Sea levels are NOT rising!

[gsvol]

Fmr. Thatcher advisor Lord Monckton to pursue fraud charges against Climategate scientists: Will present to police the case for 'numerous specific instances of scientific or economic fraud' | Climate Depot

Monckton: 'I have begun drafting a memorandum for prosecuting authorities...to establish...the existence of numerous specific instances of scientific or economic fraud in relation to the official 'global warming' storyline...they will act, for that is what the law requires them to do'

 

[NEVolFan]

if sea levels were really going to rise, would Al Gore have bought a multi-million dollar mansion on the California coast?

Well...Big Al is hard at it, just needs a couple of inches to be sure they don't take the Noble prize back.

 

[UGADawg4Life]

Good news! Sea levels aren't rising dangerously | The Spectator

The globe has been gradually warming since the last cyclical Ice Age, and will cool again in the next few thousand years just as it has done for eons. There's nothing that we can do about it.

 

[gsvol]

The globe has been gradually warming since the last cyclical Ice Age, and will cool again in the next few thousand years just as it has done for eons. There's nothing that we can do about it.

PERZACTLY!

(BTW, congratulations to your Dawgs for a good season and the SECE championship, personally, since Bama and LSWho went to the BCSC bowl, I think Jawja should have gotten the Sugar Bowl berth.)

Congressman Rohrabacher’s speech on climate issues | Watts Up With That?

(long, some pertinent exerpts)

Eisenhower pointed to the danger “of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

In my lifetime there’s been no greater example of this threat, which Ike warned us about, than the insidious coalition of research science and political largess, a coalition that has conducted an unrelenting crusade to convince the American People that their health and safety, and yes the very survival of our planet, is at risk due to man-made global warming. The purpose of this greatest of all propaganda campaigns is to enlist public support for, if not just acquiescence to, dramatic mandated change of our society, and to our way of life.

This campaign has such momentum and power that it is now a tangible threat to our freedom, and to our prosperity as a people. Ironically, as the crusade against Man-made Global Warming grows in power, more evidence surfaces every day that the scientific theory, on which the alarmists base their crusade, is totally bogus.
---------------------------------

Prominent scientists who have been skeptical with the claims of man-made Global Warming have themselves been cut from research grants, and obstructed when trying to publish peer reviewed dissenting opinions. How the mainstream media, or publications like the National Journal, have ignored this systematic oppression is beyond me.
----------------------

First and foremost, the Earth has experienced cooling and warming climate cycles for millions of years, which a significant number of prominent scientists believe was tied to solar activity, just like the similar temperature trends identified on Mars and other bodies in the solar system. So how about those ice caps on Mars that seem to expand and recede mirroring our own polar ice caps?
-----------------------------------

In reality, CO2 is less than one half of one tenth of one percent of the atmosphere, and human kind’s contribution to that represents a small fraction of that one half of one tenth of one percent. To say it is miniscule is not small enough. It’s microscopic.
------------------------------

Not making this distinction has cost us billions, maybe more. The temperature of the planet isn’t man-made, and we can’t do anything about it.
--------------------------------

One of the first actions of that administration was to fire the top scientist at the Department of Energy, Dr. William Happer, a professional who, at the time, dared to be open minded about the manmade global warming theory. Al Gore decided Dr. Happer just didn’t fit in, so out he went. From there the pattern became all too clear. In order to receive, even one iota of federal research funds, a scientist had to toe the line of man-made global warming.

There is a Biblical quote: The truth shall set you free. Well, this is a battle for truth and we are up against a political machine yelling CASE CLOSED, and restricting federal research grants only to those who agree with them.
-----------------------------

Because of the retaliation of those alarmists, in charge of bestowing federal research grants, opposition to this power grab has taken time to coalesce. But the opposition to the man-made global warming theory is now evident and won’t be ignored.

