tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post2232361742627687498..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: WUWT is severely undernourished when it comes to the science of crop production with rising CO2Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59084528981538233272014-06-14T20:57:32.947+10:002014-06-14T20:57:32.947+10:00Many, many studies in open-air fields (FACE) found...Many, many studies in open-air fields (FACE) found that elevated co2 reduces protein in crops. It's common knowledge among plant specialists. If not for long list of authors from prominent schools and tons of funding, this paper had no chance to pass peer-review in Nature. Regurgitated old news sold as something shocking. pastersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72961193016033841532014-06-10T21:45:07.325+10:002014-06-10T21:45:07.325+10:00no clear picture in the Nature paper. Some element...no clear picture in the Nature paper. Some elements increased at higher CO2 concentrations: boron in rice increased, potassium in peas increased. Many elements had no statistical changes: calcium in rice and peas did not change, phosphorus in soybeans did not change, magnesium did not change in rice and peas. What's going on?elemonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90605713725363964182014-05-11T00:05:15.480+10:002014-05-11T00:05:15.480+10:00And note that in saying that study itself is OK, I...And note that in saying that study itself is OK, I was being brief but generous. It has some issues.Jim Bouldinhttp://ecologicallyoriented.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45678124408442544512014-05-10T23:50:22.608+10:002014-05-10T23:50:22.608+10:00Thanks, Jim. Please do write your critique here an...Thanks, Jim. Please do write your critique here and add a link to your article if you do a blog post. I'll be interested in reading your analysis.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55096030139389767342014-05-10T23:41:05.217+10:002014-05-10T23:41:05.217+10:00All of the tables and figures (including those in ...All of the tables and figures (including those in the supplement) are freely available, which coupled with the abstract and Myers' quotes in the Harvard press release, gives the essence of the paper. I now have the full paper courtesy of Myers, and as I suspected, there's nothing additional therein that changes the basic story.<br /><br />The study itself and it's overall conclusions are OK, but it most definitely does not deserve publication in Nature or similar high level journals. It's just not that important and the wording far oversells its importance. But this is exactly what we've come to expect from the glamour journals, who oversell and confuse things on a regular basis. The public needs to understand that many scientists do not particularly trust those publications, for that reason (among others).<br /><br />Detailed criticisms of the paper to follow, possibly via link to my blog, not sure.Jim Bouldinhttp://ecologicallyoriented.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32660727597459937862014-05-10T14:37:49.258+10:002014-05-10T14:37:49.258+10:00Jim, that's actually one of my criticisms of c...Jim, that's actually one of my criticisms of contrarians, that they draw conclusions without reading the paper itself. (Not saying that you are a contrarian :D From what you've written you think in shades of grey, like a good scientist does, and I guess lean more to the understated :))<br /><br />In the press release, the use of the word "resolve" is what I deduce Dr Myers (or the PR person who wrote the words) intended to emphasise to differentiate this paper from previous studies. <br /><br />This is a meta-analysis, using new data to provide a much larger data set for analysis. <br /><br />This study reports that in the 1990s several researchers found similar results but these were from trials in controlled environment chambers. Since then, they report, there have been studies using "open-top chambers" and free-air CO2 enriched trials (FACE), but they were unable to replicate the 1990s results. The authors attribute this to the small sample sizes limiting the statistical power.<br /><br />What this paper is reporting is results from a "meta-analysis of newly acquired data from 143 comparisons of the edible portions of crops grown at ambient and elevated [CO2] from seven different FACE experimental locations in Japan, Australia and the United States involving six food crops."<br /><br />They tested the "nutrient concentrations of the edible portions of rice (Oryza sativa, 18 cultivars), wheat (Triticum aestivum, 8 cultivars), maize (Zea mays, 2 cultivars), soybeans (Glycine max, 7 cultivars), field peas (Pisum sativum, 5 cultivars) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor, 1 cultivar). In all, forty-one genotypes were tested over one to six growing seasons at ambient and elevated [CO2], where the latter was in the range 546–586 p.p.m. across all seven study sites. Collectively, these experiments contribute more than tenfold more data regarding both the zinc and iron content of the edible portions of crops grown under FACE conditions than is currently available in the literature."