Best Dissection Yet of CopenDeniers Conference

Guardian environment editor John Vidal gives the DenierChaps convening in Copenhagen the kind of attention they deserve in his piece today.

He had the temerity to stand up in the room and ask:

“I would like to know whether you or anyone in this room has been to the Himalayas, or to the Sunderbans, or to the villages that are now drowning near Chittagong in Bangladesh, where temperatures are being recorded 4C above normal, where respected scientists are finding significant sea level rises, where cyclones are more frequent and intense? Have any of you tried to find out for yourself what is going on there?”

Through the whistling and abuse that followed, you could only conclude that the answer was no.


Welcome Octopus, there are some really nasty trolls out there.

Apart from DeSmogBlog, I recommend,

I also heartily recommend Peter Sinclair’s Crock of the Week videos on Youtube and Desmogblog.

Thanks CC I am always glad to find more useful sites and that agwobserver one is going to get my attention when I wish to send a denier somewhere to get the truth.

Trouble is most I have argued with don’t care how much you put under their nose they will still ignore it and say things like ‘its cold around here’ (Japan) and ‘its the sun’ or ‘cosmic rays’ or ‘water vapour’.

They begin to seem like kids shouting ‘Shud up! Shud up!’ whilst stamping their feet with hands over ears.

Check out this story Tim did over at Deltoid

referencing which had 780 comments last I looked.

Many thanks for the welcome. About my background:

“I have been writing about the impacts of energy on the economy, the environment, and public health since 1974. My career began as an educational and documentary filmmaker starting with this project: A Consumer Guide to the Energy Crisis (1974), a co-production of Prentice-Hall and the New York Daily News. Since the 1970s, I have written, directed, and produced numerous documentary films for Burns & Roe, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Rural Electrification Administration (a division of the USDA). Although not an engineer or scientist by training, I am no stranger to the subject” (Link:

About troll harassments, I get them all the time and promptly remove them. An octopus is usually a solitary creature, but the recent rash of denier attacks has convinced me to seek safety in numbers.

They have had the past two years to conduct a point-by-point, line-by-line, study-by-study scientific rebuttal of the IPCC 4AR. This would have been a excellent opportunity to introduce that to the public. Of course, they have not done that.

I highly doubt there have been more frequent and intense cyclones. Again, some of you believe that a giant black cloud of co2 is sitting in the sky and brewing giant tornadoes. Temperatures being recorded 4 degrees above normal is completely bogus. There is no “normal” temperature. There is no “ideal” global temperature.

“villages that are now drowning near Chittagong in Bangladesh”


Mumbai/Bombay, India
The mean sea level trend is 0.74 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.12 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1878 to 1994 which is equivalent to a change of 0.24 feet in 100 years.

Cochin, India
The mean sea level trend is 1.37 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.32 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1939 to 2004 which is equivalent to a change of 0.45 feet in 100 years.

Chennai/Madras, India
The mean sea level trend is 0.31 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.41 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1916 to 2003 which is equivalent to a change of 0.10 feet in 100 years.

Vishakhapatnam, India
The mean sea level trend is 0.54 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.52 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1937 to 1996 which is equivalent to a change of 0.18 feet in 100 years.

Explain, with references, how Bangladesh can have a higher sea level rise than near by cities on the same ocean.

Its not happening. neither are the maldives sinking
“In the last decade, there are no signs of any rise in sea level. Hence, we are able to free the islands from the condemnation to become flooded in the 21st century.”

and neither are the Pacific islands.

10 September 2008

New data suggests Bangladesh is not losing land mass because of rising sea levels as widely predicted. According to scientists at the Centre for Environmental and Geographical Information Services (CEGIS) in Dhaka, its surface area appears to be growing by 20 sq km annually. CEGIS based its results on more than 30 years of satellite imagery. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted that by 2050, rising water levels will result in nearly one-fifth of Bangladesh’s land mass being under water, creating evironmental refugees and damaging food production. The latest results suggest that the silting up of rivers is creating new land despite the coastal erosion.

As JR’s excellent list of sea level in Bangladeshi villages clearly shows, the very low linear increase in sea level is clearly not a threat to anyone. This photo of the sea level marker in another Bangladeshi village vividly illustrates how low the danger is.

And of course, the sea level rise is entirely natural anyway. It is caused by erosion of mountains filling in the oceans,
and by the increasing whale population. Whales are big, very BIG, and they deplete water, that is basic science, its called the Archimedes Identity.

