I googled " increased CO2 increased crop yield" Here is the first thing on the list

noticed that increased temps and decreased moisture add up to more than a 50% less growth in open air trials than was expected by the closed/controlled experiments predicted. So no it doesn't help. Since we are dealing with more than just a single problem. Increased temps, melt polar ice, which cools the oceans, that produce fewer clouds, which produce less rain, which creates dry conditions which produce less crops, which means we need to drain more aquifers,if available, to sustain our current level of crop production. There in a nutshell. All the while we are using the Oxygen we need to breath to stay alive to move ineffienct vehicle around and producing even more CO2, which as some don't realize, will eventually sufficate oxygen breathing animals including humans.

You have yet to have proven that increased CO2 levels cause global warming. Increased temps, decreased moisture levels, melted polar ice, etc. are all part of the global warming paradigm...but of course we already know that no global warming has occurred in the past 15 years as per Phil Jones' confession.

YOu want to base government policy for the environment on assumptions that are now proving to have been false...and falsified.

Increased CO2 leads to greater vegetation growth...the by-product of plant respiration is O2, something you apparently slept through in your general science classes.

Animals produce CO2 as they breathe in oxygen and burn the carbon compounds that comprise our food, plants take in CO2 and through the process of photosynthesis consume the carbon and "exhale" oxygen. Basic biology 101.


The whole premise of AGW is taking coincidental occurrences warmer global temperatures (based on faulty data collected using poor scientific technique) and increased CO2 levels (which lag those temperature increases by 800 years) and conflating that coincidence with causality. Bad logic, bad science.

You want to know what causes global warming...look to the sun, not to the least significant greenhouse gas present in our atmosphere.

---

Man's future lies in the stars, not on Earth. It is each successive generation's responsibility to humanity to expand the knowledge and understanding of our Universe so that we may one day venture forth to meet our neighbors.

Houston, Texas

I'm not a climatologist and you aren't anyone that is important enough to prove anything to. This isnt a "What's my line" this is science. Mistrust of science and mistrust of gov't are factors in Conservative ploys to keep the populous ill-informed or uninformed. Scientists typically don't have agendas. Scientists that work for Tobacco or Coal companies understand that they are supposed to create information supporting their bosses point of view. If you are anywhere near 40 years old you'll know that seasons are screwier than ever winters are warmer and lighter. I don't need empirical data to figure that one out.

The deniers are as frustration as bible pounders when it comes to evolution. This is science not some hack telling everyone that will listen that the Scientists are bad, that they want us driving carriages or walking to work. When in reality they are saying stop being an ass and get rid of the 10 mph gas guzzling SUVs. Insist that your local and state gov'ts invest in mass transit. Heck we dont even carpool anymore

A 6000 pound SUV delivering a 150 pound person to work at an office is such a waste of resources.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

My opinion on this subject has been public since the BBS days and is now online at http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml The Anti-
Evironmentalist's Handbook. Even though this is 20 years old (and sorely in need of both a good editing and completion and deletion of the rah-rah flag waving opening) I would not change a word of it. All of the problems with the warming claim back then are still problems today. Not a single one has been addressed. The computer programs have gotten fancier but not a single one of them has been verified nor can any model be verified without comparing it to real world events.

When I was a lad -- and I can say that now -- the causes of the weather getting colder were atom bomb tests and sonic booms. Yes, it was getting colder which resulted in The Coming Ice Age as the currently popular apocalypse of choice. And, yes, it was taken seriously by scientists not just a few cranks.

I think the most telling point is 20 years ago we were solemnly scared with the scientific truth that if we did not to something in ten years, the world was doomed, nothing could stop the run away greenhouse effect. That means by 1990 it was too late. Lo and behold that is not true. In 1990 we had only ten years to do something. So next year it is too late. Lo and behold 2.0 we still have ten years before we are doomed.

That ain't science. That is scaremongering.

But if you believe in melting then there is no need to do anything. Buy an SUV leave your lights on, eat drink and be merry because there is nothing we can do. It was all over in 1990.

If you do not like that idea, they were clearly wrong/lying in 1979 and 1980 and in every subsequent year down to today. What person in his right mind listens to chicken littles who are always wrong? Why does anyone take them seriously?

