Hey Veeky Forums

Hey Veeky Forums,
I'm dealing with a climate change skeptic who has made a claim, without peer review citation, that only 4% of the carbon in the atmosphere is from man made sources; hence showing anthropogenic global warming is incorrect. In particular, he made the claim that c13/c12 ratio from Mauna loa laboratory is only delta -8.3 ppm; the claim checked out.
My expertise lies in molecular bio, i'm having trouble finding the citations to fire back. Does anyone on Veeky Forums have a good review article on atmospheric carbon isotopes?

Other urls found in this thread:

zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-11/carbon-taxes-cow-farts-and-central-planning
ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3.html
esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=MLO&program=ccgg&type=ts
skepticalscience.com/argument.php
youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell#Hadley_cell_expansion
youtu.be/CcmCBetoR18
youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04
youtu.be/zOwHT8yS1XI
ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/mindex.shtml
ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_corporate_profits_and_losses#Largest_corporate_annual_earnings_of_all_time
floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829/d1cd8a7e6519800885257c1200482c39!OpenDocument
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Declining_support_for_the_flat_Earth
asi.org/adb/04/03/05/co2-plant-growth.html
asi.org/index2.html
scientificamerican.com/article/plant-life-in-a-co2-rich-world/
asi.org/
faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/emorhardt/159/pdfs/2007/2_8_07.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=1Ujx_pND9wg
spicecore.org/
youtube.com/watch?v=WsfKxX4dWas
Veeky
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The claim is correct. Humans emit about 30 gigatons annually while natural sources emit about 770 gigatons. What the denier fails to mention of course is that natural sinks absorb even more CO2, 790 gigatons while humans absorb 0. So humans are responsible for all of the change in atmospheric CO2 causing warming, and would be responsible for even more without natural sinks absorbing some of our emissions.

I was fairly certain this is the correct answer, what ui'm looking for ais a peer reviewed article that makes the argument. I'm not a client scientist, I dont know how to read the literature.

why is he claiming that the particular value of the d13C observation is proof against climate change? the data series shows a clear downward trend indicative of more and more isotopically light CO2 entering the atmosphere.

wow, sorry for my shitty input. Spellcheck keeps correcting what i write.

Man made climate change is not about climate or even the environment. It is about carbon control or more directly life control. The masses are beginning to awaken...
zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-11/carbon-taxes-cow-farts-and-central-planning
>Virtually all economic activities (as well as most daily personal affairs in any modern society) produce some type of emissions. So by putting a cost on carbon any of them, from the most mundane to the most complex, would be impacted. Entire industries could be impaired with the stroke of a pen. Powerful stuff indeed.

>Furthermore, the tax base could be greatly expanded as a result, at a time when governments are desperate for new sources of revenue.

>Climate change skeptics, pointing to alleged gaps in the theory of manmade climate change (where carbon emissions resulting from human activity are primarily responsible for the rise in global temperatures since the 19th century) and the heavily politicized nature of the process have long argued that having such a powerful interventionist tool is really the ultimate goal of the politicians pushing for it.

>Stated differently, it may not be just about saving polar bears but rather central planning – on steroids.

Veeky Forums - /pol/tards arguing about climate change

What does dc13 actually mean? It's given as a ratio of c13 to c12. c12 is the stable isotope, it should be millions of times higher than c13 anway, but at any rate, the isotope that should really be downgraded is C14. Natural sources contain C14, ancient sources like fossil fuels do not. Why don't climate scientists directly measure the percentage amount of Carbon 14 compared to carbon as a whole?

BTW, can you give me the reference for this graph?

>muh carbon control
This indicates the /pol/tard's inability to respond to scientific facts with anything but conspiracy theories.

>Zerohedge
Next you'll be posting us some Breitbart or Infowars links, right?

ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3.html

Thanks.

In this day and age with even a child like grasp of human history, is it that hard to comprehend? Control carbon in a world filled with carbon based life is basically a ploy to control all life in that world? What else could it possible be? To save that life? No thanks, I don't need saving or religion. It can only be one or the other, it is the dialect the entire AGW theory rests on.

Noooo I will not be. I look at the world like a business as do most people when they grow out of their ideological phase. Sure zerohedge is a tad doomish but I like their tag line. That simple article merely states the obvious as far as I am concerned. Even a climate scientist is in business be it contract work or as an employee of an employer with a bias and an agenda to push AGW because that's where the money is. There is no money in the 'denier' camp at all.

