Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 Next
Comments 77701 to 77750:
-
muoncounter at 12:08 PM on 8 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
OutsideO#1: "One thing I would deny is that it is all simple." That puts you one step ahead of many deniers, who try to reduce complex ideas to over-simplified sound bites. We hear those especially during the winter: 'it's cold out, where's your global warming now?' Most of the other points you've mentioned are amply addressed on SkS. Look through the topical threads under the Most Used Skeptic Arguments or use the Search function; you may find a few things to think about or use to modify your opinions. Checking the evidence; that's what skeptics do, isn't it? For example, "So where do you look for the warming, then? Try Central Asia, Siberia, the Sahara to begin with." No, look to the Arctic. Multiple threads deal with 'Arctic Amplification'; it's real, its happening now. Rather than a scattergun, comment on individual topics on the appropriate threads. -
Tom Curtis at 10:05 AM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Sphaerica @198, I think Camburn's point at 195 is a valid one. In an enhanced CO2, moisture restricted environment a plant can divert more of its resources from harvesting sunlight to harvesting water (increased root mass), thus partially compensating for the lack of the primary limiting factor (moisture) because of a superabundance of another factor (CO2). Therefore, if soil moisture remained constant, the plant could have enhanced growth as a result of enhanced CO2, even where water was the primary limiting factor. Another adaption of this type which is a common feature of high CO2 environments in the past is reduced stomata, evidenced in the fossil record. The reduction in stomata means the plant does not gain as much growth advantage from the elevated CO2, but does conserve water better. The problem glossed over by deniers is that: 1) The changes stimulated by higher CO2 content are not all advantageous under normal environmental conditions. For example, trees grown in enhanced CO2 atmospheres show reduced ability to close stomata in dry conditions, thus making them more, not less vulnerable to drought. 2) The environmental conditions themselves will also change, thus potentially overwhelming any gain made by the plants. Thus if increased temperatures result in a 10% loss of soil moisture, a 5% increase in root mass due to enhanced CO2 still leaves the plant stressed and possibly dying due to lack of water (where water was the limiting factor). 3) Large scale and rapid changes in climate, which are likely in the coming centuries will overwhelm the ability of plants, particularly native species, to adapt in the short term, as you point out. Most of the biology I have learnt comes from the study of evolution. Consequently I have no doubt that a warmer world will be a more productive world, ie, sustain a greater biomass in the long term. But the long term is 10 thousand to 10 million years, depending on the scale and pace of the initial perturbation. A ten thousand year recovery will be little consolation to our descendants in the next few centuries. -
OUTSIDE OBSERVER at 09:54 AM on 8 August 2011Climate Denial Video #3: Polluters Use Same Tactics As Tobacco Industry
Well, am I a skeptic or a denier? Actually, both. I am skeptical about some things, a denier of others. Also an acceptor. I do accept irrefutable science. One thing I would deny is that it is all simple. I observe that climate is a local phenomenon, and that the concept of some 'global climate' (spoken about in political fora) is ludicrous. I am skeptical about any precise forecasts of global temperature rises due in 2020. Time will tell. Now, a few points: 1. how many climates exist on the surface of the planet? 2. how do you know when a climate has changed? To ask those two questions is to uncover the fuzzy edges of climatology. Why is climatology so complex? One answer is that it deals with fluid flow and its consequences. Another is that there are numerous variables in it, defying algebraic models. The most incisive answer, though not so satisfying, is that it is dealing with essentially non-linear phenomena, and humans are not good at thinking in unfamiliar non-linear terms. Further points: global warming and climate change, though potentially linked, do not mean the same thing. Global warming refers to average surface temperatures, but the emphasis is on *average*. Global warming continues to confuse. Science tells us that the coolest and driest continental air masses should exhibit warming to the most pronounced degree, and that seems to be so. Moreover, much of the warming would occur in winter rather than in summer. So where do you look for the warming, then? Try Central Asia, Siberia, the Sahara to begin with. Do not be surprised to see temperatures rising by 2 or 3 degrees in those regions, as a result of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. So a heat-wave in Siberia drives up the minimum from minus fifty to minus 47. Bet that makes the yaks faint! More subtle is the effect of warming on glaciation. The earth's albedo increases with increasing ice, reflecting more solar radiation away, helping to keep the planet cool, and the ice forming. Conversely, melting ice reduces the albedo, increasing the warming that melts the ice. So positive feed-back can occur, either way. Prolonged glaciation is self-reinforcing, while prolonged melting