Recent Comments

Prev  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  1561  Next

Comments 77651 to 77700:

77651. adelady at 17:32 PM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       Camburn, your example of Kochia and its adaptability is unfortunate. This is a classic case of the kinds of problems that will be exacerbated by climate shifts. Kochia is a declared pest plant in WA because, among other things, it is "Notorious for its large size (shading developing crop plants) and its ability to spread fast. Is resistant to insect attack. Shoots ...toxic to ... grazing animals, due to high levels of oxalate (up to 4.7% soluble and 11.4% total), nitrate (up to 2.2 percent) and alkaloid (up to 1.2 percent). Plants that accumulate more than 1.5 percent by dry matter of nitrate are potentially toxic." There are literally thousands of plant and insect species that threaten productivity of agricultural, pastoral, orchard or market garden activities. The fact that this plant example is one which directly damages both livestock and crops is a mere accident. But it's a perfect illustration of precisely the kind of plant that we'd like to see fail in the evolutionary race being set up by climate change. Seeing as weeds, almost by definition, are plants which succeed where they're not wanted, they look to have an evolutionary advantage in many of those environments.
77652. Camburn at 15:15 PM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       Tom: The adaptability of Kochia into sub species....and yes it is actually a new sub species according to NDSU to be able to grow later in the year was/is quit remarkable. This has nothing to do with pesticide, and everything to do with adaptability. You are correct, in that vegitation will respond rapidly to a change and adapt. The trees will not be so lucky, as they are a long life species, and their seed does not move as easily as grass/weed/etc seeds.
77653. Camburn at 15:12 PM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       scaddenp: This is from memory, but I believe in The Chec Republic some years ago there were massive demonstrations because of the difference in how some wanted to manage the forests. Also in talking with cousins up north..Canada...they state that where the forest is young and thriveing, the beetle doesn't really do damage, but the older forests that haven't rejuvinated themselves, the beetle is widespread. That is a local observation for what it is worth. I think the thing in Checoslovakia...(spelling)...was much more dramatic and in depth.
77654. John Brookes at 15:06 PM on 9 August 2011
       Where have all the people gone?
       Nice fiction! I always enjoy reading stuff like that (not living it though....).
       Response:

       [DB] Thanks!  Did you try the audio version of the intro?  I'm experimenting with making posts more multimedia to drive interactivity and interest.