I don't think you will find a single climate scientist who does what he does to save earth from catastrophic climate change - those future 'scientists' are still in school, he does what he does to put food on his table and probably enjoys his work and most likely believes the AGW theory. I am OK with that but am just seeing a far larger picture through the lens of human history. Everyone wants to rule the world in the end, maybe even the odd climate scientist!

And why do 'they' love Mauna Loa observatory so much? Why can you not measure that anywhere? Is it a difficult measurement that can only be done at an earth system research laboratory? Who funds that laboratory? NASA?

>It's given as a ratio of c13 to c12. c12 is the stable isotope, it should be millions of times higher than c13 anway, but at any rate, the isotope that should really be downgraded is C14. Natural sources contain C14, ancient sources like fossil fuels do not. Why don't climate scientists directly measure the percentage amount of Carbon 14 compared to carbon as a whole?
okay there are some problems with this. both 13C and 12C are stable, but 12C is way more common naturally. 14C is radioactive and is continually generated in the atmosphere by cosmic rays impacting the earth. the trouble with trying to measure changes in the 14C anomaly is that there are a multiple possible explanations; a lower anomaly could mean more light carbon emitted from within the earth, or it could be changes in cosmic ray flux caused by variability in the solar wind causing less 14C to be produced. and even if you tie it to emissions of lighter carbon (we can rule out solar variability through the sunspot record) that still doesn't tell you whether it's fossil fuel carbon or inorganic carbon (e.g. from volcanism) that's being emitted, since both will be entirely depleted of 14C due to long-term isolation from the atmosphere.
luckily, fossil fuels and inorganic carbon differ in 13C content. lots of biochemical reactions are finely tuned, so finely tuned that they can preferentially select more common isotopes of a given element based on tiny differences in bond strength. so when plants fix carbon from the atmosphere, they select ever so slightly for 12C over 13C, causing organic carbon to be isotopically light. purely physical processes don't do this. so if the atmosphere is suddenly becoming more depleted in 13C (relative to 12C), it's extremely strong evidence that some organic carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) is making its way into the air. yes, 13C is already rare, but it's getting even RARER.

>esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=MLO&program=ccgg&type=ts

>why do 'they' love Mauna Loa observatory so much?
high altitude, away from city pollution and major agriculture, long instrumental record at site, provides coverage of the mid-Pacific
you're claiming that """carbon control""" is obviously true because it makes sense to you, but you can't see the immediately apparent advantages conferred by the Mauna Loa locality? niggapls.bmp

In a way he is right. Every year only 4% of the CO2 produced is by man made sources. The thing is that is an Extra 4% EACH YEAR that builds up.

>an agenda to push AGW because that's where the money is. There is no money in the 'denier' camp at all.

Why especially climate science? Why not quantum physics? Or evolution? Or socialisation research??

What is special about climate science that they don't have a respectable sceptic, whereas socialisation research can produce Judith Harris, and quantum physics could produce a Schrodinger?

...

read #33

skepticalscience.com/argument.php

OP here. Thanks for all your help guys.

global warming on net is a good thing. plants are growing faster and we are getting more productive land + more rainfall, assuming it is warming in the first place. If you are negatively affected by pollution the courts are supposed to deal with this sort of thing by upholding private property rights which is one of the very few things the government is supposed to be there for. If you can convince the courts that you have some sort of damages you should be able to be compensated for them and have a court order for this kind of activity to stop.

>+ more rainfall
bullshit

The subtropics (latitudes 23.5-40) will dry up and blow away. This is where the worlds breadbaskets all are today.

youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m

why would increased water vapor in the atmosphere result in the subtropics drying up and blowing away?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell#Hadley_cell_expansion

does this "Hadley cell expansion" account for increased water vapor?

continuing
because it only seems to mention if these areas get warmer. do they also increase the world's water vapor in this model?

continuing
also i'd like to mention that the things we can do with GMOs is incredible.

I think potholer54 made a video on specifically this.
youtu.be/CcmCBetoR18

>global warming on net is a good thing.
Not at the rate it is happening right now.

geopolitics, is this seriously a real field? sounds like a nice meme to me

youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04
youtu.be/zOwHT8yS1XI
in my modes opinion I doubt global temperature will rise more than 30% by 2100

is it possible that the residual hysteria has influenced your understanding that perhaps there could be a possibility that global warming could be a net positive impact?

It's certainly possible, but unfortunately the evidence says net negative.

ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/mindex.shtml

When you want to step outside the realm of imagination and bring evidence to support your claims, please tell me.

is it possible that these people are confirming their bias in order to justify themselves?

continuing
the "summaries, frequently asked questions, and cross-chapter boxes" etc link is broken and the "Report: Website" link reports a dns lookup error

Most studies tha show that the climate change is man made are selective and manipulate data to get funding from government subsidizes. Global warming is a serious issue, however there are too many variables at play to pin it all on humanity.

