PDA

View Full Version : Plants Eat CO2. True or False?



William
2009-Dec-12, 04:15 AM
Is increasing CO2 beneficial to plant life?

Is CO2 part of the cycle of life?

http://www.kansascity.com/400/story/1610055.html

Study: Increased carbon dioxide benefits aspen trees
Trees eat CO2. True or False?


Aspen trees, the backbone of Minnesota's paper industry, are liking the extra carbon dioxide in the air linked to global warming.
New research published Friday found that aspen growth rates increased by 53 percent during the past half-century, as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased about 20 percent.

"Trees eat carbon dioxide for a living," said Don Waller, study author and University of Wisconsin-Madison botany professor.

(My comment. New discovery. Thousands of scientists discovery photosynthesis!!!! Environmentalists are astonished. How could we have been so miss informed!!! Increasing C02 is beneficial to the biosphere!!! We were being irrational!!! )

As carbon dioxide increases in the air, he said, plants can extract more of it and convert it to sugar through photosynthesis. That speeds up their growth.

The results could be especially important for Minnesota and Wisconsin, where aspen is the dominant species on about 7.3 million acres of timberland.

"It's the most abundant and the most used species by the forest products industry," said Tim O'Hara, vice president of forest policy at Minnesota Forest Industries. It is the main species used for paper and certain construction board, he said, and is also used for pallets and other products.

The Wisconsin research is one of the first to study aspen and outdoor carbon dioxide levels in their native forest environment.

hhEb09'1
2009-Dec-12, 04:30 AM
Is increasing CO2 beneficial to plant life? Yes, in the sense you mean.

Is CO2 part of the cycle of life?Again.

(My comment. New discovery. Thousands of scientists discovery photosynthesis!!!! Environmentalists are astonished. How could we have been so miss informed!!! Increasing C02 is beneficial to the biosphere!!! We were being irrational!!! )Huh?

nauthiz
2009-Dec-12, 04:35 AM
Huh?
Maybe scientists aren't supposed to share their knowledge with the uninitiated or something?

William
2009-Dec-12, 04:51 AM
Yes, in the sense you mean.Again.Huh?


Aspen trees, the backbone of Minnesota's paper industry, are liking the extra carbon dioxide in the air linked to global warming.

New research published Friday found that aspen growth rates increased by 53 percent during the past half-century, as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased about 20 percent.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm


The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.

Carbon dioxide enters into the plant through the stomatal openings by the process of diffusion. Stomata are specialized cells located mainly on the underside of the leaves in the epidermal layer. The cells open and close allowing gas exchange to occur. The concentration of CO2 outside the leaf strongly influences the rate of CO2 uptake by the plant. The higher the CO2 concentration outside the leaf, the greater the uptake of CO2 by the plant. Light levels, leaf and ambient air temperatures, relative humidity, water stress and the CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentration in the air and the leaf, are many of the key factors that determine the opening and closing of the stomata.

Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm. The decrease in photosynthesis when CO2 level drops from 340 ppm to 200 ppm is similar to the increase when the CO2 levels are raised from 340 to about 1,300 ppm (Figure 1). As a rule of thumb, a drop in carbon dioxide levels below ambient has a stronger effect than supplementation above ambient.

nauthiz
2009-Dec-12, 05:11 AM
I don't think you're going to get much argument about plants respiring carbon dioxide. It's not like it's a controversial fact. Maybe you're working toward some other point --?

William
2009-Dec-12, 05:15 AM
Scientists are astonished!!! Increased CO2 reduces desertification.

Scientists discover greenhouses have been injecting CO2 into greenhouse to increase yield, to increase grow, and to reduce time to maturity.

Major breakthrough. General public were completely unaware of this fact.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/t/summaries/transpirationcrops.php

Most plants respond to increases in the air's CO2 content by reducing their leaf stomatal conductances, which phenomenon typically leads to reduced rates of transpirational water loss. The resultant water savings, in turn, often lead to greater soil moisture contents in CO2-enriched ecosystems, which consequence positively impacts plant water status and growth. In this summary, we review the results of some studies of C3 and C4 crops that treat various aspects of this CO2-induced multi-stage interaction.

Starting with C3 crops, Dong-Xiu et al. (2002) grew spring wheat in open-top chambers maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 350 and 700 ppm and three levels of soil moisture (40, 60 and 80% of field capacity). In addition to increasing rates of net photosynthesis by 48, 120 and 97% at low, medium and high soil water capacities, this doubling of the air's CO2 concentration reduced rates of transpiration by 56, 53 and 63%, respectively, in the three soil water treatments.

De Costa et al. (2003) grew two crops of rice in the field in Sri Lanka -- from January to March (the maha season) and from May to August (the yala season) -- in open-top chambers maintained at either ambient or ambient plus 200 pppm CO2. As always, leaf net photosynthetic rates were significantly higher in the CO2-enriched chambers than in the ambient-air chambers: 51-75% greater in the maha season and 22-33% greater in the yala season. In addition, leaf stomatal conductances exhibited CO2-induced reductions of 15-52% in the maha season and 13-19% in the yala season. However, because of the significantly greater leaf area in the CO2-enriched chambers, total canopy transpiration rate per unit land area did not differ significantly between the two CO2 treatments. Nevertheless, leaf water potentials were higher (less negative and, therefore, more beneficial) in the CO2-enriched chambers.

Vu (2005) grew peanuts from seed to maturity in greenhouses maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 360 and 720 ppm and at air temperatures that were 1.5 and 6.0°C above outdoor air temperatures. They found that although Rubisco protein content and activity were down-regulated by elevated CO2, Rubisco photosynthetic efficiency (the ratio of midday light-saturated carbon exchange rate to Rubisco initial or total activity) of the elevated-CO2 plants "was 1.3- to 1.9-fold greater than that of the ambient-CO2 plants at both growth temperatures." He also found that "leaf soluble sugars and starch of plants grown at elevated CO2 were 1.3- and 2-fold higher, respectively, than those of plants grown at ambient CO2." Last of all, he found that the leaf transpirational water loss of the elevated-CO2 plants compared to that of the ambient-CO2 plants was 12% less at near-ambient temperatures and 17% less in the higher temperature regime.

01101001
2009-Dec-12, 05:15 AM
kudzu + CO2 = green apocalypse

William
2009-Dec-12, 05:21 AM
I don't think you're going to get much argument about plants respiring carbon dioxide. It's not like it's a controversial fact. Maybe you're working toward some other point --?