There have been major conferences, here in Washington and at other locations around the nation, with hundreds of prominent members of the scientific community. Individuals, many of whom are renowned scientists, Ph.D.’s, and heads of major university science departments, including a few Nobel Prize winners, have stepped up and spoken out. Even with little news coverage, this group who are accurately referred to as skeptics, are gaining ever more recognition and ever more influence. They face a daunting challenge. For a list of some of these well credentialed skeptics, one can visit my website.
--------------------------

Look close at what date was picked as the baseline for comparing temperatures. It is 1850, the end of a 500 year decline in the Earth’s temperatures – the Little Ice Age. Skeptics say that a one or two degree increase in the planet’s temperature is irrelevant if the basis of comparison is 500 year low temperature. To skeptics, currently we are just in another of many natural climate cycles. To alarmists, the sky is falling – I mean heating – all caused by mankind’s pumping CO2 into the air.

This theory of man-made CO2 causing global warming emerged when scientists mistakenly believed that data from the study of ice cores indicated a warming of our planet after major increases in CO2. However, later it was found that the ice cores were misread. As Nicolas Caillon pointed out in Science Magazine in 2003, “the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years.”

So the heating came first, and then the CO2 increased, not the other way around. Yes, when the earth heats up, there is more CO2. We have been told the opposite over and over again and we were told that the earth would keep heating until we reached a tipping point and the temperature would shoot up rapidly, and we could expect this warming to go on and on until we quit using CO2-emitting fossil fuels as a major source of energy. The future they described was hot and bleak, but their frightening illusion began to disintegrate when, about nine years ago, even as more CO2 was being pumped into the air, the earth quit warming and now may be in a cooling cycle.
------------------------------

One example is the “blackballing” of prominent scientists like Dr. William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences. Gray had the courage and honesty to point out that there have not, in recent years, been more and stronger hurricanes and other such storms than in the past. No more research grants for him. No attention from the media either.

Zealots can usually find high sounding excuses for their transgressions against professionals like Dr. Gray.
-------------------------------

From Roy Spencer:

“Unfortunately, there is no way to “fix” the IPCC, and there never was. The reason is that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth.”

“If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC’s efforts.”
-------------------------------

From Bo Christiansen:

“It is very likely that the … mean temperature has shown much larger past variability than caught by previous reconstructions. We cannot from these reconstructions conclude that the previous 50-year period has been unique in the context of the last 500-1000 years.”
-----------------------------

James Taylor, Contributor

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
------------------------

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,” writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles.
--------

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous.
----------------------

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.

More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the next few days as observers pour through the 5,000 emails. What is already clear, however, is the need for more objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion.
---------------------------

In the meantime, a report was recently issued by the world-respected scientists at CERN in Switzerland. The CERN study demonstrated that it is cosmic rays from the Sun that determine global cloud cover – and clouds have dramatically more to do with temperature than the miniscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
-------------------------------
But a few physicists weren’t worrying about Al Gore in the 1990s. They were theorizing about another possible factor in climate change: charged subatomic particles from outer space, or “cosmic rays,” whose atmospheric levels appear to rise and fall with the weakness or strength of solar winds that deflect them from the earth. These shifts might significantly impact the type and quantity of clouds covering the earth, providing a clue to one of the least-understood but most important questions about climate. Heavenly bodies might be driving long-term weather trends.
-----------------------------

They announced their findings, and the possible climatic implications, at a 1996 space conference in Birmingham, England. Then, as Mr. Svensmark recalls, “everything went completely crazy. . . . It turned out it was very, very sensitive to say these things already at that time.” He returned to Copenhagen to find his local daily leading with a quote from the then-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naïve and irresponsible.”

Mr. Svensmark had been, at the very least, politically naïve. “Before 1995 I was doing things related to quantum fluctuations. Nobody was interested, it was just me sitting in my office. It was really an eye-opener, that baptism into climate science.” He says his work was “very much ignored” by the climate-science establishment—but not by CERN physicist Jasper Kirkby, who is leading today’s ongoing cloud-chamber experiment.
---------------------------------

“Before 1995 I was doing things related to quantum fluctuations. Nobody was interested, it was just me sitting in my office. It was really an eye-opener, that baptism into climate science.” He says his work was “very much ignored” by the climate-science establishment—but not by CERN physicist Jasper Kirkby, who is leading today’s ongoing cloud-chamber experiment.