<br /><br />(Press releases are written to grab the attention of the press. If they'd written "this paper found the same as 1990s closed chamber experiments in wheat, barley and rice, plus other crops grown in the field in different locations around the world, and for more human nutrients and over one to six growing seasons - and the results are different from those of smaller sample sizes of crops grown in open chambers and individual open field trials" - it would not only have been a bit awkward, it might not have garnered any attention.)<br /><br />There is more to the research, too. They also measured phytate, which inhibits the absorption of dietary iron in the human gut. They found that for wheat, phytate decreased at higher CO2 concentrations, which for the purposes of human nutrition is a good thing. They wrote that this "might offset some of the declines in zinc for this particular crop, although the decrease was slightly less than half of the decrease in zinc. For other crops examined, however, the lack of a concurrent decrease in phytatemay further exacerbate problems of zinc deficiency".<br /><br />From the perspective of plant breeding, IMO this is an important study and deserves publication in Nature. Having said that, I'm not up to speed on related research and the literature and I may be a bit biased from a purely provincial perspective (with my previous employers being involved in the work :D)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42544113280838881382014-05-10T07:59:20.559+10:002014-05-10T07:59:20.559+10:00And it seems that Patrick Moore was not a "fo...And it seems that Patrick Moore was not a "founder", nor even a "founding member" of Greenpeace, even if he was one of the early committee member.Raoulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21871555001591817062014-05-10T05:05:55.919+10:002014-05-10T05:05:55.919+10:00Getting back to the original paper, I really don&#...Getting back to the original paper, I really don't like the looks of it, based on a look at the abstract, tables and figures and press release, and for a number of reasons. The lead author's comment in the Harvard press release:<br /><br />“This study is the first to resolve the question of whether rising CO2 concentrations—which have been increasing steadily since the Industrial Revolution—threaten human nutrition,” (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/rising-co2-poses-significant-threat-to-human-nutrition/)<br /><br />ranges somewhere between wildly overstated to just flat out wrong. This is exactly how scientists get themselves into trouble on this issue.<br /><br />I'll try to expound when I get the full paper but I doubt it will tell me much more than I already know.Jim Bouldinhttp://ecologicallyoriented.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37891119657665347032014-05-10T03:04:16.342+10:002014-05-10T03:04:16.342+10:00Perhaps if Jim wrote about what is underlying his ...Perhaps if Jim wrote about what is underlying his "arguments" he might make sense. But then he wouldn't be accepted at WUWT, would he :(Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72059464244726775822014-05-10T01:36:25.179+10:002014-05-10T01:36:25.179+10:00Great point PL, right on the money IMO.
Relativ...Great point PL, right on the money IMO. <br /><br />Relative to my views on Jim Steele, I know for sure that he raises good questions/points regarding the importance of climate change relative to other drivers of ecosystem change, questions/points that I and many other ecologists share. You're not going to find many ecologists who just accept simple (or at least, simplistic) explanations on the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. We just have too much experience with variation, multiple causation, complex interactions, system feedbacks and delays, unexpected results etc, to do that. We're steeped in that way of thinking and I'm about 95% sure that's what underlies the purely scientific aspects parts of Jim's arguments.Jim Bouldinhttp://ecologicallyoriented.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74510642898012953252014-05-10T00:47:37.775+10:002014-05-10T00:47:37.775+10:00Jim B; Well, on reflection I shouldn't suggest...Jim B; Well, on reflection I shouldn't suggest anyone shares their blog space. If they have anything valid to say, people will find their own blog, especially if you have WTFUWT to advertise in. <br /><br />Part of my defense elsewhere of Curry is because I respected her as a scientist when I was doing work that was related to hers. So, it's like I can still see the young Anakin in Darth Vader and you assume he's still there somewhere. But at some point you have to push back against the modern Curry that's doing so much damage.PLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31699313161518196412014-05-09T18:59:37.992+10:002014-05-09T18:59:37.992+10:00Geology/Engineering... Seems to be a perfect storm...Geology/Engineering... Seems to be a perfect storm for climate denial.<br /><br />Such a shame, as I am a geologist - they give us bad names.<br /><br />NathanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30928597440513251562014-05-09T18:29:01.002+10:002014-05-09T18:29:01.002+10:00Yes very interesting.
