Uh oh, CO2 actually reverses temperature effect on rangelands

Will alarmists turn a blind eye to this experiment and stick their fingers in their ears, saying lalalala when someone tries to tell them they were wrong?
It'll be interesting to hear what the USDA has to say and see how they report this surprise result.

It'll be interesting to see how RealClimate respond to this news, will they do their best to debunk it by claiming the test was flawed.
Ö¿Ö

Here's the relevant USDA article:
-
USDA Scientists Study Effects of Rising Carbon Dioxide on Rangelands
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2011/110803.htm

Oh, yes, our friend LessFactMoreHype (CO2 isn't vital for life) will 'undoubtably' find this report confusing.

Yeah, we learned back in elementary school that plants need CO2 to grow. Now this is somehow surprising just because Al Gore created a bunch of hysteria?

The results of a USDA experiment called PHACE (Prairie Heating and CO2 Enrichment) where liquid CO2 is injected into the ground from a storage tank.

And this is a science blog?(Rhetorical question: it isn't.)

No, the CO2 is stored in liquid form and released as a gas.

Many other scientific studies have shown the fertilising effect of CO2- it's not as if science is ignoring the subject.

The deniers are certainty hearing only what they want to hear as usual, and ignoring the complexities- perhaps not surprising for morons who think the scientists watered the plains with liquid CO2.

"Only the warm-season grasses had their growth boosted higher by CO2 and warmer temperatures," Morgan said. "If this leads to a competitive advantage for warm-season grasses, it may increase the challenges faced by ranchers who desire cool-season grasses for early-season forage."

Morgan said more research is needed to determine how the water-savings effect applies over the long run and in other types of semi-arid rangelands as well as to croplands in semi-arid areas. "It is important to understand that CO2 only offset the direct effects of warming on soil water in this experiment, and that it is unlikely to offset more severe drought due to combined warming and reduced precipitation projected for many regions of the world," he said.

Meanwhile, the green troll is only hearing what he wants to hear and looks for the negatives related to the USDA experiment.
I suppose that could be called scepticism, but it's strange that his scepticism only rears its ugly head when it comes to anything that might help to prove that CO2 isn't the mean greenie that alarmists want to believe it to be.

Liquid CO2?

Steve Case wrote:

Liquid CO2?

How to Make Liquid CO2
Instructions

1 Identify the critical temperature for carbon dioxide as 88 degrees Fahrenheit. This is the maximum temperature at which carbon dioxide can be a liquid. The process of liquefying carbon dioxide must therefore keep the liquid below 88 degrees Fahrenheit.
2 Determine the minimum pressure needed to keep carbon dioxide a liquid. Carbon dioxide must be pressurized to at least 5.1 atm to remain a liquid, no matter how cold it is.
3 Compress carbon dioxide to about 56 atm at room temperature. This method is the simplest to demonstrate, but is also the most inefficient and is therefore rarely used commercially.
4 Make the carbon dioxide work against some external force. Cool the carbon dioxide and drive it through a turbine. The gas loses energy as it performs work and its temperature drops further. The gas can eventually lose enough energy to become a liquid.
5 Use the Joule-Thomson effect to turn carbon dioxide gas into a liquid. Pump the gas into a container under pressure through a one-way valve. Release the valve so that the gas expands, cooling as it does so. Repeat this process until the gas becomes a liquid.
Read more: How to Make Liquid CO2 | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_5192428_make-liquid-c...

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
And this is a science blog?(Rhetorical question: it isn't.)
No, the CO2 is stored in liquid form and released as a gas.
Many other scientific studies have shown the fertilising effect of CO2- it's not as if science is ignoring the subject.
The deniers are certainty hearing only what they want to hear as usual, and ignoring the complexities- perhaps not surprising for morons who think the scientists watered the plains with liquid CO2.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>

So your saying that skeptics/deniers are using the exact same tactic that alarmist have been using. While the link is to a blog clicking on the link provided takes you to the source the USDA Agricultural Research Service.

Of course what your more upset about is that CO2 can actually be used to improve the land while ignoring the simple fact that this would be a great way to remove it from the air. But then again your agenda has always been less about the enviroment and more about trying to effect social engineering.