keeps itself going. How long these trends can persist has never been fully established, but a few PhDs are yet to be earned on that account. One other matter I am a denier of " CO2 is a pollutant". CO2 is essential for life on earth (tobacco smoke ain't) and it is not denial to point out that every human emits CO2. I'd estimate that each adult exhales a kilogramme of CO2 daily. Collectively we exhale some 7 million tonnes a day! That amount exceeds the industrial emissions of most countries; comparable, in fact, to aggregated industrial emissions from South America. And it occurs just from breathing . (BTW, there is no chemical distinction between human CO2 and CO2 resulting form the combustion of coal. If you find some, please publish it!) Add to that what animals exhale, It is also science to mention that the thermal energy in the world's oceans is three orders of magnitude higher than the thermal energy of the atmosphere. For this reason, the oceans exert a profound influence on the climates. If the subject were simple, there would be no debate, but the complexity was noted decades ago by the Sierra Club. Some members believed there would be a cooling effect as a result of increased cloud formation. They also thought cloudier weather was causing glaciers to grow. Old TV documentaries spoke of the Big Freeze. This notion, prominent in the seventies, held that Canada and Siberia would remain permanently snow-bound, and even New York might be devoured by advancing ice-sheets. Phew! that was close! [disclaimer; this summary cannot be encyclopedic or comprehensive.Response: [JC] Note: some of your points are addressed elsewhere on SkS: -
Daniel Bailey at 09:50 AM on 8 August 2011Trouble Brewing in the North
Speaking of Neven, a participant at his blog, Seke Rob, has just posted this bit:
"The above chart shows when Sea Ice Extent fell first time below 10, 9, 8 and 7 million, and pulls this all together and adds also first date when the 11 million square km was passed. Far right a column shows the minimum reached, standing out, still, 2007, to think that the ice thickness then were considerable greater than in 2011, most amazing to get from 10 to 9 million extent in 8 days. Then, 2011 needed 8 days to get from 9M to 8M."\"
Looks like time's runnin' out... -
Bob Lacatena at 08:59 AM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
197, Eric the Red, I think you misunderstand. All of those factors are limiters. Which ever is in the least supply is the one that governs production. CO2 increase is meaningless if it is accompanied by temperature, light (clouds) or moisture changes which push things away from the optimums for those factors. Or, in other cases where other changes are needed but don't arise (like a desert, where moisture is already low) the increase in CO2 is meaningless. And all of these factors (precipitation patterns, temperatures, etc.) are going to change virtually everywhere with climate change. It doesn't even help if the change in temperature is better for most of the year, but out of the range for a particular crop for just three weeks (during the growing season). That will kill any benefits that might have been realized by CO2. My point is that hanging your hat on "more CO2 is good" is almost certainly so simplistic as to be beyond rational consideration. Your rephrasing to say "barring an unfavorable change" is trying to dismiss the importance of those other factors by implying that changes in them are unlikely, so we can all cheer for more CO2. That is, quite simply, absolutely not the case. -
Eric the Red at 07:06 AM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Was not aware of that Camburn. As I mentioned earlier, I am not a biologist. Are there other processes that might be affected by rising CO2 levels? Dikran, I think your environmental changes may fall under Sphaerica's list (191). If temperature, water, or some other factor is the limiter, then unfavorable changes in that factor would make conditions worse. Baring an unfavorable change, increases in atmospheric CO2 will enhance plant growth. See Tom's post @193. Change is not necessarily bad. It all depends on what change occurs. -
scaddenp at 06:24 AM on 8 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Echoing muoncounter on that, but it is very hard to comment without knowing about what you refer to. Some references would help. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:46 AM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Eric, it isn't as simple as that. In general plant life is adapted to an environmental niche; climate change may well make conditions more optimal for photosynthesis in some location, but not for the species of plants that are currently growing there. If you are a tree living at the edge of your environmental niche, it will be of little consolation that your death will provide a useful habitat for some other species (forgive the anthropomorpisation). As with human civilisation, it is the change that is the problem, rather than the eventual environmental conditions. We (and especially our agricultural practices) are adapted to a particular climate. Any change means that our practices are suddenly sub-optimal. This is a problem if you can't adapt (for instance because you are a tree ;o). -
Camburn at 05:24 AM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Eric: Yes and no. An increase in co2 results in a plant becomeing more efficient as a rule. The increase in co2 will overcome some of the other limiting factors becauase of improved root mass and less respiration. -