So enough of these drowning villagers, theyre probably all communists anyway.

I think you mean displace.

Never mind!

As for more whales displacing enough water to make sea levels rise significantly – that is real hogwash and piffle, especially considering that only 150 years ago whalers reported that some species were so numerous that one could almost use them to walk around the world in the souther polar current alone.

It may surprise you to learn that more sediment is subducted at Benioff zones, where the oldest and thickest sediments are, than is deposited by rivers. Although as glaciers melt faster the sedimentary deposits in some deltas could increase, but not enough to counter sea level rise due to the combined effects of ice melt and thermal expansion.

Lionel here is your problem. You think that the recent warming in earth’s history is significant, I do not and do not know why you think it is signifcant because the earth has been much warmer than this before. I need to see something happen that hasn’t happened before. Also, there has been a lot more co2 in the atmosphere and the result was plants got bigger. The other problem is that what if the temperature went down by as much as it went up, recently? Would people be claiming unprecendented cooling, like in the 70s? So Lionel, your basing your worries on predictions and I am basing my opinion on the fact that nothing that is happening now hasn’t happened before. Of course, you’ll say that we now have all of these manmade emissions. But the dinosaurs emitted much more co2 and much more methane. Have you considered this Lionel?

Thanks for posting that so many times. Unfortunately it will probably take lionel a bunch of reads for your logic to sink in.

First there would have to be some logic before it could sink in.

I think it’s going to take a long, long time indeed.

Lionel here is your problem. You think that the recent warming in earth’s history is significant, I do not and do not know why you think it is signifcant because the earth has been much warmer than this before. I need to see something happen that hasn’t happened before. Also, there has been a lot more co2 in the atmosphere and the result was plants got bigger. The other problem is that what if the temperature went down by as much as it went up, recently? Would people be claiming unprecendented cooling, like in the 70s? So Lionel, your basing your worries on predictions and I am basing my opinion on the fact that nothing that is happening now hasn’t happened before. Of course, you’ll say that we now have all of these manmade emissions. But the dinosaurs emitted much more co2 and much more methane. Have you considered this Lionel?

went down as much as they went up recently (meaning the last century) it would be called the second little ice age.

“I am basing my opinion…”

Exactly, and that’s all it is, yours, and Rush’s, and Glenn’s, and Sarah’s, and Monkton’s…

Me, I’ll pass on opinion and stick with the science, thanks.

Because we are coming out of the little ice age. You know that period betweem 1300-1800, after the medieval warm period, where peopl starved due to crop failures, that you warmists ignore and pretend never happened?

There is nothing happening with the temps today that has not happened in the past. World average temp is 14C. Prior to this current ice age it was 22C for 150 million years. We are at a time of anomalous temps alright. Anomalously COLD!!

For most of these 150 million years there were no human beings around. The present human population is, for part of its habitat and most of its mode of production, dependent on a fairly narrow temperature range.

To say that the earth has known times that it was warmer is hardly a consolation.

Jim, the science your sticking with is a computer model. You cannot simulate the globe’s response to additional co2 with it because it is too simple. The atmosphere has had more co2 in the past, and thats all we really need to know. I think far in the future, when we approach 2,000ppm, then people should start to be concerned.

that you assume that only computer models are being used to quantify climate change. Even if that were true the models get better all the time as more powerfull processors allow more data points to be included and at higher time frequencies. And as data from the field broadens in scope and as the systems involved become better understood.

Take this as far back as 2005:

Scripps Researchers Find Clear Evidence Of Human-Produced Warming In World’s Oceans


“This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and likely future evolution,” said Tim Barnett, a research marine physicist in the Climate Research Division at Scripps. Barnett says he was “stunned” by the results because the computer models reproduced the penetration of the warming signal in all the oceans. “The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming.”

“The new ocean study, taken together with the numerous validations of the same models in the atmosphere, portends far broader changes,” said Barnett. “Other parts of the world will face similar problems to those expected—and being observed now—in the western U.S. The skill demonstrated by the climate models in handling the changing planetary heat budget suggests that these scenarios have a high enough probability of actually happening that they need to be taken seriously by decision makers.”

In the new study, Barnett and his colleagues used computer models of climate to calculate human-produced warming over the last 40 years in the world’s oceans. In all of the ocean basins, the warming signal found in the upper 700 meters predicted by the models corresponded to the measurements obtained at sea with confidence exceeding 95 percent. The correspondence was especially strong in the upper 500 meters of the water column.