On the phone from Geneva, Mr. Kirkby says that Mr. Svensmark’s hypothesis “started me thinking: There’s good evidence that pre-industrial climate has frequently varied on 100-year timescales, and what’s been found is that often these variations correlate with changes in solar activity, solar wind.
--------------

The biggest milestone in last month’s publication may be not the content but the source, which will be a lot harder to ignore than Mr. Svensmark and his small Danish institute.
----------------------------

On that point, Mr. Kirkby—whose organization is controlled by not one but 20 governments—really does not want to discuss politics at all: “I’m an experimental particle physicist, okay? That somehow nature may have decided to connect the high-energy physics of the cosmos with the earth’s atmosphere—that’s what nature may have done, not what I’ve done.”

Last month’s findings don’t herald the end of a debate, but the resumption of one. That is, if the politicians purporting to legislate based on science will allow it.
-------------------------

And while scientists have discovered the Sun’s relation to cloud cover, even more recently a study was released directly undermining the theory that CO2 levels are the major determinant of the Earth’s temperature.
--------------------

“The left’s proposed solutions for the world’s ills are based on the idea that carbon dioxide is a climate-heating poison that must be scrubbed from the global economy at all cost. Yet another study shows this is foolish.”
----------------------

The study in the journal Science found that global temperatures appear to be far less sensitive to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than originally estimated.
--------------------------------------

The study’s findings are simple and devastating. “This implies that the effect of CO2 on climate is less than previously thought,” said Oregon State University’s Andreas Schmittner, the study’s main author.

Even with a doubling of CO2 from levels that existed before the Industrial Revolution, the study found a likely increase in Earth’s temperature only from about 3.1 degrees Fahrenheit to 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
-------------------------------

Coupled with the fact the average global temperature hasn’t increased at all over the past decade — even though under all of the global warming models now in use, this is impossible — warmist ideology is crumbling. There is no climate armageddon on the horizon.
----------------------

The left’s entire prescription for solving the world’s ills — ranging from population control to strict regulation of businesses to shrinking CO2 output — are premised on the notion that carbon-dioxide is a poison.

Happily, the left’s pernicious, economy-destroying and false global warming ideology is collapsing under a growing body of evidence that the CO2 scare is a fraud.
-----------------------------

Except they didn’t actually record any CO2 emissions – they estimated them based on energy usage. They didn’t take into account new technology that makes oil, gas and coal cleaner and greener. The Scientists didn’t care how cleanly the coal or oil is burned. They just estimated CO2 emissions based on the total amount of coal or oil used. And the media, like their little lap dogs, faithfully report what sounds like a calamity – both Reuters and the NY Times reported that this is the largest increase ever recorded, despite no emissions actually being recorded.

The truth is that CO2 is not a pollutant. Anyone perpetuating the myth that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant is contributing to the health-destructive impact of real pollution by diverting resources and attention from these very real challenges. We have wasted $25 billion on this foolishness.
-----------------------------------

Future generations of Americans are in the process of being shackled like slaves to a monstrous burden of economy killing debt. We will not give away the freedom of our children to global planners because some white coated know-it-alls conspire to create a phony alarm, a phony crisis to justify changing our way of life. The sky is not falling. There is no need to give up or restrict our freedoms or that of future Americans.

There have been warming and cooling cycles for the entire history of our planet and other planets, too. The effect of man-made CO2 is miniscule compared to cloud cover affected by cosmic rays from the Sun.

 

[gsvol]

Have I mentioned lately that sea levels are NOT rising?

Let me mention also, the sky is NOT falling.

CO2 isn't going to kill us.