77655. Stevo at 14:54 PM on 9 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       Do you think the word 'consensus' might be a problem? Deniers use it to tout the idea that the AGW case is based on consensus thinking or appeals to authority. Perhaps we might be better served by saying that enough evidence has been found to leave 97 out of every 100 climate sceintists in no doubt that global warming is real and that human activities are the cause. Perhaps someone else reading this can come up with a pithier version - thus more appealing to the general public. The focus, at least to my way of thinking, should emphasize the vast amount of evidence from diverse sources which all leads consistantly to the same conclusion. I'd hate to give that one remaining red guy on the graphic any kind of assistance in his misinformation campaign.
77656. Tom Curtis at 14:52 PM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       Camburn @213, your examples of rapid adaption are not relevant because they depend on small (single protein) adaptions that pre-exist in the population, and upon massive (near 100%) mortality rates for variants without the preferred protein. Now if you wish to suggest that most plant species will suffer >90% mortality per generation for 8 to 10 generations in the coming century, your examples are relevant. In the real world, however, plants will be stressed, rather than killed by climate change. And in the real world, adaption will require modification of a number of interrelated biochemical pathways. Hence, in the real world we can expect plants to be stressed for a long time, and to typically take a long time to adapt. The problem with stressed plants is that they are less productive, they are more likely to die due to other factors, and they are less able to resist invasive species. The net effect is - and will be - a loss of biodiversity. With the loss of biodiversity, you inevitably have a loss of net primary productivity even once the have adapted and are healthy again, a loss that is only recovered with the recovery of biodiversity which takes millions of years.
77657. Chris G at 14:51 PM on 9 August 2011
       Where have all the people gone?
       Sorry, Bern...
77658. Chris G at 14:50 PM on 9 August 2011
       Where have all the people gone?
       Muon, you beat me to a response. Indeed, all true; Bachman and her supporters scare me. What I was going to say is: Nah, it's just hard to accept that some lifestyle changes might have to be made (no more big 4-wheel drives for commuting to the office, etc.), very hard to accept that something very bad is likely happen, and very hard to accept that one is at least partly responsible. Facing this triple-whammy, it isn't that surprising that many seek shelter in denial. It isn't even surprising that many get angry when you try to pry them out of their sheltered place. I was in the wilderness with a group who took a wrong turn coming down a mountain once. There was anger. There was denial. But eventually the fact set in that the only way to get back to our food and our only known sources of water was to go back over the top of the mountain. (Well, OK, we skirted around the summit.) It's a pity that thermodynamics are harder to understand than triangulating a position on a map. Because saying, "We are here; our food, our tents, and our sleeping bags are there. What do you want to do?" tends to cut through the BS.
77659. scaddenp at 14:33 PM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       Camburn, so when climate zones change (even when it happens slowly), do you see plants adapting? No, only over very long scales. Instead you see vegetation zones move with the climate. However, this is sidetrack really from question as whether more CO2 is "plant food". What matters to us really is affect of rapid climate change on our agriculture. I'd say way too soon to draw conclusions yet, but the modelled changes for BAU climate zones suggest caution would be better idea. By the way, got a reference for your black beetle hypothesis? I'd like to see comparison between managed and unmanaged forest.
77660. Tom Curtis at 14:33 PM on 9 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Eclipse @366, I am not sure of the correct thread, so I'll make my response here. First I should say, what a load of tripe Douglas Cotton has produced. He persistently claims that the IPCC "assumes" values which have been measured, while asserting without measurement "facts" to be true simply on the basis that they are convenient to his theory. Like many deniers, he obviously has no idea what goes into a General Circulation Model, assuming that they have the properties of a one dimensional model, while he himself employs an unphysical model of radiative transfer, the most obvious flaw of which is that he assumes any upward transmitted radiation from the atmosphere is immediately emitted to space (whereas most of it is simply absorbed by higher levels of the atmosphere). His core assumption is that:

       "The IPCC models assume far too much radiation from the Earth's surface instead of convection with air molecules which do not emit photons that can be captured by CO2"