Also check out this page fo...Yes very interesting.<br /><br />Also check out this page for a list of crooks.<br />http://climateconference.heartland.org/speakers/<br /><br />What I notice is the LIES. (What is it about climate science deniers lying about their CV's).<br /><br />For instance there is this<br /><br />"Tim Ball<br />Former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg"<br /><br />LIE, LIE LIE<br /><br />He was a professor of GEOGRAPHY, NOT a climatology professor. He even at one stage sued the Calgary Herald who printed a letter by someone who pointed out this egregious lie. He eventually admitted that it was a lie, and dropped the case. YET HE CONTINUES TO LIE. What a fraudster.<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball<br /><br />Or there is this<br />http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=394<br /><br />It states that Dr Bob Carter is a professor.<br /><br />LIE, LIE, LIE<br /><br />He lost his title of professor when he was 'kicked' out of James Cook University.<br /><br />Why do the websites of climate change deniers have to lie so much? Because they are a pack of charlatans who's main product is DOUBT.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4903081937256193802014-05-09T16:27:19.018+10:002014-05-09T16:27:19.018+10:00I think they "had" to out him. Can't...I think they "had" to out him. Can't have a presentation ("look, here is how I look!") without your real name. I think even most of their most ardent supporters would consider that weird. And it's not like Heller/Goddard has anything to lose.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51756706653974890412014-05-09T15:35:29.980+10:002014-05-09T15:35:29.980+10:00Archived http://archive.today/qu0VK if anyone need...Archived <a href="http://archive.today/qu0VK" rel="nofollow">http://archive.today/qu0VK</a> if anyone needs it for future reference.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69920267327154588942014-05-09T15:29:28.201+10:002014-05-09T15:29:28.201+10:00Interesting, Nathan. I'd never seen that befor...Interesting, Nathan. I'd never seen that before either. I expect Tony Heller has given Heartland the okay to "out" him.<br /><br />His quals aren't really a surprise. Pity he has learnt nothing about climate in the past seven years.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27267206007922555782014-05-09T14:40:21.323+10:002014-05-09T14:40:21.323+10:00Agreed, Jim needs to back off with a bunch of the ...Agreed, Jim needs to back off with a bunch of the stuff he says on climate change, because its not defensible. I'm not really sure what's driving him. <br /><br />Magma: agreed, I don't think most of them have any clue about true scientific debate. They sure as heck don't get it from Watts. On the other hand, maybe we've not been so great at showing people how much, and how intensely, and also with what degree of important subtlety, we scientists can disagree on things. And how strongly we can get attached to our ideas.<br /><br />PL: I considered that possibility. At the time though, I realized that I didn't have time to read carefully through all of Jim's essays, and I'm not going to put anything up that I myself haven't read inside and out and can respond to. Also, I don't think I'll ever have guest posts at my blog. It's my personal space where I can say whatever I want, whenever I want, on any topic I want. I'm already part of two collaborative efforts where I can't really do that, so I need that space as mine.<br /><br />Sou raises an important point about the tension between friendship/familiarity and speaking the truth. I hope we can get more into that, it's a good topic, and fairly well unaddressed for the most part I think.Jim Bouldinhttp://ecologicallyoriented.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91231103637410206672014-05-09T14:25:06.251+10:002014-05-09T14:25:06.251+10:00Completely off topic, but I was scanning through J...Completely off topic, but I was scanning through Jeff Masters Wunderblog and found this comment:<br /><br />"354. BaltimoreBrian<br />2:37 AM GMT on May 09, 2014<br />Quoting 245. Chucktown:<br /><br />May be heading out to Vegas in July for the big International Conference on Climate Change. Some big names are going to be out there including Big Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts.<br /><br />Link<br /><br />Link<br /><br /><br />Thanks for posting the links Chucktown. You helped me find the answer to something. Heartland gives "Steve Goddard's" real identity. Tony Heller.<br /><br />He is a little more than halfway down on the list of speakers on the left of this page.<br /><br />Here is the info on him that Hearland provides:<br /><br />Tony Heller has spent much of the past seven years studying the history of extreme weather, as well as the history and methodology behind the reported NOAA/NASA temperature record. Tony is an expert in computer graphics and high performance computing. He has a B.S. in Geology from ASU, and a Masters in Electrical Engineering from Rice University. He lives in Fort Collins, Colorado and blogs under the pen name of Steve Goddard."<br /><br />I hadn't even seen Steve Goddard's real name before.<br /><br />Link http://climateconference.heartland.org/speakers/<br /><br /><br />NathanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47592654655962233222014-05-09T13:05:44.363+10:002014-05-09T13:05:44.363+10:00PS My comment about a "free pass" wasn&#...PS My comment about a "free pass" wasn't aimed at Jim Bouldin, who clearly hasn't given Jim Steele a free pass. <br /><br />It was aimed at those who want to give the Jim Steele's and Judith Curry's of the world a free pass.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27035635468196518172014-05-09T12:59:29.605+10:002014-05-09T12:59:29.605+10:00It's a shame that Jim Steele doesn't liste...It's a shame that Jim Steele doesn't listen to his mates. He comes across as a nut job when he posts at WUWT and even more so when he's commented here. <br /><br />In one of my earlier articles about his nonsense I commented that he should stick to what he knows, because he could probably do some real good if he wrote about rehabilitating and restoring landscapes. But he doesn't. He goes way beyond his area of competence and misrepresents and distorts things to suit his climate science denial agenda.