Yes ! I agree 100% with you.
Back in the 70' my teachers would tell me by 2000 if nothing is done about global warming my generation would be doomed. They lied to me but I didn't see that until my early 40. Another thing that was never explained to me is how Mr. Gore is making millions of $ on carbon emission business. Clearly he would not be in this business if there was no money in it. How does a former vice president make his money ? Simply by pushing junk science on ordinary citizens. This is nothing but scaremongering.
MrJeep

---

Skildude -

I'm not a climatologist and you aren't anyone that is important enough to prove anything to. This isnt a "What's my line" this is science. Mistrust of science and mistrust of gov't are factors in Conservative ploys to keep the populous ill-informed or uninformed. Scientists typically don't have agendas. Scientists that work for Tobacco or Coal companies understand that they are supposed to create information supporting their bosses point of view. If you are anywhere near 40 years old you'll know that seasons are screwier than ever winters are warmer and lighter. I don't need empirical data to figure that one out.

Nice dodge. No you're not a climatologists, you are a Kool Aid drinker; a faithfull adherent to the religion of AGW as espoused by your messiah Algore and his faithful (but not to meticulous in adhering to truth) apostles Michael Mann and Rajendra Pachauri.

As for the winters being warmer and lighter...yeah I hardly noticed this one at all. /roll eyes

Seasons vary year to year, decade to decade, century to century, millenia to millenia, etc. It's called "change" (you probably voted for it last election so you should know the word). The Medieval Warming period allowed crops to grow in Greenland for decades...must have been all those SUV's people were driving back then.

The deniers are as frustration [sic] as bible pounders when it comes to evolution. This is science not some hack telling everyone that will listen that the Scientists are bad, that they want us driving carriages or walking to work. When in reality they are saying stop being an ass and get rid of the 10 mph gas guzzling SUVs. Insist that your local and state gov'ts invest in mass transit. Heck we dont even carpool anymore

Nice straw man. No one (at least no one I have seen here) is "telling everyone that will listen that the Scientists are bad." What is being said is that they are human and subject to all the same human foibles to which the rest of us subject.

We are also saying that a fair number of them in positions of power are using their power to prevent the open and fair discussion of AGW and that those individuals have a vested interest in doing so.

End the myth of AGW and the money pipeline for AGW research dries up and they will then be forced to find a new source of funding for research in new more promising areas of science.

It is not the business of government to dictate to people what they should or should not be driving or consuming...and that is not the sole thing they are attempting to do.

They are attempting to prevent 3rd world economies from enjoying the same right to advance that the rest of us have enjoyed. They are attempting through legislation to dictate what industries produce and where they should focus their resources. They are attempting to use the tax code to take control of private industry.

We have a Constitution, perhaps you should read it sometime. We liive in a nation which by law has a limited government and in which the rights and liberties of the people are paramount. The government is limited in what it may or may not do.

A 6000 pound SUV delivering a 150 pound person to work at an office is such a waste of resources.

At last a statement of reason with which I can agree. The only difference is that I believe in the individuals right to do so if he or she so chooses, rather than the government dictating to them whether or not the can.

---

Man's future lies in the stars, not on Earth. It is each successive generation's responsibility to humanity to expand the knowledge and understanding of our Universe so that we may one day venture forth to meet our neighbors.

Houston, Texas

"We have a Constitution" "We liive in a nation"--

How provincial of you...

How provincial of you...

Well...considering that, of the last 25 comments (not counting my own), 24 were made by individuals displaying an American flag (including you) and that I was responding specifically to Skildude who apparently lives in the DFW area of Texas, I thought that the comment was appropriate.


Nice attempt at diversion though.

---

Man's future lies in the stars, not on Earth. It is each successive generation's responsibility to humanity to expand the knowledge and understanding of our Universe so that we may one day venture forth to meet our neighbors.

Houston, Texas

I am a rock. So I emit little CO.

The methanes coming from my behind are another story.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Skildude -

I'm not a climatologist and you aren't anyone that is important enough to prove anything to. This isnt a "What's my line" this is science. Mistrust of science and mistrust of gov't are factors in Conservative ploys to keep the populous ill-informed or uninformed. Scientists typically don't have agendas. Scientists that work for Tobacco or Coal companies understand that they are supposed to create information supporting their bosses point of view. If you are anywhere near 40 years old you'll know that seasons are screwier than ever winters are warmer and lighter. I don't need empirical data to figure that one out.