General public astonished. Plants eat CO2!!!

http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/michael.gregory/files/bio%20101/Bio%20101%20Lectures/Photosynthesis/photosyn.htm
Equation for Photosynthesis






This experiment was published by Jan Baptisa van Helmont in 1648:

"...I took an earthenware vessel, placed in it 200 pounds of soil dried in an oven, soaked this with rainwater, and planted in it a willow branch weighing 5 pounds. At the end of five years, the tree grown from it weighed 169 pounds and about 3 ounces. Now, the earthenware vessel was always moistened (when necessary) only with rainwater or distilled water, and it was large enough and embedded in the ground, and, lest dust flying be mixed with the soil, an iron plate coated with tin and pierced by many holes covered the rim of the vessel. I did not compute the weight of the fallen leaves of the four autumns. Finally, I dried the soil in the vessel again, and the same 200 pounds were found, less about 2 ounces. Therefore 169 pounds of wood, bark, and root had arisen from water only."

Most of the weight of the tree described in the above experiment came from carbon dioxide and water. The equation for photosynthesis shows that these compounds are used to produce glucose.

6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy  C6H12O6 + 6O2

Gillianren
2009-Dec-12, 06:30 AM
kudzu + CO2 = green apocalypse

You mean it's possible to have too much of a good thing? I'm shocked!

William
2009-Dec-12, 06:51 AM
You mean it's possible to have too much of a good thing? I'm shocked!


The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is around 1500 ppm to 2000 ppm. Pre industrial levels of CO2 where 280 ppm. CO2 levels in the past where typically around 2000 ppm.

C3 plants (Trees) die when CO2 levels reach around 160 ppm. During the glacial period CO2 levels reached 180 ppm. That is the lowest CO2 level in the planet's history.

In addition to faster growth and higher yields higher levels of CO2 reduce plant's requirement for water.

When CO2 increases plants produce less stomata which thereby reduces their requirement for water by as much as 30%.


http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm



The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.

Carbon dioxide enters into the plant through the stomatal openings by the process of diffusion. Stomata are specialized cells located mainly on the underside of the leaves in the epidermal layer. The cells open and close allowing gas exchange to occur. The concentration of CO2 outside the leaf strongly influences the rate of CO2 uptake by the plant. The higher the CO2 concentration outside the leaf, the greater the uptake of CO2 by the plant. Light levels, leaf and ambient air temperatures, relative humidity, water stress and the CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentration in the air and the leaf, are many of the key factors that determine the opening and closing of the stomata.

Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm. The decrease in photosynthesis when CO2 level drops from 340 ppm to 200 ppm is similar to the increase when the CO2 levels are raised from 340 to about 1,300 ppm (Figure 1). As a rule of thumb, a drop in carbon dioxide levels below ambient has a stronger effect than supplementation above ambient.

mugaliens
2009-Dec-12, 08:30 AM
Most plants respond to increases in the air's CO2 content by reducing their leaf stomatal conductances, which phenomenon typically leads to reduced rates of transpirational water loss. The resultant water savings, in turn, often lead to greater soil moisture contents in CO2-enriched ecosystems, which consequence positively impacts plant water status and growth.

And naturally, a corresponding reduction in plant contribution to that most prolific and causative of greenhouse gases, water vapor, thereby acting as a moderator of runaway global warming, rather than as a contributor - as if the Earth's historic temperature cycles indicated anything differently (not).

Nice find, William!

sarongsong
2009-Dec-12, 09:32 AM
Scientists are astonished!!!...Scientists discover greenhouses have been injecting CO2 into greenhouses...Major breakthrough. General public were completely unaware of this fact...Lots of handwaving editorializing; unlike the references cited. :rolleyes:

Strange
2009-Dec-12, 01:18 PM
General public astonished. Plants eat CO2!!!

I really don't think anyone else is astonished by that.


This experiment was published by Jan Baptisa van Helmont in 1648

And you have only just found out.

This is the sort of simplistic argument that makes me doubt the climate-change skeptics case. If the only effect of increasing CO2 was to improve plant growth that would, in many cases, be a good thing. There are also many instances where it would be a very bad thing. Algal blooms can cause devastating economic and health effects, to take just one of the more obvious examples.

And any other effects that CO2 might have would be off topic and have their own threads.

William
2009-Dec-12, 01:39 PM
I really don't think anyone else is astonished by that.

And you have only just found out.

This is the sort of simplistic argument that makes me doubt the climate-change skeptics case. If the only effect of increasing CO2 was to improve plant growth that would, in many cases, be a good thing. There are also many instances where it would be a very bad thing. Algal blooms can cause devastating economic and health effects, to take just one of the more obvious examples.

And any other effects that CO2 might have would be off topic and have their own threads.

Algal blooms has nothing to do with increased CO2 levels.

The planet is cooling, not warming. Sea levels are starting to fall not rise. (The previous rise and current fall in sea level is due to a different mechanism than planetary temperature.)

From an environmental standpoint the one positive thing humans are doing is increasing CO2 levels.

Increased CO2 is causing a roughly 18% increase in crop yields. Tropical trees have increased in size by roughly 18%.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0603-can_carbon_dioxide_be_a_good_thing.htm

The finding that increasing CO2 levels has caused a 50% increase in Aspen growth is not a surprise. Atmospheric CO2 is only 0.03%. Plants are 90% carbon.

CO2 levels are currently the lowest in 200 Million years.

Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 to increase yield and reduce growing times. C3 plants loss roughly 50% of their absorbed water due to low CO2 levels. The optimum CO2 level for plants is around 2000 ppm.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091204092445.htm


Greenhouse Gas Carbon Dioxide Ramps Up Aspen Growth

The study, by scientists from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Minnesota at Morris (UMM) and published December 4 in the journal Global Change Biology, shows that elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the past 50 years have boosted aspen growth rates by an astonishing 50 percent.


Previously, scientists have shown that plants and trees in growth chambers respond to levels of carbon dioxide well above levels in the atmosphere. The new study is the first to show that aspen in their native forest environments are already growing at accelerated rates due to rising ambient levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Commercial Greenhouse CO2 generators

http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm


Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses. CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or four times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and improve plant will quality.

Carbon dioxide is an odorless gas and a minor constituent in the air we breathe. It comprises only .03% [ 300 parts per million, or PPM] of the atmosphere, but is virtually important to all life on this planet!

Plants are made up of about 90% carbon and water with other elements like nitrogen calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus and trace elements making up only a small percentage. Almost all the carbon in plants comes from this minor 300 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air.

