Weather Acting Funny in Your Neighbourhood?


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Postby figo » Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:40 am

Global warming causes heat wave

Beijing reports record high temperatures

After temperature records were broken on "Lichun" (the beginning of spring, the first of China's 24 traditional agricultural "terms" in the lunar calendar, which this year fell on February 4), Beijing reported another record high temperature of 16 degrees Celsius on the afternoon of February 5, the highest recorded temperature on that date in the last 167 years (systematic temperature records have been kept since 1840). Meteorological data shows that the average temperature in Beijing last December and this January were significantly higher than in previous years and that trend will continue this month. Meteorological experts say that the recent abnormally high temperatures have seldom been seen during this period at any time in history. Temperatures also remain high in Harbin city. The snow in the streets is melting. In Shanghai, the temperature was above 20 degrees Celsius for a few days in early


record high = global warming......
record lows = elnino backed off a bit.


Global warming report nails shut scientific debate
Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Looking out West Michigan windows these days, it's hard to imagine global warming as anything other than science fiction. Skeptics take a lot of false comfort from anecdotal evidence, yet the ice, cold and snow of this and the past week is just a blip in the cumulative weather data of the centuries.


the global warming / mass media are rapidly evolving into a nazi style group,
bullies with an agenda to wipe out counter argument on the topic. stalin / hitler would be impressed with their efforts. how many researchers looking at global cooling are going to get grant money???

Oregon Governor Set to Fire State Climatologist Over Global Warming
http://newsbusters.org/node/10665
Can your job really be at risk if you don’t buy into the junk science of anthropogenic global warming? Well, that certainly seems to be the case in Oregon.

As reported by the Beaver State’s KGW.com (h/t Drudge):

In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.

Like a George Romero movie, the article eerily continued:

Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.

His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies.

So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.

Imagine that. But it gets worse:

In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.

Suddenly, “An Inconvenient Truth” is becoming seriously inconvenient to those who don’t believe it. Isn’t the Party on the left marketed as the big tent of tolerance?

What’s wrong with this picture?


[Global warming to cost us
Millions will be spent on higher prices, fixes, study says

By DAN RICHMAN
P-I REPORTER
Global warming is known to be destructive, but a study released Wednesday shows it also will be expensive, costing Washington state and its residents millions of dollars in higher prices and remedial measures.

mass media knows whats what...dooms day for washington... but if it doesn't happen, i suppose elnino is backing off a bit again...


every important topic needs to be researched pro and con.
you want criticism of your argument to make it robust, sound and of quality.
the ear mark of bad science is poli-science and that's what you have here.
the focus of the debate is largely rhetorical and personality driven with facts left on the sideline and the spin front and center.


a mature approach would be to study the possible positive and negative effects of potential global warming/cooling.
if computer models are to be used for major decision making, those models should be studied for accuracy, first over the short term and then look at long term efficacy.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby bad hammy » Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:43 am

figo,

You seem a tad fixated over this whole thing . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby figo » Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:52 am

these guys know a nazi when they see one.
by the way, this following article is not by me, i'm slightly surprised to see pretty much identical conclusions by this fine fellow.....
one might think that a group of environmental professionals would be biased toward global warming predictions, but think again..


http://www.hvjournal.com/articles.php?id=3228&art_title=Global_Warming...Says_Who

Global Warming...Says Who?
- For the Journal Global Warming...Says Who?

The National Registry of Environmental Professionals (NREP), released a survey of its professional society members on November 16, 2006 that completely discredits Al Gore’s bogus claim that “the debate is over.” More than 12,000 environmental scientists participated in the survey that revealed the following conclusions:

34 percent do not even believe that global warming is a serious problem.

41 percent do not believe that the global warming trend can be attributed to human activity.
71 percent do not believe that recent hurricane activity is to human activity.

33 percent disagree that the U.S. government is not doing enough to address global warming
47 percent disagree that international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol provide a solid framework for combating global climate change.

These results demonstrate that many scientists believe climate variance is not a terribly pressing issue and that recent warming trends are no more alarming than many other naturally occurring warming trends in our recent past. This, of course, contradicts claims by environmental propagandists that the debate is over and that virtually all scientists agree humans are causing substantial and ominous global warming.

This poll shows the real environmental experts are very much divided on the issue, and for good reason.

