Article about CO2 and tree growth.
Don’t know enough to comment, but I’m sure many here do.
By the way, nice format for entering links, very easy.
This article is 100% false!
I will be gone for the next 5 hours, then I'll provide you with the link(s) to thousands of studies that irrefutably show this person is dead wrong, as well as other evidence of the TRUTH.
BTW, woody stemmed plants and trees are growing the fastest in the plant world because of the increase in beneficial CO2.
For the life of me I can’t figure it out. Come on folks, sooner or later we have to get beyond fossil fuels, how can anyone argue that ?
Climate change or no, makes no difference to me.
Anyone here not understand finite ? Heck whale oil was a least renewable.
And congratulations on a very easy method of posting pictures.
We are moving away from fossil fuels. I think the energy picture in 20 years will be quite different from today's. But the people who hype C02 as our main problem are making a big mistake.
So what do you see as our main problem ?
Both sides are so fixated on being proven right the problem of future energy is ignored.
Get on with it already.
There are a lot of things that we put into our atmosphere, air and land that would should not be. That's where our attention needs to be. C02 hype is a waste of time, energy and money.
Thanks for thinking of me mcfarmer.
I'm not referring to you on this, as you just copied the stuff but how about they just tell the truth?(which I'm about to share with you)
If this is a hoax and the results are positive from the actions required by believing the hoax...........then why perpetrate a hoax?
Let's first start by busting this ludicrous claim that the increase in CO2 might not be increasing tree growth. It's not just increasing tree growth a little either, so this isn't just a "white" lie or manipulating verbiage to mislead. It's outright slaughtering and slandering of a scientific fact.
I will provide numerous sources below and there are many others:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms5967
"Based on the oldest existing experimental forest plots in Central Europe, we show that, currently, the dominant tree species Norway spruce and European beech exhibit significantly faster tree growth (+32 to 77%),"
Climate Change Accelerates Growth in General
"Regardless of the growth advantage of urban trees, the study conducted by Prof. Pretzsch’s team also shows that both urban and rural trees have been growing faster since the 1960s as a result of climate change. This observation reflects a pattern that has already been reported for forest trees in comparable international studies."
“The general acceleration of growth in all trees by about 20 percent, which we report in the current study, is comparable to previous findings on forests. This effect has also been observed in agricultural production”, forest growth expert Pretzsch explained. Evidently, there have been and still are changes in environmental conditions that promote accelerated tree growth across different climate zones. „In this context, in addition to global warming, fertilization effects due to the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration and increased nitrogen depositions are discussed as potential driving forces.”
Next page: Actual study results that measure response to trees from elevated CO2
Here is the link to the main page for this source, so that you can access all the scientific information.
http://www.co2science.org/about/chairman.php
We will only be discussing the results of elevated CO2 to trees here:
Go to "data" then "plant growth database", the "dry weight biomass"
That should put you here:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php
You can now pick the name of any plant, A-Z, there are many hundreds of them and thousands of studies on those plants that show the results. This included trees.
For instance, let's go to the letter M and Maple trees:
There are 4 kinds of Maple trees studied, let's pick sugar maples, which most of us are familiar with:
I copied the results below. There were 12 studies with the CO2 elevated by 300 parts per million. The increase in growth was an average of 48.3%. (CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 128 ppm so far..280 ppm to 408 ppm))
Acer saccharum Marsh. [Sugar Maple]
Statistics
| 300 ppm | 600 ppm | 900 ppm | |
| Number of Results | 12 | | |
| Arithmetic Mean | 48.3% | | |
| Standard Error | 13.1% | |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let's go to the mighty oak trees. 9 different kinds. For some reason, sand oaks didn't do as well as some of the others. However, Chapman's Oak outperformed by a wide margin and white oak too(we have alot of those here). We have red oak trees here too and they seem like a good representative:
Quercus rubra L. [Northern Red Oak]
Statistics
| 300 ppm | 600 ppm | 900 ppm | |
| Number of Results | 7 | | |
| Arithmetic Mean | 55.3% | | |
| Standard Error | 25.2% |
7 studies with an average increase in growth of 55.5%
I could post the results of many other trees............but you get the point.
I'll have to look at this guys study to see what they did wrong or why they got those results in this outlier study that contradicts the science and observations and we know that the law of photosynthesis has not been repealed.
Sun + water +minerals +CO2 = O2 +sugars(food)
The claim that the other elements being limited means that the increase in CO2 does not have the fertilizing effect is hogwash.
