[dohboi]

pst wrote: "I have no idea what you are talking about"

Well, that pretty well sums it up. Thank you for your honesty.

Now perhaps you will let the adults that actually understand what we are talking about continue to discuss these matters without you constantly interrupting them by banging your sippy cup on your highchair???

[Cid_Yama]

Oh, please. You and your denial is what's pathetic. Nobody owes you crap.

By your own words you 'mostly ignore the details' because you are too scared to deal with the reality. If anyone lacks credibility it's you.

You need to find yourself a good therapist and deal with your issues, so you can once again see what's real.

[Cid_Yama]

I see why you didn't provide a link. What you are claiming is a misrepresentation.

It's a letter not a paper, about preliminary results of a model using growing season integrated Leaf Area Index.
It is not peer reviewed, as it is only a letter, and does not go into methodology.

Since then, other papers have come out.

Increased growth of plants fertilised by higher CO2 levels is only partly offsetting emissions and will not halt dangerous warming, scientists conclude

More plants have been growing due to higher CO2 levels in the air and warming temperatures that cut the CO2 emitted by plants via respiration. The effects led the proportion of annual carbon emissions remaining in the air to fall from about 50% to 40% in the last decade.

However, this greening is only offsetting a small amount of the billions of tonnes of CO2 emitted from fossil fuel burning and other human activities and will not halt dangerous global warming. “Unfortunately, this increase is nowhere near enough to stop climate change,” said Dr Trevor Keenan, at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in the US, who led the new work.

The absolute level of CO2 in the atmosphere is continuing to rise, breaking the milestone of 400 parts per million (ppm) in 2015, and rising temperatures continue to surpass records.

It has been unclear whether the fertilisation effect of higher CO2 levels for plants is outweighed by the harm caused to them by warming and droughts.

The researchers found that between 1960 and 2000 the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere was increasing every year, but that after 2000 the rate slowed to about the same increase every year. They found that the main factor was the higher CO2 levels, which were just 290ppm at the start of the last century, compared to 400ppm today.

“The researchers make it clear that this effect is almost certainly temporary. The ‘greening’ effect of CO2 will ultimately be overwhelmed by the plants’ own respiration and decay, which will cause even more CO2 to be released.”

link


Now I know why the denier websites are mentioning that letter. They are attempting to conflate that letter with this paper, just published November 8th, which says yes very nice, but it's temporary, doesn't help much and when the plants die they just release even more carbon back into the environment.

[Cid_Yama]

The link you just posted is a Draft. It is in the Nature Climate Change Letters section.

link

All it says is, according to their model, CO2 fertilization is causing more plant growth.

Duh. Certainly not ground breaking or game changing.

As for the Nov 8th paper, “The researchers make it clear that this effect is almost certainly temporary. The ‘greening’ effect of CO2 will ultimately be overwhelmed by the plants’ own respiration and decay, which will cause even more CO2 to be released.”

What did you think it was saying?

[kiwichick]

ad as temperature keeps rising, so will evaporation.......meaning that unless rainfall also increases , plant growth will decline

and if rainfall increases so will leaching of nutrients....and if nutrients are not replaced .....plant growth declines rapidly

too much water can be exactly as bad as too little water.....floods and droughts are both negative for plant growth

in agriculture the main elements added to increase plant growth are nitrogen , phosphate, potash and sulpher, plus a number of micro nutrients if necessary

the other element added when necessary and feasible is water

carbon is something I have never heard of being added to any agricultural system; adding the elements listed above is usually expensive enough

[dohboi]

kc: pst seems to be either clueless or just intentionally obtuse here, since he keeps ignoring various blaringly obvious facts and studies that have been pointed out to him numerous times. Not likely we are going to get anywhere with this one, unfortunately. He has his story and he's stickin' to it, as they say.

[kiwichick]

@ pstarr.....increased vegetation won't overcome the rising GHG emissions because as Cid as already said as CO2 rises the plants adapt by restricting the stomata ....they only need a limited amount of any element...for example H2O ....too much and they drown

we are going to see the hottest year on record this year by a large margin over last years record

and this year will see the highest CO2e level on record ......possibly the highest in 15 million years

and CO2 levels may be increasing at a accelerating rate as other positive feedbacks such as albedo and permafrost melt start adding to human emissions

can't see too much room for optimism

[Cid_Yama]

pstarr, get help. Reality is about to smack you up side the head real hard, real soon. REAL soon. Your psychological condition will set you up for severe depression when the barriers come down, and leave you unable to function.

I'm serious.

Listen, buddy. I don't want anyone to have to go through what you are about to. You need to work it through now. Find a therapist.

There are deniers, and there are those 'in denial'. You fall in the second camp.

[Cid_Yama]

Trust me, nobody wants you scared. It really is a grieving process that eventually leads to acceptance.

Like a terminally ill patient. As long as you prevent yourself from working through it, you deny yourself the peace of mind that comes from acceptance, which allows you to live your life in accordance with the reality.

[shortonoil]

"Don't think it is important, not in the face of peak oil. Peak oil will kill billions and end our emissions just as fast."

The oil age is ending right on cue; by 2030 the petroleum industry will be gone. If something to worry about is your concern, worry about the health of the weeds in your lawn. By then you will be digging them up for diner.

[rockdoc123]

Our time here is just blink on the timeline. Same with all the lovely species. New ones will arise out of the ashes. They way mammals did after the Age of Dinosaurs.

given that "man" in terms of the definition of hominid has only been around for about 1 million years whereas dinosaurs in one fashion or another were around for about 150 million years one has to wonder how important and resilient we really are.

Back in my teaching days I used to tell first year geo students about the concept of geologic time as if it is a 24 hour movie. In that scenario man shows up in the last 10 seconds.

I suspect we are just a blip on the earths history