For one, global temperatures are currently rising at only 0.12 to 0.17 (depending on whether one believes satellite measurements or ground station measurements) degrees Celsius per decade. This translates to only 1.2 to 1.7 degrees warming over the entire next century, even if no intervening cooling periods occur_which, historically, they always have.

Moreover, we are currently in a recurring cycle of approximately 100,000 years of advancing glaciers followed by 10,000 years of interglacial warming. Our current interglacial is roughly 10,000 years old, and by historic standards we are overdue for another ice age. In the preceding four interglacials, temperatures reached an average of 3 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. In other words, we would need another two centuries of current warming trends merely to reach typical interglacial temperatures. It goes without saying that those past warming periods were not caused by man or his use of fossil fuels.

“Worst-case” temperature projections are constantly being lowered as we learn more about the science of climate variance. In its upcoming Fourth Assessment, for example, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is reducing its worst-case temperature projections by more than 20 percent from what it projected just five years ago.
Invoking “consensus” to avoid debating the very real complexities of climate variance is at best a mistake, and at worst a purposeful distortion of the truth. Pretending that all resistance to catastrophic predictions is based on a confusion of science does not make the facts keeping the debate alive go away. Al Gore’s saying it, does not make it so.

Gore’s attempt to end debate is not unlike the education “experts” attempts to end debate over another theory, the theory of evolution. This kind of approach to research is eerily similar to Nazi, Communist and other dictatorial regimes. Is Mr. Gore serious? Deluded? Or out of his mind? Since when is “the debate over” on any subject.

And, as the NREP poll confirms, the debate over global warming is most certainly not “over.”[i]
[/i]
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby figo » Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:53 am

bad hammy wrote:figo,

You seem a tad fixated over this whole thing . . .


a tad? how about very tad.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby tafnut » Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:01 pm

figo wrote:
bad hammy wrote:figo,
You seem a tad fixated over this whole thing . . .

a tad? how about very tad.


I bet on the "Global Warming News" Message Boards, you kill!!!
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby figo » Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:36 pm

tafnut wrote:
figo wrote:
bad hammy wrote:figo,
You seem a tad fixated over this whole thing . . .

a tad? how about very tad.


I bet on the "Global Warming News" Message Boards, you kill!!!


from killer to tafnut. you're joking or off on a tangent, maybe there's no hope for you, but i'll try and expand on my thinking/ purpose

for the record, in the past i've operated an environmental testing firm, analyzing water, plants, soils, foods, tissue for such things as pcb, pah, mercury, lead, dioxins, petroleum, etc, etc, advised on contaminated sites, toxicity issues for many large companies.... i'm pretty proud of my small part in cleaning up this section of the world.

in the process, on many occasions scientific issues became political and in the end many a Ph.D. was found to be off their rocker, but of course some Ph.D.'s on the other side of the equation were correct.

to resolve controversial issues, i resorted to a show me that data approach, rather than believe anyone based on credentials. people with good credentials can produce good work of course, but i've caught a few out right lying to cover up errors, personal gain, vendettas, you name it.

you got to realize scientists are human and a bunch of them together often create a soap opera like you've never seen on tv...

laypeople often don't know these things.

moving forward, i'm involved in a number of green projects.... and watching with great interest the evolution of the global warming issue as there is the potential for the greatest waste of environmental clean up dollars in the history of mankind, bar none.

if you think mocking global warmers = non green
you = stupid
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby SQUACKEE » Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:46 pm

Id guess 90% of global warming skeptics are greenies. We want a clean earth, we breath the same air and drink the same water as everyone else.We have children we want to see enjoy a wonderful life.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby lonewolf » Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:37 pm

I have had my say about global warming but I do have an anecdote about environmental hysteria run amok.

For several years I was involved with a small, minority owned oil refinery producing jet fuel for DOD. The refinery was in a rural area, 12 miles from the nearest town, two miles from any inhabited house and six miles from any watercourse. The 40 acre site was surrounded by a 10' chain link fence with locked gates. The tank farm was enclosed by a berm with capacity more than twice the capacity of the tanks. The refinery had operated with a clean record for more than twenty years under existing federal and state enviromemtal laws and supervision. The approved method for handling small spills was to scoop up a generous amount of dirt from which, in most cases, the hydrocarbons (diesel,gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel) had already evaporated and "farm" it by spreading it on the grass inside the fence.