>is it possible
>is it possible
>is it possible
Not an argument. This is a science board. Provide evidence for your claims.

Works fine for me

>Most studies tha show that the climate change is man made are selective and manipulate data to get funding from government subsidizes.
Can you show me one?

>the claim checked out
>i'm having trouble finding the citations to fire back
Stop clinging to your fucking position like it's an article of faith.

So what variables are causing the observed warming trend?

i am presenting a reasonable doubt

pic

continuing

Denying the evidence is not reasonable. You are presenting unreasonable doubt based on a conspiracy theory you don't even have evidence for.

your evidence is an echo chamber of bias towards this sort of thinking to justify their own budgets. imagine that i am correct. what would happen to these organizations and their perceived importance? i don't claim that these people are dumb or malicious, only that it is easy for them to ease into a popular preconceived notion and into one way of thinking

People in denial can't be helped. They're ignorant; hence unable to learn, change, mature or understand the concept of responsibility.

Again, where is the evidence of bias? Where is the fault? Until you provide evidence for your claims it's simply baseless speculation that can be dismissed as easily as it is proposed. Your posts are a waste of time.

ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
Summaries, Frequently Asked Questions, and Cross-Chapter Boxes works for me.
The website is probably down due to being .gov. trump is working hard at censorship for government owned websites if you aren't aware.

>Most studies tha show that the climate change is man made are selective and manipulate data to get funding from government subsidizes.

Then they're in the wrong fucking business then.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_corporate_profits_and_losses#Largest_corporate_annual_earnings_of_all_time

the scientific consensus that held the flat earth theory had very convincing data supporting its theory as well at its time. This has happened many times where the vast majority of scientists had drawn the wrong conclusions from the same data that had proved them wrong, misinterpreting the information that had gathered.

not this person but i'd say that following consensus in your field is just easier than rocking the boat and this perhaps manifests in their work

If rocking the boat was impossible then the climate change theory wouldn't exist in the first place because fossil fuels are the boat.

>not this person but i'd say that following consensus in your field is just easier than rocking the boat and this perhaps manifests in their work

More like if you could sue fossil fuel companies for the damage caused by global warming, they would end up on the hook for trillions.

floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829/d1cd8a7e6519800885257c1200482c39!OpenDocument

> the scientific consensus that held the flat earth theory had very convincing data supporting its theory as well at its time.
No it didn't. People have known that the earth was vaguely spherical since before there was anything approaching what we might call "science." Hell, we knew roughly how large the earth was for literally thousands of years.

>the scientific consensus that held the flat earth theory had very convincing data supporting its theory as well at its time. This has happened many times where the vast majority of scientists had drawn the wrong conclusions from the same data that had proved them wrong, misinterpreting the information that had gathered.

Stop spreading this stupid myth.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Declining_support_for_the_flat_Earth

If you are negatively affected by global warming the courts are supposed to deal with this sort of thing by upholding private property rights which is one of the very few things the government is supposed to be there for. If you can convince the courts that you have some sort of damages you should be able to be compensated for them and have a court order for this kind of activity to stop.

maybe i'm thinking flat universe. there are other examples of incorrect consensus among the scientific community

> maybe i'm thinking flat universe
That makes even less sense. I think it's more likely that you're just spouting nonsense.

are you suggesting that there hasn't ever been incorrect consensus among the scientific community?

As someone who has worked in litigation, I'll just say this.

Courts are a last resort. If you can try to either prevent the damages in the first place or recover by some other means, you should do that. Court battles are messy, time consuming, and expensive affairs that you should only resort to if you have exhausted all other options. The idea that litigation in courts can take the place of environmental regulation is something that is only bandied about by people who have never seen what goes on in litigation.

No, I'm just suggesting that you don't actually know anything about the subject.

Also, the fact that other people have sometimes been wrong in the past is not evidence that these specific people are wrong about this specific subject now.

>there are other examples of incorrect consensus among the scientific community
Welcome to the scientific method, where you use evidence to hopefully disprove other scientific theories and be praised for dispelling myths. Do you realize how famous people become when they actually disprove theories? Why do you think Nobel prizes are always awarded to people who have novel ideas supported by valid evidence instead of to those who are just replicating results? Can you imagine how many people want climate change to be wrong? They'd be an instant billionaire if they can prove it. Unfortunately this isn't the case and nobody's found any valid evidence despite all efforts.