Drop dead tree huggers.

 

[KiffinKiller]

Have I mentioned lately that sea levels are NOT rising?

Let me mention also, the sky is NOT falling.

CO2 isn't going to kill us.

Drop dead tree huggers.

chicken little is in denial?

 

[therealUT]

Drop dead tree huggers.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Can someone tell me what the ideal temp of this planet is? I think a few degrees warmer might be a good thing.

 

[gsvol]

Can someone tell me what the ideal temp of this planet is? I think a few degrees warmer might be a good thing.

I'm thinking you are exactly right!

Furthermore I'm thinking that increased CO2 levels are also good for the planet in that it increases the botanic activity.

To make the desert bloom is a bad thing?

Perhaps some are suffering from confused thinking?

Go botanic not titanic, the ice cubes in your drink
don't have to be the iceberg of your life of think.

Ya' think?

Save the rainforests, make mental notes.

 

[gsvol]

Running from Climate Change: The Obama Administration’s Changing Rhetoric « Climate and Development Lab

The phrases “climate change” and “global warming” have become all but taboo on Capital Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena, and have been since 2010. As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said on October 13th, “It has become no longer politically correct in certain circles in Washington to speak about climate change or carbon pollution or how carbon pollution is causing our climate to change.” Why?


As part of a Brown University research project this summer, I conducted a comparative analysis of the Obama administration’s use of climate change and clean energy rhetoric, and how they were changing. We examined 1,606 speeches by administration officials over three and a half years (January 2008-July 2011), assembling keyword counts from a campaign speech database and the White House Speeches and Remarks Archive. Rhetoric was sorted by categories: “climate” and “energy.”

The results were dramatic:

What has caused this significant shift in rhetoric? Climate change is apparently politically tainted, a doomsday issue, and the administration has re-branded it under a clean energy and energy independence discourse. The administration has clearly responded to increasing hostility ...... towards the effort to address climate change, scrubbing out words like global warming, cap-and-trade, and climate change from agency communication.

I still think it would have been much more cost effective to buy a weather rock for the White House and one for congress as well, since there isn't a lot they can do to affect climate change, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the American people have been ripped off for hundreds of billion if not trillions of dollars on some very shaky (and snaky) proposals all based on conjecture.

 

[emainvol]

Exclusive: UN Climate Draft Text Demands 'New International Climate Court' to compel reparations for 'climate debt' -- Also seeks 'rights of Mother Earth' & 2C° drop in global temps | Climate Depot



Who's lying now?

The guy that wrote that who apparently can't read a graph? That's my guess, at least.

CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

 

[gsvol]

The guy that wrote that who apparently can't read a graph? That's my guess, at least.

CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

Graff smafff, what are you reading, sea levels are falling, PERIOD. If you say othewise you are just lying.

C3: EU Satellite Documents Huge Sea Level Decline That U.S. Scientists Refuse To Discuss or Publish

Imagine you're a scientist studying sea levels, and your career and research funding depends on proving that global warming is causing accelerating sea level increases. Now imagine the satellites and mother nature don't cooperate with your agenda, and the seas stop rising and actually produce a significant and visible satellite record that the oceans' levels declined. In your mind you're probably thinking, "I'm screwed."

So what do you do? Are you tempted to not publish the new data hoping for a miraculous sea level increase, like really, really soon? Is that why American scientists are not releasing the latest satellite results, taking a clue from their corrupted Climategate friends across the pond - sort of a "hide the decline" of satellite measurements mentality? (Hey, maybe the delay is really the lame excuse they have been providing to WUWT - who knows.)

Not all scientists are of the same ilk, though. The researchers at AVISO have kept on publishing the inconvenient satellite measurements, much to their credit. Not only are the AVISO researchers more timely (more honest?), they also deliver a better product than their U.S. counterparts.

Their research (graphs below) also include the data from the EU's Envisat satellite:
----------------

Again, all the satellites show the recent rather large drop. These combined measures have a trend since 1993 of only 12 inches per century, well below any of the recent alarmist non-scientific claims and predictions.

