Next Chairman of House Energy Committee believes global warming will turn out ok because God promised to go easy on us

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Sounds like a good reason to me. As long as this nonsense is de-funded, I am a happy camper. I do not care WHY.

Global Warming was fixed last week. Absent funds for junk science, it vanishes. It will be 10-12 years before the junk scinetists could even hope to get their fundsing back and they cannot wait that long, they will have to invent a new crisis. No one will believe in the global warming hoax unless it is fed with money every day.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

CO₂ is plant food. So is H₂0. Just ask any modern pot grower.

CO2 is not always innocuous to plant life. Just ask any botanist.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

CO2 is not always innocuous to plant life. Just ask any botanist.

Normal CO2 levels in the environment are between

350-500 parts per million (PPM). Plants directly benefit from

increased levels up to 1500-2000 PPM. At 3000 PPM, CO2

becomes toxic to plants, and at 5000 PPM, it becomes toxic

to humans.

http://www.fifthseasongardening.com/tips/CO2_enrichment.pdf

Edited November 11, 2010 by ##########

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Normal CO2 levels in the environment are between 350-500 parts per million (PPM). Plants directly benefit from increased levels up to 1500-2000 PPM. At 3000 PPM, CO2 becomes toxic to plants, and at 5000 PPM, it becomes toxic to humans.

http://www.fifthseasongardening.com/tips/CO2_enrichment.pdf

Great, so at least we won't be poisened by CO2 but rather starve ahead of the poisoning. But then we can't really starve since God is known to send mana from heaven. So, CO2 poisoning then. But at least we will be spared the flood as the good Congressman knows from the book. Sweet.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Great, so at least we won't be poisened by CO2 but rather starve ahead of the poisoning. But then we can't really starve since God is known to send mana from heaven. So, CO2 poisoning then. But at least we will be spared the flood as the good Congressman knows from the book. Sweet.

At 1000 ppm, the carnivorous plants will be the size of cars, and start eating us.

Giant 'meat-eating' plant found

A new species of giant carnivorous plant has been discovered in the highlands of the central Philippines.

The pitcher plant is among the largest of all pitchers and is so big that it can catch rats as well as insects in its leafy trap.

During the same expedition, botanists also came across strange pink ferns and blue mushrooms they could not identify.

The botanists have named the pitcher plant after British natural history broadcaster David Attenborough.

Word that this new species of pitcher plant existed initially came from two Christian missionaries who in 2000 attempted to scale Mount Victoria, a rarely visited peak in central Palawan in the Philippines.

With little preparation, the missionaries attempted to climb the mountain but became lost for 13 days before being rescued from the slopes.

On their return, they described seeing a large carnivorous pitcher plant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8195000/8195029.stm

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Normal CO2 levels in the environment are between

350-500 parts per million (PPM). Plants directly benefit from

increased levels up to 1500-2000 PPM.

...an unprecedented three-year experiment conducted at Stanford University is raising questions about that long-held assumption. Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change – namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil.

......

Jasper Ridge Global Change Project

The findings published in Science are among the first results of the Jasper Ridge Global Change Project – a multi-year experiment designed to demonstrate how a typical California grassland ecosystem will respond to future global environmental changes.

Located in a fenced off section of Stanford's 1,189-acre Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, the novel experiment was designed to simulate environmental conditions that climate experts predict may exist 100 years from now: a doubling of atmospheric CO2; a temperature rise of 2 degrees F; a 50 percent increase in precipitation; and increased nitrogen deposition – largely a byproduct of fossil fuel burning.

Launched in 1997, the Jasper Ridge experiment was conceived by Mooney and Christopher B. Field, a professor by courtesy in Stanford's Department of Biological Sciences and director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology, also located on the Stanford campus.

"Most studies have looked at the effects of CO2 on plants in pots or on very simple ecosystems and concluded that plants are going to grow faster in the future," said Field, co-author of the Science study. "We got exactly the same results when we applied CO2 alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments – warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation – growth was actually suppressed."

To mimic future climate conditions, Field, Mooney and their colleagues mapped out 36 circular plots of land, each about six feet in diameter. Four plots are virtually untouched, receiving no additional water, nitrogen, carbon dioxide or heat. Each of the remaining 32 circles is divided into four equal quadrants separated by underground partitions to prevent roots in one section from invading neighboring tracts. In these smaller quadrants, researchers study all 16 possible combinations of elevated and normal CO2, heat, water and nitrogen.

The plots thicken

The biggest surprise from the study was the discovery that elevated carbon dioxide only stimulated plant growth when nitrogen, water and temperature were kept at normal levels.

"Based on earlier single-treatment studies with elevated CO2, we initially hypothesized that, with the combination of all four treatments together, the response would be additional growth," said W. Rebecca Shaw, a researcher with the Nature Conservancy of California and lead author of the Science study.

But results from the third year of the experiment revealed a more complex scenario. While treatments involving increased temperature, nitrogen deposition or precipitation – alone or in combination – promoted plant growth, the addition of elevated CO2 consistently dampened those increases.

"The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding CO2 reduced this to 40 percent," Shaw and her colleagues wrote.

The mean net plant growth for all treatment combinations with elevated CO2 was about 4.9 tons per acre – compared to roughly 5.5 tons per acre for all treatment combinations in which CO2 levels were kept normal. However, when higher amounts of CO2 gas were added to plots with normal temperature, moisture and nitrogen levels, aboveground plant growth increased by nearly a third.

Why would elevated CO2 in combination with other factors have a suppressive effect on plant growth? The researchers aren't sure, but one possibility is that excess carbon in the soil is allowing microbes to outcompete plants for one or more limiting nutrients.

"By applying all four treatments, we may be repositioning the ecosystem so that another environmental factor becomes limiting to growth," Field observed. "For example, by increasing plant growth as a result of adding water or nitrogen, the ecosystem may become more sensitive to limitation by another mineral nutrient such as phosphorous, potassium or something else we hadn't been measuring."

A new five-year experiment is underway at the Jasper Ridge site to analyze potential limiting nutrients in the soil along with microbial-plant interactions and the molecular biology of the vegetation.

Policy implications

Field and his colleagues say that their ultimate goal is to use the results of the Jasper Ridge study to forecast what will happen to other ecosystems – from alpine tundra to tropical rainforests.

"In the past, people have argued that perhaps we don't really need to worry about fossil fuel emissions, because increased plant growth will effectively pull elevated CO2 concentrations out of the atmosphere and keep the world at the appropriate equilibrium," he added. "But our experiment shows that we can't count on the natural world, the unmanaged world, to save us by pulling down all the atmospheric CO2."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021206075233.htm

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021206075233.htm

Don't tell the pot growers.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Don't tell the pot growers.

You gonna go next door and tell em?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You gonna go next door and tell em?

I could throw rocks, and probably hit a few, but they fire back with artillery.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Don't tell the pot growers.

Pot growers typically use controlled environments.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Pot growers typically use controlled environments.

Speaking from experience steven?

[mawilson 2,133]

Speaking before a House Energy Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing in March, 2009, Shimkus quoted Chapter 8, Verse 22 of the Book of Genesis.

Old news?

[The_Dude 1,142]

Old news?

[mawilson 2,133]

Piss off.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Piss off.

LOL, someone get sand in their #######?

Edited November 11, 2010 by Rob & Mel