>the scientific consensus that held the flat earth
There was no such thing.

>This has happened many times where the vast majority of scientists had drawn the wrong conclusions from the same data that had proved them wrong, misinterpreting the information that had gathered.
The only reason you know they're wrong is because the current scientific consensus proved them wrong. You are the one claiming the earth is flat when the scientific consensus says that it's round. I'm not even asking you for a scientific consensus. I'll gladly agree that AGW is false when you provide sufficient evidence for your claims.

But you have yet to provide a single iota of evidence. You could just as easily make the same claims about the earth being flat or evolution being false. Why don't you accept those conspiracies? Because you are a hypocrite that's why. I don't see why you keep wasting time by posting solipsist nonsense that you aren't even applying consistently. Present a valid argument against the science or fuck off.

>the scientific consensus that held the flat earth theory had very convincing data supporting its theory as well at its time
no it didn't, you retard. the earliest attempts at actual astronomy, back in the 500s BCE, confirmed that the earth is round. the idea that flat earth models had widespread support in more recent history is a myth that spread like wildfire in the 1800s.
>This has happened many times where the vast majority of scientists had drawn the wrong conclusions from the same data that had proved them wrong, misinterpreting the information that had gathered.
Flat earth ideas weren't the result of evidence being misinterpreted, but rather of a lack of evidence entirely. Once the state of human knowledge on the matter had moved beyond "well it sorta feels flat, there's an up and a down" to actual astronomical observations, it was pretty immediately apparent that the Earth was indeed round.
>hurr the conventional wisdom was wrong before therefore it's wrong now about whatever I say it is
listen here fucko, you want to know the difference between deniers and people like Barbara McClintock, Alfred Wegener, and Galileo Galilei? THE LATTER GREAT SCIENTISTS ACTUALLY HAD EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CONTROVERSIAL CLAIMS. They were vindicated because the data bore them out. You've just got a basket of "what-ifs" that you're trying to pass off as "becauses".

The fact that human beings are capable of making errors applies to everyone. That includes you. So if that can justify dismissing something as wrong without any actual evidence that it is wrong, then it can justify dismissing you as wrong just as easily. So by your own standard, we have zero reason to bother listening to you because humans have been wrong before.

Do you see how stupid that is? If "humans have been wrong before, so they're wrong now" was an acceptable argument, then everything would grind to a halt because that can be applied to literally any human endeavor. In any given field, there are people in the past who have been wrong about something. Is that a reason to dismiss the idea that, say, some diseases are caused by microscopic organisms? After all, there have been mistakes in the field of medicine before, so should we assume without evidence that they're wrong about germ theory?

this is literally the one of the only things we have a government for. it doesn't matter how resource intensive this would mean for them. i ask that you look around you and consider the opportunity cost of regulating and taxing everything you see and suggest that they can't perform the one function they are legitimately given. environmental regulation is not a legitimate function of the state. the reason that you have such convictions against court intervention is because you have traded that with a separate entity that assumes control which acts independently from the courts. the power delegated to do this comes from the mentality that there should be someone in charge of this to control market behavior. you would hold no such reservations about introducing the court to this problem if it wasn't for the environmental regulation in the first place. instead of suing for damages and the court ordering the bad actors to stop, the EPA will instead assert themselves in whatever capacity which eliminates any sort of rightful conclusion.

my examples were only suggestions of a phenomenon and that was only my point. i understand that this doesn't prove anything. my objective here is to introduce doubt

i think there is great uncertainty about the issue in general although people have their convictions and there is the left/right element which polarizes the issue further about the data.

i love you. i'd like to see the earth in 10 years. i think we really do need more information :) would you still hold the same enthusiasm if the earth was the same or lower temperature by then? or would you point to other natural events happening at that time as your proof instead or claim that it will increase in the future?

this was an incorrect example. maybe the malthusian population thing is a better one?

continuing
i'm only suggesting that the consensus can be wrong. suppose instead not the state but other actors were financing these studies and what impact that might have on the data.

but to rebut your original point:
>plants are growing faster
increased CO2 has minimal effects on primary productivity in most systems since the limiting factor is usually already nitrate, phosphate, or iron. more warmth can mean a longer growing season, but global warming doesn't mean warming everywhere, which brings me to the next point:
>we are getting more productive land + more rainfall
except that due to Hadley cell expansion () the places that get more warmth and rainfall will be places like current subtropical deserts and subpolar zones, where the soils are too poor to support agriculture. meanwhile, the temperate zones (where longstanding climate trends have led to the accumulation of rich soils) will face increasing aridity.

