This isn’t irony, you idiot

And the chief cause of global greening we’re experiencing? It seems to be that rising carbon dioxide emissions are providing more and more fertilizer for plants, the researchers say. As a result, the boom of global greening since the early 1980s may have slowed the rate of global warming, the researchers say, possibly by as much as 0.2 to 0.25 degrees Celsius.

“It is ironic that the very same carbon emissions responsible for harmful changes to climate are also fertilizing plant growth, which in turn is somewhat moderating global warming,” says study coauthor Dr. Jarle Bjerke of the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research.

It’s a negative feedback…..

30 thoughts on “This isn’t irony, you idiot”

  1. Slight technical error in the article – photosynthesis does NOT generate water vapour, it utilises water and CO2 and releases Oxygen into the atmosphere.
    Someone who cannot get their + and – signs right in the equation should be sent back to school to take 1st year Botany again.

  2. It is ironic because sceptics have been saying this for years only to be derided by the “experts” and Connolley’s of this world

  3. It is ironic because sceptics have been saying this for years only to be derided by the “experts” and Connolley’s of this world.

    And, in fact, if you go to the Skeptical (sic) Science website they say it is a myth that more CO2 leads to increased plant growth

  4. And, in fact, if you go to the Skeptical (sic) Science website they say it is a myth that more CO2 leads to increased plant growth

    It takes all of a few seconds to find scientific literature with empirically measured CO2/plant growth curves… They literally raise the level of the stuff in greenhouses for this very reason…

  5. Also, I am fond of the libertarian argument that in general, regulatory interventions always introduce harmful positive feedbacks. If you do electronics you know that a feedback with a delay tends to introduce instability. This is how oscillators are designed. As a general point, I take the view that since the Earth’s biosphere has existed for billions of years, it is dominated by negative feedbacks, though the points of stability drift with time.

    I remain unconvinced that there is a significant threat from AGW, but that measures taken to “fix” it may well result in dangerous instabilities. My primary comfort in this is that humans don’t really have a feasible technology for sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere. If we develop one, I would be deeply concerned.

  6. Totally agree with Ian B.

    The fundamental argument against CAGW (catastrophic AGW) is just that: the Earth’s temperature has been (much) higher in the past, but we are still here and have not suffered runaway GW. Therefore the negative feedbacks must dominate.

    The GW effect of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere of its own is about 1.1 – 1.3 deg C. The CAGW models predict the total effect of such a doubling to be 1.5 – 4.5 deg C, because they think there will be additional positive feedback from the temperature rise caused by the CO2 itself. But that can’t be true, because if it were, we would already have fried!

  7. Judging by today’s Marginal Revolution a chunk of the economics trade has given up the accurate use of “negative feedback” and “positive feedback”.

  8. ‘It seems to be that rising carbon dioxide emissions are providing more and more fertilizer for plants, the researchers say.’

    Moron. It’s a feed stock, not a fertilizer. More water helps plants grow, too. Doesn’t make water a ‘fertilizer.’

    ‘As a result, the boom of global greening since the early 1980s may have slowed the rate of global warming, the researchers say, possibly by as much as 0.2 to 0.25 degrees Celsius.’

    He uses a decimal point to show he has a sense of humor.

    Note that GMT Global Mean Temperature is about 287 degrees Kelvin. Climate Change™ is about a change to 288 degrees Kelvin.

    Yeah, it’s stupid.

    “It is ironic that the very same carbon emissions responsible for harmful changes to climate”

    Correct, Steve. ‘Harmful changes to climate’ is an empty, stupid assertion.

    ‘are also fertilizing plant growth’

    You can’t fix stupid.

  9. Simple logic dictates that it must be a stable system with many negative and restorative feedbacks.

    Example.
    65million years ago, a large chunk of space rock slammed into the planet, releasing immense amounts of energy and dust and muck into the atmosphere, blocking the sun, etc etc. Somehow we’re here, so the system recovered from that.

    If it can withstand gigatonnes of rock being blasted into the atmosphere, and the constant (from a large time scale viewpoint) volcanic eruptions that the planet constantly emits, i think we’ll be ok and a bit of extra co2 isn’t even going to be noticed in any serious way.

  10. My primary comfort in this is that humans don’t really have a feasible technology for sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere. If we develop one, I would be deeply concerned.

    Better be concerned them, Ian. There’s an obvious way. Grow some sort of photosynthesising organism. Then sequestrate the resultant biomass where it can’t get back into the carbon cycle. Two obvious ways. Grow trees. Fell & dump them into a big hole. Bulldoze over an earth cap. Old opencast mines would be ideal. Grow algae then pump the algal sludge underground. Shale, sand deposits. Old mines. They’re not even high tech solutions. Could be done tomorrow.

  11. Dennis, Climate-Change Denying Fruitcake

    Still want that carbon tax, Timmy?

    If you do, you’re anti-global greening.

    While being anti-climate change.

    Still want that carbon tax?

  12. Just seen some geneticist is being hauled over the coals for faking evidence and studies for a decade. He should be in climate science.

  13. As a result, the boom of global greening since the early 1980s may have slowed the rate of global warming, the researchers say, possibly by as much as 0.2 to 0.25 degrees Celsius.

    It’s interesting that a “settled science” has to use all these weasel words. I would imagine that their paper is just another table top exercise where they plug their own chosen parameters into an Excel spreadsheet, er, advanced computer model, and it spits out the results that they knew they were going to get in the first place.