In the course of a periodic federal government test, a small amount of kerosene (estimated at less than a barrel) overflowed from a tower due to a defective tray. Safety devices immediately shut down the refinery. A minute amount ran off the slab onto the ground. This was not crude oil but a refined product which quickly disappeared into the soil.

A spill of this magnitude normally required a man, a shovel and a wheel barrow to transport a few cubic feet of dirt to the grass. In this instance, a freshly minted government observer out to throw his weight around and make his reputation, armed with his own rightousness and the power of the federal government to approve or deny the DOD jet fuel contract ordered that a huge amount of dirt (many, many truck loads) be excavated and transported 500 miles to an incinerator on the gulf coast. The cost of curing this non-existent problem by this draconian method would have exceeded the value of this small topping unit.

Eventually, cooler and wiser heads at DOD intervened. The resolution was to treat an unnecessay amount of the offending dirt chemically and farm it in the traditional manner. In the meantime, DOD lost 10,000 bbls/day of much needed jet fuel for several weeks.

If there is a moral to this story, it is that things are seldom as bad as they seem at first knee jerk. The earth is not going to melt or freeze over. It will keep evolving, with or without man's help or obstruction, just as God, Allah, Budda, Mother Nature or whoever is in charge of such things,sees fit.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8812
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby figo » Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:30 pm

these kind of misled environmentalists (see excellent lonewolf example) run amock and in abundance in our local environmental industry, especially in the 1990-2000 era where new regulations came in, some of which established guidelines (interpreted as rock solid standards at times) toxicity limits for a few metals that were below crustal abundances. i kid you not, the guidelines for chromium and barium were set at something like 50 parts per million while crustal abundances are 100 or greater. so when we put out a report, some Ph.D. (got a job outside his field typically) would call and ask for a retest for barium or chromium..... due to exceeding toxicity guidelines..... as a rookie i just could not believe this primitive idiocy. the usual problem is that actually did not know their stuff.

Ph.D. my ass. anyway, after a while, i got used to it and concluded that we're closely related to apes, do wonder we behave like gorillas, chimps and oraguatans.
the dark ages were not so long ago, we still tend to vodo, burning witches, pagan religions...

generally speaking, once you wrapped peoples heads around the common sense of the situation (don't cart away 100 tons of soil with 75 ppm Cr), disaster was avoided.... except when you had the real stubborn doc hell bent on thumping his version of the scientific bible. these kinds almost without exception in the long term get kicked out of whatever organization they are associated with, but not after creating several years worth of disasterous projects. many are so bizarre that a special section in rippley's beleve it or not needs creating, more unbelievable than a half-elvis/half-bigfoot lovechild auditions for american idol or something like that.

man is still maturing, maybe we're half way there? at best?

there are very large lonewolf cases - multi-multi-multi million dollar ones that are just as stupid..... see the connection with concern about a bunch of Ph.D''s run amock.

a sideline note is i found that the us-epa is 1000x better than our local bc ministry of the environment. we are really pathetic.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby tafnut » Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:40 pm

figo wrote:from killer to tafnut. you're joking or off on a tangent, maybe there's no hope for you


well, first of all, there is indeed 'no hope' for me (yet paradoxically, my older sister's name IS Hope, so there's ALWAYS been Hope for me), but of course, I was COMPLIMENTING you on your overwhelming knowledge and passion for the subject, regardless of which side you're on! :D
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby figo » Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:42 pm

Last edited by figo on Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby figo » Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:50 pm

tafnut wrote:
figo wrote:from killer to tafnut. you're joking or off on a tangent, maybe there's no hope for you


well, first of all, there is indeed 'no hope' for me (yet paradoxically, my older sister's name IS Hope, so there's ALWAYS been Hope for me), but of course, I was COMPLIMENTING you on your overwhelming knowledge and passion for the subject, regardless of which side you're on! :D


i'm stupid to confuse a compliment with whatever i thought it was.
since i'm a bit stupid at least, maybe i don't deserve a compliment in the first place, but i'll take it anyway before you have the chance to change your mind.
thanks.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby tandfman » Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:02 pm

figo wrote:if you think mocking global warmers = non green
you = stupid

I think a green should understand that mocking global warmers = giving comfort to the enemy. And the enemy is complacency about serious enviornmental issues.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby figo » Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:14 pm

global warmers, if wrong will fup the green movement big time.
better to have the world to give it a very good look now.
study, test, study, debate and action once you know what the hell.