Nice dodge. No you're not a climatologists, you are a Kool Aid drinker; a faithfull adherent to the religion of AGW as espoused by your messiah Algore and his faithful (but not to meticulous in adhering to truth) apostles Michael Mann and Rajendra Pachauri.

As for the winters being warmer and lighter...yeah I hardly noticed this one at all. /roll eyes

Seasons vary year to year, decade to decade, century to century, millenia to millenia, etc. It's called "change" (you probably voted for it last election so you should know the word). The Medieval Warming period allowed crops to grow in Greenland for decades...must have been all those SUV's people were driving back then.

The deniers are as frustration [sic] as bible pounders when it comes to evolution. This is science not some hack telling everyone that will listen that the Scientists are bad, that they want us driving carriages or walking to work. When in reality they are saying stop being an ass and get rid of the 10 mph gas guzzling SUVs. Insist that your local and state gov'ts invest in mass transit. Heck we dont even carpool anymore

Nice straw man. No one (at least no one I have seen here) is "telling everyone that will listen that the Scientists are bad." What is being said is that they are human and subject to all the same human foibles to which the rest of us subject.

We are also saying that a fair number of them in positions of power are using their power to prevent the open and fair discussion of AGW and that those individuals have a vested interest in doing so.

End the myth of AGW and the money pipeline for AGW research dries up and they will then be forced to find a new source of funding for research in new more promising areas of science.

It is not the business of government to dictate to people what they should or should not be driving or consuming...and that is not the sole thing they are attempting to do.

They are attempting to prevent 3rd world economies from enjoying the same right to advance that the rest of us have enjoyed. They are attempting through legislation to dictate what industries produce and where they should focus their resources. They are attempting to use the tax code to take control of private industry.

We have a Constitution, perhaps you should read it sometime. We liive in a nation which by law has a limited government and in which the rights and liberties of the people are paramount. The government is limited in what it may or may not do.

A 6000 pound SUV delivering a 150 pound person to work at an office is such a waste of resources.

At last a statement of reason with which I can agree. The only difference is that I believe in the individuals right to do so if he or she so chooses, rather than the government dictating to them whether or not the can.

<sigh> This was actually a very good debate, at least until the same old tired teabagger diatribe above.

There was a piece on NPR this morning about nuclear power. A proponent of nuclear pointed out that polls among those who actually live near nuclear power plants strongly support them. I count myself among them. I live 10 miles as the crow flies from a nuclear power plant. I have also seen first hand what the coal-fired plants in Tennessee have done to the trees in North Carolina's mountains. I would gladly have another nuclear reactor added to the plant here if it means shutting down older coal-fired plants.

---

Join the PACK!

<sigh> This was actually a very good debate, at least until the same old tired teabagger diatribe above.

There was a piece on NPR this morning about nuclear power. A proponent of nuclear pointed out that polls among those who actually live near nuclear power plants strongly support them. I count myself among them. I live 10 miles as the crow flies from a nuclear power plant. I have also seen first hand what the coal-fired plants in Tennessee have done to the trees in North Carolina's mountains. I would gladly have another nuclear reactor added to the plant here if it means shutting down older coal-fired plants.

Why can't you support solar or wind? High tech energy needs to develop quicker. How about instead of building another dirty nuclear fission plant, we invest in nuclear fusion technology. Install small low noise wind turbines above highway street lights to power them and a bit more, just in case, link the lights together every 100 or 200 miles so that if there is no wind in one place, the excess energy from another location 150 miles away can power the lights where there is no wind.

How about solar roofs on buildings and offices? Building with hemp concrete which absorbs CO2?

I'm no greenie or hippie here. I simply believe in future high tech energy and technology to solve the worlds problems.

---

- Luke.

I think I have the answer. Why don't we build a huge heat exchanger in DC and use all the hot air that keeps comming out of congress?

Speaking of provincial--
I don't think Luke, the topic starter, has much to do with your "Crongress"...

---

The Nuke plants would be great if not for the need to store spent fuel. Nobody wants it so it sits at the power plants until someone figures out what to do with the waste.

solar and wind seem to be the easiest remewable to acheive any sort of success with. Geothermal and tidal would be a close second.