The global climate models used in the study included the Parallel Climate Model from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Department of Energy (DOE) and the HadCM3 from the Hadley Centre (United Kingdom). The sharing of these model results made this study possible, says Barnett. The work was a contribution on behalf of the International Detection and Attribution Group (IDAG), which is sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Climate Change Data Detection Program, a jointly funded NOAA and DOE program. Additional support was provided by DOE through support of PCMDI and Scripps.

So you see, more than one independent model is being used.

See also:

The final proof: global warming is a man-made disaster

The current warming is significant because:

Quantum mechanics, physics and chemistry prove that increased CO2 in the atmosphere raises the heat balance threshold of atmosphere and this feeds back into increased evaporation which in turn increases the slope of the lapse rate and raising the altitude of the threshold which increases the surface temperatures further.

That it is CO2 from fossil fuel burning that is adding to the CO2 content is shown by isotopic analysis.

None of the Milankovich cycles can explain it, neither can the sun.

Independent models run in the US and UK could only replicate the current warming trend (please don’t try to repeat Monckton on any non existent recent cooling trend - even Pat Michaels warns against using this as an argument) if anthropogenic GHGs were added in on top of all other factors. And yes scientists do use factors frequently claimed by skeptics as being ignored.

Enough heat energy has been absorbed by ice at the poles and in glaciers to cause significant mass loss. Consider the latent heat of fusion of water, heat that has to be added to melt ice is 80 times that required to raise the same mass 1 degree C. Thus ice can be absorbing huge quantities of heat energy without any apparent change and then suddenly - well we know what happens because you would have to be cocooned to avoid the fact that ice mass is being lost at all those sites. Google for ‘Extreme Ice Survey’ for one and NOAA for another.

That the ice at the poles and Greenland is beginning to move faster is being shown by many seismic sensors and GPS stations placed there.

The only people claiming cooling in the 1970s were media hacks who had twisted statements from scientific bodies.

I am pleased that you mentioned dinosaurs for it is being considered that huge herds of vegetarian dinosaurs had a decided effect on past climate from the albedo change as vegetation was stripped out. You see given sufficient numbers any species can degrade their own environment and this has happened many times over the course of evolution as I well understand from my studies in paleontology.

This bring us to one of our biggest problems, many people have not had sufficient exposure to the many branches of science which inform on our understanding of global warming and climate change (please check out the difference between these two and also how weather is different again). Many of these scientifically ignorant people also challenge evolution and consider it only a theory, a theory in the general sense. This is view from poverty of thought as science has a very different use for the term theory - check it out.

Now here is a thought. Would not it be something that has not happened before for an APGW denier/flat-earther to actually study some science before repeating garbage they heard from Monckton/Carter/Limbaugh/Beck and Faux News in general and the WSJ (staff from which have moved to the Washington Post which will help push that into objective oblivion).

I was not there then. Neither were most of the plants and animals I depend on for food.

Cockroaches do okay in all geologic eras. Likely they will survive. Goody goody.

irrelevant. Just because the current biota had not evolved then, there predecessors did and they did very well. The big oil deposits of the world come from eras of warmer climate and higher CO2.

We evolved 2 million years ago from the warmest place on earth, middle eastern Africa. We had to invent ways to deal with colder climate as we migrated around the world. Hence, biologically we evolved for the hot climates with no winters.

And our food production increases with increased CO2. That is a fact, since commercial greenhouses keep their CO2 levels from 1000 - 1500ppm. 3 to 4 TIMES atmosphere.

Quality in respect of the proportion of essential nutrients such as trace elements. But that is not all.

Wheat gets worse as CO2 rises

Extract, last para’:

‘Wheat is not the only crop to suffer carbon-induced changes beyond having less protein. Ros Gleadow of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, who recently reported rising cyanide levels in cassava, says that plants such as eucalyptus respond to rising CO2 levels by making more defensive chemicals, which may make the plants a worse food source for farm animals and wildlife in the future.’

So bigger, tougher more toxic crops with less nutrient yield - lovely!

Bender, J., Herstein, U. and Black, C.R. 1999. Growth and yield responses of spring wheat to increasing carbon dioxide, ozone and physiological stresses: a statistical analysis of ‘ESPACE-wheat’ results. European Journal of Agronomy 10: 185-195.

