where the only greater ice extent morraines are left over from the Ice age.  Says the climate has changed all by itself.  Radically changed and it wasn't caused by humans.  Almost all of the "warming" done in the last 150 years was done before 1960 when it wasn't humans dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.  Earth is warming all by itself. 

Why do you post this meaningless crap?

1. The wetter Sahara was a feature of ocean currents and the West African Monsoon

2. You can still grow grapes in Scotland today. The reason its not done commercially is that transport costs have fallen so its easier just to import from regions where its easier to grow grapes. Transport costs are the key factor to this change. 

3. if you are talking about the fossilised tree stumps on Svalbard these are fossiled and about 380 million years old. If you are suggesting these tree stumps are post ice age - well post that linky for us. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

20 minutes ago, Red said:

You are utterly inept in this matter.

The "upper atmosphere" is of minimal importance to AGW.

Your ideas are not consistent with physics.  It's difficult to even reply to you because your ideas bear no semblance to intelligible constructs..

The scientific concept of climate change is not the same as the lay idea that the climate does change.  The latter is trivial.  The former has a scientific basis for determination at generational time scales.

So, according to YOU, Hansen, NOAA, IPCC, are all wrong?

Please keep typing...  This is getting interesting