Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Earth greenest it's been in decades, perhaps in centuries

Wasn't an early discusssion in the carbon debate about the problem that extra CO2 favours certain plants - grasses - over most other species, in a similar way that nutrient run-off from agriculture grows more plants - albeit waterway-clogging algae ?
 
Wasn't an early discusssion in the carbon debate about the problem that extra CO2 favours certain plants - grasses - over most other species, in a similar way that nutrient run-off from agriculture grows more plants - albeit waterway-clogging algae ?

It is a known fact that increases in CO2 above present atmospheric levels greatly increases CO2 uptake, water uptake, and plant growth. CO2 is presently about 380 ppm in the global atmosphere. Controlled experiments have demonstrated conclusively that the optimum CO2 level for plant growth is between 1500 - 1800 ppm, more than four times the present level. Increases in growth of up to 40 percent are not uncommon.

This is why greenhouse growers routinely inject the exhaust gases from their fossil-fuel or wood-fired heaters into the greenhouse to enhance growth. This is a widely known fact and flies in the face of the so-called "stomata effect". Many papers have been written on the "fertilizer effect" of increasing CO2 concentrations.

It is not surprising that plants prefer higher CO2 levels than the present levels. CO2 has been much higher for most of the history of life than it is today. See the following graph of global temperature and CO2 levels for the past 600 million years. Note that during the Cambrian, when large life-forms first evolved, CO2 was at 7,000 ppm, nearly 20 times present levels.


remoteImage.gif


From an unpublished letter to the editor of Discover magazine by Patrick Moore (former head of Greenpeace) sent earlier this year.
 
I now have the full text of the Nemani and Running 2004 paper, and a more recent one that Running kindly sent.



I'll be baaack... :)
 
From an unpublished letter to the editor of Discover magazine by Patrick Moore (former head of Greenpeace) sent earlier this year.
That one did not support your original claim either, nor did it address the comment that you quoted. Are you ever going to substantiate your claim, as you have been repeatedly asked to do, or are you just going to keep C&Ping things that you don't understand?
 
That one did not support your original claim either, nor did it address the comment that you quoted. Are you ever going to substantiate your claim, as you have been repeatedly asked to do, or are you just going to keep C&Ping things that you don't understand?
going off his track record, I'd be willing to place large wads of cash on the latter if only I could find anyone to take the bet:rolleyes:
 
I now have the full text of the Nemani and Running 2004 paper, and a more recent one that Running kindly sent.



I'll be baaack... :)

A key paragraph in the paper states:

"An increase in NPP of only 0.2% per 1-ppm increase in CO2 could explain all of the estimated global NPP increase of 6.17% over 18 years and is within the range of experimental evidence. However, NPP increased by more than 1% per year in Amazonia alone, which accounts for 42% of the global NPP increase between 1982 and 1999. This result cannot be explained solely by CO2 fertilization", and immediately the authors refer to "increases in solar radiation" as the likely promoter of the rise of NPP: "We suggest that increases in solar radiation, owing to declining cloud cover in these predominantly radiation-limited forests, is the most likely explanation for the increased tropical NPP". However, certain agenda driven scientists are working to deny these increases in solar radiation, too. See, for example, Mike Lockwood's recent travesty published by the Royal Society which was roundly panned on Radio 4 by Piers Corbyn and Nigel Calder.

http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

PS: If anyone else would like to read the full paper PM me and I'll send it through.
 
A key paragraph in the paper states:

"An increase in NPP of only 0.2% per 1-ppm increase in CO2 could explain all of the estimated global NPP increase of 6.17% over 18 years and is within the range of experimental evidence. However, NPP increased by more than 1% per year in Amazonia alone, which accounts for 42% of the global NPP increase between 1982 and 1999. This result cannot be explained solely by CO2 fertilization", and immediately the authors refer to "increases in solar radiation" as the likely promoter of the rise of NPP: "We suggest that increases in solar radiation, owing to declining cloud cover in these predominantly radiation-limited forests, is the most likely explanation for the increased tropical NPP". However, certain agenda driven scientists are working to deny these increases in solar radiation, too. See, for example, Mike Lockwood's recent travesty published by the Royal Society which was roundly panned on Radio 4 by Piers Corbyn and Nigel Calder.

http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

PS: If anyone else would like to read the full paper PM me and I'll send it through.
bigfish - you're conflating 2 entirely different issues.

