There is a new comment on the post "The self-contradictions of Marc Morano".
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2501
Author: Andrew Thomson
Comment:
Hello Scruffy Dan
Right - I suppose I will start with your comment stating you will delete posts you do not feel are adequately cited. What ever your perogative is, its your site. I thought my comment really didn't call for extensive documentation and the post was already exceedingly long but if it is what you want here:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119257499/abstract
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.arplant.48.1.609
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j70560164r9105k7/
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1939505
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0z8LaFDsq0sC&oi=fnd&pg=PA20&dq=the+response+of+natural+ecosystems+to+the+rising+global+co2+levels&ots=HdrNI3m7eb&sig=YktOCfbHRSVbSglX88WX-sazWYU
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t814g42067002357/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m35386k257823764/
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1353746
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1514718
These in turn cite hundreds of peer reviewed papers that illustrate how increased CO2 levels almost universally increase plant growth. Sure, there is a small percentage of plants that will do poorly in a CO2 richer environment - most of these indirectly due to other plants being able to out perform them and hence muscle them out, but almost all plants grow better.
As for your video link - it was so flawed as to elicit a bit of a laugh. I would respectfully suggest you follow your own advice about quoting scientific sources in the future. Ignoring the "deniers don't believe carbon dioxide increases temperature" strawman and the fact that glaciers have been retreating for the last 18,000 years - I'll focus on the topic at hand. First off there was the quick flash of what was presumably a journal paper stating how increased CO2 levels diminish root growth and that this impacts nitrogen and water uptake. What it doesn't bother to mention is the reason this happens is because increased CO2 levels typically result in lower requirements for water and nitrogen and hence there is less of a requirement for an extended root complex in the plant. Plants are efficient, its like what happens if you water your lawn frequently - the lawn won't develop as deep a root system.
The next point about the Japanese beetle is in my mind an illustration of bad science. If you are not aware, insects tend to be attracted to carbon dioxide: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/0022-0493%282001%29094%5B0860%3AACDSTA%5D2.0.CO%3B2?journalCode=ecen
Its clear from this study that the Japanese beetle is obviously attracted to CO2, so here we have big pipes venting the stuff out, drawing in Japanese beetles from miles away, and the conclusion is assumed to be its the CO2 rich plants? Brilliant! And what happens when all plants have the same increased levels of CO2 in the environment? Because I haven't read the paper I will withold judgement because I do not know if the broadcaster distorted their study but I'm leaning towards thinking this paper might need a lot of work. The final point on the pine beetle convinently ignores the consequences of forest fire suppression in the spread of the beetle. Sure, cold will kill them but when has it ever been -40 for an extended period of time in southern B.C.? (Which is where I presume you are from... - if you are indeed from B.C. I'm on the otherside of the continental divide. We unfortunately did see -40 last winter.)
And yes I am aware of Liebig's Law of the Minimum - for many plants in typical growing conditions that happens to be CO2. As you mentioned the fact that you embrace evolution would you dispute that most plants evolved in a period where CO2 was 1500 to 2000 ppm? Most plants are optimally grown at these levels (see above paper list.)
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. It tends to have the opposite impact. I'm accepting of a cost benefit analysis where we can debate if increased levels will do more harm but to attempt to argue that any CO2 increase will be universally bad is just weird.
.... and I've already written a novel so I'll look to address the carbon sequestration part of the last thread you wrote - if there is anything else you would like me to elaborate on that you feel I haven't I will be happy to address it - I'm feeling that so many topics are popping up that its more logical to address your more discussed points.
First off, I'm not interested in a data dump. I posted the two papers because I hoped that you would read them. 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. It was disappointing that you took the tact that the paper could be dismissed because of some seven degrees of seperation association with the tobacco industry. Weak. 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? I certainly wouldn't. 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.
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. It is old science, and very well known. Indeed, it is in the IPCC report how CO2 residence time is as low as five years. Normally I would site the page but since I've learn't you are a firm believer in posting entire chapters I'm sure you are fine with that. (Looking to make a point :) - if you are interested I will send you the link. What it states is 5 years to 100 + years with the caveat that it varies greatly in environmental conditions. 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 - just ones based on modelling. If you are aware of any I would be greatful to receive either links or what journals they are in.)
So in conclusion this is definitely not an extrodinary claim - CO2 atmospheric residence time is an area of much study and active debate. Why do you have such an irrational fear of being able to accept that broad swathes of the climate change science is under intense debate?
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