Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online There Aint No Such Thing as Free Parking (Cato Unbound Book 42011) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with There Aint No Such Thing as Free Parking (Cato Unbound Book 42011) book. Happy reading There Aint No Such Thing as Free Parking (Cato Unbound Book 42011) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF There Aint No Such Thing as Free Parking (Cato Unbound Book 42011) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF There Aint No Such Thing as Free Parking (Cato Unbound Book 42011) Pocket Guide.
Search Results by Year

Springer Professional "Technik" Online-Abonnement. Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" Online-Abonnement. Audi AG Audi at home. Accessed 22 May Badger E Share everything. Bain B City and Regional Planning. Benevolo L Miasto w dziejach Europy. Tworzenie Europy. Berg N Citizens as sensors.

Bischoff J, Maciejewski M Simulation of city-wide replacement of private cars with autonomous taxis in berlin. Procedia Comput Sci — Density, diversity, and design. The ultimate transport app. Accessed 12 May Daly Bednarek JR Bicycling. SAGE, London [etc. Doctoroff D Event welcome and keynote session. Downs A Still stuck in traffic. Coping with peak-hour traffic congestion, Rev. James A. Johnson Metro Series. Brookings Institution, Washington D. Eberle W, Musavi F Overview of wireless power transfer technologies for electric vehicle battery charging. IET Power Electron 7 1 — Accessed 25 May Fox S Planning for density in a driverless world.

SSRN J. Fraedrich E, Lenz B Taking a drive, hitching a ride: autonomous driving and car usage. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp — Frey H, Yaneske P Visions of sustainability. Cities and regions. Greenfield A Against the smart city. The city is here for you to use. Kindle 1. Greenfield A Transforming cities. Guerra E Planning for cars that drive themselves metropolitan planning organizations, regional transportation plans, and autonomous vehicles. J Planning Educ Res: X Hall PA Designing non-space. The evolution of the elevator interior.

In: Goetz A ed Up down across. Elevators, escalators, and moving sidewalks. Merrell Publishers Limited, pp 59— Heck S, Rogers M Resource revolution. Jevons WS The coal question. An inquiry concerning the progress of the nation, and the probable exhaustion of our coal-mines.

Macmillan and Co. Five years ago, everybody was excited about the idea of using tech to borrow things like power drills. In practice, though, not so much. Accessed 15 Sep Logistyka 3 , pp — ITE J 78 5 — Larson K Event welcome and keynote session. Maat K Land use and travel behaviour. Expected effects from the perspective of utility theory and activity-based theories. In: Built environment and car travel. Analyses of interdependencies. Mahfouda D Technology disrupting mobility. I agree, look at the CO2 tracker.

And people make assumptions on the unknowable. Ever driven in a white-out, suyts? Using uncertainty as an argument for continuing to barrel ahead blindly makes no sense to me. PDA, the argument cuts both ways. If you have no idea what is going on why would you pursue a very expensive course of action rather than doing nothing until you have a reasonable degree of certainty. This is a facile argument. Jay Currie posits going slower to be very expensive, while Pinko Punko asserts going faster to be a catastrophically expensive deferred payment plan.

Expense of going slower will either be a net loss, or a net dividend. Nigel Lawson proposes that going slower will be a net loss. Free market mechanisms should ensure whatever the expense, the individual choices of buyers and sellers will tend to reduce the impact of said expenses from the maximum numbers Lord Lawson posits to a much lower, marginal, level except where his numbers take on the aspect of pure fantasy, proposing a world that can never be, with an SUV in the driveway for every member of every family on the planet to ensure maximum welfare of the poor.

Much more reasonably in the alternative with regards to expenses, Ross McKitrick proposes a double dividend to going slower that would be a net gain. This is the very rigourously developed McKitrick Carbon Tax recommendation, though one takes issue with some of the details. Also, classic Long Run Cost Analyses show going slower will reduce prices overall in the market and reduce monopolistic pressures, reduce unearned profit and lead to a more efficient economy, encourage new technology and in a Pigouvian sense shift tastes toward positive externalities while decreasing negative externalities.

Overall, Jay Currie and Nigel Lawson do not reflect the expected expenses one determines from careful examination of their case by the best methods available, but instead grossly inflate the expense without adequately accounting for the likely benefits. Insurance places bets on probabilities, not uncertainties or Chaos to minimize risk to each individual by sharing the cost of risk throughout the system so a set of worthwhile ventures may be pursued by all even where the cost of misfortune in that system would be too much for any one to bear alone.

You cannot insure Chaos. You cannot insure Uncertainty. Reducing Chaos and Uncertainty, therefore — going slower — makes more of human endeavor insurable, which makes more of human endeavor feasible. In short: slower is less expensive, has many side benefits, and allows more to be dared by more people; faster is more expensive, has many side detriments, and will hold back more people from more potentially rewarding adventures. Well Dr. Curry put it differently than I would have, but she captures the sentiment.

I would have said something a bit more derisive, something like,. Well, yes, this obviously means that we should destroy the entire socioeconomic structure of the world and starve developing nations of much needed energy, based on us not knowing something. PDA, check the numbers. CO2 emissions is a proxy itself. Its a proxy for economic growth.