>this is literally the one of the only things we have a government for
courts are for redress. an efficient government prevents grievances in the first place to reduce harm done and the burden on the courts.
by your logic, we shouldn't have the Food and Drug Act. instead, if someone eats tainted food and it makes them sick, they or their next of kin should sue the agricultural producer. do you see how fuckstupid this is?
>muh markets

>my objective here is to introduce doubt
no shit

>i think there is great uncertainty about the issue
not among people with two brain cells to rub together.
brainlets are uncertain whether it will be good or bad. actual scientists are only uncertain about EXACTLY how bad it will be.

>this was an incorrect example. maybe the malthusian population thing is a better one?
it's not. Malthus is essentially correct.

>i'm only suggesting that the consensus can be wrong. suppose instead not the state but other actors were financing these studies
conjecture conjecture conjecture.
I'm only suggesting what if you weren't such a faggot, would you still eat so many dicks?

>i think there is great uncertainty about the issue in general although people have their convictions and there is the left/right element which polarizes the issue further about the data.
You're claiming the climate is a left or right issue, why is that? Why aren't you claiming geology is a political issue as well? There are people with a lot to lose who own property next to volcanoes. Why aren't they claiming volcanoes in seismically active areas never erupt? Why is that not a left/right issue?

>i love you. i'd like to see the earth in 10 years. i think we really do need more information :) would you still hold the same enthusiasm if the earth was the same or lower temperature by then? or would you point to other natural events happening at that time as your proof instead or claim that it will increase in the future?
Al Gore's movie was 11 years ago, why are you still making excuses for why the world's warmer? You're clinging to a belief system here, not introducing doubt.

So provide evidence for it being wrong, I can say that the consensus for water being two parts hydrogen one part oxygen could be wrong. That wouldn't do anything helpful at all though so why do you feel the need to do it for climate change?

well maybe i disagree with mr Hadley and bottlenecks for plant growth. i just quickly found this i'm obviously not an expert :)

C4 plants already use CO2 efficiently. An increase in the concentration does not help them much. C3 plants, on the other hand, benefit greatly from increases in CO2 because less of the inefficient O2 photosynthesis occurs. Plants in a high CO2 environment increase their plant mass by 20 to 25%. Yields of some crops can be increased by up to 33%. This is the effect of doubling CO2 concentrations over Earth normal. Still higher concentrations can be expected to yield still better results.

yes FDA is unnecessary. its not the state's job to prevent grievances through the creation of new entities but to simply uphold property rights though the courts and part of that means issuing firm verdicts on these cases. and as to the efficiency of it, i'd argue that relying on the justice system is a better way of dealing with this issue. you disagree and i understand your position but i am right :)
Malthus was really on point about the size by this time but wrong about resource allocation, the idea that there is only so much stuff to go around that in the future we will all be worse off as proven not true not only in the future but in his own past. everyone was much richer when he was older vs when he was younger and he failed to notice that trend in the rise of standard of living despite population growth in his own lifetime.

>I'm only suggesting what if you weren't such a faggot, would you still eat so many dicks?

hey be nice

continuing
>You're claiming the climate is a left or right issue, why is that?

because of the hysteria and impending doom narrative that never seems to materialize from both sides arising from different claims, either terrorist are going get you or the corporations are taking over or environmental conditions are deteriorating. i said that there was only an element of this left/right thing not that it was specifically a left/right issue entirely. of course you know of this, playing coy :)

>Al Gore's movie was 11 years ago, why are you still making excuses for why the world's warmer? You're clinging to a belief system here, not introducing doubt.

i'm only trying to explain my skepticism and why you should have some.

>So provide evidence for it being wrong, I can say that the consensus for water being two parts hydrogen one part oxygen could be wrong. That wouldn't do anything helpful at all though so why do you feel the need to do it for climate change?

i would say that the climate data is open to more interpretation than this chemistry observation you present

>i just quickly found this
No source?
>Earth normal
I think I can see why no source, what the fuck is Earth normal? Must be a blog.