The reason you will get more rapid and efficient growth and better plant quality with a higher CO2 level is because plants must absorb CO2 in combination with water, soil nutrients and sunlight which produces sugars which are vital for growth. If any of these elements are missing or low, plant growth will be retarded. When CO2 is increased to over 1000 ppm it results in higher production and plant quality.


http://www.greenhousemegastore.com/Johnson-CO2-Generator/productinfo/CO-1001/

Normally there are approximately 300 parts per million (PPM) of CO2 in the atmosphere; when this level is increased to over 1000 PPM, it results in higher production and better plant quality. The Johnson Generator provides up to 1500 PPM per unit in a 4800 square foot (446 square meter) greenhouse. By adding CO2, especially during the winter months when greenhouse ventilators are closed and when low CO2 concentration becomes a limiting factor in growth, growers are obtaining yield and bloom quality similar to that which is normally associated with spring and summer conditions.

grant hutchison
2009-Dec-12, 01:48 PM
And naturally, a corresponding reduction in plant contribution to that most prolific and causative of greenhouse gases, water vapor ...There are competing effects, which are well-known and have been modelled.
Stomatal closure because of high CO2 reduces evapotranspiration, whereas enhanced photosynthesis and increased leaf area increases it. The opposed effects of carbon dioxide on plant evapotranspiration seem likely to counter each other to a large extent. See Kergoat et al. (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JD001245.shtml), for instance.

Grant Hutchison

Disinfo Agent
2009-Dec-12, 01:50 PM
Trees eat CO2. True or False?False, if you insist. They use it for photosynthesis. But they also release CO2 in respiration, like animals.

In any event, it's a moot point. Unfortunately, this planet is not inhabited by plants only. Most of the animals are not going to have a good time with global warming, including us.

loglo
2009-Dec-12, 01:51 PM
Great, so a few areas grow a few more trees more quickly, those that have plentiful water supplies as well I guess. Not that there will be too many of those left at 1000 ppm CO2 Shame about the shellfish (http://www.physorg.com/news162625314.html)though, we really could do without killing all the krill and destroying the ocean food cycle!

Besides I like prawns!


William, this is one of the most nonsensical threads you have ever started!

hhEb09'1
2009-Dec-12, 02:10 PM
Scientists are astonished!!!...Scientists discover greenhouses have been injecting CO2 into greenhouses...Major breakthrough. General public were completely unaware of this fact...I can't find anything in your references to really support these statements. Are they just sarcasm?

If so, it appears that you have started an advocacy thread, no matter how interesting the articles. As you know, we've had to clamp down on discussions of religion, politics, global warming, wikipedia, and 0.999...

Everyone: try to stick to the facts as reported, or mis-reported, instead of hyperbole and character assassination.

William
2009-Dec-12, 02:17 PM
Great, so a few areas grow a few more trees more quickly, those that have plentiful water supplies as well I guess. Not that there will be too many of those left at 1000 ppm CO2 Shame about the shellfish (http://www.physorg.com/news162625314.html)though, we really could do without killing all the krill and destroying the ocean food cycle!

Besides I like prawns!

William, this is one of the most nonsensical threads you have ever started!

Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 to increase yield and reduce growing times. Increased CO2 enable plants to grow with less water.

Increased CO2 reduces desertification.

Increased CO2 is positive not negative for the biosphere. That is a convenient truth.

That is a fact.

As would be expected as the CO2 levels have been at 1000 ppm to 2500 ppm for most of the time life has been on the planet, shelled sea life grows shells faster not slower when CO2 levels are high.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/oh-snap-co2-causes-ocean-critters-to-build-more-shells/


But in a study published in the Dec. 1 issue of Geology, a team led by former WHOI postdoctoral researcher Justin B. Ries found that seven of the 18 shelled species they observed actually built more shell when exposed to varying levels of increased acidification. This may be because the total amount of dissolved inorganic carbon available to them is actually increased when the ocean becomes more acidic, (My comment less base, the ocean is not acidic. See Wikipedia definition of acidic) even though the concentration of carbonate ions is decreased.

“Most likely the organisms that responded positively were somehow able to manipulate…dissolved inorganic carbon in the fluid from which they precipitated their skeleton in a way that was beneficial to them,” said Ries, now an assistant professor in marine sciences at the University of North Carolina. “They were somehow able to manipulate CO2…to build their skeletons.”




From Wikipedia.


An acid (from the Latin acidus meaning sour) is traditionally considered any chemical compound that, when dissolved in water, gives a solution with a hydrogen ion activity greater than in pure water, i.e. a pH less than 7.0. That approximates the modern definition of Johannes Nicolaus Brønsted and Martin Lowry, who independently defined an acid as a compound which donates a hydrogen ion (H+) to another compound (called a base). Common examples include acetic acid (in vinegar) and sulfuric acid (used in car batteries). Acid/base systems are different from redox reactions in that there is no change in oxidation state. Acids can occur in solid, liquid or gaseous form, depending on the temperature. They can exist as pure substances or in solution.

In chemistry, a base is most commonly thought of as an aqueous substance that can accept hydrogen ions. Bases are also the oxides or hydroxides of metals. A soluble base is also often referred to as an alkali if hydroxide ions (OH−) are involved. This refers to the Brønsted-Lowry theory of acids and bases. Alternative definitions of bases include electron pair donors (Lewis), as sources of hydroxide anions (Arrhenius). In addition to this, bases can commonly be thought of as any chemical compound that, when dissolved in water, gives a solution with a hydrogen ion activity lower than that of pure water, i.e. a pH higher than 7.0 at standard conditions. Examples of simple bases are sodium hydroxide and ammonia.


Bases can be thought of as the chemical opposite of acids. A reaction between an acid and base is called neutralization. Bases and acids are seen as opposites because the effect of an acid is to increase the hydronium ion (H3O+) concentration in water, whereas bases reduce this concentration. Bases react with acids to produce water and salts (or their solutions).

tusenfem
2009-Dec-12, 02:26 PM
General public astonished. Plants eat CO2!!!

Why would the general public be astonished, every child learns this in school.
during the day in photosynthesis the use CO2 and produce oxygen
however in the night time they use oxygen and produce CO2
that is why it is not benificial to your health to have lots of plants in your bedroom

loglo
2009-Dec-12, 03:02 PM
Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 to increase yield and reduce growing times. Increased CO2 enable plants to grow with less water.

Increased CO2 reduces desertification.

Increased CO2 is positive not negative for the biosphere. That is a convenient truth.

That is a fact.

As would be expected as the CO2 levels have been at 1000 ppm to 2500 ppm for most of the time life has been on the planet, shelled sea life grows shells faster not slower when CO2 levels are high.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/oh-snap-co2-causes-ocean-critters-to-build-more-shells/





From Wikipedia.


Conches are not the basis of the ocean food chain, krill are.