You know, that thing that increases standards of living. In the U. The cost of food increases significantly the availability decreases. Sorry, it pegs my fallacy meter. That would be in an area of professional expertise for me. Before the US started making corn ethanol, nobody was buying all of it, it was piling up on the ground. If there were a concerted effort to replace coal-fired power plants with nuclear, for example, your argument pretty much collapses.

Sadly, environmental concerns have basically thwarted any effort made towards that end. Of course, today, from the time of inception and commitment towards building one, it takes about 20years to be built. Instead of, in the finest Quixotic manner, dreaming up whirlygigs and REE sucking solar panels, we should have been building nukes. We said that years ago. Oddly, by many of the same people advocating a CO2 emission free world. Kinda goes back to the BBC interview, no? What has thwarted nuclear is the cost.

So governemt ponies up the money for development and assumes the cost of catastrophic failure. And the people advocating nukes are capitalists who oppose government intrusion in markets? Neither does it make sense to blindly change direction. Sounds stupid to me- who is suggesting that we blindly do anything? Sarah your description contributes nothing, other than a generalized person against whom you can rail.

Does that take care of the whole lot? Sarah, If there up-and-down jumpers claiming one thing, would you be able to agree that there is another group with opposite views jumping-up-and-down as well? Ok — lets generalize then- one group is saying that there is a significant amount of damage being done to the biosphere through human activity to warrant concern- this group is made up of atmospheric scientists, biologists, physicists, oceanographers, Nasa climate scientists, National Science Academies, WMO etc. In the middle we have another group-The General Public-many of whom are sufficiently educated to read up the information and decide for themselves.

Many of those who do are convinced by the science and thus believe we should address the issue based on what we know. Still others are simply confused.

Travis H. Brown speaks at a Cato Institute lunch on Capitol Hill, February 15, 2013

There is another important group- the sceptics -who are scientists who specialize in the field of Earth sciences and do research and publish papers to add to the increasing knowledge of how our planet functions- challenging assumptions, putting forth theories which can in turn be challenged and so forth- that is: conducting science in the arena in which science is conducted. Blogs- like this one- are useful places to air opinions, even undertake analyses and have arguments.

These can then be further assessed by The General Public who take the trouble to keep abreast of scientific developments in this field. Likewise, your graphic is informative, instructive, pretty and somehow leads you to the opposite conclusion of what the best of the work by those in the epistemological level though I think there is more distance between level 1 and than between 2 and 4 says.

Yet it ought not prevent us from seeking to know. I asked if others saw a respiration. What, exactly, was the misinterpretation? Because people are expressing certitude about things of which they have no possible way of being certain. Technically,we are both inheriting Dr. Indeed, by citing Latitude, I certainly was inclusive of non-authority opinion, where you cite by linking to the NOAA video only level 1 of the epistemology.

What exactly was the misinterpretation? Michael Tobis says it well below, but to be exact, if you can look at a scale of ppmv and thence draw the conclusions on it to agree to and further produce assertions on CO2 moving from as low as ppmv, and not before holding a baseline above ppmv until this quarter millennium on a timespan comparable to the age of our species, then you are clearly misinterpreting. It is more stimulating this way. So, let me clear up what I was agreeing with,. I find it profoundly telling that we could create some very complex assumptions as to CO2 levels and tree rings and the like to the point of minutia and trivia, but have little to say about the subsequent effects of our actions beyond temp and CO2 levels.

It is folly. Further, the power of authority undetected to bias perception and preempt logic is great, we know from countless historical cases. Still, once an authority has been validated by logic and observation and so many tests and checks as can be made by an ordinary skeptic, the attraction of referring to the works of authorities as a short-hand for reproducing their works. I admit, as Dr. Curry often looks for gentle and fair ways to encourage we too-frequent and under-credentialed posters to read and learn instead of post and rant, I was using her method to see how the fit felt.

For myself, about your conclusion, I say this: the temperature record is to me of at best tertiary importance. All this effort on such a little piece of the puzzle reminds us how huge the problem we have to solve. Knowing the regular and solvable patches of the problem are disjointed by Chaos, which trumps all, we are picking our way through a turbulent river of unknowables by stepping stones where logic and knowledge may be firm enough to uphold some conclusions. I favor relying on the CO2 data, and the mathematical certainty that CO2 emission as a perturbation is going to upset some of the stability of the climate, and we can perhaps say little more than that, except with less perturbation there may be more stability.

BTW, Lats. Note that the absolute difference between the blue colors and the red colors is small. The patterns are easily understood in terms of sources and prevailing winds. It is good to get this kind of resolution, because it will help enforcement in the apparently unlikely event of a remotely adequate international agreement. Well, ok, small…….. Where did it go? Conversely a ppm increase starting during the winter. Where did it come from? The only way 5 can be true is if the respiration witnessed was entirely symmetrical.

In other words, the mechanism that takes out the CO2 during the summer is equal and opposite of the mechanism that puts it back in during the winter. Then the increases could be attributable to mankind. You ever see it work like that in nature? To account for attribution, given this variability, analysts used a number of techniques. They looked at gross tons burned. They used standard techniques of describing dynamic equilibrium of gases in air, and had long, intricate debates in the peer reviewed literature.

They refine this iteratively, as more data comes available and better interpretations are offered, tested and accepted. Set the drain and tap in your sink to the point the water level remains constant. I accept your explanation as a general position of consensus thought. They cut off the last 50 years because of a divergence…. Again, leaning on the validity of ice cores, ….. What of periods of time before? Did the past equilibrium seeking mechanism die? It is stated that CO2 levels varied much more back then.