As can be seen, the Envisat (yellow line) reveals a larger drop than its Jason counterparts, which the U.S. scientists seemingly don't want the American taxpayers and policymakers to know about.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Furthermore I'm thinking that increased CO2 levels are also good for the planet in that it increases the botanic activity.

For C3 plants, yes. For C4 plants, no.

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

I'm thinking you are exactly right!

Furthermore I'm thinking that increased CO2 levels are also good for the planet in that it increases the botanic activity.

To make the desert bloom is a bad thing?

Perhaps some are suffering from confused thinking?

Go botanic not titanic, the ice cubes in your drink
don't have to be the iceberg of your life of think.

Ya' think?

Save the rainforests, make mental notes.

The planet Venus disagrees. But go ahead and ignore science.

 

[emainvol]

Graff smafff, what are you reading, sea levels are falling, PERIOD. If you say othewise you are just lying.

C3: EU Satellite Documents Huge Sea Level Decline That U.S. Scientists Refuse To Discuss or Publish

The data from the satellite that the guy in your other link is referencing is on the other page. Did you even bother to read it?

And the idiot that wrote your piece is taking selective points from readings with incredible variation to come to a conclusion based on one satellites data, when there are multiple satellites with which to compare, all of which show tremendous variation

 

[gsvol]

The data from the satellite that the guy in your other link is referencing is on the other page. Did you even bother to read it?

And the idiot that wrote your piece is taking selective points from readings with incredible variation to come to a conclusion based on one satellites data, when there are multiple satellites with which to compare, all of which show tremendous variation

Usually the one who constantly calls other an idiot, is one.

The following is from the most up to date accurate equipment we have, including all the satelites that measure sea level and there is no tremendous variation.

Where do you come up with your bull crap?

Hiding The Inconvenient Satellite | Real Science

The most sophisticated sea level satellite is Envisat. It doesn’t show any sea level rise since it was launched in 2002, so our friends in the sea level community tried to hide it by painting it almost invisible yellow and not normalising the data properly.

The animation above corrects those problems, and shows how completely bogus the claimed trend is.

You should be able to figure out the real science from the propaganda but I doubt it.

The planet Venus disagrees. But go ahead and ignore science.

What authority are you quoting on the Venus temperatures?

I havn't seen anything about that although I've tried to find a source in the past.

I do know that knowledgeable scientists are almost universal in their belief that Mars is in a warming phase much like Earth.

Did you ever stop to think that you are the one ignoring the science?

For C3 plants, yes. For C4 plants, no.

Something I wasn't aware of.

I thought a C4 plant was an explosives factory.

What are some plants listed as C4?

Wouldn't all food crops be listed as C3?

 

[emainvol]

I could take arbitrary points on that graph and make it say whatever I want. The difference is, I am not arguing that they have risen significantly, nor am I arguing they have fallen significantly because they haven't. And if it isn't statistically significant, it is really pointless to argue about it.

For example, take this graph, which includes the Jason 2 that your first guy gave us

Do you notice the variation? Do you also notice that I can take two start points (say, the beginning of 2008 or just short of the beginning of 2009) and two end points (the beginning of 2011 and just short of the beginning of 2012) and the sea level actually showed a slight increase?

I could care less what the sea levels are doing in the last x years, as it is all cyclical by very nature, argue to argue this either way by using these bull**** arbitrary dates it absolutely idiotic.

 

[emainvol]

And like I said last time, once again you are subscribing to the apparent liberal style of argument. That makes you a hypocrite.

 

[PKT_VOL]

The planet Venus disagrees. But go ahead and ignore science.

He is actually right about this one. Shocker, I know, I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Venus's CO2 level is orders of magnitude higher than that of the Earth. It's atmosphere is 96% CO2. Plus, Venus has a lot of sulfuric acid in its atmosphere. Not a fair comparison. If you think about it, most plants would actually benefit to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer temperatures. Given these two are within reason of course. This positive future outlook for many plants was reiterated by various professors in Horticulture on the Ag Campus and within the BCMB department.