Nobody said it would be easy. It took almost 75 years for us to figure out how to refine Oil into a product that could be used for cars. maybe we should give the alternatives that much of a chance as well

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

<sigh> This was actually a very good debate, at least until the same old tired teabagger diatribe above.

There was a piece on NPR this morning about nuclear power. A proponent of nuclear pointed out that polls among those who actually live near nuclear power plants strongly support them. I count myself among them. I live 10 miles as the crow flies from a nuclear power plant. I have also seen first hand what the coal-fired plants in Tennessee have done to the trees in North Carolina's mountains. I would gladly have another nuclear reactor added to the plant here if it means shutting down older coal-fired plants.

Why can't you support solar or wind? High tech energy needs to develop quicker. How about instead of building another dirty nuclear fission plant, we invest in nuclear fusion technology. Install small low noise wind turbines above highway street lights to power them and a bit more, just in case, link the lights together every 100 or 200 miles so that if there is no wind in one place, the excess energy from another location 150 miles away can power the lights where there is no wind.

How about solar roofs on buildings and offices? Building with hemp concrete which absorbs CO2?

I'm no greenie or hippie here. I simply believe in future high tech energy and technology to solve the worlds problems.

Actually, I do support both wind and solar. However (IMHO) the US is not being very creative or effective in the way it's being implemented.

One of our local companies recently set up a solar farm. They got a lot of good press and probably a nice tax credit, too. Unfortunately, by doing so, they took a significant patch of undeveloped green space (and additional area around it to insure unobstructed sunshine) and destroyed its ecosystem. Nothing can grow under those solar panels.

Instead of trying to take big bites (in other words, giving tax breaks to energy companies) I believe we should be promoting small nibbles. Rooftop solar panels are much better alternative. There are also great new designs for small wind turbines that can be used for homes or small buildings. They perform very well in light winds as well as gusty conditions.

When I was growing up, there was no cable TV or satellite. Every house had a TV antenna. Why not have every house with its own wind turbine?

---

Join the PACK!

<sigh> This was actually a very good debate, at least until the same old tired teabagger diatribe above.

There was a piece on NPR this morning about nuclear power. A proponent of nuclear pointed out that polls among those who actually live near nuclear power plants strongly support them. I count myself among them. I live 10 miles as the crow flies from a nuclear power plant. I have also seen first hand what the coal-fired plants in Tennessee have done to the trees in North Carolina's mountains. I would gladly have another nuclear reactor added to the plant here if it means shutting down older coal-fired plants.

Why can't you support solar or wind? High tech energy needs to develop quicker. How about instead of building another dirty nuclear fission plant, we invest in nuclear fusion technology. Install small low noise wind turbines above highway street lights to power them and a bit more, just in case, link the lights together every 100 or 200 miles so that if there is no wind in one place, the excess energy from another location 150 miles away can power the lights where there is no wind.

How about solar roofs on buildings and offices? Building with hemp concrete which absorbs CO2?

I'm no greenie or hippie here. I simply believe in future high tech energy and technology to solve the worlds problems.

Actually, I do support both wind and solar. However (IMHO) the US is not being very creative or effective in the way it's being implemented.

One of our local companies recently set up a solar farm. They got a lot of good press and probably a nice tax credit, too. Unfortunately, by doing so, they took a significant patch of undeveloped green space (and additional area around it to insure unobstructed sunshine) and destroyed its ecosystem. Nothing can grow under those solar panels.

Instead of trying to take big bites (in other words, giving tax breaks to energy companies) I believe we should be promoting small nibbles. Rooftop solar panels are much better alternative. There are also great new designs for small wind turbines that can be used for homes or small buildings. They perform very well in light winds as well as gusty conditions.

When I was growing up, there was no cable TV or satellite. Every house had a TV antenna. Why not have every house with its own wind turbine?

I like your ideals.
If I may be so bold, I'd say to cut your countries insane defense spending and put it towards something more useful.
As for the area and sheer size of solar panels, I agree. More efficient placement could be useful. However, recent advancements may mean, we could reduce the solar plants area by tenfold and still generate nearly the same amount of energy by using transparent solar panels.

And what about wind farms doubling as solar farms? Install sun tracking panels above the turbines themselves, which automatically provides a clear, unobstructed view of the sun. That would be neat.

We need (as a civilization) to get off our habits of building dirty low density mass power plants, and move onto extremely efficient, renewable and high density mass power plants, as well as have personal (or local) power generation.