The thing that bothers me, is the level of certitude attached to 5. I agree, it makes sense. This is probably the case. To state that we know this to be the case is impossible to state. Other than ice core samples, is there anything else that has advanced this part of the theory in the last 30 years of ever increasing funding for climate research? It was posited and accepted, in spite of howls of protest. We repeat the same arguments and there is rarely any new insights to the theory……..

I really doubt anyone familiar with me or the consensi calls me a consensus anything. Anything kind, at any rate. My own included. It takes every fibre of discipline I have to restrain that compulsion down to mere skepticism by effort of logic and reason, analyses and mathematics, and it does make me snarky, but I often come to quell my objections by selecting of the various alternatives the one that does best answer logic and mathematics, analyses and reason, and a framework of knowledge and general principles.

If you call that consensus, guilty as charged, and I pity the poor world of people in this maddened consensus class they share with me. Ice cores are a different sort of observation than tree rings, as ice is not subject to the same vagueries as living plants. The selection criteria is objective meaning not self-referential and based on a better-known and less assailable mechanism. The rate of rejection of ice core samples within that mechanism is far lower, and the number of ice cores and length of the ice core record are substantiallty greater. Most of the objections to Briffa simply do not apply, and where they do apply, they apply in a much less plausible light or as a luminous opposite.

A variance from and in a vanishingly small number of instances up to much does mean Natural variation is on the same absolute scale as the human variation to date. Except the curve has always turned downward by ppm on the ice core record of which, unlike anything in the thermal record, we are perhaps more confident than any other measurement in all of Climate Science, at least so far as I have seen proposed, exceeding many of the standards of certainty of Physics, Chemistry and Astronomy for over half a million years. We can broadly measure or estimate present day emissions to a couple of significant digits and work out our contribution to CO2 that way.

This method agrees with that method and adds precision. We can measure like isotope concentrations, too, an entirely different basis for deciding the contribution. This method agrees with that method and adds precision, and tends to confirm the related but distinct isotope methods used in ice cores to boot. Again, agreement. We have seen many alternative proposals howled, which were experimentally shown to not agree with what really happens, by the above methods and other measures over and over again. This is the observational index other science only wishes it could touch in increasing Probability and also diminishing Uncertainty.

So, sure, what you call consensus, the work done by people devoting years of their lives to this and acknowledged to be brilliant at it, and that I tried to knock down by looking at other sources and using my own reasoning and always failed to find sufficient fault with to overturn, might be wrong about this one thing. Thanks for the response. There are quite a few things I agree with, also. I assume, the reasoning behind throwing out the most recent tree rings. While there certainly is much else to say about the study, I was limiting it to that observation.

Towards ice core samplings. The problem I have with them, is how they can time-sequence material that may have thawed and re-froze a few times and the fact that particulate can move through ice. Have you any to suggest? Not so much as to the isolated specifics, but rather knowing all of the dynamics involved.

Suyts, The scientists working in a particular field are supposed to know a lot more than others. Their scientific publications tell about their knowledge, but very seldom for outsiders to the research area to really judge. Very much skepticism has been directed towards climate science. Certainly some of it is well justified, some totally unjustified and very much in the range, where it is difficult to say. By the third group I mean skepticism that cannot be removed from, what outsiders may really judge. They cannot pinpoint correctly anything improper, but they may have some generic reasons to doubt, whether the scientists have really presented a fully objective picture or whether the scientists have been able to avoid all significant pitfalls.

We should somehow find the right balance between trusting scientists fully and having no trust to anything that we cannot check ourselves. If there would be time to wait until the science has settled on the issues, there would be little problem, but with climate issues many want to have answers faster than normal scientific processes can confirm them. In the case of CO2 increase and human emissions, there is extremely little doubt that humans are the cause. Every observation agrees with it and all possible alternatives fail one or more observations. In short, oceans are not the source, as their d13C level is too high thus should increase the d13C level of the atmosphere, while we observe a decrease and vegetation is neither, as we observe that there is a net production of O2, thus vegetation as a net sink for CO2.

There is a lot of recent research showing the distribution of human CO2 in the oceans, the partitioning of CO2 sinks between oceans and vegetation, etc. While, I find it entirely likely that most engaged in climate science are very intelligent, sincere and honest people, there have been a few cases of blatant hyperbole that caused the general public to believe certain things that I believe are highly unlikely. For instance, the pinpointing of places where prolonged droughts will occur if climate change continues on its death spiral.

Trust is much easier kept than recovered. So, some of the skepticism may subside, but only if a consistent self-policing mechanism is visible. Else, people will continue taking their word with a grain of salt. Had a long reply praising yourself and Ferdinand and others with links and boring stories, but computer crash ate it. In brief, anyone can start with wiki on ice cores and explore for themselves, so long as they are skeptical and widely read without falling prey to traps and deception.

Given your attitude and energy, I have faith you will find what you seek, whether it agrees with what I found or not. Are the biota not steady-state? That is a well-known term in the anthropogenic CO2 forcing. But a familiarity with the Keeling curve will reveal that the two main features at the global scale are a nearly constant amplitude annual cycle and a persistent year-over-year increase.