       He defends that claim with this illustration: The defense consists of simply reasserting his claim, and an analogy based on a cooking pot. Of course, the IPCC (actually Kiehl and Trenberth 1997, which has since been updated with Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl 2008 [PDF]) based their conclusions on actual measurement. The difficulty arises because it is not possible to measure the upward surface IR radiation at all, or even many locations around the globe. Rather, detailed measurements have been done over particular land surface types under various conditions. These measurements produce results like these: Note that the upward IR radiation is consistently greater than 400 W/m^2. (It is shown as a negative number to distinguish energy leaving from energy entering the surface. For comparison, consider these measurements of Net radiation, Q*, (Incoming shortwave plus incoming longwave minus outgoing shortwave minus outgoing longwave), latent energy, LW, and sensible heat, H. Sensible Heat, Cotton's "conduction" does not rise above 200 W/m^2 except over a dry lake bed, and is negative for much of the time. Clearly, averaged across the twenty four hour day, and across a variety of locations, it is a much smaller component than the outgoing surface IR radiation. Khiel and Trenberth's figures where generated by taking a great number of measurements such as these, and using them together with knowledge of the proportion of the Earth's surface covered by each surface type to estimate a global figure. In contrast, Cotton's alternative estimate was made by waving his hand near a cooking pot. The difference in procedure is a true indicator of the difference in value of the two works.
77661. Bern at 14:17 PM on 9 August 2011
       Where have all the people gone?
       muoncounter: Indeed, I see today that Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann has vowed to shut down the EPA: "I guarantee you the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) will have doors locked and lights turned off and they will only be about conservation." They are playing a political game, where they blame environmental protection for all the economic ills that the US is suffering from. Sadly, if they get their way, it wont fix the economic ills, but you can be sure it'll generate some non-economic ones...
77662. Camburn at 14:11 PM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       Tom: You also mentioned Bark Beetles. These beetles actually serve a specific function in forests. They eradicate sick trees etc, and thrive on dead wood. One of the main reasons for what is considered infestation now is the age of the forests. Fires have been managed, which from a practical environmental look was not a smart thing to do. This practice has almost ruined large tracts of forests because nature demands burns to reproduce healthy trees. In absense of burns, there are natural insect forces, such as the bark beetle that rejuvinate those forests as well.
77663. Camburn at 14:05 PM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       Tom: You are making several assumptions about plants/insects etc that are not correct: 1. What I write does not apply to trees as my knowledge in that area is limitied at best. 2. You are making assumptions that plants/insects etc will not adapt quickly. a. Example: Plants 1. Wild oat. There are herbiceds that will kill a wild oat. But even with the best herbicide, a few remain. It only takes approx 8-10 generations of wild oat to establish a strain that is resistant to said herbicide. 2. Kochia plants. They are very robust plants. Extremely small seed, and extremely adaptable. They develop the same resistance to chem as wild oats. And in fact, new strains/biotoa have evolved that are not only resistant to herbiceds, but the requirements for germination have changed. Now we are infested with kochia that will germinate in June/July/Aug. 20 years ago, if you got that flush in the spring....you had 100% control. Insects: Insects eat plants. Most insects do not consume their host totally, but some do to the point of death. These insects, colorado potatoe beetle as one example, are resistant to most insecticides now. Chem companies have to come up with new combinations annually as within 4 generations, the insect will be immune. Plants: Plants grow under a host of conditions. Yes, there are optimum conditions, but in reality, they never exist in nature. A plant will grow a long ways away from its optimal growing area. It will thrive and spread. I will use wheat as an example. Wheat is grown in the USA and Canada. The environment on the southern fringe is much different than the environment on the northern fringe. Yet, the plant produces well enough that it is grown for a food stock.
77664. citizenschallenge at 13:15 PM on 9 August 2011
       Where have all the people gone?
       That was a disturbing audio, resonating too close to home. A futurecast, eh. Don't imagine that any contrarians will listen to it long enough to give it a second thought. Crumbling towers indeed. As the tragedy unfolds with relentless momentum, we are the witnesses. But, that sucks, it would have been much nicer to actually do something constructive. But, I guess, the Bible and that monstrous mass of people who are hooked into it, want their Armageddon no matter what it takes to achieve it.
77665. Tom Curtis at 12:50 PM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       Eric the Red, there are several facts you are not considering. First, evolution is a slow process taking tens of thousands of generations for significant adaptions to occur, and take over the population. That means for plants with an annual life cycle (one generation per year), they are just now becoming adapted to standard holocene (pre-industrial) conditions following the last glacial). For long lived species such as trees, their ideal adaption is for glacial conditions, not inter-glacials. Where it not for the fact that their range has shifted, they would be heavily stressed, and mostly gone extinct. A change in temperature of the same scale as that between glacial and inter-glacial (such as we are currently headed for)will cause them to become even more stressed, or require similarly large changes in range. Second, changing range to adapt to new conditions is also a slow process in human terms. For most species of plant, progeny will grow within a few hundred meters of the parent, so the maximum rate of "migration" is a few hundred meters per generation. Given that ranges will need to change by several hundred kilometers to maintain similar climactic conditions, that means most species will take several thousand years, all else being equal, to migrate to a suitable climate zone. With several thousand years of migration required for migration, but several decades for the temperature shift, you should see the problem. Three, and most crucially, not all organisms will adapt at the same rate. Some plants are hardy, quick growing and have short generation times. We call them weeds. They are likely to adapt far quicker than other species because of the quick growth and short generation time. Non-plant species, notably insects, will also adapt at different rates. The hardest competition for any species is not the physical environment, but the competition with other species, and consequently difference rates of adaption will result in some species that would otherwise survive becoming very stressed, and probably extinct in some cases. Just such a situation is currently being illustrated by Bark Beetle attacks. Because species thrive based on a particular ecological mix, different rates of adaption that disturb that mix are guaranteed to result in a massive loss of biodiversity. Your attention is focused on whether CO2 concentrations alone will cause a particular species to become stressed. Well, if it does, then that plant is in trouble. But even if it does not, adaption to temperature change, moisture change, and changing ecological balance will adversely effect most species.
77666. r.pauli at 12:23 PM on 9 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       Barry #1 - don't you think two percent is pretty good? I expect that among scientists - like any educated, professional population - there are the demented, the alcoholic and event the sociopathic (some think as high as 8%). Two percent might be pretty good compared to other measurements.
77667. muoncounter at 12:07 PM on 9 August 2011
       Where have all the people gone?
       Bern#4: "with their heads firmly entrenched in the sand," Interesting position, that. Washington DC was built on landfill, so head in the sand might be messy: 1860s -- Residents of Washington, D.C., dump garbage and slop into alleys and streets, pigs roam freely, slaughterhouses spew nauseating fumes, and rats and cockroaches infest most dwellings including the White House. Actually, it doesn't sound like that much has changed. I don't think the cuts you were referring to made it all the way through the budget process into law, but you can bet they'll be back.
77668. muoncounter at 11:44 AM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       EtR#209: "when the Earth was full of shallow seas and swamps" You should probably read some geology texts. Let's pick one such time, known as the Carboniferous to most of the world (we call it the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian Periods). Briefly, this was a time of widespread shallow swamps, big leafy trees, etc; the result was lots of coal (oil forms from marine critters). Abrupt climate change during this time is thought to be the reason for the 'Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse.' You should note that the animal at the top of the food chain went extinct due to this event. So my response to all of this glib 'some plants will do better than others; there are always winners and losers'? It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature!
77669. Bern at 11:34 AM on 9 August 2011
       Where have all the people gone?
       Didn't the US Congress recently vote to outlaw funding for climate change mitigation programs? Depressing, to say the least... The silver lining - with their heads firmly entrenched in the sand, they *might* be some of the first to feel the effects of the rising waters...
       Response:

       [DB] I know you speak figuratively, but 6 meters of SLR brings the sea to Congress' steps, literally:

       

77670. scaddenp at 11:06 AM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       EtR - "a return to ice age" is not expected even without human effects for 10,000s of years, maybe 50,000 (see Berger & Loutre 2002 so why bring this up? Are you seriously suggesting that adaption of agriculture will occur as easily with current rate of temperature change as it would to changes in the glacial cycle (which are 10x at least slower)?
77671. Eclipse at 10:33 AM on 9 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this post, but I'm asking whether there is any material addressing this new theory? It's really doing the rounds in Australia. It's all about heat exchange in the upper atmosphere — Douglas Cotton Lastly, how do I subscribe to a thread? I'm not getting emails when someone answers me?
       Response:

       [DB] You should be getting those now.  You may have to log out of SkS and then re-log back in for the changes I made to take effect.

77672. Eric the Red at 10:29 AM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       Sphaerica, If you read the paper to which mouncounter referenced, you will see that many plants have adapted quite well to the current conditions. I never said that all plants will do well. Those which are at the edge of their environmental limit are likely to fair rather poorly. Conversely, there are those which will flourish due to conditions which are beneficial. To think that any change will automaticall be detrimental is what is simplistic and wrong. By the way, evolution does not necessarily take millions of years. There have always been winners and losers. Why do you think the losers will outnumber the winners? Muoncounter, The time several million years ago, when the Earth was full of shallow seas and swamps. It was these plants that many believe became today's oil deposits. Contrast that period with the recent glaciation period. We are currently sitting in between these two climates, and a return to an ice age will not be favorable to many plants.
       Response:

       [DB] "We are currently sitting in between these two climates, and a return to an ice age will not be favorable to many plants."

       That "return" is becoming increasingly remote.  Recent work strongly points to Business-As-Usual committing us to skipping between 1-5 of the next ice age cycles.

       Note that this research does NOT reflect the results of adding 3.5 to 5.0 Gt of CO2-e methane due to an Arctic methane release nor another 1.0 to 1.5 Gt of CO2-e CO2/CH4 from melting Arctic permafrost.

       Auld Lang Syne, anyone?  Bueller?