1 - an increase in solar radiation reaching the earths surface in the amazon basin due to a reduction in cloud cover in the region.*

2 - changes in the solar forcings on a global level as discussed in the paper you link to.

please do keep up eh;)
 
bigfish - you're conflating 2 entirely different issues.

1 - an increase in solar radiation reaching the earths surface in the amazon basin due to a reduction in cloud cover in the region.*

2 - changes in the solar forcings on a global level as discussed in the paper you link to.

Increases in solar radiation affect the NPP globally, not just regionally; for example, in winter, when incident solar irradiance decreases, vegetation adapts to conserve energy stored during warmer periods. Experiments give the same results everywhere, not only in Amazonia. Even if CO2 concentration is high, plants will not produce at the same rate when incident solar energy decreases.

Wielicki et al. Evidence for Large Decadal Variability in the Tropical Mean Radiative Energy Budget. Science 1 February 2002: Vol. 295. No. 5556, pp. 841 - 844:

"Earth's climate system is driven by a radiative energy balance between the solar or shortwave (SW) radiation absorbed by Earth and the thermal infrared or longwave (LW) radiation emitted back to space..."

"Therefore, the Top of Atmosphere (TOA) radiation budget is crucial in determining climate variability and feedbacks, whereas its measurement provides a severe test of our ability to represent physical processes important for simulations of future climate..."

"However, we caution against interpreting the decadal variability as evidence of greenhouse gas warming. Whether the changes seen in the radiative balance in the last two decades are the result of natural variability or are a response to global change remains to be determined."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...ty&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Junye Chen et al. Evidence for Strengthening of the Tropical General Circulation in the 1990s. Science 1 February 2002: Vol. 295. No. 5556, pp. 838 -841.

"The possibility that lapse rates were decreasing instead before 1980 (23) suggests that the observed intensification of the Hadley-Walker cell may be due to natural variability on decadal or longer time scales rather than to a forced climate change..."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/5556/838
 
Neither of those C&Ps support your claim in the OP either. Why do you continually refuse to provide evidence for it? Is it because you don't believe it yourself and are just on a wind up?

If you've changed your mind about it just say so. That's all it would take to make you look at least slightly less foolish.
 
Increases in solar radiation affect the NPP globally, not just regionally; for example, in winter, when incident solar irradiance decreases, vegetation adapts to conserve energy stored during warmer periods. Experiments give the same results everywhere, not only in Amazonia. Even if CO2 concentration is high, plants will not produce at the same rate when incident solar energy decreases.
you really are an ignorant git aren't you?

I'm well aware that an increase or decrease in total solar irradiance will effect the NPP globally, but that's not the point that was being made in the quote in the first part of your post - that point is entirely related to an increase in solar irradiance reaching the surface in the amazon region due to a decrease in cloud cover in the region.

It has absolutely fuck all to do with the paper you then proceed to slag off about the impact of various changes in total solar irradiance from the sun.

get a fucking clue and stop spouting off about stuff you have zero understanding of - you really are just making a complete tit of yourself every time you post on this board.
 
Misbehaving Models and Missing Mammals

In a new book Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science Aynsley KeIlow, Professor and Head of the School of Government at the University of Tasmania, uses ... case studies from conservation biology and climate science as examples of 'noble cause corruption'. The phenomenon is recognised in law enforcement circles where police officers manufacture evidence to ensure a conviction.

The thesis of Kellow's book is that noble cause corruption gives as much cause for concern about the reliability of science as the potential influence of money.

Kellow shows that noble cause corruption is rife in the environmental sciences, and he shows how the corruption is facilitated by the virtual nature of much of the science.

After opening with the somewhat comical example of the bogus listing of the mythical Cambodian mountain goat, Kellow gets into the history of conservation biology. He explains how in the early 1980s ecology lacked a scientifically respectable method for studying life. The ecosystem approach potentially provided scientific respectability by supplying ecologists with mathematical tools developed by physicists beginning with the species-area equation and the theory of island biogeography.