<br /><br />He's waging personal vendettas and writing utter nonsense about climate science. He won't acknowledge his gross deceptions, like pretending winter is spring and the Chukchi is the Barents or pretending that plantings of mangroves south of their northern reaches means the northern reach hasn't expanded or making up stuff to support his wrong claim that it's not been hotter lately in Texas.<br /><br />That's the problem when people "know" people. Judith Curry is the same. People give them a pass to distort science and malign their colleagues - because they are "nice people" - who just happen to be saying very nasty and wrong things. But they "mean well" so we should play nice.<br /><br />From where I sit, "meaning well" isn't an excuse for spreading disinformation about climate science and maligning climate scientists.<br /><br />HW will continue to demolish disinformation and ridicule those who deny science - from wherever it comes.<br /><br />There could even be the odd (very odd) person who thinks Anthony Watts and Marc Morano are "nice people" too. I know people who think Australia's Andrew Bolt is "nice people". I expect almost everyone knows at least one "nice people" who is a science denier, even among their "best friends".Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19321739835302596032014-05-09T07:17:57.664+10:002014-05-09T07:17:57.664+10:00Jim B: From what I've seen in various blogs, J...Jim B: From what I've seen in various blogs, Jim S. makes some valid points, and it's good to have the "CAGW" crowd being pulled up on their scientifically unsupported statements. Why not let him post on your blog, provided he leaves out any character assessments for which he has no evidence?PLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64782275541552668522014-05-09T07:01:45.795+10:002014-05-09T07:01:45.795+10:00Thanks Jim. Having looked at Steele's backgrou...Thanks Jim. Having looked at Steele's background out of curiosity I wondered if it might be something like that. It sounds a bit like the curse of the emeritus professor.<br /><br />Regarding scientific research, one of the dead give-aways on WUWT and similar sites is that so few of the commenters realize how competitive scientific disputes can be between researchers, especially when the competition takes a personal turn. I'm not saying that researchers _should_ take glee in poking holes in others' work, methods and conclusions... but of course some do, and the process leaves the field stronger for it.<br /><br />I started looking at WUWT a few months ago and became fascinated, like watching a car wreck in slow motion. But the non-stop display of idiocy is beginning to pall on me. One of the few things I find useful is that Watts sometimes digs up interesting papers to mock and misinterpret, including ones I might have otherwise overlooked.Magmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70379216064682994812014-05-09T06:11:39.500+10:002014-05-09T06:11:39.500+10:00I can speak a little to some of this.
I know Jim ...I can speak a little to some of this.<br /><br />I know Jim Steele. Not closely, and in fact it's been several years since I've seen him, but I have spent time with in years past. He's the former director of San Francisco State U's Sierra Nevada Field Campus, and I worked in that area some years ago and also took one of their bird ID field courses later. He's a good guy overall, and he's definitely a good field biologist and ecologist, especially for California and the Sierra Nevada mountains. Obviously, being an ecologist, that's going to color my view toward him--he's not just some anonymous wacko to me.<br /><br />Nevertheless he's said some very wrong things about climate and climate change, and the fact that he posts his essays at Watts' blog is just very sad indeed. It's sad because Jim told me that he does that because Watts provides a widely read forum for expressing contrarian ideas. That he sure does, but I don't need to tell anyone here anything about A. Watts, obviously. Jim wanted to re-post some of his essays at my blog to further increase his exposure, but I had to say no to that. I did so because (1) although he definitely has some valid scientific points, (2) there is definitely a contingent of scientists who is over-selling the effects and importance of climate change relative to other ecological concerns, and (3) I have no problem whatsoever harshly criticizing bad science masquerading as the good...Jim tinges his criticisms with the personal accusations of fraud or incompetence that the Watts circus is entirely based upon. Very similar to McIntyre in that respect. So his request was a clear no-go. Rip bad science to complete shreds if need be--and it need be!--but don't go down that road of accusation without definite evidence. And don't associate with ideological idiots, not a good idea.<br /><br />The fact that you, and palindrom and the others can even tolerate reading any of that crap there amazes me, because I sure can't do it. Can't even get past the titles of his nonsense. But there are people like Jim Steele who might listen to some reason, so what you're doing is really important and needs to be acknowledged. I couldn't do it, I know that.<br />Jim Bouldinhttp://ecologicallyoriented.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3654621482026043802014-05-09T03:02:35.681+10:002014-05-09T03:02:35.681+10:00nothing new in ScienceDaily report. was it like 10...nothing new in ScienceDaily report. was it like 10 years ago that it was shows iron and zinc drop in elevated co2? oh, found it:<br />http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(02)02587-9janernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46950285895573762142014-05-09T02:58:12.214+10:002014-05-09T02:58:12.214+10:00@Jammy D. -- I noticed that too. Very funny! I...@Jammy D. -- I noticed that too. Very funny! I almost said something like "Now I have you fighting each other!", but decided to leave it as it was.<br /><br />I actually don't hate those people -- I just think they're mistaken to the point of delusion. I think I rode the bronco as long as I did by not insulting anyone directly. <br /><br />But it is, of course, a tiresome, Sisyphean task.<br /><br />Incidentally, I hear that a 50-s themed Broadway musical is being planned based on the Myth of Sisyphus.<br /><br />It'll be called "Rock and Roll is Here to Stay".palindromnoreply@blogger.com