Stop watching crap in the media, start reading science journals, Science and Nature are excellent sources of material.
CO2 causes heating according to basic chemistry, study more chemistry.

it was the first search result for plant growth c02 bottleneck
asi.org/adb/04/03/05/co2-plant-growth.html

i agree c02 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat, warming the earth yeahyeahyeah. i'd love to learn more chemistry, wish i had more time in my life and that the days were longer

>my objective here is to introduce doubt
Amazing, following the tobacco industry's playbook to the letter I see? At least you're dishonest in the fact that you're purposefully spreading misinformation for the benefit of your oil masters and their profits.

asi.org/index2.html
Does this look like a credible source of information for the subject matter you're talking about? They really need more emphasis on critical thinking in schools. Especially on how to verify your sources.

there is nothing nefarious about profits unless it is stolen :)
i'm not spreading misinformation. the reason i take the time to speak with you all is to teach you skepticism of issues so that you can spend your time worrying about something real or more important.

no but this seems to be more credible:
"Reference:

Fakhri A. Bazzaz and Eric D. Fajer, "Plant Life in a CO2-Rich World," SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, January, 1992, pp 68-74."

scientificamerican.com/article/plant-life-in-a-co2-rich-world/

seems to be an academic article by scientific american. i don't know.. is this source credible to you? what scientific journals would you prefer this information from instead?

continuing
this was the source given in that text, it was provided at the bottom of the page :)

Addressing Anthropogenic Climate Change = Abolishing Fossil Fuels.

That's the whole debate.

>maybe i disagree with mr Hadley
>i'm obviously not an expert
so you admit that you don't know anything about the topic but you think we should overturn literally THREE HUNDRED YEARS WORTH OF EVIDENCE AND ADVANCEMENT simply because you don't like how it sounds. why are we supposed to take you seriously again?

>Plants in a high CO2 environment increase their plant mass by 20 to 25%. Yields of some crops can be increased by up to 33%. This is the effect of doubling CO2 concentrations over Earth normal.
Okay you retard, you didn't read what I wrote. Plants require more than just CO2 for growth; generally, growth is limited NOT by CO2 availability but by nitrate or phosphate (on land) or iron (in the oceans). This is well-established. Greenhouse experiments show increased growth under high CO2 conditions BECAUSE IN THOSE GREENHOUSES THE OTHER NUTRIENTS ARE PROVIDED IN EXCESS.
Saying that more CO2 means more crop production is like thinking that twice as much flour means twice as many cakes...when you've only got a quarter cup of sugar in the house.

>its not the state's job to prevent grievances
and why not? surely everyone's better off if we solve problems proactively rather than reactively.
>as to the efficiency of it, i'd argue that relying on the justice system is a better way of dealing with this issue
that's provably false. in India, where they DO rely on the courts instead of actually enforcing regulations (consumer protection, etc.) properly, there's a backlog of over 30 million cases, which will take literally DECADES to clear.
maybe once you graduate high school you'll reconsider your happy-smiley-pie-in-the-sky image of the most imbecilic form of libertarianism.

>hey be nice
no

>Even without considerations of global warming, increasing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may greatly alter the structure and function of ecosystems. These changes will not necessarily benefit plants
Always check the source instead of reading the blog.

>asi.org/
>The Artemis Project is going to take you there! The Project is a private venture to establish a permanent, self-supporting community on the Moon. Here, you will find out how we are going to get there, how we are going to pay for it, and how you can come too!
LEL

>seems to be an academic article by scientific american
SciAm is a popular science magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal. And if you LOOK at the article, you'll see that the introduction directly refutes the point you're trying to make:
>Even without considerations of global warming, increasing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may greatly alter the structure and function of ecosystems. These changes will not necessarily benefit plants.

it's this sort of bullshit that lets people know you're a fuckwit.

>what scientific journals would you prefer this information from instead?
faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/emorhardt/159/pdfs/2007/2_8_07.pdf

yep i'm not an expert and yet i disagree with the conventional beliefs :)

>c02
i understand that there can be bottlenecks to plant growth past getting as much c02 as they can take in. this guy: presents nasa videos claiming that the earth is getting greener with more plant growth from increased c02 levels. why are you so mad?

>its not the state's job to prevent grievances
and why not?
>surely everyone's better off if we solve problems proactively rather than reactively.

regardless of the efficiency of if everyone is better off or not, it is wrong for the state to take away rights to justify

? the question was about bottlenecking plant growth due to other factors other than c02 absorption. the conclusion of this separate article is unrelated, the data was used to show that i was right about some plants being about to grow faster and other factors not being such a limiting factor to growth. the conclusion of this article is "without considerations of global warming". this is a separate matter if you'd like to pursue that claim. remember the question was about c02 absorption being not a restricting factor as compared to more important nutrient absorption. i don't see why you guys are chimping out over this. it claims "These changes will not necessarily benefit plants", sure yeah it sounds like the author has some reservations about the prospect of added c02 absent the fears of global warming. i'm interested in knowing more about this. it clearly doesn't go into detail because its both only a title and isn't a definitive statement about his conclusions. sounds like he has some reservations about it always being the case that its a good thing. again its nothing to chimp out over

>Why don't climate scientists directly measure the percentage amount of Carbon 14 compared to carbon as a whole?