While the theory could explain the number of insect and arthropod species colonising mangrove islands off the coast of Florida as a function of their distance from the mainland, the theory's extrapolation to non-island situations and terrestrial ecology more generally was not justified.

And predicting species loss by extrapolating backwards to suggest, for example, that a reduction in the area of forest will produce the same rate of species reduction as does its growth, has no basis in observational data but is common practice in conservation biology.

It is this approach, in particular the dominance of mathematical models, which makes it possible for groups like Greenpeace to use figures of 50,000-100,000 species becoming extinct every year, with support from the scientific literature, when they would be hard pressed to provide evidence of any actual extinctions.

Furthermore, an ecosystem as Kellow explains is nothing more than a construction: 'Ecologists tried to study ponds as examples of ecosystems, but soon found even they were not closed systems but connected to the watertable, and affected by groundwater flows, spring run-off and migrating waterfowl.'

In Science and Public Policy, Kellow shows how the misguided approach to the complexity of 'ecosystems' facilitated the subsequent development of climate science as 'post-normal' science. Kellow begins by explaining that climate change is an area of science where models inevitably play an important role-there is little scope for laboratory experimentation.

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003157.html
 
It doesn't take much searching to find reports that counter the 'growth in bioversity' claim. In today's news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7409034.stm

From March 2006:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4780876.stm

From May 2005:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4563499.stm

That's just from 5 minutes of following the links on the one news site. I believe that I would get simar results from any of them.

Seems a bit alarmist doens't it?

Let me give you a quote.

The 2008 IUCN Bird Red List warns that long-term droughts and extreme weather puts additional stress on key habitats.

So we take the premise taht climate change will result in extreme weather and long-term droughts, we then extrapolate the effect that will have on Bird numbers.

Here this is the best part.

t is very hard to precisely attribute particular changes in specific species to climate change," said Stuart Butchart, BirdLife's global research and indicators co-ordinator.

But there is now a whole suite of species that are clearly becoming threatened by extreme weather events and droughts."


So the proof that extreme weather events or droughts are a direct effect of climate change...came there none.

it is easy to take a premise and then leap into how that will have a devestating effect on the biosphere....so long as you don't actually need to produce any evidence of the original premise.

Basically I don't think you can use 'claims' about what will or might happen due to climate change to argue against actual evidence of what HAS happened over the past decade.
 
So we take the premise taht climate change will result in extreme weather and long-term droughts, we then extrapolate the effect that will have on Bird numbers.
You're very good at attacking those poor straw men aren't you? :rolleyes:

If you'd bothered to read the thread you'd see that the OP claimed biodiversity has increased in the last 50 years. The post you quoted provided examples showing that it has decreased. Nobody made any claim about the cause of the decrease. The linked articles made it clear that there are many causes:
cited BBC article said:
Land-use (habitat) changes, climate change, pollution and over-exploitation - they are all pushing down on biodiversity and the pressure shows little sign of easing.

Estimates of biodiversity are not arrived at by guessing the likely effects of climate change as your straw man argument alleges, but by observations by experts in the field, like the Zoological Society of London

According to The Living Planet Index, a report written by ZSL scientists and released today, the world's species are declining at a rate ‘unprecedented since the extinction of the dinosaurs’ – and it’s our fault!

The report was jointly produced by ZSL, WWF and the Global Footprint Network, with the team tracking almost 4,000 populations trends for about 1,500 species. Out today, it shows the devastating impact of humanity as species populations have plummeted by almost a third in the 35 years to 2005.

Basically I don't think you can use 'claims' about what will or might happen due to climate change to argue against actual evidence of what HAS happened over the past decade.
Please provide the "actual evidence of what HAS happened over the past decade" to which you refer.
 
"If you'd bothered to read the thread you'd see that the OP claimed biodiversity has increased in the last 50 years. The post you quoted provided examples showing that it has decreased. Nobody made any claim about the cause of the decrease. The linked articles made it clear that there are many causes:"

This is only because you have decided to latch on to the word 'biodiversity' and decided that this is the most important piece of information. Seems to me that you are caught up in arguing a semantic point, rather then the larger issue.