This is all well-understood. The exact details of the biotic sinks are essentially a minor correction on this picture, and pretty much invisible on the animation.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch - Wikipedia

You can focus in on details and do lots of good science. But to my eye the movie holds no big picture surprises or anything that would rise to the level of unexpected or mysterious. If you personally find it confusing, so be it. If you find an explicit controversy with the literature, so much the better — these are opportunities to expand our understanding. If you find a contradiction with the major high likelihood IPCC consensus conclusions, then your original posting would make sense, but then you really ought to tell us what they are.

The purpose of IPCC is to gather the relevant known information and state it in a balanced way. You and Curry have very little faith in the consensus process. Mine is rather higher. Their persistent confusion is the key to our policy dysfunction. I simply presented a changing graphic and asked for thoughts.

But, please, expand my knowledge base. Perhaps, but the respiration viewed seems to contradict that thought. Yeh, ok, knowing, unknowable, etc…. And, because they are really smart guys, their explanation is more valid.

Table of contents

Even though, neither has been proven nor disproved. I know the answer to that one. God, I love climate science. If something else is increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere more than the human activities, then where has all this extra CO2 gone. There are some difficulties in figuring out, where the other half of the human contribution has gone, explaining the disappearance an large additional contribution is beyond all ideas anybody has presented. The question is really about the amounts of CO2 in different reservoirs, not about the whereabouts of some particular molecule.

Yes, and the duration in the various reservoirs. And the variants of the cycles, both within, and external to, the reservoirs. But there really are no signs of anything that could be even close to the human influence. All other contributions seem to be only some percents of it over periods of ten years or more. Up to one or two years the fluctuations of natural sources may be more significant. The carbon cycle is reasonably well understood and the conclusion is totally clear: The only significant factor that has caused the increase in CO2 level during the period of good measurements i.

Everything else is just minor corrections. I think someone postulated through various observations and it was accepted because it fit a narrative. Specifically, G. Jaworowski was refuted in a review article which was as of his only meaningful citation on glaciology. The Ice Record of Greenhouse Gases. Raynaud, D. Science Volume This viewpoint must be included albeit it being a minority. This is exactly the kind of point where the present gerfuffle started, where serious minority viewpoints were simply excluded or shouted down.

Personally I think that the minority viewpoint here is scientifically more sound. I would like to see science-by-wiki in such situations. Not a la Wikipedia, but a modification to allow exploration of hypotheses, in a dedicated wiki. Then it would be easier to discern the true brilliance and good science from the charlatans and showmen who can look very similar — the hardest is when they overlap as happened I think with Tesla.

CO2 is a plant hormone inhibitor, not a fertilizer. Tiny shifts in CO2 levels have dramatic and varied effects on different plants differently in different circumstances. Having faith in CO2 to benefit the plants of the world would be like having faith injecting testosterone daily into every mammal in the world from fetus to corpse would benefit the mammals of the world. Also, we already add iron and phosphorus to the oceans in extreme amounts.

All this seems to do is promote coastal and river delta dead zones. Bart R, there is no evidence of negative effects of CO2 on land plants, up to 1, ppmv even beneficial for all sorts of plants. The effect of that on ocean pH until now is practically unmeasurable in the pH noise and is calculated from the other constituents.

It is a generally disparaged assertion, and though in the way you may mean it you are doubtless correct so far as that narrow definition goes, you do make a statement one suspects you may have done too little research to credibly claim on its face value. If all the plants in the world were only plants in greenhouses, your claim would absolutely be the end of the matter, and I could not disagree with it, as toxicity would be all that we might need consider, and the benefits to productivity at little cost to viability in such sheltered and controlled conditions would be an exciting opportunity for us.

Plants are affected differentially by this very powerful hormone inhibitor, and plants in the wild compete with one another. In the wilds, plants are subject to every stress, have no supplemental nutrients, and have no relief from these elevated CO2 levels at night. In the chaos of the wilderness, or even of outdoor gardens and farms, one would neeed go very far to support the claim of no harm, given the complexities and uncertainties involved.

When you speak of other constituents being used to calculate pH changes, you again remind us of the complexity and chaos of the chemistry of our oceans. Certainly there is large natural variability across the globe in sea temperature and pH. Does this make the oceans more predictable, or less, with regard to small changes in key fractions? One submits there is a shared common resource in the wild plants and seas of the world, that these resources are not without practical limit when held up against unstudied changes of global scale, and the democratic principle does not in such cases call for proof of harm before stopping, but proof of consent prior to continuing, and compensation for the stakeholders for the risk of adding to the perturbation of a chaotic system, payed directly by those who benefit from the emissions.

Ever looked at the historical chart for atmospheric CO2? That straw man contradictions come up repeatedly does not make my case the repeated exercise. It makes the practice of furnishing straw man a common fallacy. Do I see in my repetition proof of the truth of what I say?

Where do I claim that by repetition I make my case better? Nothing done in greenhouses applies to this or proves much applicable outside greenhouses.

Having faith in CO2 to benefit the plants of the world would be like having faith injecting progesterone daily into every mammal in the world from fetus to corpse would benefit the mammals of the world. Am I too Environmentalist, nor not Environmentalist enough? I have my paycheck from the pension fund of my former work chemical concern, not Big Oil or Big Coal for that matter. I was not talking about greenhouses only. There are a lot of open air experiments under way in forests, pasture,… , where nothing else is changed than supplying some additional CO2.