” Consequently, elevated CO2 was the primary variable that influenced growth and yield; and it proved very effective in this regard, increasing aboveground biomass by an average of 37% (with a range of 11 to 128%) and grain yield by an average of 35% (with a range of 11 to 121%).”

Tiedemann, A.V. and Firsching, K.H. 2000. Interactive effects of elevated ozone and carbon dioxide on growth and yield of leaf rust-infected versus non-infected wheat. Environmental Pollution 108: 357-363.

“grew spring wheat from germination to maturity in controlled environment chambers maintained at ambient (377 ppm) and enriched (612 ppm) atmospheric CO2 concentrations and ambient (20 ppb) and enriched (61 ppb) atmospheric O3 concentrations. The extra CO2 increased mean photosynthetic rates at both O3 concentrations, with the greatest absolute photosynthetic rates and the largest CO2-induced percentage increases in photosynthesis being observed in the elevated CO2/elevated O3 treatment. Total grain yield was also greatest in the high CO2/high O3 treatment, with the elevated CO2 increasing total grain yield at high O3 by 38% relative to that observed at ambient CO2 and elevated O3. Moreover, the absolute value of total grain yield in the high CO2/high O3 treatment was not significantly different from that produced at ambient O3, regardless of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Thus, the deleterious effects of ozone on photosynthesis and yield were completely ameliorated by atmospheric CO2 enrichment in this study.”

Pleijel, H., Gelang, J., Sild, E., Danielsson, H., Younis, S., Karlsson, P.-E., Wallin, G., Skarby, L. and Sellden, G. 2000. Effects of elevated carbon dioxide, ozone and water availability on spring wheat growth and yield. Physiologia Plantarum 108: 61-70.

“grew spring wheat in open-top chambers maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 340 and 680 ppm for three consecutive years. In addition, they exposed some plants in each CO2 treatment to ambient, 1.5 x ambient and 2 x ambient O3 concentrations. The elevated O3 concentrations negatively influenced wheat yield at both atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nevertheless, grain yield was always higher for the plants grown in the CO2-enriched air, averaging 13% greater over the three years of the study and leading the scientists to conclude that “the positive effect of elevated CO2 could compensate for the yield losses due to O3.”

That’s just 3, I have more that clearly shows enhanced wheat production with elivated CO2.

Lionel A said:
“So bigger, tougher more toxic crops with less nutrient yield - lovely”

Do any of those 3 studies discuss the Nutrient content?

They also look like a copy-paste from here .

Clicking on the Tiedemann link I see this:
“What it means
As the CO2 content of the air continues to rise, it is likely that wheat plants will exhibit significant increases in photosynthesis and yield even under less than favorable growing conditions characterized by elevated atmospheric ozone concentrations and/or pathogenic infections by rust-causing organisms. Thus, it is likely that such detrimental environmental and biotic factors will not threaten world grain production in the years to come, as long as the air’s CO2 content is allowed to increase unhindered by mankind’s misguided legislative attempts to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of this vital life-supporting gas.”

What I get drom the abstract is much different though:
“The relative increases in growth and yield induced by CO2 were much larger on ozone-stressed than on non-stressed plants. Both ozone and fungal infection reduced biomass formation, number of grains per plant, thousand grain weight and grain yield; however, adverse effects of leaf rust infection were more severe. Elevated CO2 largely equalized the negative effects of ozone on the photosynthetic rate, growth and yield parameters, but was not capable of compensating for the detrimental effects of fungal infection. The data imply that the impact of ozone in the field cannot be estimated without considering the predisposing effects deriving from fungal infections and the compensating effects deriving from elevated CO2.”

By Lawrence Solomon

At Copenhagen, Third World countries are demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in reparations from the West for the consequences of the West’s fossil fuel burning, among them droughts and crop failures.

Third World countries have it backwards. The West’s CO2 emissions have been increasing crop yields while helping to ease the Third World’s water shortages. Rather than plead for reparations, Third World governments should offer a paean to Providence.

The bureaucrats at Copenhagen dread high CO2 levels. The biosphere craves them. Plants evolved when CO2 levels in the atmosphere stood at a healthy 1000 parts per million, two-to-three times today’s paltry level of about 380 parts per million. Plants crave CO2 so much that commercial greenhouse operators often enrich greenhouse air with CO2 — also known as nature’s fertilizer — to levels of 1500 parts per million, or four times that of our current atmosphere.