From[URL="http://www.utas.edu.au/events/Media%20Releases/2008/CO2%20and%20krill%20FOR%20WEB.pdf"] http://www.utas.edu.au/events/Media%20Releases/2008/CO2%20and%20krill%20FOR%20WEB.pdf]:-

A pilot study on the effect of carbon dioxide on Antarctic krill by the University of Tasmania has uncovered worrying signs for the future of the Southern Ocean ecosystem.
In a world-first experiment by the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies (IASOS), based at UTAS, Honours student Lilli Hale investigated the effects rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have on the development of krill.
Krill is a critical species in the Antarctic food chain.
Ms Hale exposed krill to CO2 levels that were manipulated to two levels: one projected to occur by the end of the century and the other 300 years into the future.
Although the study was preliminary, Ms Hale found that with an increase in CO2, development of krill was indeed affected.
There were irregularities in form and structure and decreased activity in krill larvae exposed to the concentrations of CO2 at the level predicted by the end of the century.
“Although effects were not lethal at this concentration, it is unlikely these experimental animals would have survived through to adulthood,” Ms Hale said.
“The population will be dramatically affected if larvae are not developing normally.”
The fertilised eggs did not hatch at all at the 300 year projection.
Ms Hale said these findings suggested a catastrophic impact on other species which relied on krill in the food chain.
“Antarctic krill play a key role in the structure and function of the Southern Ocean ecosystem, serving as both an important grazer and critical prey item for reproductive successes of whales, seals and seabirds,” she said.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing due to rising global emissions which are in turn absorbed into the ocean, making it more acidic. The increased CO2 also alters the oceanic carbonate chemistry, reducing the calcium carbonate saturation.
Crustaceans, including krill, rely on calcium for mineralisation of their exoskeleton after moulting.



Growing a few more trees and veges does not equate to a "positive for the biosphere" given the impact in other areas.

William
2009-Dec-12, 03:32 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6036529.ece


“There is no doubt that the enrichment of the air with CO2 is increasing plant growth rates in many areas,” said Professor Martin Parry, head of plant science at Rothamsted Research, Britain’s leading crop institute.


TREES and plants are growing bigger and faster in response to the billions of tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by humans, scientists have found.

Researchers in Germany recently discovered that wheat grown in similar conditions would produce up to 16% more grain.



Do we agree it is fact that increasing CO2 is beneficial to plant life on the earth?

Stroller
2009-Dec-12, 03:47 PM
Conches are not the basis of the ocean food chain, krill are.

From[URL="http://www.utas.edu.au/events/Media%20Releases/2008/CO2%20and%20krill%20FOR%20WEB.pdf"] http://www.utas.edu.au/events/Media%20Releases/2008/CO2%20and%20krill%20FOR%20WEB.pdf]:-
Growing a few more trees and veges does not equate to a "positive for the biosphere" given the impact in other areas.

That press release doesn't say what atmospheric levels these 'projections' anticipate.
And the student saying that she 'didn't expect the krill would grow to adulthood' is a purely subjective assertion.
No consideration is given to the rate at which Krill might naturally select for greater co2 tolerance.
No discussion is made of how Krill survived higher concentrations of co2 in the past.

Unscientific scaremongering.

nauthiz
2009-Dec-12, 03:52 PM
Do we agree it is fact that increasing CO2 is beneficial to plant life on the earth?

As I said way back toward the beginning of the thread:


I don't think you're going to get much argument about plants respiring carbon dioxide. It's not like it's a controversial fact. Maybe you're working toward some other point --?

loglo
2009-Dec-12, 03:56 PM
That press release doesn't say what atmospheric levels these 'projections' anticipate.
And the student saying that she 'didn't expect the krill would grow to adulthood' is a purely subjective assertion.
No consideration is given to the rate at which Krill might naturally select for greater co2 tolerance.
No discussion is made of how Krill survived higher concentrations of co2 in the past.

Unscientific scaremongering.

This one (http://www.utas.edu.au/events/Unitas/2008%20editions/Unitas324-Oct%202008.pdf) does.

tusenfem
2009-Dec-12, 04:16 PM
Do we agree it is fact that increasing CO2 is beneficial to plant life on the earth?

So we will be boiled to death by CO2 caused global warming, but at least we will not be hungry.


William, are you going ANYWHERE with this thread? Up to now you have mainly claimed non disputed thing, about plants using CO2, what is the POINT you are trying to make here?

mike alexander
2009-Dec-12, 04:33 PM
If I may...

I think it possible that William is attempting to marshal support for the proposition that increased carbon dioxide levels are a net good for the terrestrial biosystem.

Or that he really enjoys using [size=], [i] and [b].

mike alexander
2009-Dec-12, 05:11 PM
There is also a bit of myopia in William's thesis (if I'm reading it right). He seems to be assuming that the only thing trees 'eat' is carbon dioxide. Are there other, rate-limiting materials (phosphorous, potassium) involved (see, for example, the Jasper Ridge Global Change Experiment (}http://jrbp.stanford.edu/db/projects/project_display.php?project_id=57)? This study suggests that when multiple environmental modifications occur the changes in growth patterns are not what might always be expected.

There seems to be an assumption that in any case what's good for trees is good for everything else, as though the biosphere is all trees. There's grass, fungi, and all that mass of soil microbes.

Why the emphasis on trees only?

Strange
2009-Dec-12, 06:18 PM
Algal blooms has nothing to do with increased CO2 levels.

Like many things, the causes of algal blooms are complex and incompletely understood. I don't think you can assert that increased CO2 will cause greater plant growth but somehow deny this will affect algae. (And that is ignoring any possible climatic factors.)


The planet is cooling, not warming. Sea levels are starting to fall not rise. (The previous rise and current fall in sea level is due to a different mechanism than planetary temperature.)

What does that have to do with photosynthesis?


Increased CO2 is causing a roughly 18% increase in crop yields. Tropical trees have increased in size by roughly 18%.

Well, great. But I don't think you should ignore all the potential negative effects if you want to get a balanced view of the impact of increased CO2.

William
2009-Dec-12, 07:20 PM
So we will be boiled to death by CO2 caused global warming, but at least we will not be hungry.


William, are you going ANYWHERE with this thread? Up to now you have mainly claimed non disputed thing, about plants using CO2, what is the POINT you are trying to make here?


Gentlemen,

The simple point is that increasing CO2 levels is beneficial to plants. Do we all agree that is a fact?

Commercial greenhouse inject CO2 into the greenhouse to increase yields and to reduce growing times.

The AWG crowd do appear to believe the planet is about to boil. The amount of warming predicted is almost an order of magnitude too high.

It is -27C today where I live. Do we live on the same planet? Are the laws of physics different on the AWG planet?

The AWG crowd appear to confuse real world problems from fantasy.

This is the introduction to the Copenhagen conference. CO2 is injected into greenhouses to increase yield and to reduce growing times. That is a fact. Increasing CO2 levels are beneficial to plant life.

When the planet is warmer there is more not less precipitation which is what is predicted by the climate models.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVGGgncVq-4

William
2009-Dec-12, 07:30 PM
Like many things, the causes of algal blooms are complex and incompletely understood. I don't think you can assert that increased CO2 will cause greater plant growth but somehow deny this will affect algae. (And that is ignoring any possible climatic factors.)