those got it nailed guys really bug me.

time for me to make some shoes for the kids, maybe i'll be a little scarce the next while. over to you lonewolf?
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby lonewolf » Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:38 pm

i think it has all been a said . I don't believe there are going to be any converts from either side. So, I am just going to go work Tyson this weekend and let you guys slug it out.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8812
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby tandfman » Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:43 pm

figo wrote:global warmers, if wrong will fup the green movement big time.

Perhaps. But if right, and if ignored, their inability to motivate those who need to act will fup the world.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby SQUACKEE » Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:51 pm

Showing President Bush as a monkey has changed my mind on global warming. Bush- monkey.=Global-warming. Genius!
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby EPelle » Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:02 am

Got into a long discussion this morning with a cleaner guy here at work. He says this whole GW talk is science-speak. He was passionately sinister in his views.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby SQUACKEE » Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:08 am

Im bloody freezing here in New England, below zero wind chill every morning for weeks. 2/9/07 -12 windchill forcast! Burrrrrr......
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby MJD » Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:00 am

They actually figure it will be 10 feet by the time it is finished.


http://wcbstv.com/watercooler/local_sto ... 73525.html
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Mennisco » Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:02 am

EPelle wrote:Got into a long discussion this morning with a cleaner guy here at work. He says this whole GW talk is science-speak. He was passionately sinister in his views.


Yes, and the Earth is most definitely flat.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby figo » Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:59 pm

2000-6 largest agricultural production period in history for india and pakistan.

http://www.gdnet.org/pdf2/gdn_library/annual_conferences/fifth_annual_conference/kurosaki_paper.pdf

this is a very burdensome article to read but see figure 1 on page 12 which shows the very dramatic improvement in agricultural production of india and pakistan.

every decade without exception there is a big increase in food production.
which corresponds nicely with an increase in co2....

is co2 the cause of improved crops, i have no idea, maybe eh?
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby figo » Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:12 pm

http://www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/I.2Indicators.pdf

longer growing seasons for northwest usa? data looks ok...

but on second glance the data is spun a bit .. they take a baseline from 1890 when the world was coming out of a little ice age....(correlated with solar activity - lack of sunspots data)

still it looks like things have warmed up a bit..

whatever the reason, for this part of the world, farmers got to love it.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby Daisy » Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:16 pm

figo wrote:is co2 the cause of improved crops, i have no idea, maybe eh?

I doubt it. More likey they have better varieties (disease resistance) and more access to chemicals (pesticides). After insects, water would be the next big environmental factor and if working with poor soil, nitrogen and phosphates. I'm betting all of these factors can be attributed to the increases in yield.

By the way, I'm not sure the global warming scientists are predicting that it means warmer weather for all. They are saying it means changing weather for all. There will be winners and losers, of course.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am


Postby bad hammy » Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:53 pm

figo,

You seem a tad obsessed. Get a life . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby figo » Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:55 pm

i'm kind of wondering what the bad effects of global warming are, right now.

forget about the so called strange local weather we're all having, check out what is happening to the world economy and agricultural production... a nice big averaging effect to put things into a proper perspective.

just about every agricultural graph for whatever, from whatever country, from whatever source goes up, hot or cold country no matter continuously over the last century.......

exceptions are citrus in the us, and africa overall.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby figo » Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:02 pm

Daisy wrote:
figo wrote:is co2 the cause of improved crops, i have no idea, maybe eh?

I doubt it. More likey they have better varieties (disease resistance) and more access to chemicals (pesticides). After insects, water would be the next big environmental factor and if working with poor soil, nitrogen and phosphates. I'm betting all of these factors can be attributed to the increases in yield.

By the way, I'm not sure the global warming scientists are predicting that it means warmer weather for all. They are saying it means changing weather for all. There will be winners and losers, of course.


Plants Will Grow More Rapidly With Higher Carbon Dioxide

Soy will grow more rapidly in higher CO2.