Actual C14 scientist here, C14 measurements in the atmosphere is currently USELESS because of "bomb peak." Hydrogen bomb testing in the 50's has elevated C14 of CO2 values of the current atmosphere into very high non-natural value that swallows up the natural 14C values from cosmic rays.

For example, assuming pre bomb test are 100% "percent modern carbon" or PMC a fairly common 14C unit then the current 14C in the atmosphere are 130% modern carbon

continuing
>regardless of the efficiency of if everyone is better off or not, it is wrong for the state to take away rights to justify

i didn't finish my thought before having to address the other posts, i intended to say that it isn't the role of government to micromanage every aspect of our lives. trying to do so infringes/repels natural rights and requires more resources which is then demanded though taxation. also what we don't see in this transaction are the opportunity costs associated with it all.

>yep i'm not an expert and yet i disagree with the conventional beliefs :)
You don't even know what the "beliefs" are, why those "beliefs" exist, or why they might be wrong. You're saying you believe something isn't true because you don't like it. Go to school and come back when you learn why that's wrong.

must we understand the text of the religions in order to deny them? can i not disagree with conclusions others have made absent understanding every aspect of their arguments?

No, you need to know why something is wrong to say it's wrong. Otherwise the best you can do is say "I don't know". I can tell you why I have no belief in any religious system but it would be faulty for me to say I believe there is no god. I have no proof of an absence of god(s) and the best I can do is say I don't know.

i love you guys even when you are nasty to me :)

>nasa videos claiming that the earth is getting greener with more plant growth from increased c02 levels.
greening in the Arctic doesn't do any good (in terms of crop production or carbon sequestration) due to the poor soil quality. read again.

>it is wrong for the state to take away rights to justify
so if Uncle Sam tells me I'm not allowed to stretch flour with paint dust and sell it to consumers, MUH FREEDUMBS are being VIOLATED. and the obvious right way to handle that problem is to just let me sell the tainted flour, and make people I've poisoned sue me to try and get their medical bills paid.
This Is What Libertarian Morons Actually Believe.

>the conclusion of this separate article is unrelated, the data was used to show that i was right about some plants being about to grow faster and other factors not being such a limiting factor to growth.
The claim that rising CO2 emissions would benefit plant growth was literally directly contradicted by the article it cited as its only reference. You can't get much more retarded than that.
Nor did the ASI post (or the article it cited) support your claim that nutrient limitation wasn't an issue.
>the conclusion of this article is "without considerations of global warming". this is a separate matter if you'd like to pursue that claim.
and the overwhelming consensus is that WITH global warming things will only get WORSE due to climatic disruption. the whole point of the SciAm article is that even setting aside those effects, more CO2 doesn't necessarily mean more plants.
>remember the question was about c02 absorption being not a restricting factor as compared to more important nutrient absorption.
except you were talking about differences in carbon fixation between C3 and C4 plants, not nutrient vs CO2 limitation. we can literally scroll up and see what you were actually talking about.

>chimping out
>chimp out
back2 bigboy

>it clearly doesn't go into detail because its both only a title
actually it's a subtitle :^)
>and isn't a definitive statement about his conclusions.
newsflash, there's a whole article underneath the subtitle
>sounds like he has some reservations about it always being the case that its a good thing.
so now you're trying to pretend that the author agrees with you and is just a little uncertain...even though the whole point of the article is that what you're claiming isn't actually reflective of the real world impacts of rising CO2.
nice damage control.

>it isn't the role of government to micromanage every aspect of our lives
which is clearly exactly the same as requiring that food sold in stores be safe to eat
>trying to do so infringes/repels natural rights
what exactly is a natural right?
>requires more resources which is then demanded though taxation
so you actually think that it's more expensive to enforce food safety regulations than to make everyone who gets food poisoning file a lawsuit against the vendor? do you think that courts don't cost taxpayer money or something? hot damn, talk about penny wise, pound foolish.

interesting, I didn't know that nuclear tests produced 14C. today I learned.
if you don't mind my asking, what applications of 14C do you work on? just radiometric dating, or is there something else?

>if you don't mind my asking, what applications of 14C do you work on? just radiometric dating, or is there something else?

I'm measuring carbon-14 in bubble ice, 14CO2, 14CH4, and 14CO as paleoclimate reconstruction. There's less than a dozen people who do this measurements around the world so I'm sure you can find my lab pretty easily.