Ask a farmer what would happen if they grew half of their corn crop without nitrogen fertilizer and the other half with a healthy dose of urea but had the same amount of everything else for it.
The corn with the added urea would outperform the corn with everything else by a wide margin.
Same thing happens to plants when you add atmospheric fertilizer, CO2/carbon dioxide.
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm
In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa, according to CSIRO research scientist, Dr Randall Donohue.
Going to a Super Bowl party..........more when I get back on the green energy/pollution/environmental side.
How many of those things have fossil fuels as their origin ?
"How many of those things have fossil fuels as their origin ?"
What does that mean mcfarmer?
I'll follow up on Monday when I get a chance.
A downside to co2...Algae blooms and "Red Tide".
Someone once told us "This may sound like a good idea but let's think it thru to the very end to see how it's really gonna turn out." Sage advice when considering climate change damage.
cliff,
This is true with the algae blooms cliff.
The last 40 years has featured the best weather/climate and CO2 levels for almost ALL life on this planet.........including algae blooms.
Interesting that a farmer would bring this one up though.......because farmers are the main culprit behind the increase in algae blooms:
From your source:
"There are several ways human activity can exacerbate a bloom, but the main culprit is allowing nitrogen-rich material such as fertilizer to run off into natural water sources."
Why is it that your side tells us all about climate change being beneficial to all the bad life.............ticks, mosquitoes, rats, weeds, fungus, bacteria, algae blooms.
But then makes up things, about the exact same weather/climate/CO2 levels, exact same planet and environments................being harmful to all the good life: polar bears(who's numbers have increased 30% since 2005) butterfly's, honey bees, bunny rabbits, humans, crops(that are massively increasing).
CO2 is not a magical molecule assigned with attacking one side of life(good) and benefiting the other side of life(bad).
The only realm where its assigned with those duties is in politics.
In all of science, CO2 is considered a beneficial gas for all of life.
I meant to reply to Timnew:
“There are a lot of things that we put into our atmosphere, air and land that would should not be. That's where our attention needs to be. C02 hype is a waste of time, energy and money.”
Is there a forum quote function I’m missing ?
Cliff,
Anybody can search around on the internet to find anything they want about any topic, then when they find something that they think supports their case.........post it:
"Today’s study, published in Ecological Applications, analyzed data on polar bears in northeast Alaska and the Northwest Territories and documented a 40 percent population loss between 2001-2010 from 1,500 to 900 bears."
metmike: So one study from one region from a decade ago?
Let's tune you into the latest cliff:
"It is increasingly obvious that polar bears are thriving despite having lived through summer sea ice levels not predicted to occur until 2050 – levels of sea ice that experts said would wipe out 2/3 of the world’s polar bears (Amstrup et al. 2007; Crockford 2017 v3)."
Here's more stuff, updated to most recent:
Posted on February 27, 2018
You can get the 72 page comprehensive report on the latest condition/status of polar bears here:
Here it is, in pdf form: State of the Polar Bear Report 2017
"By the way, nice format for entering links, very easy."
Forgot to thank you, mcfarmer for the nice comment about MarketForum's design.
Cliff,
After seeing the data, what is your position on polar bear numbers?
As you say...you can find anything anywhere on the web to support one's case. I tend to gravitate towards reputable and non politically biased sources that are scientifically based.
Wonderful cliff. When it comes to science, those are the best sources. You should insist that they have the actual empirical data included with any assessments to support the statements or look for the actual data yourself to confirm it. Even though it seems like alot of extra work, it's worth it to see what's authentic and what's not.
As you know, there's a lot of junk science and fake (climate change) news out there.
In most cases, I will access the actual empirical data/observations and frequently pass it on here to support any statements(similar to the studies posted above on the effects of plants/trees with elevated CO2 levels from "CO2 Science").
After all, the data is the data.
"Is there a forum quote function I’m missing?"
A copy and paste before you hit the reply button is the most convenient quote function for this forum. You can also add quotation marks and a different text color for clarity.
Otherwise, you could make sure you click on the "Reply" button of the post to which you want to reply -- the Title of your reply post will have one more "Re" than the post to which you are replying (and so will every other post by others who are replying that post by clicking on its reply button) -- but your reply will still be listed immediately below whatever the current last (bottom most) post is when you hit submit.
Thanks JP.
Yeah, I thought I did that reply thing. Must not have.
Seems odd to have such easy methods to post links and photos to not have a simple “quote” feature.
I bet there is and I’m not seeing it.