As far as I know, no adverse results are reported until now. See e. But I have figures of the CO2 levels at night in the same neighbourhood in summer: Much of the extra nightly CO2 comes from plant respiration… Of course, if the background CO2 increases, CO2 levels will increase at night too.

Neither do your references show negative outcomes, except if you go up to 5, ppmv, which is 5 times more than the limit I proposed. I am aware that some C3 plants will profit more than other C4 plants from enhanced CO2 levels, which can lead to changes in relative abundance and distribution of these species. That only will reverse in part the opposite evolution. And I am aware of the latest report that reduced evaporation in an increased CO2 atmosphere may influence climate. But that is mainly beneficial for growing plants in deserts as an Israelian study found …. Most wild plants we now have did evolve in CO2 atmospheres of 1, ppmv and more.

Only C4 plants evolved because of lowering CO2 levels. That may be a disadvantage. Climate change is primarily a water problem. Over-abundance in some places and less than relied on in others. I have worked as a consultant to some corporations I now criticize. People can be wrong without being paid to be wrong. For instance, you failed to mention that most of the conclusions of your first link support all I say.

Also, for instance, you keep talking about poison, which I do not. Well, not until the N2O revelation you provided. How can I avoid being target of this type of straw man? Would you be so kind as to provide a link or reference to this reduced evaporation CO2 climate study? If it is as opposite in conclusion to your assertion as this exchange leads us to believe, one would prefer judge for himself.


  • The Cat Files.
  • Jérôme K. Jérôme Bloche – tome 23 - Post mortem (French Edition).
  • March 31, 2012.

Sure, the photosynthesis pathways evolved before the current era, but no plant alive today is likely to be within 50, generations of those higher CO2 levels. C4 and CAM plants.. That may be a disadvantage indeed. The direct CO2 cases in and of themselves are enough to decide for myself that I do not wish to consent to further rise in CO2 level. Your original claim was that more CO2 would be detremential to lots of plants.

But the references you gave only did show that up to 1, ppmv lots of plants grow better. As all C3 plants tested show growing benefits by up to 1, ppmv, I am pretty sure that the biological reactions established over million years ago still are working fine… Of course, there will be loosers and and winners, but a changing world is not necessary worse or better than a static world which never existed.

Or is a change only bad if it is introduced by humans? Please allow me to demonstrate your straw man. I look for equivalences between what you say I said, and what I actually said, and see exactly none. Your claim seems to have a lot of hand waving involved. On balance, it would seem that higher CO2 is better for most plants is a pretty conservative statement that is easily demonstrated. Your claims that additional CO2 on the scale that is occurring on earth needs seems very wanting. One mammal, one anuran; how do these compare to all plants everywhere under the unstudied pervasive influence of a hormone?

What if we go back a bit further, like to the onset of a glaciation period. There would have been a large reduction of plant biomass, and consequently a large increase in CO2 levels, over a relatively short period. If increased CO2 levels are mostly bad for plant life, this would have reduced the plant biomass still further, and so on.

The first reference does mention the word CO2 once, in the references. Looking at the reference only shows that that article is about closing the stomata under influence of CO2. The second article is behind a paywall and may show that plant hormone interactions are complicated. Of course I agree with that.

Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book

Not that I have read anywhere. Please can you give a direct quote that more CO2 inhibits anything? Is anyone aware of greenhouses that artificially removal co2 from within their environment? There are many which add co2. Levels of 5, ppm can cause dizziness or lack of co-ordination to humans. African violet leaves become very hard and brittle, show a very dark greenish-grey colour and often malformed flower petals, which do not fully expand. A similar symptom with freesia flowers has been observed where the CO2 burner was used to provide the majority of the heat requirements of the greenhouse, and thereby generating excessive amounts of CO2.

Except in emergencies, do not use CO2 burners as the prime heating system. Even lower levels — ppm are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Looking at Figure 1. The take-away from the article seems to be; plants will benefit from increased co2 at least until we are above ppm.

One, your centuries amount to at least centuries, and probably much more; this is not a starvation diet, but a hormone-free one that all plants worldwide have evolved and adapted to. Two, the article flatly discusses artificially limiting CO2 levels. Did you mean do any greenhouses reduce CO2 below ambient outdoor levels?

The point of a greenhouse is to grow plants for profit, not build a biosphere for long run stability. The failed Biosphere 2 had such extreme CO2 concentration issues that they do discuss CO2 limiting strategies, and settled on cooling their plants — though it meant lower crop yields and thus caused them to fall short of a critical goal.

Past that line of generally unknowable position, all benefit of additional CO2 is lost. Do you want larger lettuce, kale, spinach and cabbage leaves? Larger, brittler, shorter-lived, brown leaves. Sounds yummy. Do you want weeds who favor shorter lives and make due on fewer nutrients by robbing their neighbors anyway with longer, more invasive stems and roots? How well do you suppose these overstimulated, short-lived, disproportionate, sexually deformed plants survive in the wild?