What does that have to do with photosynthesis?

Well, great. But I don't think you should ignore all the potential negative effects if you want to get a balanced view of the impact of increased CO2.

The obvious point is increasing CO2 levels are causing all plant life on the planet to be more productive, to grow faster, with higher yields, and to use less water. (30% less water with a doubling of CO2.)

Increasing CO2 is beneficial to plant life.

I completely agree a balanced analysis of the facts is necessary.

Please see the above video that is the introduction to the Copenhagen conference. Is it balanced?

Why do people respond with the planet will boil?

CO2 is part of the cycle of life. CO2 levels are the lowest in 200 million years. Increasing CO2 levels is one of the few positive environmental changes humans have made to the planet.

William
2009-Dec-12, 07:37 PM
http://www.azocleantech.com/details.asp?newsID=4587

Increasing CO2 levels are beneficial to plant life.


Rather than assessing plants grown in chambers in a greenhouse, as most studies have done, Leakey's team made use of the Soybean Free Air Concentration Enrichment (Soy FACE) facility at Illinois. This open-air research lab can expose a soybean field to a variety of atmospheric CO2 levels – without isolating the plants from other environmental influences, such as rainfall, sunlight and insects.

Some of the plants were exposed to atmospheric CO2 levels of 550 parts per million (ppm), the level predicted for the year 2050 if current trends continue. These were compared to plants grown at ambient CO2 levels (380 ppm).

The results were striking. At least 90 different genes coding the majority of enzymes in the cascade of chemical reactions that govern respiration were switched on (expressed) at higher levels in the soybeans grown at high CO2 levels. This explained how the plants were able to use the increased supply of sugars from stimulated photosynthesis under high CO2 conditions to produce energy, Leakey said. The rate of respiration increased 37 percent at the elevated CO2 levels. The enhanced respiration is likely to support greater transport of sugars from leaves to other growing parts of the plant, including the seeds, Leakey said.

William
2009-Dec-12, 07:49 PM
Why would the general public be astonished, every child learns this in school.
during the day in photosynthesis the use CO2 and produce oxygen
however in the night time they use oxygen and produce CO2
that is why it is not benificial to your health to have lots of plants in your bedroom


I am not sure the general public is aware commercial greenhouses currently inject CO2 into the greenhouses at around 1500 ppm to increase yield and to reduce growing times.

I am not sure the general public is aware when CO2 levels rise plants optimize by reducing the number of stomata produced on their leaves to reduce water loss.

Do you'll understand what I am saying?

Less water loss is a good thing for a plant. High CO2 levels are a good thing for plants.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/t/summaries/transpiration.php


Transpiration
Transpiration - Summary
Most plants respond to increases in the air's CO2 content by displaying reduced stomatal conductances, which typically leads to reduced rates of transpirational water loss. This water savings often results in greater soil moisture contents in CO2-enriched ecosystems, which positively feeds back to increase plant growth. In this summary, we review a few papers that treat various aspects of this phenomenon.

In a review of studies conducted over the prior decade, Pospisilova and Catsky (1999) compiled over 150 individual plant water use responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. They found that elevated CO2 increased rates of net photosynthesis in about 85% of the reported studies, while reducing stomatal conductances and rates of transpiration in approximately 75% of the cases analyzed.

Consequently, atmospheric CO2 enrichment increased plant water-use efficiency in more than 90% of the experiments that were conducted; and it reduced total water uptake in more than 50% of the studies, while slowing the development of water stress as indicated by plant water potential data. As a result Pospisilova and Catsky concluded that plants growing in future atmospheres of higher CO2 concentration "will probably survive eventual higher drought stress and some species may even be able to extend their biotope into less favourable sites."

Murphy
2009-Dec-12, 07:55 PM
The ridiculousness of the idea that increasing CO2 to 2,000 ppm would be a good thing, is, I think, so mad as to not even require a real response.

But even if everything William is saying was true (which it most obviously is not), increasing CO2 would not in any way "benefit" the environment as he seems to be claiming. Even if a huge concentration of CO2 was beneficial to some plants and didn't have any other negative effects on the climate (which it certainly would), that would not be "good" for the Earth's ecosystems.

If a few species of plants ran ravenously out of control it would benefit them and perhaps a few animal species closely linked with them. But the consequences for the other lifeforms on the planet would be severe, any such massive change in the environmental conditions would surely lead to mass extinctions of millions of species that couldn't adapt to these new conditions.

The simplistic idea that if you add more plant food this will just be "good" for the environment is totally wrong and misguided. Such a massive upset to the food chain would cause a Human induced Holocene extinction event. Of-course the idea is just complete garbage anyway, and we already have a mass extinction happening, helped along no doubt by attitudes like this.

William
2009-Dec-12, 07:59 PM
Increasing CO2 levels are beneficial to plants.

Increasing CO2 levels increase plant yields and enable the plants to produce less stomata on their levels to reduce water loss by 15% to 50%.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w7gy1cyyr5yey994/

Carbon dioxide effects on stomatal responses to the environment and water use by crops under field conditions


Reductions in leaf stomatal conductance with rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) could reduce water use by vegetation and potentially alter climate. Crop plants have among the largest reductions in stomatal conductance at elevated [CO2]. The relative reduction in stomatal conductance caused by a given increase in [CO2] is often not constant within a day nor between days, but may vary considerably with light, temperature and humidity. Species also differ in response, with a doubling of [CO2] reducing mean midday conductances by <15% in some crop species to >50% in others. Elevated [CO2] increases leaf area index throughout the growing season in some species. Simulations, and measurements in free air carbon dioxide enrichment systems both indicate that the relatively large reductions in stomatal conductance in crops would translate into reductions of <10% in evapotranspiration, partly because of increases in temperature and decreases in humidity in the air around crop leaves.

Strange
2009-Dec-12, 08:08 PM
Why do people respond with the planet will boil?

Even ignoring the exaggeration, that has nothing to do with CO2 respiration by plants. The physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas has been known for well over 100 years.

William
2009-Dec-12, 08:10 PM
The ridiculousness of the idea that increasing CO2 to 2,000 ppm would be a good thing, is, I think, so mad as to not even require a real response.

But even if everything William is saying was true (which it most obviously is not), increasing CO2 would not in any way "benefit" the environment as he seems to be claiming. Even if a huge concentration of CO2 was beneficial to some plants and didn't have any other negative effects on the climate (which it certainly would), that would not be "good" for the Earth's ecosystems.