That's neat, where are the core samples you study from? I know there's GISP and Vostok, are there any more ice core projects than those?

that was an unfinished thought, this was my amended statement:

"i didn't finish my thought before having to address the other posts, i intended to say that it isn't the role of government to micromanage every aspect of our lives. trying to do so infringes/repels natural rights and requires more resources which is then demanded though taxation. also what we don't see in this transaction are the opportunity costs associated with it all."

regarding the nasa videos:
"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening"
"The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States"

the greening in the arctic is only part of the increased growth

i'm being asked to pay for the subscription so i don't have access to the full article sadly.

food wouldn't be safe if it weren't for the FDA? absent the FDA food would be unsafe?

natural rights are intrinsic to humanity that you and i hold without an authority having to grant them. i could list them but it would be easier to do a google search. it is strange explaining because i was taught them when i was very young and its hard imagining someone that isn't familiar with the concept

absent the moral argument, yeah i even still believe that using the courts would be more productive

>are there any more ice core projects than those?

Yep there are tons. The first ice core comes from Camp Century in the 60s.
youtube.com/watch?v=1Ujx_pND9wg
Camp century is basically a military base underneath the greenland ice sheet. This is way back in the depth of cold war when the US army thought that they could make a nuclear launching base that is protected from radar. Of course they learned very quickly that ice sheet moves, and keeping nuclear warhead and semi permanent bases with nuclear warheads under shearing ice sheet is not a very good idea, so the base was abandoned quickly but as a result the scientific community obtain an invaluable first ice core ever that wasn't even drilled, but cut with chainsaws and buldozers over ice trench.

After Camp Century there are many more ice cores drilled. The latest collaborative ice core drilled being the WAIS core (west antarctic ice sheet) by us the 'Mericans. There's also an intermediate depth ice core drilled over South pole (SPICE) spicecore.org/ . Finally on top of pic related the Chinese are also drilling in Dome A, Antarctica.

Currently we're handling some SPICE samples, and also have some non-deep cores drilled over blue ice areas. 14C measurements require a ton of ice, so it is not usually the priority over more important and classic constituents as CO2, CH4, dust, water isotopes, etc

>that was an unfinished thought
buddy all your thoughts are unfinished

>food wouldn't be safe if it weren't for the FDA? absent the FDA food would be unsafe?
food literally WAS unsafe in this country before the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed in 1906. patent medicines were laced with opium, food was commonly preserved with formaldehyde, and sanitary practices were patchy at best. industry fought against consumer protection laws for DECADES AND DECADES claiming (as you do) that it would be a horrible infringement on their MUH FREEDUMBS.
& you know what happened? industry didn't take a hit. they absorbed the (fairly minimal) costs, and consumers were able to rely on their food and drink to be safe. you and I are the product of a world in which our mothers and fathers didn't have to worry if the food on the table was going to subject us to the ravages of clostridium, or if a spoonful of cough syrup was going to give us a fatal opioid overdose, or the very water we drank was going to lead to debilitating heavy metal poisoning that would haunt us the rest of our lives.
this isn't a hypothetical; THIS KIND OF SHIT ACTUALLY HAPPENED UNTIL WE AS A NATION STEPPED UP AND STOPPED IT.

>natural rights are intrinsic to humanity that you and i hold without an authority having to grant them
if nobody grants them, how do we know which ones they are?
the correct answer is that they are rights WIDELY AGREED UPON to be intrinsic to humanity. and since they're defined by broad consensus, it becomes a little difficult to decide what they do or don't protect.
where, in any common law (our legal tradition going back centuries) is the State enjoined from regulating industry? hell, even in medieval society it was well understood that such practices were part of the regular role of local government (guilds etc.)

>i even still believe that using the courts would be more productive
than you are an ignoramus and a fool, because all the evidence is against you. look again at India.

>goodbye fascist
i'm a fascist because i promote freedom and liberty?

reason has a new video i'm watching now that i'll share with you :)

youtube.com/watch?v=WsfKxX4dWas

> i'd love to learn more chemistry, wish i had more time in my life and that the days were longer
>wastes time watching propaganda WILLINGLY
Get the fuck off the internet and pick up a scientific textbook, you're wasting your life trying to dictate politics when you're an uneducated piece of shit.
Veeky Forums-science.wikia.com/wiki/Veeky Forums_Wiki

Thanks for the detailed response, really interesting work you get to do.

most scientific findings fail to be repeatable, most of what you read in a scientific journal can not be replicated. if i could stop time i'd read scientific textbooks though. i'm not uneducated. i'm very knowledgeable :)