Although ozone slows plant growth, the beneficial effect of the carbon dioxide more than compensates for this effect, Leakey found. His unpublished results predict an increase in soy yields of 13% by 2050. US farmers currently plant about 150 million acres of soybean a year.

The following press release emphasies that the increased plant growth in the presence of higher CO2 is not enough to take all the CO2 out of the atmosphere. But the fact that the trees and plants grow more rapidly is economically valuable.

OAK RIDGE, Tenn., Feb. 16, 2004 -- Trees absorb more carbon dioxide when the amount in the atmosphere is higher, but the increase is unlikely to offset the higher levels of CO2, according to results from large-scale experiments conducted at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and elsewhere.

"Some people have used carbon dioxide fertilization to argue that this is a boon of the fossil fuel era and that it will lead to greater agricultural yields and carbon sinks," said Richard Norby of the Department of Energy's ORNL. "Some recent experiments, however, have suggested that there will be no lasting effect of carbon dioxide fertilization. As is often the case, the truth may lie in between."

Norby is among several scientists participating in a panel discussion titled "CO2 Fertilization: Boon or Bust?" Feb. 16 at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Seattle.

For the last six years, Norby and colleagues at ORNL have examined the responses to elevated carbon dioxide levels in a stand of sweetgum trees a few miles from ORNL. The experiment consisted of pumping tons of carbon dioxide into the plots, raising the concentration of carbon dioxide in the tree stand from the ambient level of about 370 parts per million to 550 ppm, and studying the effects.
...

In every year since the FACE project began, net primary productivity, which is the total amount of carbon dioxide fixed into organic matter such as leaves, stems and roots, has been higher in plots given extra carbon dioxide. The average increase has been 24 percent, and there is no indication that the increase will not continue. But, Norby notes, while his colleagues have observed a sustained increase in leaf photosynthesis, the response to carbon dioxide fertilization would not be apparent if only above-ground growth were measured. Wood production increased significantly during only the first year of treatment.

While Norby and colleagues have learned a great deal about above-ground allocation of carbon dioxide, in recent years they have focused their efforts on impacts on fine roots and soil sequestration of carbon dioxide. Fine root production has increased substantially in response to elevated carbon dioxide.

Fine roots are important for water and nutrient uptake, but they have a short life and their carbon returns to the soil within a year. Initial results suggest that the increase in carbon supply to fine roots has increased the carbon content of the soil. Norby cautions, however, that the positive effect of carbon dioxide fertilization is insufficient to halt the rising level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

If some types of forest trees will grow more rapidly then higher atmospheric CO2 holds the prospect of lowering timber costs and hence of lowering housing and furniture costs.

Another forest experiment shows CO2 raises tree growth rates.

SEATTLE -- A futuristic Duke University simulation of forest growth under the carbon dioxide-enriched atmosphere expected by 2050 does not reinforce the optimism of those who believe trees can absorb that extra CO2 by growing faster, said a spokesman for the experiment.
During seven years of exposure to carbon dioxide concentrations 1½ times higher than today's, test plots of loblolly pines have indeed boosted their annual growth rates by between 10 and 25 percent, found the researchers. But "the highest responses have been in the driest years, and the effect of CO2 has been much less in normal and wet years," said William Schlesinger, a professor of biogeochemistry and dean of Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences.

These counterintuitive findings suggest that nitrogen deficiencies common to forest soils in the Southeastern United States may limit the abilities of loblolly pine forests to use the extra CO2 to produce more tissues as they take in more of the gas, he said.

"In a dry year trees naturally grow less so the amount of nitrogen doesn't make any difference," he said. "In a wet year, when there's plenty of water, the amount of nitrogen does make a difference." Tree growth depends on the availability of nitrogen, which foresters routinely add to Southeastern soils in the form of fertilizer when they plant trees, he added.

One advantage the plants may have in dry years is that with more CO2 in the atmosphere the leaves do not have to open their pores as much to let in the CO2. This reduces water loss from evaporation and allows plants to grow in dry environments. This explanation has been put forward to explain plant growth into the Negev desert in Israel.

The really bad news? More poison ivy:

Meanwhile, some other species in Duke's CO2-bathed forest plots have grown at faster rates than the loblolly pines, scientists report. Still-unpublished data shows 70 percent growth increases for poison ivy, according to Schlesinger.