Something I wasn't aware of.

I thought a C4 plant was an explosives factory.

What are some plants listed as C4?

Wouldn't all food crops be listed as C3?

There are three types of plants: C3, C4, and CAM plants. They are differentiated based upon their biochemical pathways. For the purpose of this post, I am going to ignore CAM plants.

Both C3 and C4 plants have the same fundamental metabolic pathway. Converting water, CO2, and energy (solar energy) into sugar and oxygen. However, C4 plants have an additional biochemistry before the "basic" metabolic pathway. C4 plants utilize an enzyme called PEP carboxylase instead of RuDP carboxylase to capture CO2. PEP carboxylase's affinity for CO2 is six fold that of RuDP carboxylase. The use of PEP carboxylase allows C4 plants to be six times more efficient and offset the natural occurrence of oxidation which hinders a plants ability to carry out photosynthesis.

In laymen terms, C4 plants require a lot less carbon dioxide and water to survive compared to C3 plants.

C3 Plants: wheat, rice, coffee, apple trees, grape vines, oranges, peanuts, etc.
C4 Plants: corn, sugarcane, crab grass, sorgham, millet, and many types of weeds (the reason weeds grow so damn fast)

 

[gsvol]

I could take arbitrary points on that graph and make it say whatever I want. The difference is, I am not arguing that they have risen significantly, nor am I arguing they have fallen significantly because they haven't. And if it isn't statistically significant, it is really pointless to argue about it.

For example, take this graph, which includes the Jason 2 that your first guy gave us

Do you notice the variation? Do you also notice that I can take two start points (say, the beginning of 2008 or just short of the beginning of 2009) and two end points (the beginning of 2011 and just short of the beginning of 2012) and the sea level actually showed a slight increase?

I could care less what the sea levels are doing in the last x years, as it is all cyclical by very nature, argue to argue this either way by using these bull**** arbitrary dates it absolutely idiotic.

Doing an end run on your obfuscation and sophistry let me go on to say this; "The shrill alarmist mantra that 'sea levels are rising catastrophically' rings hollow given the real scientific facts."

Does it not?

And like I said last time, once again you are subscribing to the apparent liberal style of argument. That makes you a hypocrite.

So you are saying liberals are hypocties?

Ever heard of the expression; 'fight fire with fire?'

FWIW all the 'global warming' aka 'climate change' propaganda is fraught with deception and misinformation.

Probably the only reason so many people believe it is that they are bombarded with such dogma on a daily basis.

He is actually right about this one. Shocker, I know, I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Venus's CO2 level is orders of magnitude higher than that of the Earth. It's atmosphere is 96% CO2. Plus, Venus has a lot of sulfuric acid in its atmosphere. Not a fair comparison. If you think about it, most plants would actually benefit to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer temperatures. Given these two are within reason of course. This positive future outlook for many plants was reiterated by various professors in Horticulture on the Ag Campus and within the BCMB department.



There are three types of plants: C3, C4, and CAM plants. They are differentiated based upon their biochemical pathways. For the purpose of this post, I am going to ignore CAM plants.

Both C3 and C4 plants have the same fundamental metabolic pathway. Converting water, CO2, and energy (solar energy) into sugar and oxygen. However, C4 plants have an additional biochemistry before the "basic" metabolic pathway. C4 plants utilize an enzyme called PEP carboxylase instead of RuDP carboxylase to capture CO2. PEP carboxylase's affinity for CO2 is six fold that of RuDP carboxylase. The use of PEP carboxylase allows C4 plants to be six times more efficient and offset the natural occurrence of oxidation which hinders a plants ability to carry out photosynthesis.

In laymen terms, C4 plants require a lot less carbon dioxide and water to survive compared to C3 plants.