If a few species of plants ran ravenously out of control it would benefit them and perhaps a few animal species closely linked with them. But the consequences for the other lifeforms on the planet would be severe, any such massive change in the environmental conditions would surely lead to mass extinctions of millions of species that couldn't adapt to these new conditions.



Murray,

CO2 levels of 1500 ppm (0.15%) to 2000 ppm (0.2%) are normal based on the past CO2 levels. It should be noted that there was an ice epoch when CO2 levels were around 2000 ppm to 3000 ppm.

Why do you believe plants will run ravenously out of control? They did not in the past. There is no scientific evidence that they will today.

Please see the above paper that notes plants lose less water when CO2 levels are higher.

CO2 is part of the circle of life.

Comment:
The CO2 greenhouse affect saturates. CO2 injection at current levels does not affect the the lower atmosphere the spectrum bands are already full absorbed . What is currently under scientific investigation is how increased CO2 affects higher regions of the atmosphere.

William
2009-Dec-12, 08:16 PM
Researcher measure a 50% increase in growth rate of one of the most common trees in the boreal forest.

The facts support the assertion that increasing CO2 levels is beneficial to plant life.


http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=a1ARTA0000888


http://www.kansascity.com/400/story/1610055.html


Study: Increased carbon dioxide benefits aspen trees

Aspen trees, the backbone of Minnesota's paper industry, are liking the extra carbon dioxide in the air linked to global warming.
New research published Friday found that aspen growth rates increased by 53 percent during the past half-century, as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased about 20 percent.

"Trees eat carbon dioxide for a living," said Don Waller, study author and University of Wisconsin-Madison botany professor.

As carbon dioxide increases in the air, he said, plants can extract more of it and convert it to sugar through photosynthesis. That speeds up their growth.

The results could be especially important for Minnesota and Wisconsin, where aspen is the dominant species on about 7.3 million acres of timberland.

"It's the most abundant and the most used species by the forest products industry," said Tim O'Hara, vice president of forest policy at Minnesota Forest Industries. It is the main species used for paper and certain construction board, he said, and is also used for pallets and other products.

The Wisconsin research is one of the first to study aspen and outdoor carbon dioxide levels in their native forest environment.

distraction tactics
2009-Dec-12, 08:55 PM
I am not sure the general public is aware when CO2 levels rise plants optimize by reducing the number of stomata produced on their leaves to reduce water loss.


Increasing CO2 levels increase plant yields and enable the plants to produce less stomata on their levels to reduce water loss by 15% to 50%.

I'm not convinced you understand what you're talking about. Stomata allow for gas exchange, so a reduction of stomata with respect to CO2 increase implies that plants are generally optimized to current levels of CO2. If not, microevolution would not be selecting for fewer stomata.

Assuming that greenhouses do use increased levels of CO2, other potential reasons exist such as issues with gas circulation. Additionally, a controlled greenhouse environment will not exhibit selection as observed in nature. This may bias the relationship between plant growth and CO2, and may not accurately reflect Earth's natural biosphere.

If indeed the coupling you are suggesting exists, than it is far more complex than your disingenuous simplification. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Furthermore, it is evident that you are not familiar with studies like McElwain and Punyasena (2007) who observe that stomata reduction affects transpiration, which, in turn, increases continental run off and drainage patterns. If you believe that increased weathering, erosion, and flood potential is a 'net benefit', you are not approaching the situation with a clear and critical mind.

I do not expect to 'debate' with you in any continued manner because I've read a few of your threads and know exactly what type of poster you are. Fueled more by ideology than a legitimate desire to understand the world, your tactic is confusion. Confuse the issue with a load of information - much of it irrelevant, much of it questionable and questionably sourced - form inaccurate and dishonest links, and intimidate non-specialists who know you're spinning a yarn but have no idea where to begin in debunking your nonsense.

My desire is to see that people who read your threads eventually come to understand your schtick, if they have not already, and then filter everything you say with extreme skepticism.

Strange
2009-Dec-12, 09:29 PM
The obvious point is increasing CO2 levels are causing all plant life on the planet to be more productive, to grow faster, with higher yields, and to use less water. (30% less water with a doubling of CO2.)

It's not that simple. This is the same sort of simplistic argument that says that global warming is good because "it will just be a bit warmer everywhere". Hopelessly naive.

If all plant life is growing faster (and it is not that clear cut, as others have pointed out) then that includes negative effects as well: algae, weeds (kudzu has been mentioned), and others. There are commercially important waterways that are already having problems with invasive waterplants. If they start growing more rapidly, it will cause even more problems. Perhaps making shipping and agriculture less viable in some areas. Possibly the same areas that will be damaged by other effects of climate change.


I completely agree a balanced analysis of the facts is necessary.

So please stop saying that it is nothing but good news. (And please stop your gratuitous use of size tags.)

tusenfem
2009-Dec-12, 10:09 PM
I am not sure the general public is aware commercial greenhouses currently inject CO2 into the greenhouses at around 1500 ppm to increase yield and to reduce growing times.

I am not sure the general public is aware when CO2 levels rise plants optimize by reducing the number of stomata produced on their leaves to reduce water loss.

Do you'll understand what I am saying?

Less water loss is a good thing for a plant. High CO2 levels are a good thing for plants.


The fact that YOU did not know about it, does not mean that the general public does not know about it. Your lack of knowledge can hardly be taken as a standard.

So, once more is this thread going somewhere????????????????

mike alexander
2009-Dec-12, 10:50 PM
For anyone who wants to know, here (http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm) is a fact sheet on use of CO2 in greenhouses from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture.

An accompanying graph shows the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and relative photosynthesis rate.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/8713/co2.jpg (http://img171.imageshack.us/i/co2.jpg/)

This looks like a typical Michaelis-Menten plot to me. That the rate of photosynthesis is sitting near the top of the linear portion at 340 ppm carbon dioxide suggests that plants have found a near-optimal tradeoff of photosynthesis rate for ambient CO2.

traceur
2009-Dec-12, 11:50 PM
photosynthesis is real? brilliant! now all we need is to wait for evolution to pick up plant growth/CO2-consumption rates which will deal with both increasing CO2 levels and do so in a constantly decreasing strap of land. i mean, its not like we're reducing the probability of them doing so by reducing there genepool...
*knocks on desk*
o, sh....

Torsten
2009-Dec-13, 12:17 AM
The story makes brief reference to other species (oak and pine) that have been studied and for which no response was found, but unsurprisingly, William chooses to ignore that bit of information.

The situation is far more complicated than William's simplistic conclusion, and again, the story quotes Waller, the study author, making that point, but you'd have to read it all to appreciate it.