Perhaps biodiversity isn't the right word to have used, perhaps he should have just said...organic matter.

The larger issue isn't about 'biodiversity' it is about the fact that for the past couple of years we have been told that climate change and mans behaviour, CO2 emissions etc is "killing the planet".

Yet the evidence suggests that the planet is lapping it up and it is helping to create more "organic matter" then in the last couple of decades.

The evidence for that seems to be there.

You don't seem to be arguing about that, instead you seem to be arguing about the mistaken use of a single word that means more then the OP perhaps realised.
 
Perhaps biodiversity isn't the right word to have used, perhaps he should have just said...organic matter.

You really need to practice this "thinking" thing.

Most people would notice the difference between a town where the number of bus routes was increasing, and a town where the size of some buses was increasing, yes? Most people would say they're entirely different things. But not the propagandist cited in the OP.
 
You really need to practice this "thinking" thing.

Most people would notice the difference between a town where the number of bus routes was increasing, and a town where the size of some buses was increasing, yes? Most people would say they're entirely different things. But not the propagandist cited in the OP.

It is not really a very apt analogy is it.

I mean clearly some areas are going to lose organic matter, the number of humans on the planet is constantly increasing and we are constantly using more and more of our planet for housing and production etc etc.

So of course there will be less areas of organic matter, that goes without saying. Unless the green agenda has now moved to mass genocide, that is going to continue happening.

The argument is whether mans behaviour is having a negative effect on those areas that he isn't actually having a negative effect on with his presence. ie inaccessible places that we can't get to, but that our environmental impact does reach.

Now the evidence suggests, from what I have read so far, that these areas are seeing an upsurge in growth. That is the complete opposite to what we were told would happen. We were told that our behaviour would kill the planet.
 
Once again, the problem is not 'killing the planet', but rendering it less habitable for us, possibly disastrously so. Which is where the issue of population is also important, in that the more people we support with the same limited resources, the less stable the whoe edifice is.
 
It is not really a very apt analogy is it.

It's entirely apt. I thought carefully before posting, you see.

Number of bus routes : number of species, aka biodiversity = richness of environment services

Bigger buses : increased biomass = some parts of the system expanding.

In the extremes we have just one ginormous bus or a huge biomass of just one species (probably of slimy algae).
 
you have decided to latch on to the word 'biodiversity' and decided that this is the most important piece of information.
The OP highlighted that part of the quote and then despite repeated requests has refused to either support or retract it.

But as regards the health of the environment, biodiversity is very much the most important piece of information.
 
In the extremes we have just one ginormous bus or a huge biomass of just one species of algae.

You know if you had said the Number of the Bus Route, rather then just larger buses I think I would have got that earlier...if you had said instead of many bus routes we just get a larger No7 Bus I think I would have understood what you meant straight away.

I suppose it is a risk that we are breaking down biodiversity to a level where we are stuck with a minimum number of species, but I wonder if this is not an inevitable part of human expansion. That as long as the planet can operate, create the oxygen we need, then the number of biodiverse life forms on it is irrelevent.

I understand that isn't a commonly held view and may be seen as controvsial but at the end of the day we have been killing off species since before the industrial revolution. Our expansion requires that there be less other life forms on the planet.

I am not willing to give up humanites expansion to save another form of life from extinction, that doens't seem like a fair trade off. I would not be willing for instance to give up all that we have in terms of technology and infrastructure, just to save some forests biodiversity.

I might be willing to give all that up to save the planet, cause I got to live on the planet, but if the planet survives anyway, and all that it means is that there are less various numbers of other life forms....well that isn't a price too high to pay.
 
The problem with that is that there is no clear picture of what kinds of changes will allow us to continue with business as usual. For example, large predators like big cats etc might seem like an unnecessary extra, but in many cases they are the principle means of keeping down grazing animals who otherwise might over-graze an area until there was only desert there, so the idea that stuff will just carry on as normal minus a few exotic species is not reliable.
 
Back
Top Bottom