Since humans began adding CO2 to the planet’s atmosphere, taking plants off their starvation rations by creating a planet-wide greenhouse, plants have thrived. Data from NASA satellites, which since the early 1980s have been tracking the amount of biota on Earth, vividly demonstrate the results. As CO2 emissions grew in leaps and bounds, so did plants — the data shows planet Earth is now greener than when those satellite measurements began.

Growth in greenery varies from country to country, and within countries, because climatic factors are so many and so varied, but the overall trend is clear, and especially in the Third World. The Indian subcontinent, the Amazon, the tropical countries generally, all show marked improvement, with studies pointing to improvements in carbon dioxide levels as an important factor.

China, which includes some of the most resource-stretched regions on the planet, provides the most dramatic demonstration of the boon in biota. As shown in a 2007 analysis by academics at the country’s prestigious Beijing Normal University, China’s plant growth increased by an astounding 24 % over the 18-year period studied, 1982 to 1999. The Chinese analysis, which like many others was based on satellite data, notes that China’s resource-constrained regions sometimes did particularly well. In water-constrained Northwest China, for example, plant growth increased by 29%. In Northeast China and the Tibetan Plateau, where temperatures ordinarily place severe limits on vegetation, plant growth increased by 30%. South China and East China, where sunlight is a limiting factor, saw plant growth increase by a still-impressive 19%. Changes in CO2 during those 18 years correlated well with the changes in vegetation.

That plants love CO2 comes as no surprise — CO2 is not only their food, it is a gas to which they are superbly adapted. When the air is rich in CO2, plants don’t need to work as hard to breathe it in, letting them reduce the number of stomata, or air pores, on the surfaces of their leaves. Fewer pores means the plants breathe out less water vapour, letting them conserve moisture and better survive droughts. CO2 also helps plants survive droughts and other adverse conditions by extending their root systems, allowing them to collect minerals and moisture from afar. Through other mechanisms, CO2 protects plants against insect infestations, soil salinity and other environmental threats.

This gas — also known as the gas of life — is healthful and helpful to humans, too. CO2 not only boosts agricultural yields, it boosts the antioxidant and vitamin content in plants, as well as their essential minerals. Also importantly, CO2 helps make hospitable marginal areas of the world that would otherwise be inhospitable.

Industrialization in the West, along with the fossil fuel burning that it has entailed, has been a win for the West and a win for the world, including the Third World. The colourless, odourless, tasteless gas called CO2 is indispensable to life and, because China and India are certain to rapidly increase their CO2 emissions, the world will soon be getting more of it. They say you can have too much of a good thing. With CO2, the science tells us, the planet is far, far away from reaching its cornucopia potential.

From your Tiedemann abstract:

‘ “What it means
As the CO2 content of the air continues to rise, it is likely that wheat plants will exhibit significant increases in photosynthesis and yield even under less than favorable growing conditions…’

Note it mentions yield only.

Whatever, any increased growth will be restricted in latitude.

From The Heat is Online:

U.S. Coal Industry: Global Warming Is Good For Us
In 1991, the Western Fuels Association spent $250,000 to produce a propaganda video which was shown extensively in the George Bush White House as well as in the capitals of OPEC. Titled “The Greening of Planet Earth,” the video is narrated by Dr. Sherwood Idso, a “greenhouse skeptic” who was also scheduled to participate in the coal industry’s “ICE” public relations campaign. The film was produced by a company headed by Idso’s wife and funded by the coal industry. The video promises a new age of agricultural abundance will result from the doubling of the atmosphere’s concentration of carbon dioxide. It predicts increases of 30 to 60 percent in the yields of soybeans, cotton, wheat and other crops – enough to provide food and clothing for earth’s expanding human population.

Tellingly, Idso’s son, Keith E. Idso, conceded under oath that he had published findings about the benefits of global warming in The New American, the magazine of the ultra-conservative John Birch Society.

Unfortunately, the video overlooks two elements. The first one is the bugs.