C3 Plants: wheat, rice, coffee, apple trees, grape vines, oranges, peanuts, etc.
C4 Plants: corn, sugarcane, crab grass, sorgham, millet, and many types of weeds (the reason weeds grow so damn fast)

Well thanks for the information, so refreshing to hear from someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

Not that it really pertains to this dicussion but corn severely depletes soil of nitrogen, this is why it should be rotated with another crop at least once every four years, some legume (soybean) which replentishes the nitrogen in the soil works best.

Even with the information you provide, it is safe to say that increased atmosphereic levels of CO2 does help to produce more food for a world in which some are starving, is it not?

(One of the most insane of all government programs is the ethanol mandate which does nothing to reduce CO2 levels, some say it even increases CO2, but what it does do is increase food costs throughout the world.)

As for the backhand broken clock reference, my clock says it is time the America people quit buying the crap about AGW/climate change which is being used for all sorts of socials engineering to satisfy a political agenda, and we should start demanding a logical, sane energy policy.

Here is another claim involving the climate agenda that is just exactly opposite of the truth:

The fishes and the coral live happily in the CO2 bubble plume | Watts Up With That?

There are several places at the eastern end of that country where carbon dioxide is continuously bubbling up through healthy looking coral reef, with fish swimming around and all that that implies.
----------------------

What that implies is that ocean acidification is no threat at all. If the most delicate, fragile, iconic ecosystem of them all can handle flat-out saturation with carbon dioxide, what is there to worry about?
------------------------------

Although none of these threats has ever become manifest as a serious impact and all of the millions of dollars in research has never found any effective solution for anything, the charade never seems to lose credibility or support. The popular threat of the moment is ocean acidification from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
----------------------

According to Wikipedia “The Shell Game is portrayed as a gambling game, but in reality, when a wager for money is made, it is a confidence trick used to perpetrate fraud”.

The shell game has been of particular interest to me after reading a scientific letter “Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification” published in Nature a couple of years ago. Since then there has been a deluge of alarmist warnings on “Ocean Acidification” – including one in the Feb/March issue of Dive Pacific from an organization called the “International Union for the Conservation of Nature” – but no actual reefs destroyed by it, of course.
------------------------

Now we have the astonishing “Climategate” scandal revealing a huge scientific fraud producing the dodgy evidence used by the IPCC and environmental activists to predict Global Apocalypse, and a Copenhagen Treaty more designed to foster World Government than combat pollution.

 

[KiffinKiller]

did gs just admit he was an idiot?

 

[emainvol]

Gs, I never said they were rising catastrophically.

 

[emainvol]

I also would like to know how my explanation of a graph qualifies as sophistry or obfuscation. I am taking issue with those that claim the data represents a significant increase or decrease in the given period, because it doesn't

 

[gsvol]

Gs, I never said they were rising catastrophically.

But the IPCC, the AGW advocates and various enviro groups have made that claim.

The fact of the matter is that sea level receded 6mm in 2010.

I also would like to know how my explanation of a graph qualifies as sophistry or obfuscation. I am taking issue with those that claim the data represents a significant increase or decrease in the given period, because it doesn't

Well then let's go over some salient points.

Claim:

Sea levels are rising in a catastrophic manner due to human CO2 emmissions.

Reality:

They are not.

Claim:

Human CO2 emissions are acidifying the oceans.

Reality:

They are not.


The Ocean Is Not Getting Acidified | Watts Up With That?

The problem with using the term “acidify” for what rainwater does to the ocean is that people misunderstand what is happening. Sure, a hard-core scientist hearing “acidify” might think “decreasing pH”. But most people think “Ooooh, acid, bad, burns the skin.” It leads people to say things like the following gem that I came across yesterday:

Rapid increases in CO2 (such as today) overload the system, causing surface waters to become corrosive.