If that were all there were to it, that would be enough on its own. What characteristics the observed hormone changes cause, weeds compete best under. How can I more clearly say you are talking only about greenhouses and I am talking about everything else? Bart, the problem I find in your specific argument in this specific post not to single you out, I sense this in all posts engaged in back and forth, and also my own argumentation — though I am a recovering addict is how easily we traverse levels. We summarize chaos and look for signals.

Do not know whether Latitude is correct but pointing out the magnificence of plant biology does not necessarily negate his argument. Is his summarization about planktons correct or not? If not decomposed into its false parts, the only answer to a summary is a pointless he-said, she-said. While the reefs are generally beneficial, they provide also plentiful proof that adding iron to the oceans is not a plausible remediation. More, we add both iron and phosphorus in staggering amounts through our rivers and outflows to the seas.

Some of the dead zone phenomenon itself is within the range of natural variability; sometimes rivers do flood with natural nutrients and cause some natural die back. That phenomenon is likely the major significant ocean life stressor, along with some fishing techniques, overfishing, maritime traffic noise, and a list too long to easily sum up. CO2 change, however, remains a plausible chief suspect in the global plankton die off outside ocean dead zones, and certainly plays some role.

We can know he came to an unsupported and probably false conclusion even leaving out chaos. We can know it might be possible to design experiments to model wilderness conditions for wide varieties of plants to test this. Often on this blog we Goldilocks. Either one is too verbose me! I get engineers accusing me of not having read their elementary engineering math textbooks because I try to speak plainly. Yes, this is me trying to speak plainly. I see people criticized for being inaccessible or wrong for using apt and proper scientific techniques.

Maybe instead of saying the porridge is too hot, we can ask who the porridge is for, when we challenge one another? This is not true. From my experience sailing offshore for almost 20 years, the mid oceans are generally pretty empty of life, while near land life is much more abundant. This is reflected in the clarity of the water, which is clear mid ocean and murky near land, even where there are no people. The difference is nutrient run-off from the land through erosion as wall as human sources. Mid ocean life has used up the nutrients and has a lot tougher time of it, as much of the nutient falls as a rain of dead organisms to the bottom, which can be miles below.

The idea that river run off kills life is misguided. What happens is that the nutrients can lead to population explosions of life, which use up all the available oxygen leading to local die off. In shallow water the now dead organisms are not wasted, their energy and nutrients are recycled by the survivors and transient species. In the wash, it all comes out the same: in the past quarter millennium, we have good cause to believe plankton levels have shifted dramatically and overall lower in ways CO2 rise must be a major suspect. The missing nutrients mid ocean are not gasses.

What is missing is minerals such as phosphates. These arrive in limited supply, carried from the land by river run-off, and are quickly consumed. Low phosphate soap is used in houses because it leads to an explosion of plant life in rivers and lakes, which can kill competing species. Fresh water river run off is fatal to coral, which is why you often find a pass though coral reef and atols on the lee side of islands, which are exploited by sailors.

Passes are not found on the windward side because salt water is continually blown onto the coral promoting growth. Even with heavy wave action, winward coral is typically healthier than leeward corals. Are you saying the mid-ocean plankton level drops are because people shifted to low-phosphate soap?! All the other factors you attribute are ages old and so far as one can tell, have not significantly altered in any way correlated with this plankton clearing. Sweetwater channels in coral aside, other things appear to be killing coral than can be attributed to rivers, too.

You are making stuff up at best. There have been thousands of studies of plant growth response to CO2. Not one of them has shown an adverse effect to higher CO2 levels. That includes all three photosynthetic pathways. There is an incredible wealth of information available to you.

Read the pertinent original research. If the response to more CO2 is largely beneficial in growth and water use, why do you object to any hormonal changes like N2O increase which have no negative effect on growth or health of the plants at all? Poleconomically — any assertion that forced, unconsented change to any resource we all share, is unacceptable and of itself odious, regardless of claims of benefit. It amounts at best to about 0. The claim ignores how much is unknown about the details of how the benefits themselves operate;.

This is a very underdeveloped field of botany itself. How can we judge a claim like this, when the people making it refuse to honestly evaluate even the obvious detriments of side effects? What good enough reason do we know to perturb the biosphere in such a way for a maximum net 0.

There is too much of this waste. Of course one must be careful with any negative effect that such a common fertiliser effect can have. Including a net increase of 1. Anything humans does have its effects on nature. But the last thing I should object to are the CO2 emissions…. But sorry, I am tired of the daily alarmist stories….

Try looking for the typical applied concentration ranges of fertilizers like N, P, K, Ca, and Mg all orders of magnitude higher than ppmv , and the sensitivity of response of plants to changes in these fertilizer levels, compared to a change in ppmv. The label on a bag of fertilizer or plant food at your local garden shop should suffice. Compare with the concentrations of plant hormones all the same level more or less as CO2 for comparable effect.

Straw men and red herrings, wild geese and irrelevancies, these do not pertain and I will not stoop again to try to meet you at that level. Bart, I have used Google Scholar. Their are no quotes that CO2 is a hormone inhibitor or promotor. All I can find is that it competes with ethylene which is a growth inhibitor and a ripening promotor , probably because both follow in part the same biochemical pathways. Even more for N2O production : Extra growth of plants under extra CO2 produces more food for bacteria around the roots, promoting N2O production from nitrates in the soil.