A panel of the World Health and World Meteorological Organizations and the UN Environmental Programme has noted that even a minor elevation in temperature would trigger an explosion in the planet’s insect population. Given the extreme sensitivity of insects to temperature, even a slight warming, the panel suggests, could lead to significant disruption in food supplies from insect- related crop damage as well as to a surge in the spread of insect- borne diseases. The WHO-WMO-UNEP panel noted that the Aedes aegypti mosquito which spreads dengue fever and Yellow Fever has traditionally been unable to survive higher than 1,000 meters. But, with recent warming trends, those mosquitoes are now being reported at 1,240 meters in Costa Rica and 2,200 meters in Colombia. Malaria-bearing mosquitoes have also moved to higher elevations in Central Africa, Asia and other parts of Latin America, paralleling the movement of plants to higher altitudes and triggering new outbreaks of infectious disease.

The second omission from the video is even more unconscionable.

While more warming – and more CO2 – may temporarily increase plant growth in the far north, it will devastate food crops in the poorest and most highly populated areas of the globe. An increase in carbon dioxide and a rise of, for example, one-half degree in the average temperature, will trigger a significant decline in the rice yields in Southeast Asia and as much as a 25 percent drop in the wheat yields in India. Agronomist Cynthia Rosenzweig, of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Dr. Daniel Hillel, professor emeritus of Plant and Soil Sciences at the University of Massachusetts, wrote in a 1995 issue of the journal Consequences that food crops in the middle latitudes are currently growing at optimum levels of temperature, humidity and daylight. “When temperatures exceed the optimal for biological processes, crops often respond negatively – with a steep drop in net growth and yield.” Contrary to the coal industry’s propaganda video, The authors conclude: “…vulnerability to climate change is systematically greater in developing countries – which, in most cases, are located in lower, warmer latitudes. In those regions, cereal grain yields are projected to decline under climate change scenarios, across the full range of expected warming…Thus, countries with the lowest incomes may be the hardest hit.”

In April, 1998, the coal industry trotted out the same old strategy yet again in the form of a new organization named The Greening Earth Society (GES). According to a GES press release, “the founders of GES made it their stated mission to share the good news about our adaptable climate; namely, that nature is growing stronger and greener as human activity causes the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to rise.”The GES is circulating a new video – very similar in content to the 1991 video – and has shown it in conjunction with appearances by a panel of scientists which includes Dr. Patrick Michaels, Dr. Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Dr. Robert Balling of Arizona State University; and Sylvan Wittwer, director emeritus, Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station.’

Krishnan, P., Swain, D.K., Bhaskar, B.C., Nayak, S.K. and Dash, R.N. 2007. Impact of elevated CO2 and temperature on rice yield and methods of adaptation as evaluated by crop simulation studies. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 122: 233-242.

“increases in the CO2 concentration up to 700 ppm led to … average yield increases of about 30.73% by ORYZA1 and 56.37% by INFOCROP,”

Yang, L., Huang, J., Yang, H., Dong, G., Liu, H., Liu, G., Zhu, J. and Wang, Y. 2007. Seasonal changes in the effects of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) on nitrogen (N) uptake and utilization of rice at three levels of N fertilization. Field Crops Research 100: 189-199.

Yao, F., Xu, Y., Lin, E., Yokozawa, M. and Zhang, J. 2007. Assessing the impacts of climate change on rice yields in the main rice areas of China. Climatic Change 80: 395-409

CO2 direct effect on rice yield, rice yield increases in all selected stations ”

Ziska, L.H., Namuco, O., Moya, T. and Quilang, J. 1997. Growth and yield response of field-grown tropical rice to increasing carbon dioxide and air temperature. Agronomy Journal 89: 45-53.

That part was from the co2science site. The actual abstract included this little gem “adverse effects of leaf rust infection were more severe”. But nothing I could find on any aspect other than yield amounts.

I see below there’s another copy/paste on yields of rice, still nothing showing the effects of co2 on nutrient content (from Wakefield).

Here’s an interesting link that actually talks about nutrients:

Co2 is not a nutrient any more that O2 is to us. Nutrients come from the plant absorbing via the roots. So soil content and nitrogen content play roles there. Seems quite logical that if a plant grows faster with elevated CO2 that they woult take up more nutrients. Otherwise why would commecial greenhouses boost CO2 by 4 times?

That’s some neat little scientific jargon you threw out there but it does not address the fact that the planet has been warmer and has had more co2. Then you go on and say that indeed the dinosaurs did consume a lot and thereby damaged their own habitat. It’s a shame there wasn’t an Albosaurus Rex dinosaur to tell them to stop eating. Oh well this argument is going to go on forever because you have people convinced that CO2 controls the weather.