In reality, it’s quite the opposite. The increase in CO2 is making the ocean, not more corrosive, but more neutral. Since both alkalinity and acidity corrode things, the truth is that rainwater (or more CO2) will make the ocean slightly less corrosive, by marginally neutralizing its slight alkalinity.
-------------------

First, there are a number of places in the ocean where the pH swings are both rapid and large. The life in those parts of the ocean doesn’t seem to be bothered by either the size or the speed these swings.

Second, the size of the possible pH change by 2100 is not large compared to the natural swings.

Third, due to a host of buffering mechanisms in the ocean, the possible pH change by 2100 may be smaller, but is unlikely to be larger, than the forecast estimate shown above.

Fourth, I would be very surprised if we’re still burning much fossil fuel ninety years from now. Possible, but doubtful in my book. So from this effect as well, the change in oceanic pH may well be less than shown above.

Fifth, as the authors commented, some parts of the ocean are already experiencing conditions that were not forecast to arrive until 2100 … and are doing so with no ill effects.

As a result, I’m not particularly concerned about a small change in oceanic pH from the change in atmospheric CO2. The ocean will adapt, some creatures’ ranges will change a bit, some species will be slightly advantaged and others slightly disadvantaged. But CO2 has been high before this. Overall, making the ocean slightly more neutral will likely be beneficial to life, which doesn’t like alkalinity but doesn’t mind acidity at all.

Finally, let me say that I love scientific studies like this, that actually use real observations rather than depending on theory and models. For some time now I’ve been pointing out that oceanic pH is not constant … but until this study I didn’t realize how variable it actually is. It is a measure of the “ivory tower” nature of much of climate science that the hysteria about so-called “acidification” has been going on for so long without an actual look at the actual ocean to see what difference a small change towards neutrality might actually make.

Other salient points:

Something like 80% of Eatth's volcanic activity is sub-oceanic and has not been studied much at all, with recent study we have found that CO2 emissions from those events have been VASTLY underestimated and until some sort of ball park figure can be put on that factor, all computer models are useless since most of that emitted CO2 rises to the sruface of the ocean and is emitted into the atmosphere.

Secondly, until computer models quit way overestimating the value of CO2 in the atmosphere as it pertains to global warming and/or climate change then those computer models are worthless.

Claim:

We must greatly reduce CO2 emissions in America or face untold calamity.

Reality:

We have an idiotic political energy policy that only a brainwashed moron would believe in.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Well thanks for the information, so refreshing to hear from someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

Yep. I don't post too often, but when I do, I know what I am talking about.

Not that it really pertains to this dicussion but corn severely depletes soil of nitrogen, this is why it should be rotated with another crop at least once every four years, some legume (soybean) which replentishes the nitrogen in the soil works best.

Definitely off topic, but you are correct. Corn isn't the only plant which burns through all the nitrogen in the soil. Most plants grown on an industrial scale do. Planting legumes every third or fourth year is one of the ways to combat this. Synthetic nitrogen based fertilizer is another.

Even with the information you provide, it is safe to say that increased atmosphereic levels of CO2 does help to produce more food for a world in which some are starving, is it not?

Unfortunately, no.

1) Starvation is man made. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone.

2) The increase in CO2 levels and warmer temperatures are fairly negligible. Plus, temperature differences and climate changes are different all over the world. Some places get more precipitation, less precipitation, warmer, or cooler. Thus making a prediction about overall food production is foolish. Some places will increase while other places will decrease. Climate is just too complex to make accurate predictions.

That said, there is a difference between theoretical notions and reality. Reality, in nature there are too many variables to just isolate a single independent variable. Theoretically, in a lab, with all other variable the same, increase CO2 levels will help food production of C3 plants.

(One of the most insane of all government programs is the ethanol mandate which does nothing to reduce CO2 levels, some say it even increases CO2, but what it does do is increase food costs throughout the world.

Agreed. Ethanol from corn in this country was ridiculous. Places like Brazil, where they make it from excess sugarcane, it is more reasonable. Biofuel on a small scale is still not a bad idea; especially from waste products like used cooking oil.