WheelsOC at 05:20 AM on 8 August 2011Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
Thanks for the epic debunking, Dana. What is it with "skeptical" researchers and terrible models? It's as if they fundamentally don't understand what a model is, and then try to make their own models based on this misunderstanding. Roy Spencer once dismissed climate models and "curve fitting," and now we see him and others using exactly this in their own models. -
meghaljani at 05:09 AM on 8 August 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
Hmm, If it is not warming, it is because of natural causes. If it is warming it is because of dangerous carbon dioxide. Way to go!Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] No, for example the rapid warming suggested by the decadal trend ending in the 1998/9 El-Nino was largely due to natural causes. The point is that short term trends are unstable because of natural variability, which has a tendency to average out over longer timescales. -
Eric the Red at 03:08 AM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
I agree with Tom and Sphaerica, Plants growth will be determined by the limiting factor. If that factor is CO2, then plants will experience mroe growth in a CO2 rich environment. If that factor is anything else (as mentioned previously), then increased levels of CO2 will be immaterial. -
Andy Skuce at 02:39 AM on 8 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part Two: The White Queen
Here's an analogy that WSJ readers and Matt Ridley might understand. The daily turnover on foreign exchange markets is about $4 trillion, of which about 85% involves US dollars. Therefore, about $3.5 trillion US dollars are traded every day, or approximately $700 trillion per year. The US annual budget deficit is about $1.4 trillion or about 0.2% of the amount of US dollars that changes hands on FOREX markets over the same time period. From this we can conclude that the US budget deficit is an insignificant problem that we can safely ignore. Either that, or we should acknowledge that specious arguments that confuse stocks with flows can lead to absurd conclusions. -
muoncounter at 01:48 AM on 8 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
trunkmonkey#96: There are many reasons for sea level rise/fall over the geologic past; Milankovitch cycles are just one of these. The continents were in a vastly different configuration; oceanic circulation must be a factor in any discussion of past era glacial cycles. -
trunkmonkey at 01:33 AM on 8 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Scaddenp, I was in Utah where there is a Honnaker Trail formation that records sea level rise and fall, presumably in response to fluctuating southerh hemisphere glaciation, for th entire Pennsylvanian. I was interested because geologists have determined the fluctuation period over this vastly longer timeline to be 200,000 years, matching none of the Milankovitch cycles. I was delighted to run into Adam Maloof while hiking the trail. He is not convinced that the fluctuations are entirely due to glaciation, but he is carefully studying the formation using modern techniques. His work is in its early stages, but in a few years we should have a very good referedum on Milankovitch. In a subsequent email he noted that a worker in Russia using radiometric dating on a similar formation found a period of 400,000 years, matching the longest and most stable Milankovitch cycle, but as you know, this cycle seems to have no power at all in the Pleistocene. -
Tom Curtis at 01:27 AM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Sphaerica @192 - agreed. But the entire process can be understood as two steps: 1) Takes two water molecules, and produces four hydrogen ions and leaves an Oxygen molecule as waste. 2) Takes a CO2 molecule and those four hydrogen ions and produces a sugar, and a water molecule as waste. The net process consumes CO2 and water to produce sugar and oxygen. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:18 AM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
189, Tom, It should be pointed out that overall photosynthesis needs and uses H2O to create complex carbon chains. It does not, in aggregate, generate H2O as a "waste" product, as it does with O2. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:14 AM on 8 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
It's also important to recognize that photosynthesis is a rate limiting system. The ingredients (light, temperature, water, carbon dioxide, and oxygen as an inhibitor) are all necessary in the right proportions for any particular plant. The system is only as good as the component that is in the lowest supply. You can have optimal levels of everything else, but it only produces according to the least available component. To make it analogous to a robot factory, you can have zillions of arms, legs, heads, and CPUs, but if you only have 100 bodies, you can only make 100 robots. Increasing any one component to an optimal value does little good, particularly if something else is already below or even changes away from its optimal value, or any one component moves into very unproductive territory. In particular, no matter what the level of CO2, many plants will shut down photosynthesis if they are losing too much moisture (due to elevated temperatures or dry conditions) and so are unable to productively keep their stomata open to take in the required CO2. So it is ridiculously simplistic to focus on one element like CO2 and to say that more is better without bothering to focus on other factors. And, in fact, because different plants have evolved for different conditions, even more CO2 may not be in our best interests. As one example, Corn is a C4 plant that has evolved to live with less water and lower CO2 levels. A change in CO2 or an accompanying change in temperature and moisture could easily make other plants more competitive, and reduce corn crop outputs. The same applies to any crop or plant you can think of. Yes, more CO2, under the right conditions may be good for plants in general... but not the same plants that enjoy dominance in today's climate. -