Nothing to do with plant hormones. Whether hormone, hormone antagonist, hormone controller, hormone inhibitor, hormone precursor, hormone promotor, or hormone regulator for plants in the wider literature, it all amounts to the same for our purposes: distinct from fertilizers or nutrients, more impact from smaller changes, changes that affect physiology and gross anatomy. The analogy is not giving plants more milk, but putting them on steroids from conception to death.

Then, after death, it affects the microbes that feed on plant decay, as it affected partner microbes during plant life. These plant sex, size, conformation, and ripening affecting shifts form a continuum from detrimental to beneficial, if by benefit all you mean is first generation mass. This continuum descends as CO2 level rises, detriment growing at some rate though it is arguably minor as a first generation direct effect and benefit cutting off and dropping quickly, and has a different shape, for different plants and different conditions, mostly as yet not well-studied.

Thus it is a differential perturbation across species, and will shift populations over time. We can expect a millennial scale of CO2 elevation. A millennium is long enough for such shifts to extinguish many gene pools and reduce biodiversity. None of the references you gave is about hormones, all about competing levels.

To give an example: people who were poisoned by methylalcohol can be helped by giving them a high dose of normal ethyl alcohol. Both follow the same enzymatic route of oxydation, leading to resp. Formic acid is a strong nerve toxin, acetic acid is not. By adding a high dosis of ethylalcohol, the amount of formic acid formed over time is suppressed and may stay below the harmful level, if there is sufficient removal out of the body. It may suppres the formation and actions of ethylene, which is a strong growth inhibitor and a plant poison in elevated dosis and a ripening gas reason that you need a lot of ventilation on banana ships.

All what may happen with elevated CO2 levels is that fruits are ripening somewhat slower. Which is the difference between CO2 levels and fertilizer levels, and again strongly argues for considering CO2 a plant hormone, or at the very least hormone-like, especially when taken with the types of anatomical and physiological changes seen in various of the studies and sources cited, that are typical of hormonal shifts, not of diet changes.

That is 0. The net yield of a certain type of forest is a sequestering of some 4. That is the difference between yearly uptake and release from decay. Converted to m2, that is about 40 kg net sequestering of carbon per year per m2. Taking into account that growing vegetables has a lower sequestering potential than trees, the net yield may be halve of that, thus some 20 kg sequestered per m2.

In fact, a multitude of that is sequestered during the growing season. Simply said, the amounts of CO2 sequestered are a few orders of magnitude larger than the amounts of nitrogen fertilizer used. Thus CO2 is not a hormone disruptor, in many cases it is the limiting factor, even at low fertilizer availability, and it simply is the necessary building block for photosynthesis which, at current levels, is in short supply. First, CO2 in the air is on the order of grams per square meter from ground to top of sky, so we are between four and ten orders of magnitude below your 40 kg per square meter already.

Third, as you must well know, N2 fixing microbes form an intense beneficial relationship with most plants, again orders of magnitude different. The literature is rife with references to CO2 interactions with plant hormones in the same concentrations and with many of the same types of outcomes. From the subject you are refusing to argue to the straw man you believe you have a case about. You misinterpreted what I said. I was talking about what plants use to grow. That is minerals and fertilizers, water and CO2 and of course sunlight. Without CO2, no plants based on chlorophyll synthesis can exist.

In the plants dry matter the C:N ratio varies between and , depending of the type of plant. No matter where it is taken from air, water, soil , how it is taken, or what the quantities or ratios are of the building blocks in the different media to make the plant. Thus a plant needs orders more carbon from CO2 than nitrogen from nitrate or ammonia added or synthesized by bacteria.

If you think that a molecule, directly necessary to build up the structure of a plant is a hormone disruptor of the same, then that is your good right. I only think that not many will follow you in that reasoning. What you say seems to make good sense from a certain perspective, leaving off a few salient observations. We can agree that practically every atom of carbon the backbone of all organic molecules in plants comes from CO2 in air or water else whither marine plants?

Even in your framework, which falls apart as none of these causes gross physiological and anatomical changes other than morbid obesity and high blood pressure, is morbid obesity considered healthy? How will that happen in Nature? One last remark: How was the terrestrial vegetation doing at ppmv and how at ppmv? And how is it doing at the current ppmv? As far as I know, pretty well, according to satellites chlorophyll imaging: the earth is greening.

Free Parking or Free Markets

And it stores some 2 GtC more carbon away underground and above ground than a few decades ago. Ethylene production is increased, not inhibited up to 3, ppmv. Thus ripening is slowed down only at extreme levels of CO2. You have been a most scholarly, patient, informative and challenging correspondent, and I thank you sincerely.

A fascinating question, and I wonder at the puzzle it must pose scholars in those fields able to approach that research. And if true.. And still lapsing further and further behind the increasing CO2 levels? Why is this point even brought up, except to mislead and obfuscate? I love your idea of a science wiki: with the caveat that it avoids the kind of censorship that occurred with Connelly and Wikipedia. I agree that exposition of minority hypotheses is absolutely vital.

Evolution and free exchange of ideas, methodologies, data, code, mainstream and minority, are what this process should surely be about. For a scientist to be proved wrong but, in the process, to have advanced the understanding of her chosen field, is the ultimate accolade, IMO. That a single person can take over Wikipedia and delete a weath of knowledge provided by others to support his own agenda and limited point of view is a major loss to all of humanity. It reminds me of the burning of the lighthouse at Alexandria. It is a fundamental design flaw in Wikipedia.