---

- Luke.

West texas is prime real estate for wind and solar. we're talking loads of vacant land unfarmable and not natural resources to exploit. build them there. I understand new mexico arizona and eastern california also have ample non arable land. again use that for solar and wind farms. the land is probably not that convenient to use but at least we get to keep farms from being turned into solar farms

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/02/rajendra-pachau.html

If the "scientists" who espouse this BS actually believe it, why don't they act like it? Seems they think the draconian legislation they want enacted only applies to the "little people".

For that matter, if anyone on here really believes it, why are you burning all that coal to make electricity to crunch? Hypocritical?

---

did you see the 60 minutes episode Sunday? they showed a new fuel cell that uses 50% less power than is used currently, Walmart, Google and a few other corporations are using the technology, now. Google claims to have saved about $100,000 in 1 year from this technology. Now it did cost them in the neighborhood of $700,000 to buy and install it all. You do see that in simple math terms the devices pay for themselves in about 7 years. this technolgy has major potential benefits to it. they claim that a box smaller than a kids lunch box can produce enough electricity to power a single home. it also runs on natural gas. Google is using gas captured from garbage dumps which keeps their green footprint that much more green.

As I stated before the technology is there and we can save ourselves.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/02/rajendra-pachau.html

If the "scientists" who espouse this BS actually believe it, why don't they act like it? Seems they think the draconian legislation they want enacted only applies to the "little people".

For that matter, if anyone on here really believes it, why are you burning all that coal to make electricity to crunch? Hypocritical?

Complain, complain, complain. That's all you seem to do. Just because you may not own a mansion, that does not give you the right to criticize others that do.

Don't assume I'm burning coal. 75% of electricity in New Zealand is generated by renewable energy. We only have 1 coal plant here. And, personally, my energy comes from a very large wind farm.
And yet, our energy prices are cheaper here than some states in America.

I suggest you get off your skeptical behind and stop complaining about everything. Get a positive attitude and help the world a little.

Or is that too much to ask???

---

- Luke.

West texas is prime real estate for wind and solar. we're talking loads of vacant land unfarmable and not natural resources to exploit. build them there. I understand new mexico arizona and eastern california also have ample non arable land. again use that for solar and wind farms. the land is probably not that convenient to use but at least we get to keep farms from being turned into solar farms

Think I was composing a reply when I was interrupted by a system crash.

You mean that California real estate that used to be BLM lands which could be developed but now are National Parks and Monuments? You mean that California land that is home to the endangered California tortoise? You mean that California land that is home to the endangered kangaroo rat? [1]

Sorry dude, the federal land grabs have taken everything, it is going to have to be Texas farm land. Fortunately California farm land is subject to tule fog and not suitable for solar. Perhaps Arnold can balance the budget based on that?!


[1] I've seen one of these in the wild. It ate a peanut I'd dropped by accident. Hope I'm not going to jail for that!

---

West texas is prime real estate for wind and solar. we're talking loads of vacant land unfarmable and not natural resources to exploit. build them there. I understand new mexico arizona and eastern california also have ample non arable land. again use that for solar and wind farms. the land is probably not that convenient to use but at least we get to keep farms from being turned into solar farms

Think I was composing a reply when I was interrupted by a system crash.

You mean that California real estate that used to be BLM lands which could be developed but now are National Parks and Monuments? You mean that California land that is home to the endangered California tortoise? You mean that California land that is home to the endangered kangaroo rat? [1]

Sorry dude, the federal land grabs have taken everything, it is going to have to be Texas farm land. Fortunately California farm land is subject to tule fog and not suitable for solar. Perhaps Arnold can balance the budget based on that?!


[1] I've seen one of these in the wild. It ate a peanut I'd dropped by accident. Hope I'm not going to jail for that!

Why is your thinking so provincial? :) Yes, of course we need to preserve the ecosystem as much as possible!!!
But I believe the days of mass energy generation are numbered - thinking that that is the answer is wrong. We need to transition to personal and small scale energy generation. Solar panels on roofs, wind turbines on highway lights, trees on top of buildings, invest in transparent solar panels, solar power laptops, Apple has patented an idea to use solar panels on iPods. What the world needs is high density energy generation (W/m2 of land).

---

- Luke.