Tom Curtis at 01:10 AM on 8 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part Two: The White Queen
Captain Pithart @3, the fact that you found the article at Hockey Schtick is a bad sign. The triply cherry picked temperature graph across the top of their page clearly shows that they are intent on distorting data for the service of ideology. Putting that aside, Ridley's argument is an act of masterful misdirection. At the Earth's surface there are four great reservoirs of carbon, the Ocean, Soil, the biosphere, and the atmosphere. Of these the atmosphere is the smallest. Each is in approximate equilibrium with the others, such that an increase in carbon in one reservoir will result in an increase in the others. In addition, there are seasonal fluctuations in storage in the reservoirs, mostly related to the growth, fall and decay of deciduous leaves in the Northern Hemisphere. The 97% percent of CO2 that Ridley quotes consists almost entirely of flows from one reservoir to another. It is as though you where tracking the money trail of a criminal syndicate, and found they frequently transferred large amounts of money between four bank accounts. Such activity would be great for money laundering if the investigators kept their eyes firmly on transfers between the accounts. But a smart investigator would watch for transfers into those accounts from other sources, and out of those accounts to other locations. It does not matter how small a percentage of total transactions those external transfers constitute of the whole, it is they and they alone that tell you where the money is coming from, and where it is going. In the natural world, we know a lot about those external transfers of Carbon. We know that some carbon is carried into the ocean depths and forms sedimentary rock, which is then carried into the Earth's interior at subduction zones. We know a small amount is carried back in by volcanoes. And we also know a small amount is carried out by fossilization of animal and plant matter. That is it. That is all of the natural "external transfers" of carbon. We also know something about their magnitude. We know that the amount of carbon carried out by sedimentation and subduction approximately equals that carried in by vulcanism. We know that that amount is approximately 1/100th of the amount carried in by the burning of fossil fuels by humans. We know the amount carried out by fossilization is about one millionth of that carried in by the burning of fossil fuels. We know that the natural factors are in approximate balance, only increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 25 ppm over the last 8 thousand years, and that with a lot of help from deforestation, and agricultural methane production by human:
Clearly such processes are not the cause of the 110 ppm increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere over the last 100 years.
That is the result of human use of fossil fuels.
If you keep your eye on the "external transfers", that is blindingly obvious, with human consumption of fossil fuels representing approximately 99% of external transfers. So, with a clever piece of carbon laundering, Ridley tries to keep your attention completely focused on the internal transfers. It's a con game. Don't be fooled by it.
-
Bob Lacatena at 00:59 AM on 8 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
101, Norman, I'm not sure how your Omaha example can be taken to mean anything one way or another. A single, specific location over a period shorter than two years? Crossing the seasons? Including various ENSO events? That's like flipping a coin once, and then declaring that coins will always come up heads when flipped, because it did 100% of the time in your sample test. -
Captain Pithart at 23:12 PM on 7 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part Two: The White Queen
ridley has a new article up in WSJ, full version at "Hockey Schtick". in it he states: »But then the total carbon-dioxide emissions from biological sources—animals, plants, fungi and microbes—dwarf those from fossil fuels and amount to some 800 billion tons a year. So although it is a myth that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels do, the natural world far outpaces our cars and factories. Roughly 97% of the carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere each year is from nature, not human activity.« but he does note that Ian Plimer's opinion on volcanoes is fringe. p. -
critical mass at 22:54 PM on 7 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
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.Response:[DB] Not to pick on them unduly, but those individuals have a long history of selective focus when it comes to posting comments at SkS.