As an example of the complications, consider the following, from J. K. Ladha et al., Eds., Integrated Crop and Resource Management in the Rice-Wheat System of South Asia (International Rice Research Institute, Manila, Philippines, 2009). (http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Integrated-Crop/default.asp)


"Potential yield is defined as the maximum yield of a variety restricted only by seasonspecific climatic conditions. This assumes that other inputs (nutrient, water, etc.) are not limiting and cultural management is optimal. Thus, the potential yield of a crop depends on the temporal variation in CO2 in the atmosphere, solar radiation, maximum and minimum temperatures during the crop season, and physiological characteristics of the variety."

and elsewhere in the same publication:


"In the changing climatic conditions, increased night temperature at the flowering stage causes spikelet sterility in rice and a reduction in yield of about 5% per degree Celsius rise above 32C (Peng et al 1999)."

mike alexander
2009-Dec-13, 12:28 AM
In a complex like an ecology, there will be a set of rate-limiting steps which determine things like maximum growth rate. At some point, unless they are supplemented as well, available nitrogen, phosphorous and other elements will be used up faster than the replenishment rate, slowing (or, more properly, finding a new equilibrium of) growth. High carbon dioxide and low available nitrogen may not result in significantly increased rate of growth.

I have found while looking up references on this topic that different species, even in greenhouses, have different maximum growth rates when supplemental CO2 is added (not surprising); that is, each plant type will have a different Vmax. So increasing carbon dioxide will give differential growth advantages to some species, potentially unbalancing the ecology.

Edit: Torsten got there first.

William
2009-Dec-13, 12:38 AM
More good news!!! Increasing CO2 is benefiting African Tropical Forests!!!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090218135031.htm



Published today in Nature, the 40 year study of African tropical forests–one third of the world's total tropical forest–shows that for at least the last few decades each hectare of intact African forest has trapped an extra 0.6 tonnes of carbon per year.


The reason why the trees are getting bigger and mopping up carbon is unclear. A leading suspect is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere itself, which may be acting like a fertiliser. (My comment: I wonder why the writer qualifies with may?)


African forests have the highest mammal diversity of any ecosystem, with over 400 species, alongside over 10,000 species of plants and over 1,000 species of birds. According to the FAO deforestation rates are approximately 6 million hectares per year (almost 1% of total forest area per year), although other studies show the rate to be half that (approximately 0.5% of total forest area per year). The African Tropical Rainforest Observation Network, Afritron brings together researchers active in African countries with tropical forest to standardise and pool data to better understand how African tropical forests are changing in a globally changing environment.

William
2009-Dec-13, 12:56 AM
This graph show CO2 levels over the past 500 million years.

As I noted CO2 levels were at 0.028% prior to industrialization and are now at 0.038%. 0.028% to 0.038% the lowest CO2 level in 500 million years.

During the Glacial period of the glacial/interglacial cycle CO2 levels dropped to 180 ppm. (The specific reason why C02 dropped by 100 ppm is not known.)

C3 plants during the glacial period started to die, due to CO2 starvation. 1/3 of the Amazon forest changed to savana. C4 plants can survive with lower levels of CO2 than C3 plants.

Plants have adapted to the low level of CO2 by regulating the amount of stomata on their leaves. When CO2 increases plants reduce the amount of stomata on their leaves which reduces their water requirement.

The optimum level of CO2 for plants is 0.2%. Approximately 50% of the photo respiration is wasted at 0.028% CO2. As CO2 increases to 0.2% plants become more efficient.

In high levels of CO2 plants start to change taking advantage of the optimum CO2 level.

One of the indicators that CO2 is optimum at 0.2% is the size of the animals during the period. More food larger animals. The biosphere is more productive as CO2 rising to the optimum level of 2000 ppm or 0.2%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Torsten
2009-Dec-13, 01:43 AM
I have found while looking up references on this topic that different species, even in greenhouses, have different maximum growth rates when supplemental CO2 is added (not surprising); that is, each plant type will have a different Vmax. So increasing carbon dioxide will give differential growth advantages to some species, potentially unbalancing the ecology.


Other weird things happen. Soil conditions in my neck of the woods often result in low foliar levels of boron in my favourite species, lodgepole pine. Symptoms of acute deficiency are dieback of the current year's leader and upper branch shoots, and it often happens on sites with a summertime soil moisture deficit. The trees end up looking bushy and malformed. We can induce boron deficiency symptoms on a site by fertilizing with nitrogen. So much for your sawlog quality.

This fall, in a research trial for which I collect the yearly basic tree growth data, I recorded dieback on about 1/3 of the trees growing in plots on that part of the trial area with "droughty" (rapidly drained) soils. Not surprising after the hot and dry early summer we had: the response was right out of the textbook. But here is an unknown: Are the symptoms in this species being exacerbated by CO2 fertilization? We don't know, and are unlikely to ever know as it would require a control area in which pre-industrial (or at least lower than present) levels of CO2 were available for the life of the trees.

William
2009-Dec-13, 03:17 AM
There are multiple misconceptions concerning both increasing CO2 and how the planet changes when it is warmer as opposed to colder.

This thread clearly shows plants benefit due to increasing C02. CO2 is the lowest level in the last 500 million years during this ice epoch.

People are however suspicious and assumed irrationally that increasing CO2 damages the biosphere and that warmer temperatures on a planet that has ice sheets on both poles is somehow negative to the biosphere.

There is no scientific basis for that viewpoint.

Plants benefit when CO2 increases and when the planet is warmer as the biosphere area increases.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-3YVDBGF-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8cc247ae000aaa315c905159f39f5d97


As 70% of the planet's surface is covered with water, there is more precipitation when the planet is warmer. In addition as noted above when CO2 is higher plants produce less stomata which enables them to use as much as 40% less water.

During the last glacial period vast areas of what are currently tropical rain forest (the most bio diverse area on the planet converted to savanna.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-3YVDBGF-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8cc247ae000aaa315c905159f39f5d97



Neogene and Quaternary history of vegetation, climate, and plant diversity in Amazonia


Based on simplified considerations of precipitation changes and evaporation we estimate that LGM (Last Glacial Maximum) rainfall may have been reduced by values of ca. 45(±10%) (my comment roughly a 50% reduction) ; Amazonian and Cordilleran lakes dried up; dry rain forest was locally replaced by savanna, savanna forest, or cerrado-type vegetation; dry rain forest, savanna forest, and pure savanna was locally replaced by extensive semi-desert dune formations (lower Rio Branco area in present-day central Amazonia). The present-day centers of higher rainfall (>2500 mm) surrounded by areas of lower rainfall, are refuge areas of the very wet rain forest and of the very high plant diversity (300 plant species per 0.1 ha), and they should have been that equally, or more, during the dry climate intervals (plant diversity of drier forests is in the order of 100–150 species per 0.1 ha). Both extinction and speciation in isolation under precipitation and temperature stress may have taken place in these refugia.