It seems likely that the growth increase caused by higher CO2 will differ by tree species. Some will experience larger increases in growth rates and others will benefit from higher CO2 to a lesser extent. Also, since water is more of a rate-limiting factor in some areas and less in other areas the extent of the benefit of higher CO2 in terms of faster growth in lower water conditions will be greater in some geographic regions and less in other regions. Higher CO2 probably will increase total tree cover in drier areas and may even make it possible to grow trees into deserts as appears to be happening with the Negev.

Another factor to consider: It should be possible to select for or genetically engineer crop plants that will grow even faster in higher CO2 conditions. So the extent of the benefit of high CO2 seen with existing crop plants understates the size of the benefit likely to be achievable in the longer run.

Of course, higher atmospheric CO2 levels will cause many other effects. If higher CO2 raises global temperatures it could change precipitation patterns, total global precipitation, length of growing seasons (generally longer), wind patterns, and other many other factors. How will all this work out in terms of benefits and costs? It seems impossible at this point to hazard a guess that will have any degree of accuracy. But it seems clear that rising atmospheric CO2 will generate not just costs but benefits as well.


http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001938.html
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby figo » Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:03 pm

bad hammy wrote:figo,

You seem a tad obsessed. Get a life . . .


hammy, go watch some tv and make your self useless (more).
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby figo » Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:07 pm

i'm sorry daisy........

Daisy wrote:
figo wrote:is co2 the cause of improved crops, i have no idea, maybe eh?

I doubt it. More likey they have better varieties (disease resistance) and more access to chemicals (pesticides). After insects, water would be the next big environmental factor and if working with poor soil, nitrogen and phosphates. I'm betting all of these factors can be attributed to the increases in yield.

By the way, I'm not sure the global warming scientists are predicting that it means warmer weather for all. They are saying it means changing weather for all. There will be winners and losers, of course.


The Net Primary Productivity Response of Earth's Temperate Forests to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment
Volume 9, Number 28: 12 July 2006
In a study recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Norby et al., 2005), an international team of 19 researchers states that "experiments have unequivocally shown that plants can grow faster and larger in a CO2-enriched atmosphere, and the mechanisms of response are well understood." Furthermore, they state that computer simulations of "climatic responses to atmospheric CO2 will be incorrect if the magnitude of the CO2 fertilization effect is not represented accurately." Hence, to help overcome this deficiency (which is but one of many inherent in even the most advanced of today's climate models), they provide an analysis of the net primary productivity (NPP) response of closed-canopy forests to increases in the air's CO2 concentration in the only Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) studies that have been conducted on assemblages of trees that were large enough and spatially concentrated enough to meet this important criterion of realism.


http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N28/EDIT.jsp
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby Daisy » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:18 am

figo wrote:i'm sorry daisy........

I didn't say it had no effect. I said there are other factors that dwarf any effect an increase in CO2 may have on the plants.

I have not read those articles closely but nothing in the text you quoted convinces me to change my opinion. i can give you details if you wish :)
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:38 am

Daisy wrote:i can give you details if you wish :)

That’s what we need – more mind-numbing details of opposing viewpoints gleaned by hours of scouring the web and reposted here for T&F denizens to ignore. We haven’t had enough of that killing this thread already . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Fri Feb 09, 2007 7:17 am

figo, do you realize you've posted more words in the last week than MJD has in almost 4 years and 11,000 posts? :D
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby MJD » Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:16 am

Exactly.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby gh » Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:24 am

And too much of it is slipping over the line of "fair usage"; please cease and desist.
gh
 
Posts: 46299
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby figo » Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:19 am

gh wrote:And too much of it is slipping over the line of "fair usage"; please cease and desist.


gh has spoken! enough said.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby figo » Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:54 pm

conclusion summary article.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
end - that's it. ok gh?
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby MJD » Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:16 am

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17042993/

More Oswego. They have to put snow at the dump-they figure it will get to 75 feet high and that it will not melt until August.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby cullman » Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:29 pm

It's sunny and warm out here on the west coast of Canada. I'm still waiting for the earthquake to hit.

cman
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Postby Mennisco » Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:42 pm

cullman wrote:It's sunny and warm out here on the west coast of Canada. I'm still waiting for the earthquake to hit.

cman


We stole your weather in November and December. Now it's our turn to suffer. 49 days til April.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests