California’s giant redwoods inconveniently respond to increased carbon dioxide

California’s giant redwoods inconveniently respond to increased carbon dioxide“. Anthony Watts does his usual backflips to misinterpret research, in this case triggered by an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about giant redwoods in Northern California. He misrepresents recent increased giant redwood growth rates as being evidence that increasing CO2 really is good for everyone. Clearly there is no way there could be any other contributing factors. And there’s no chance that a continued increase in an environmental factor that is currently having a positive impact on growth could become detrimental, is there. We all know, by the way and of course, that Global Warming isn’t happening.

Anthony also throws in a bit of anti-science by trying to give the appearance of contradictory research findings. Are the studies that he says draw opposite conclusions really studying the same processes in the same way? Take a wild guess. But his readers always love a chance to laugh at them stupid scientists.

One thought on “California’s giant redwoods inconveniently respond to increased carbon dioxide

  1. “One more thing to worry about – fog shortage” (WUWT,Feb16,2010)

    A press release entitled, “Fog has declined in past century along California’s redwood coast” is presented without remarks.

    “Since 1901, the average number of hours of fog along the coast has dropped…about 3 hours per day.”

    This regional (from below Monterey up to the Oregon border) story is then combined with a local SF Bay story, to create unjustified ‘inconsistencies’.
    The local story referenced a newspaper article (in which the word redwood does not appear) about the San Francisco Bay area:

    “In the new fog study, Bornstein broke the Bay Area down into smaller regions and looked at daily temperatures…”

    There are memorable books whose subjects persist in memory, even though you never got beyond the title. One was a book about the microclimates around San Francisco.
    My only encounter was with the summer (Mark Twain’s coldest winter) SF/ Berkeley Bay Bridge surprise.

    “California’s giant redwoods inconveniently respond to increased carbon dioxide” (WUWT,Nov27,2010)

    This article reduces the previous “inconsistencies’. Its commentary refers to decreasing moisture for the redwoods.

    “The plan is to…” There are no results yet.

    CO2 PRODUCTIVITY……….should be considered in light of the question whether 2010’s food supply crisis (high prices) will be as severe as 2008’s.

    Does anyone know where there is an overall summary of CO2’s productivity effects?
    That would include other consequences: higher temperatures, reduced moisture (?), reduced protein (?)…
    And mention specifics: bark beetles in Western forests, Japanese beetles on soy beans, etc.
    And redwoods (while there is still enough moisture)

    And of course all those benefits the skeptics allude to.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s