77673. muoncounter at 09:06 AM on 9 August 2011
       It's cosmic rays
       Oh no! A new denial meme about to be born: Adriani et al 2011 THE DISCOVERY OF GEOMAGNETICALLY TRAPPED COSMIC-RAY ANTIPROTONS This Letter reports the discovery of an antiproton radiation belt around the Earth. The trapped antiproton energy spectrum in the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) region has been measured by the PAMELA experiment for the kinetic energy range 60-750 MeV. So it's anti-matter that's been causing global warming all along. The anti-water that forms from these anti-protons (and those evil positrons) will destroy us all -- anti-rain is clearly the cause of the drought (which could also be called an anti-flood). Be afraid, be very afraid. Bet Svensmark wishes he'd found this.
       Response:

       [DB] Ah, the Bridge of the Gods has been found!  All that is left is for one to project one's atman into it, then return as the Avatar of Tathagatha, with both raised Aspect and Attributes...

       Of course, that will probably be denied, too.
       

77674. Stevo at 08:43 AM on 9 August 2011
       Where have all the people gone?
       On the weekend I saw a current events article showing the difficulties the people of Taraqwa in Kiribati are encounterring already with salt water from increased storm surges contaminating fresh water sources. And still the denial machine rolls on....
77675. Dw at 07:44 AM on 9 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
       Thanks you all concerning my question. Sure, the fact that extra emissions of CO2 must be stopped is unquestionable. "to promote protoplankton growth" Yes sorry, when I said "plants" I meant plants in general and any other organic or not CO2 processing system. Which I'm pretty sure it's there in our pockets but we can't still find the correct one. Talking friendly, Nature did once this job, we are nature, and O3 is not a luck for us but our micro-grannies job. So we students or scientists must not give up this research as well as trying hard to stop incoherent C02 emissions. I'm student of Molecular Biology & Biotechnology at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Now getting into plants treatments specially for any possible way to create Earth-like atmospheres on planets. And you know, it's so funny (sad too) to hear and read scientists denying these problems we got here when they know Earth it's such a little planet talking about physics or chemistry, a little house by the river of blasting radiations and darkness. It's so obvious it can be damaged easily. Keep pushing the finger SkS. Peace.
77676. Phila at 07:04 AM on 9 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
       Outsider#1: "One thing I would deny is that it is all simple." By an amazing coincidence, that's also something mainstream scientists deny, despite the words routinely put in their mouths by "skeptics." it is not denial to point out that every human emits CO2. If you point this out once, and then apologize after better-informed people explain that you've misunderstood the issues, it's ignorance. If you persist in saying it even after being corrected, it's denial. It'll be interesting to see which approach you favor. Also, every human being produces sewage, which we rightly treat as a pollutant. Although human respiration isn't the issue here, it's not inherently draconian or irrational to regulate substances produced by human beings, whether they result from metabolism or industry. To question AGW effectively, you actually have to do some hard work, beginning with understanding the consensus viewpoint. Attacking imaginary viewpoints is not helpful, unless your goal is to confuse people.
77677. Bob Lacatena at 06:53 AM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       205, Eric the Red,

       I find it rather interesting that plant life has adapted quite well up until now, but is forecast to face large scale extinction in the future.

       Did you really type that? Evolution takes millions of years. For every evolutionary winner, there are losers. You see the winners, now, based on past conditions. We are going to abruptly change those conditions... and you think plants are going to instantly evolve/adapt to cope, because you don't recognize that we're changing not just one but almost all ecosystems at a pace that far outstrips almost everything that has ever happened (except in the case of extreme extinction events)? Wow.

       During the past warmer, wetter climate, plant life flourished, but in the forecast warm, wet climate that is not so.

       This comment is so ridiculously simplistic and wrong as to be embarrassing to even read.
77678. muoncounter at 06:51 AM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       EtR#205: "During the past warmer, wetter climate, plant life flourished, but in the forecast warm, wet climate that is not so. " To what time in the past are you referring? And where I sit, the forecast is warm (make that hot) and dry. Sheffield and Wood 2008: ... decreases in soil moisture globally for all scenarios with a corresponding doubling of the spatial extent of severe soil moisture deficits and frequency of short-term (4–6-month duration) droughts from the mid-twentieth century to the end of the twenty-first. Long-term droughts become three times more common. It would help your arguments enormously if you cited some references.
77679. Bob Lacatena at 06:49 AM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       202, Eric the Red, To add to muoncounter's comment, Bark Beetle attacks Beetle attacks on drought- and heat-stressed trees are blamed for a massive die-off of pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) in northern New Mexico in the early 2000s. Breshears et al. 2005 More importantly, why in the world would you assume that plants that are adapted to a particular climate will benefit from any change in the climate, just because you feel like "warm is good"? That is not the case for many plants. Some seeds need winter temperatures to stimulate dormancy. That's how they've evolved. A warm winter may break that evolutionary clock for them. For many plants, increased temperatures will cause them to go into dormancy, awaiting cooler, wetter weather. And nothing is predicting more precipitation everywhere. It's changes in precipitation, including too much at the wrong time, and too little other times when needed. It's the expansion of the deserts in the American Southwest and elsewhere. The temperature changes will not be uniform. Some areas will experience extreme heat for short periods (that are too long for the local plants). Your own desire to see everything through (dying/diseased) rose colored glasses is astonishing. Honestly, how can the facts of plant biology, and even the best case expectations for a changed climate, not scare the bejeezus out of you?
77680. Eric the Red at 06:36 AM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       And yet, they found, "an abundance of evidence demonstrating adaptation of many populations to their current conditions." Changing conditions "may" or "have the potential" to exhibit negative consequences. I find it rather interesting that plant life has adapted quite well up until now, but is forecast to face large scale extinction in the future. During the past warmer, wetter climate, plant life flourished, but in the forecast warm, wet climate that is not so.
77681. muoncounter at 05:29 AM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       EtR#202: "What if a temperature rise is beneficial?" Why speculate? From Jump and Penuelas 2005: We argue that in fragmented landscapes, rapid climate change has the potential to overwhelm the capacity for adaptation in many plant populations and dramatically alter their genetic composition. The consequences are likely to include unpredictable changes in the presence and abundance of species within communities and a reduction in their ability to resist and recover from further environmental perturbations, such as pest and disease outbreaks and extreme climatic events. Or from Colwell et al 2008 Based on new data for plants and insects on an elevational transect in Costa Rica, we assess the potential for lowland biotic attrition, range-shift gaps, and mountaintop extinctions under projected warming. We conclude that tropical lowland biotas may face a level of net lowland biotic attrition without parallel at higher latitudes ... Unpredictable change, more vulnerable to disease and pests, attrition, extinction. Are these how 'beneficial changes' are described? Sure is working out well for coral reef builders.
77682. Dikran Marsupial at 05:16 AM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       Eric thr Red wrote: "Granted, plants do not have the mobility of the animal world." Yes, which is a very good reason to expect the losers to outweigh the winners.
77683. Chris G at 04:50 AM on 9 August 2011
       Where have all the people gone?
       MuonCounter, Doubt there is anything you can do about it, but FYI, "sealevelrise2010.org expired on 07/28/2011 and is pending renewal or deletion." is on your link to the presentations.
77684. Eric the Red at 04:45 AM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       Sphaerica, You are focusing all the negatives. What if a temperature rise is beneficial? Not just reduced winter hard freezes, but how many plants will benefit from a general rise in temperature. Add to that the expected increase in precipitation expected with warming temperatures. I am not saying that all this is going to happen, but you seem to think that any change that occurs will be harmful. There will be winners and losers in any changing environment. How much of the Earth's environment will change enough to cause your previously described stresses? Granted, plants do not have the mobility of the animal world.
77685. muoncounter at 04:12 AM on 9 August 2011
       Where have all the people gone?
       Yooper, I would say "chilling!" but that just doesn't seem appropriate. Here is a link to the presentations given last year in Corpus Christi about 'adaptations' and 'planning'. BTW, did you know that the US Coastal Zone Management Act has been in place since 1972? The program objectives are derived from the CZMA goal to "preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation's coastal zone." Feel better now?
77686. barry1487 at 02:45 AM on 9 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #4: The favourite weapon of deniers, cherry picking
       Two undecideds?
77687. muoncounter at 01:42 AM on 9 August 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       DSL#111: That noted climatologist James Taylor had a July 27 editorial in Forbes touting Spencer's paper. Here's the system works: - Do bad science, get good press. Repeat. Ignore rebuttals. - Do good science, nobody pays attention.
77688. Albatross at 01:34 AM on 9 August 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       BP @143, Last week you excused yourself from this forum. Please be a man of honour and keep your word, instead of coming back to make more fallacious allegations in a drive-bye style post.
77689. Dikran Marsupial at 00:46 AM on 9 August 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       RichyRoo - changes in climate over such long timescales tend to be forced change, rather than unforced variability. To see that natural variability tends to even out, all you have to do is look at ENSO, which is the strongest source of naturl variability - it is quasi cyclical, and hence averages out to near zero for periods long enough to contain several cycles. That is why climatologists use windows of around 30 year mark.
77690. Bob Lacatena at 00:34 AM on 9 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       200, Eric the Red, In the short term, plants have various mechanisms for handling change (such as the way lawn grass browns and goes dormant in the peak summer months, but returns well when temperatures cool and more moisture arrives in fall). Over the longer term, however, this causes great stress and begins to kill off plants, and to make them more susceptible to disease. At the same time, invasive species that are better able to withstand the conditions will grow, reseed, and push out others (much in the way crabgrass takes over so many lawns by withstanding the summer heat and pushing out preferred grass species that are forced to go dormant). In the short term there are some mechanisms (although I question Camburn's increased root mass statement... if temperatures rise or moisture drops so that plants can't take advantage of increased CO₂, then how do they have time to build root mass?) that will allow plants to withstand short term changes, but not long term. If the changes are continuous, eventually they are losers and others are winners. I can't imagine that evolution will occur to allow plant species to adapt as quickly as simple "migration" wherein plants that are already better suited to the new conditions re-seed and take over where others are failing. The end result is massive ecosystem changes (such as the transition of rainforests, like the Amazon, to savanna, or prairie to desert).
77691. muoncounter at 23:19 PM on 8 August 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       DSL#111: There's an echo 'faster than they can repackage and rebrand' that seems to start in an editorial in Investor's Business Daily on July 28. Based, of all things, on the Monnett investigation charade. I get all my climate science news from investment tip sheets, don't you? But FauxNews sure picked it right up. It was less than a week after the Monnett story broke that permits for drilling the Arctic started moving forward. Beneficiaries - Shell Oil. Here's one environmental blogger that sees this as more than a 'coincidence.'
77692. Yvan Dutil at 23:09 PM on 8 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
       Just to had on the trees issues. In boreal forest, half of the carbon is stored in the soil. Cutting trees tend to release the carbon is soil. Hence one must be careful when exploiting the forest.
77693. DSL at 22:38 PM on 8 August 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       Interesting. Over the past week, I've noticed a pattern developing in 'denialist' language. It's some form of "AGW is falling apart." I've also seen "coming unraveled," "disintegrate," and something like "becoming full of holes." I wonder if this can be traced to a single mass media event. The regular causes of short-term variability (ENSO) do not cause long-term swings. The changes you're talking about "over millions of years" are not caused by short-term (11y or 25-50y) solar cycles.
77694. Dale at 22:25 PM on 8 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
       DB #6, I didn't even think of those effects. Thanks for the added info! Also found a BBC article from 4th August where there's talk that an increase in temps stunts tree growth. So a rising temp would result in smaller trees, thus less effective carbon sink. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14250825
77695. Tom Curtis at 22:20 PM on 8 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       Eclipse @10, I just reviewed the Working Group III references, only to find that CBDunkerson has stolen my thunder with an excellent response. I will add to his points just three more: First, in order to get the "failing grade", the "No consensus" website has obviously had to include as "grey literature" sources as diverse as IPCC reports, the Stern Review, papers presented at academic conferences, and chapters of books by reputed academic publishing houses. While many of these sources have not been through a standard journal type peer review, there is no doubt that they have been extensively reviewed to a far more rigorous standard than would be implied by such peer review. In other words, their ideosyncratic standard of "peer reviewed" is artificially restricted, and exclude much material of the highest academic quality. Second, even with this highly artificial standard, the Working Group 1 chapters nearly all get an A, with only two falling below that standard to get a B. Based on that assessment, if they took their own measure seriously, they would not question the essential results of WG 1. Clearly they do not do that, which reveals what a hypocritical exercise they are indulging in. Three, what is entirely absent is any assessment using their standard of the work of deniers. That assessment would, of course, show the deniers work in a very poor light indeed.
77696. RichyRoo at 21:56 PM on 8 August 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       Dikran Marsupial: What evidence can you present for your claim that natural variability 'has a tendency to average out over longer timescales'? Given that we have geophyiscal evidence of massive natural shifts over millions of years, your claim sounds spurious and without merit.
77697. Berényi Péter at 21:20 PM on 8 August 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       #142 critical mass at 22:54 PM on 7 August, 2011 As a latecomer to this thread, KL and BP need to answer the criticisms of Albatross and Rob Painting. Otherwise their ability to argue a case must be in question. Tell them not to delete my posts indiscriminately and you'll have all the answers you could wish for. However, until such time you'll get nothing, sorry.
       Response:

       [DB] "Tell them not to delete my posts indiscriminately"

       Then don't commit flagrant and willful violations of the Comments Policy. 

       Really, you bring it on yourself by putting yourself above a mandatory condition of participation that virtually everyone who ever posts in this Forum has no issues abiding by.

77698. Eric the Red at 21:14 PM on 8 August 2011
       More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
       Thank you Tom, By itself, it appears that increased level of CO2 will only benefit plant growth. However, if environmental conditions change for the worse as a result, then those changes could overwhelm the gains made by CO2 increases. Do we know how readily plantlife could adapt to changes in temperature and/or precipitation? Obviously, different plant species will respond differently.
77699. CBDunkerson at 20:52 PM on 8 August 2011
       There is no consensus
       It is nonsense. Indeed, it is OBVIOUSLY nonsense. The first massive flaw in their methodology which I noticed is that they treated every reference in the IPCC reports as a 'scientific reference' with which to dispute the IPCC claim that its scientific findings were based solely on peer reviewed research. Thus, reports on progress of various countries towards meeting the Kyoto targets, economic impact estimates, and even citations of objections from 'skeptics' (e.g. Bjorn Lomborg's book 'Global Crises, Global Solutions') are counted against the IPCC's 'score'. In short, no effort whatsoever was made to review WHAT the citation referred to in the text or whether it had anything to do with the case for AGW. The second ridiculous flaw is that their determination of whether something was peer-reviewed or not was entirely based on whether an obvious scientific journal was cited in the reference. Thus, for instance, dozens of references citing "Cambridge University Press" were marked as NOT peer reviewed... demonstrating that no attempt whatsoever was made to track down any of these papers - which appeared in the multiple peer reviewed academic journals which Cambridge publishes. Ditto various other major universities. Ditto anything in the references which people with no apparent knowledge of academic publishing did not immediately recognize as a peer reviewed journal. In short, the 'grades' they present do NOT measure the accuracy of the IPCC's claim that its scientific findings are based on peer reviewed research. Rather, they are measuring the percentages of references on any subject in the IPCC reports which they could determine to be peer reviewed with a cursory inspection by people who don't know what they are doing. A meaningless statistic... which they get completely wrong.
77700. Rob Painting at 20:52 PM on 8 August 2011
       Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
       Dw - a few studies have specifically addressed that issue (and no I don't have them at hand) and eventually, if the planet keeps warming, even more trees won't solve the issue because of a large die-back of the tropical forest and loss of carbon from soil microbes. Yes, forest expands into areas now covered by ice, but the net effect is a loss of carbon to the atmosphere and further warming. On the other hand, if we dramatically cut back human CO2 emissions (on a rapid global scale) and re-afforest, maybe, just maybe we can prevent catastrophic scenarios playing out. That'd be nice.

Prev  1546  1547  1548  1549  1550  1551  1552  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  1561  Next