-
Andy Skuce at 13:24 PM on 7 August 2011Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
Michael of Brisbane @9 Tamino has a new post on this: Bag of Hammers II Gavin Schmidt had a comment, as well: ludicrous. We'll have to wait to see his figures and his text to properly take it apart. -
Andy Skuce at 12:52 PM on 7 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part Two: The White Queen
According to Wiki: The term "naturalistic fallacy" is also sometimes used to describe the deduction of an "ought" from an "is" (the Is–ought problem), and has inspired the use of mutually reinforcing terminology which describes the converse (deducing an "is" from an "ought") either as the "reverse naturalistic fallacy" or the "moralistic fallacy." Yes, my usage was in this loose sense, which is not the original and more correct definition of the term. -
Norman at 12:49 PM on 7 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Albatross @ 96 I read the Zhou et al. (2010) paper you linked to. What the paper seems to be saying is that the ALL simulations (ones with both anthropogenic and natural forcing) could not match observed DTR. The model simulations did not have a large enough DTR. In this paper they talk about another paper Dai et al. (1999) which I looked up. This paper makes the claim that 80% of the observed DTR can be explained by a slight increase in cloud cover over the time of observation. From the Dai article (co-written by you friend Kevin E. Trenberth): "The historical records of DTR of the twentieth century covary inversely with cloud cover and precipitation on interannual to multidecadal timescales over the United States, Australia, midlatitude Canada, and former U.S.S.R., and up to 80% of the DTR variance can be explained by the cloud and precipitation records. Given the strong damping effect of clouds on the daytime maximum temperature and DTR, the well-established worldwide asymmetric trends of the daytime and nighttime temperatures and the DTR decreases during the last 4–5 decades are consistent with the reported increasing trends in cloud cover and precipitation over many land areas and support the notion that the hydrologic cycle has intensified." Link to Dai article. On a bigger scale number crunching. I have been entering daily High and Low temperature for Omaha, Nebraska for the past 626 days. I did the Daily high temp minus normal high temp and averaged the 626 days. I came up with -0.65 F. I also did the low temp = the low normal and came up with 2.48 F. The High temps are cooler while the low temps are warmer. Clouds explain 80% of this effect. -
Camburn at 11:48 AM on 7 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Actually, the process of photosynthisis is much more complicated than presented here, and requires interplay between more nutrients. The structural strength of cell walls etc are a huge component. This requires the micro nutrients at play. The optimum temp of optimum photosysnthis is plant dependant. As an example, wheat is what is called a cool season grass. Optimum growth is obtained at approx 76F. Corn is a warmer season type grass. Optimum temp is 81F. Rye grass is 71F. It is hard to pin an overall optimum temp for constructive vegetative growth as the window is in fact quit large. -
robert test at 10:59 AM on 7 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part Two: The White Queen
"In his earlier books, Ridley mostly avoided the pitfall of the Naturalistic Fallacy, in which a natural is is confused with an ethical ought." Interesting that you link to the article on the naturalistic fallacy at Wikipedia. According to the article: "The naturalistic fallacy is related to (and even confused with) the is–ought problem, which comes from Hume's Treatise." The British philosopher G.E. Moore coined the fallacy and if I recall correctly from reading him more than 30 years ago, Moore doesn't talk about moral "oughts" at all. He is merely rejecting the idea that the concept of 'good' can be defined in terms of natural qualities such as pleasure or absence of pain. To define good (a non-natural property) in terms of a natural property is to commit the naturalistic fallacy. -
Tom Curtis at 10:24 AM on 7 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Clarrifying my 188, an oxygen atom is split of the CO2 in the reduction process, releasing water as waste. So Neilrick's original statement about the source of the oxygen molecules is correct. The essential point still stands, however. -
Tom Curtis at 10:17 AM on 7 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Neilrick @183, I'm no expert, but as glucose contains carbon, a source of carbon (CO2) must also be used in photosynthesis. Indeed, based on the generalized equation for photosynthesis, at least half of the oxygen released by the process must come from CO2: CO2 + 2H2A --light--> CH2O + 2A + H2O (where A is Oxygen in normal photosynthesis, and Sulfur in green sulfur bacteria) In essence the process could be understood as hydrogen being split from water by light, releasing oxygen as waste, and then the hydrogen reducing CO2, releasing half of the oxygen bound in the CO2 as waste. Moving to the essential point, regardless of the source of the oxygen, CO2 is still necessary for the formation of the sugar. Therefore higher concentrations of CO2 will make photosynthesis proceed faster, all else being equal. Of course, all else is definitely not equal in a warming world, as you point out. -
