“We got exactly the same results when we applied carbon dioxide alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments — warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation — growth was actually suppressed.
This is a mis-statement, they contradict themselves later under “The plots thicken”
This is also in contradiction to what greenhouse owners know.. and why people build greenhouses. More water usually increases growth as well as increased nitrogen (ammonium nitrate is a fertilizer as well as a component for an explosive) It could also be that the amount of water (50% increase) would be bad for the species of grasses being reviewed. It may result in a species shift.
By the way, I would recommend that you read down to “the plot thickens”.. “The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding carbon dioxide reduced this to 40 percent,” Shaw and her colleagues wrote. In otherwords, they got an increase in their scenario from the control of 40% increase in growth, but it was past the ‘sweet point’ for the plants which showed an 84% increase in growth.
Each type of plant favors different environments.. something I had an argument over with my SO. She insisted on feeding MiracleGro to Orchids. My family is successful on growing them.. Orchids do not like phosphor. (use a 30-10-10 fertilizer in water solution.. not MiracleGro which is high phosphor).
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
I am very careful of using Wikipedia. They have a very definite bias. It all depends upon what the small group in control of Wikipedia thinks is true. I am missing some of my links, but I think it went as high as nearly 580ppm on one of the ice ages.. We are presently around 380ppm. I am feeling that I need to put my tin-foil hat on.. because the directory where I had a copy of links in as well as my bookmarks on the subject are nearly empty.. good for conspiracy theorists– tinfoil hat on.. and got to get rid of MSFT on my machines.
BTW: Here is an interesting thing to think of.. can you precisely describe who CO2 is supposed to induce global warming – according to the proponent group? CO2 has a very weak global warming effect, weaker than water and weaker than methane.