  14. The point I always make is that all the CO2 we are releasing by burning fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere already, its just that 300m years ago a load of trees and animals etc got buried underground and never rotted, thus locking that CO2 up for what is (in geological terms) not a very long time. So if the atmosphere over 300m years ago held all that CO2 and the earth survived fine, and didn’t go into some catastrophic greenhouse effect runaway, it won’t now either, even if we managed to locate every last bit of hydrocarbon and release its sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere.

  15. Bloke in North Dorset

    *pendant alert*

    Note that GMT Global Mean Temperature is about 287 degrees Kelvin. Climate Change™ is about a change to 288 degrees Kelvin.

    Its not degrees Kelvin, its just Kelvin.

  16. The linked article is dismal.

    “Green leaves convert sunlight to sugars while replacing carbon dioxide in the air with water vapor, which cools the Earth’s surface” is misleading.

    Photosynthesis is carbon dioxide + water —(solar energy)> glucose + oxygen
    Or
    6CO2 + 6H20 + (solar energy) → C6H12O6 + 6O2

    Water vapour, which is not released by photosynthesis, doesn’t cool the atmosphere: it’s a greenhouse gas.

  17. “It’s not degrees Kelvin, it’s just Kelvin”: only because the bastards changed it. Without even seeking my permission.

  18. @ John77 / Theo

    It’s been a while since bilge O-Level but I seem to remember this about green-leaved plants: photosynthesis occurs during daylight hours but respiration occurs day and night. The former process greatly outweighs the latter but if memory also serves, this was the reason that pot-plants were removed from hospital wards at night time so that they didn’t filch the oxygen and give off carbon dioxide.

    Obviously this is more the province of you stem people 🙂

  19. BIS-

    That’s what bothers me, because something engineered like that really could runaway in a sci-fi movie “and then all the plants died” kind of a way.

  20. Dr. Jarle Bjerke of the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research reveals in one sentence…

    ..what complete and utter know nothing about science these Climate “scientist” chumps they are

    Education
    2003: Dr. scient, Univ. of Tromsø 1999: Cand. scient, Univ. of Tromsø 1997: Spanish, Univ. of Oslo 1996: Biology, Univ. of Bergen 1994-96: Biology, chemistry, geology, statistics, Univ. of Tromsø 1993: Examen philosophicum, Univ. of Tromsø

    Whut? A Biologist who doesn’t know CO2 is plant food or understand photosynthesis? Doesn’t inspire confidence in Norwegian Unis

    @john77, Ian B, Dennis, Jim

    +1, +10s

    @bis

    Those options won’t be used – too low-tech, inexpensive and thousands of highly paid “experts” not required

    @TMB

    Correct, hence why nurses used to take flowers out of wards at night

  21. “Better be concerned them, Ian.”

    Indeed, there are real people in positions of influence pursuing “geoengineering.” They want Man to take over management of the atmosphere.

    Billions of people will die.

  22. @dearieme Yes I seem to remember degrees Kelvin being used. I thought it was a memory lapse when I started read Kelvin being absolute (whatever that means).

    As for CO2 being bad for plants… I warn my students that the increasing rate of Photosynthesis as we raise CO2 concentration, that they are examined in part of the syllabus, should not be mentioned in any question about the Greenhouse effect.

    Plants in Hospital wards… so how much atmospheric O2 did the nurses think a handful of plants use during the night? especially as the Stomata are closed. Would the difference be measurable?

  23. so how much atmospheric O2 did the nurses think a handful of plants use during the night? especially as the Stomata are closed. Would the difference be measurable?

    Back then, of course, nurses didn’t have degrees.

  24. That’s what bothers me, because something engineered like that really could runaway in a sci-fi movie “and then all the plants died” kind of a way.

    @Ian B: +1 for The Death of Grass (published in the United States as No Blade of Grass) in 1956 by the English author Sam Youd under the pen name John Christopher. I read it last year and thoroughly enjoyed it.

    The reality of the Watermelons whinging about CAGW…not so much.

  25. BiS, IanB

    Regarding burying trees as a C store. Some of the details were worked out and published back in 2008…

    https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1#Sec24

    The author reckons that 10 Gt/yr of C can sustainably be long-term sequestered (roughly the equivalent of the C in the annual global CO2 production) at a cost of $50/t of C, so a total annual cost of $500B, less than 1% of world GDP.

    Obviously there are practical details to be worked out but it seems quite feasible. As the author says: “The technique is low tech, distributed, easy to monitor, safe, and reversible, thus an attractive option for large-scale implementation in a world-wide carbon market.” I wonder why no one seems to be working on it. Is it just too boringly easy?

  26. @ TMB and Pcar
    What you say is true, *but* it is relatively insignificant during daylight when photosynthesis is taking place.

  27. @TJ February 2, 2020 at 8:52 am

    “Don’t mention”: frightening

    Nurses/Matrons knew the basic: “at night plants consume Oxygen”

    In a one bed ward lots of flowers & patient with lung & heart problems it could be the tipping point

    At least they knew basics, doubt any graduate nurses now know this

    Similar: friend’s wife, a (>40) teacher astounded when I corrected her on “Council plants all those beautiful crocuses and daffodils every year”. Little wonder children ignorant and gullible. Education is going backwards to era of witchcraft & weather gods.

  28. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Council plants daffodils? Where I grew up, there was a beautiful daffodil bank in the grounds of the local nurses’ home behind our house. We had to remain constantly vigilant in the spring lest some gormless spastic from the council came round and drove a motor mower through them. They’re long gone now and a dozen indentikit “executive houses” occupy the plot. At least the developers saw the light and didn’t cut down the oak tree that was planted during the reign of one of the Georges (II or III, I think).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *