There is a new comment on the post "The self-contradictions of Marc Morano".
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2501
Author: ScruffyDan
Comment:
@ Andrew
New we are really getting somewhere! Thanks for citing evidence to back up your claims. You are already far ahead of most people who comment here. Usually I get comment more along the lines of Bob Armstrong, who claim to have found something super simple, yet completely overlooked by thousands of scientists, that proves global warming simply cannot be real.
The papers you cite clearly demonstrate that CO2 <em>can</em> increase plant productivity, the papers I cited show that CO2 can have a negative effect on plants. None of this is new to me, which is why I say that the situation is ultimately anything but certain. Certainly some regions will benefit, (not only from increased CO2 but from a longer growing season), but no one has yet made a good effort to predict the total ecosystem response in response to elevated CO2. This would be tremendously difficult to do especially given the sheer number of different ecosystems.
So as I said the situation in this regard is anything but certain, which is par for the course in ecology.
<blockquote>I would respectfully suggest you follow your own advice about quoting scientific sources in the future</blockquote>
The video was there simply because, it appeared to me that my other sources were not being looked at. I figured a video was more likely to be viewed than my previous links. It was not my first choice.
But the video is still a pretty apt description of the problems I mentioned above. The study regarding reduced root growth, specifically states that this will offset the expected increase in productivity, which is direct contradiction to your claim.
Next, your link doesn't demonstrate that Japanese beetles were attracted to the CO2. It demonstrates that a different species (different genus also) was attracted to CO2. Could this mean that Japanese beetles also exhibit the same behaviour? Perhaps, or perhaps not. Though having said that the researchers did find a mechanism for the increased numbers of bugs on the CO2 enriched plants. It turns out that those plants made less of a defence chemical than plants grown at regular CO2 levels. The researchers even state that they predict that greater populations of the beetles in the future as CO2 rises.
So your explanation doesn't seem likely (though it is still possible).
<blockquote>The final point on the pine beetle convinently ignores the consequences of forest fire suppression in the spread of the beetle.</blockquote>
I'll agree there is much more to the pine beetle story than climate change. One cannot ignore a century of poor forest management when talking about the beetles, BUT there is a climate change component to this story.
<blockquote>but when has it ever been -40 for an extended period of time in southern B.C.?</blockquote>
On the coast? Never. But the coast isn't where the problem is. The problem is located in the BC interior and northern BC. While -40 doesn't happen every year it is exceedingly rare for so much time to have passed since such a cold spell.
<blockquote>And yes I am aware of Liebig's Law of the Minimum - for many plants in typical growing conditions that happens to be CO2.</blockquote>
Funny, I was always told that it was either nitrogen or water that was the limiting factor, and my education was very heavy on plant biology.
<blockquote>So I will stress my original point - its not wise to dogmatically reject every point that is brought up simply because you want to show no weakness.</blockquote>
Have I really dogmatically rejected your points? I never even denied the evidence for CO2 enrichment increasing productivity. I just said there was conflicting evidence and thus the situation was not certain. That doesn't sound like dogmatically rejecting your points.
On to your comments about carbon residence times:
<blockquote>The first I found very compelling and it had an impact on my decision when I was researching this topic to determine which argument I found more plausible.</blockquote>
As compelling as it may be, I am fully aware that I could be lead astray by convincing sounding bullshit. That is the prime reason why demand the minimum standard of peer-review. The fact that it was published by a group that spent a great deal of time arguing for tobacco science is a huge red flag. Enough for me to dismiss it.
<blockquote>Would you also argue that Hansen's work should be ignored because he took $250,000 from the Heinz foundation (John Kerry link) or that any research funded by an environmental organization should be disqualified?</blockquote>
No, just as I wouldn't begrudge any peer-reviewed research funded by Exxon or other corporate interests. Or by governments hostile to the notion of AGW (such as the previous US government). The key is that it must pass the minimum standard of peer-review. For more on my views on this topic see this.
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2095
<blockquote>Let the science stand on its merit. Read the article and read the rebutals - then decide which viewpoint is more credible and where it has weak points.</blockquote>
In an idea wold that is indeed how things would function, but in reality this is simply unattainable (and thus the reason for peer-review). The fact is that non-experts can (and frequently are) made to accept things which are total bullshit. It happens all the time. Acknowledging this limitation is a key reason why I depend so heavily on peer-reviewed research.
<blockquote>As for your claim that this is new science and since it is going agains the consensus it needs to be powerful I must disagree.</blockquote>
I never called it new science, I said it was a recently published paper and that it had some red flags (the expertise of the author and the the journal where it was published).
<blockquote>. Indeed, it is in the IPCC report how CO2 residence time is as low as five years.</blockquote>
Yes the IPCC does mentiona a residence time low as 5 years, but also as high as 100+ years. Ignoring the higher values doesn't make much sense.
<blockquote>I've tried to find papers which state the high residence time that were based on empirical studies but I haven't been able to locate any</blockquote>
Yes, finding empirical data to support that would be extremely difficult, because such data would be notoriously hard to acquire. But that doesn't mean we can just discount the expert opinion on the matter. They didn't arrive at this value without justification.
But more importantly I think our greatest disagreement (on this particular issue) comes from the fact that while you focus on residence time as the most essential aspect of CO2 in the atmosphere I am focusing more on the half-life of carbon. The two are related but are not the same.
But even this is besides the point. The fact is that CO2 is increasing, and we are almost 100% certain that it is due to our emissions (which are estimated at double the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase). It is also fact that CO2 is a GHG gas (thanks to its radiative properties) and as it increases will trap more long-wave radiation, and re-radiate it back to earth.
All of that is pretty basic, and hopefully you do not object. The short residence time of CO2 you claim, doesn't in any way negate the above. A good example of this is Methane, which is uncontroversially seen as being short lived in the atmosphere (around 10 years if I recall correctly). Yet despite this, methane (especially the stuff locked away in the permafrost) is a real concern in regards to global warming.
So if methane is a concern despite its short residence time then there is no reason to assume that CO2 is not a concern. In fact all a short residence time really affects is the impact of any CO2 reduction policies. If the residence is low then we should expect any reduction in emissions to reduce atmospheric concentrations rather quickly (compared with previous estimates). This would be a great thing, and I truly hope it is true. Unfortunately the data I have seen so far is less than convincing.
See all comments on this post here:
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2501#comments
To manage your subscriptions or to block all notifications from this site, click the link below:
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?wp-subscription-manager=1&email=bob%40cosy.com&key=cf28f344812041ce432d029d7cbe9ca5