John Hartz at 10:14 AM on 7 August 2011Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
@Eternal Sunshine #10: Is there such a thing as "downlifting" music? -
Eternal Sunshine at 09:48 AM on 7 August 2011Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
I agree with Daniel J. Andrews that the background music is too loud - you might also reconsider the choice of music itself, which is a bad fit, IMO, no matter at what volume; what does this MOR uplifting tune have to do with the message that you're conveying? Nothing, I'd say. -
Muzz at 09:23 AM on 7 August 2011OA not OK part 14: Going down
The scientific discourse on this site is always interesting and there will continue to be plenty of interesting discourse into the future because the man-made CO2 being released into the atmosphere will continue to increase for many years to come. -
Michael of Brisbane at 07:53 AM on 7 August 2011Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
Yes, nice work John. (although I think the comparison to two of the greatest actors ever, is a slight s..trr..e..t..c..h, light-hearted as it may be) :) I visited SKS today with the hope of reading y'all's opinion on the forthcoming paper by Murry Salby. I know the paper hasn't been released yet, but it has passed peer review apparently. Please visit Jo Nova's site for more info. I'd like to know what the readers of SKS think. (maybe you'll start a series of "Salby's Slip-ups", or "Murry's Mayhem", "Murry's Mirth", or "Salby's Subterfuge"?)Moderator Response: [mc] Yes, the Salby talk came up, starting here. Subterfuge indeed. -
rockytom at 07:46 AM on 7 August 2011Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
Just say TH#2 and it was much better than the 1st. Keep at it and it will get even better. Each segment is about the right length for those with ASD. Tom -
muoncounter at 07:21 AM on 7 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
EtR#186: No, it means that during an approximately 2 year volcanic aerosol induced 'global cooling' event, a higher percentage of CO2 was taken out of the atmosphere, apparently due to conditions conducive to enhanced plant growth. Hence the obvious flat spot.
Your point in #184 refers to 'average temperature'; without further specification, that means annual average. Wouldn't it be more relevant to look at average temperature during the active growth season?
DB -- see #182.
Moderator Response:[DB] My bad...buttinski response withdrawn (I picked a bad day to stop drinking bourbon).
-
Eric the Red at 05:22 AM on 7 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Muon, Does that mean that 76F is not optimum for photosynthesis? I am not a biologist, so I was taking Neil's statements at face value. -
John Hartz at 03:56 AM on 7 August 2011Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
Given how intrinsic cycles are in the natural world and in the human experience, no one should be surprised that people gravitate to cyclical explanations of events. Unfortunately, there is nothing cyclical about mankind's release of C02 into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Since the Industrial Revolution the rate of increase has been grwoing expnentially and, under a business as usual scenario, will continue to do so -- at least until the annual demand for fossil fuels exceeds what can be extracted annually. -
muoncounter at 03:20 AM on 7 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
EtR#184: "... a temperature increase would move plant life closer to its optimal temperature for photosynthesis" And yet we find the opposite: During the post Pinatubo cooling, the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 dropped markedly due to enhanced photosynthesis -- clearly seen as the early 90s flat spot on the familiar CO2 graphs. From Robock 2003, Enhanced forward scattering of incoming solar radiation caused by the Pinatubo aerosols increased the diffuse radiation reaching the surface and decreased the direct flux. This allowed plants to photosynthesize more of the time, increasing the CO2 sink ... model experiments showed that the cool temperatures over land following volcanic eruptions produced reduced soil and plant respiration globally and enhanced gross primary productivity in the tropics, both of which would also reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations. On a related note, temperature impacts maximum tree height, but not in a good way: The group used the same model to predict what would happen to tree height in the event of global temperature changes, and found that with an increase of 2 degrees Celsius across the country, the average height of the tallest trees would shrink by 11 percent. Conversely, a dip of 2 degrees Celsius would spur trees to sprout up by 13 percent. -
John Hartz at 03:14 AM on 7 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
@pirate #54: You simply cannot assume that the relationship between global temperature and CO2 concentrations that are observed over geologoical time (millions of years) must hold true in the extremely brief time-scale of hundreds of years. The time since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is a mere blink of the eye with respect to geological time. -