So what is it this week? This is not the place for me to spell out or argue the details. No one of any substance in the debate questions the source of the increase of CO2. You know, I strongly disagree with you on this point. All available evidence points to the emissions as main cause of the increase in the atmosphere. Moreover, all alternatives I have heard of fail one or more observations.

Thus are rejected by the facts. The same topic was elaborated in four contributions at WUWT, which generated some responses all together that was a lot of work to react on, poor Judith with over 3, responses now, you have my compassion! Nice narrative. Whenever I see graphs and numbers without error bars and no understanding of how they impact the core numbers, I put such narratives in my pending bin. Otherwise by magnifying the y-axis can produce all kinds of trends. Not saying that is the case here, but as long as that analysis is not part of your narrative — my pending bin.

Also your comfort with throwing away samples makes me wonder the bias this introduces. About the width of the datapoint pixels used…. The reasons for deselection of data is to exclude data which show local contamination. After all we are interested in background data, not the local volcano or downhill vegetation depletion of CO2. If one is interested in these items, do measure near the volcanic vents or within the vegetation which is done too. But for your assurance, I have calculated the average and trend for the year , with and without outliers: no difference found, only the stdev is better, as is the look of the graph without outliers.

According to Pieter Tans, the difference is maximum two tenths of a ppmv over a year as also indicated on my page. Any deviation in one year would be compensated in the next year s anyway. All I ask for is for the other viewpoint s to be given hearing alongside yours, using the best available evidence. Quite right Lucy. But the best available evidence is virtually no evidence, and what little we have is contradictory. It is a simple fallacy. The fact is we have no idea at this point.

You have a small bussiness. You start the day with adding dollar of your personal money into the cash register. After a lot of bussiness transactions that day, you count the cash register at evening and see that you have a gain of 50 dollar over the previous evening. You have the same scenario day after day for 50 days long.

Books by Randal O'toole

Total own money added: 5, dollar, gain in the cash register: 2, dollar. Do you still think that your bussiness is going fine? If you have invested the money in equipment needed to expand your business, you are still probably doing great. It all depends on how the money has been used. Just looking at the cash drawer tells you about cash. If so, it might explain a lot about the different mindsets between the committed and the sceptical. It was a bad example, as bad as every example one can think of. The balance sheet at the end of each year shows a net gain of 50 million dollars in cash and bank accounts, but a net loss including investments and fixed assets of 50 million dollars in the total balance each year.

What did cause the increase in cash and bank deposits? What will the shareholders think of their investment? Is this good or bad? If the shareholders decided that they want to get out of widget manufacturing and retire, this may be great news and shows fine resource management. Or maybe they want to buy some big expensive new equipment that will give them the leap on the competition.

Other reasons might not be such good ones. But you illustrate an interesting point. As such they are extremely conservative in their outlook. Personally, I think a warmer world, will, on average, be a better world. Lots of people running around and making a lot of noise about how the End of the World is Nigh.

But no actual evidence. If you have some, please show me. PS — climate models are not evidence unless proven to have consistent and reliable track record of accurate prediction of the real climate over a number of years. AFAIK none have done this. Ferdinand, not only is it a bad analogy it is the wrong analogy.

Suppose my cash register is linked to a bunch of others. The total cash flow is not determined by me alone. My transactions may even be irrelevant. We need to understand the system before we can know why the system is changing. I am as critical about the climate models as you, I suppose.

I have some experience with models, be it for chemical processes, not climate. I know how difficult it is to have such a model working even for the simplest physical processes, where all physical parameters were known. And had some bad experiences where one chemical parameter was unknown. That said, I have not the slightest confidence in current climate models, they are missing too many real values of parameters.

Especially the one-sensitivity-fits-all sounds to me as horror. But at the other side, I am pretty sure that we are responsible for the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. My strength in practical problem solving in the past was by eleminating the impossibilities rather than looking at the possibilities. In the case of CO2 increase, there are two relative fast natural sources: oceans and vegetation. All other possible sources are too small volcanoes or too slow rock weathering. Oceans have a too high d13C d13C in the atmosphere and upper oceans is observed in going down , and vegetation is a net O2 producer observed , thus a net CO2 sink, as the oceans are observed.

Ergo, human emissions are the sole cause of the increase. At the end of the year, only the difference between ins and outs counts. Regarding solar influence on climate changes, there is still a lot of uncertainty and some correlations have been discarded too early by the consensus science. There are some striking correlations, solar cycle length for example. See Fig. Let me put it this way.

Let us say, the world and human beings as a species had five days to live, unless they did such and such. What if they decided not to? Again, I ask why we should take your view into consideration? As a non-scientist, why do you feel qualified to evaluate the validity of the science? Do you have any basis to do so other than a gut feeling? See my response to you further upthread.

Science, like every discipline, has a duty to its patrons, in the case of most climate science, the taxpayer. IMO this necessarily gives the citizenry the right to examine and question the presentations of science that they have patronised, especially when it informs public policy that will have a material impact on their lives. It happens in my profession every day, as a fact of life. The quantum physics may have findings and implications for humanity — fission and radioactivity and the bomb, for example. Climate science has findings and implications for humanity — the GHE and global warming, for example.

Humanity may choose to explore those findings and implications or not.