Daniel J. Andrews at 02:39 AM on 7 August 2011Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists
John has a great voice for this so let the background music be a bit more background. It is a bit overpowering. Otherwise, looking forward to many more of these. --dan -
John Hartz at 02:32 AM on 7 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
For old farts like me who have diminished hearing, the background music is way too loud. Also. if Hugh Laurie can master an American accent in oder to play the title role in the TV series House, why can't John Cook do the same? -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:00 AM on 7 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Pirate @ 54... I'm very curious, what makes you think that climate scientists have not considered the CO2 lag? Again, you have to understand that one of the best understood aspects of global warming is the radiative effects of CO2. It seems to me that you are not clear on why CO2 acts as a feedback relative to natural releases of CO2, but also acts as a forcing when we add CO2 to the atmosphere. -
Eric the Red at 01:33 AM on 7 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Neil, Be careful with your argument. Much of the world's plant life is location in regions were the average temperature is well below 76F. Therefore, a temperature increase would move plant life closer to its optimal temperature for photosynthesis. Your water analysis is true wherever water is the limiting factor to plant growth. Other factors may be the limiter; temperature, sunlight, nutrients, even CO2. In areas where water is the limiting factor and evaporation outpaces precipitation photosynthesis will decrease. -
neilrieck at 01:12 AM on 7 August 2011More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
To add insult to injury, many people walk around reciting this grade-school explanation of photosynthesis: "CO2 is converted into O2". A college-level explanation of molecular biology tells us that "all the O2" liberated by plants comes from the photolysis of water (this was proved by radioactive tagging). In this model, hydrogen liberated by the photolysis of water is combined with CO2 to produce glucose. O2 is discarded as waste. Why should anyone care about this detail? Answer: Higher CO2 levels will drive up atmospheric temperature which will increase evaporation. This will cause less H2O to be available for photosynthesis, and it is H2O which will be the limiting factor, not CO2. Less photosynthesis will reduce our food supply while allowing CO2 levels to rise higher. Speculation: to avoid a CO2 run-away effect, humanity may need to engage in a world-wide terraforming of Earth just to get the CO2 problem under control. -
Doug Mackie at 15:27 PM on 6 August 2011OA not OK part 13: Polymorphs - the son of Poseidon
mea culpa on that one. Keith pointed that out that in the proofing rounds several weeks ago. I thought I had fixed it. Recapitulated etchings here. -
pbjamm at 13:54 PM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
apiratelooksat50 @54 (haha) Seriously, this is not Rocket Surgery. CO2 levels increase following temperature increases. By your previous comments you accept this as true. Physics tells us that increasing CO2 levels will cause more heat to be trapped creating a feed back loop. Currently CO2 is LEADING temperature which is, according to data presented by you, unprecedented in the records. Put these facts together and you have temperature increasing due to CO2 levels which will cause CO2 levels to rise even more as it is released from whatever sinks it was trapped in in the previous cycles. Not too complicated even for a simpleton like myself. -
muoncounter at 13:20 PM on 6 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
Eric#99: "I would say 91.5 is the new 90" Well, that's something of a start. "The current 100's are mostly weather" OK, so I'll quote the rest of Tobis' posting: Climate change is always in the future. What we are seeing is merely weather. It is in the nature of Climate change that you can never observe it because only weather is observable. So everything is fine, Austin will never have a string of days over 110 F, and even when we do it will be a coincidence... That guy's a hoot. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:20 PM on 6 August 2011The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
"100 is the new 90". Being generous (since lows warm more than highs) I would say 91.5 is the new 90 (at least in the US http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110629_newnormals.html The current 100's are mostly weather, helped along to some extent by AGW. The blocking high phenomenon behind the current extremes can be discussed on another thread, perhaps AGW-related but certainly debatable and too soon to see a trend. -
Keith Hunter at 12:08 PM on 6 August 2011OA not OK part 13: Polymorphs - the son of Poseidon
Small correction: radiolaria are Protozoa, i.e. animals (in fact the smallest of all animals), unlike diatoms which are photosynthetic. -
SEAN O at 11:56 AM on 6 August 2011Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
DB, I was refeering to the first one, the second is new to me, but it explains all.
Prev 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 Next