Comment:

http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/biogeochem_cycles/reading_list/sigman_nat_00.pdf

This is a very good review paper that discusses carbon sinks and the unexplained drop in CO2 of around 80 ppm to 100 ppm during the last glacial. As noted C3 plants start to die when CO2 levels reach 150 ppm. I have paper that discusses CO2 starvation of C3 plants during the last glacial.

As I noted there is no explanation for what is causing CO2 to drop by 80 ppm to 100 ppm.


Glacial/interglacial variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide


Because of its effect on the calcite burial rate, the response of the lysocline to a change in [CO2- 3 ]bw represents a negative feedback which drives deep-sea calcite burial towards a balance with the input of alkalinity from the continents28. For example, an increase in the weathering of limestone and other carbonate-bearing rocks on land (or similarly a decrease in coral reef growth in the shallow ocean) increases the whole ocean inventories of ALK and DIC in a 2:1 ratio.


With currently forested or vegetated regions covered under kilometers of ice, an increase in the extent of deserts, apparent conversion of tropical forest to grassland, and exposure of organic-rich sediments on continental shelves, it seems likely that the continental reservoir of organic carbon decreased during the last ice age, contributing CO2 to the ocean/atmosphere system (ref. 7 and references therein). Based on reconstructions of biome distributions for the glacial world and information on carbon storage by different biomes, estimates7,8 of the glacial/interglacial change in terrestrial carbon storage range between 700 and 1,350 Pg C (1015 g of carbon).

The deep ocean, which is the dominant volume of ocean water, has a mean temperature of 2C. Sea water begins to freeze at about -2C, producing buoyant ice. As a result, deep ocean water could not have been more than 4C colder during the last ice age, placing an upper bound on how much additional CO2 this water could have sequestered simply by cooling. The potential cooling of surface waters in polar regions such as the Antarctic is also constrained by the freezing point of sea water. The temperature of the lower-latitude (equatorial, tropical and subtropical) surface ocean is far from the freezing point and thus lacks this constraint, and the pattern of low-latitude cooling is a subject of continuing research.

There are uncertainties in each of these effects, but it seems that most of the 80 to100 p.p.m.v. CO2 change across the last glacial/interglacial transition must be explained by other processes.

William
2009-Dec-13, 03:26 AM
This is from the Province of Ontario's department of agriculture.

This summary notes the optimum level of CO2 is 1300 ppm, however, when plants live in higher CO2 they select genes that enable them to optimally live at 2000 ppm with maximum growth and minimum requirement for water.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#f1


For most crops the saturation point of CO2 will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness. The increase in yield of tomato, cucumber and pepper crops is a result of increased numbers and faster flowering per plant.

nauthiz
2009-Dec-13, 03:35 AM
I just heard a science piece on the radio that talked about how higher carbon dioxide concentrations is really bad for cephalopods and mollusks.

William
2009-Dec-13, 03:36 AM
I'm not convinced you understand what you're talking about. Stomata allow for gas exchange, so a reduction of stomata with respect to CO2 increase implies that plants are generally optimized to current levels of CO2. If not, microevolution would not be selecting for fewer stomata.

Assuming that greenhouses do use increased levels of CO2, other potential reasons exist such as issues with gas circulation. Additionally, a controlled greenhouse environment will not exhibit selection as observed in nature. This may bias the relationship between plant growth and CO2, and may not accurately reflect Earth's natural biosphere.



I am not sure what is the motivation behind your emotional outburst.

The temperature in Winnipeg is currently -28C and will cool off to -32C this evening.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/camb0244

Do you live in a different Winnipeg on a different planet?

Increasing CO2 is beneficial to plants and hence to the biosphere. That is a fact. I have provided a list of papers that support that assertion. You have provide no scientific counter point.

You appear to have some other concern. I am not sure what your concerns are but I am genuinely interested in your viewpoint as other people appear also to be suspicious and assume that I am trying to "trick" them. Hence other emotional outbursts. I am not.

I would be very interested in discussing the benefits of a warmer planet vs a colder planet, however, let's leave that subject for a different thread.

nauthiz
2009-Dec-13, 03:43 AM
The temperature in Winnipeg is currently -28C and will cool off to -32C this evening.


And here in Chicago I went to the grocery store without bothering to put on a jacket today.

You pick your cherries, I'll pick mine. ;)

William
2009-Dec-13, 03:59 AM
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3Y-4N6FNPR-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1133437266&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=602850a304857db4767613a021735d61


Impact of elevated CO2 and temperature on rice yield and methods of adaptation as evaluated by crop simulation studies

But increases in the CO2 concentration up to 700 ppm led to the average yield increases of about 30.73% by ORYZA1 and 56.37% by INFOCROP rice.


As I said, it is a scientific fact increasing CO2 levels increase crop yields. For grains the maximum benefit is an increase in crop yield of around 50%.

Torsten
2009-Dec-13, 06:10 AM
No William, the abstract is painting a more complex picture of the crop response than you have summarized with your cherry picked lines.

Sheesh, did you think no one would read it?


It is -27C today where I live. Do we live on the same planet? Are the laws of physics different on the AWG (sic) planet?

Are you implying something extraordinary with that temperature? In case you didn't know, the published climate normals for your location indicate that in an average December, 7 days can be expected to be colder than -20C, and about 2 days get colder than -30C. What's the problem?

mike alexander
2009-Dec-13, 06:30 AM
This is from the Province of Ontario's department of agriculture.

This summary notes the optimum level of CO2 is 1300 ppm, however, when plants live in higher CO2 they select genes that enable them to optimally live at 2000 ppm with maximum growth and minimum requirement for water.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#f1


For most crops the saturation point of CO2 will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness. The increase in yield of tomato, cucumber and pepper crops is a result of increased numbers and faster flowering per plant.


I agree with the quote, since it's the same reference I gave in post #42.

A reference on gene selection due to chronic increase in carbon dioxide would be helpful.

William, it seems that you favor a roughly eightfold increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. This will make plants grow faster. Not all plants, since there are other limiting materials and processes affecting plant growth. You appear to have no interest in exploring any other effects this increase might cause beyond a lower stomata density and decreased water transpiration from leaves, which you mention every chance you get.

So: WHY do you want to do this? Increasing plant growth for its own sake? Or are there other points in your agenda?

mugaliens
2009-Dec-13, 09:35 AM
photosynthesis is real? brilliant! now all we need is to wait for evolution to pick up plant growth/CO2-consumption rates which will deal with both increasing CO2 levels and do so in a constantly decreasing strap of land.

I'm all with you about the reduction in green land. However, if there were no change in that department, when CO2 levels rise, plant O2 production increases, and more than the level of CO2 level rise.

This, among several other reasons highlighted around these forums, including historical data over millions of years, is why runaway global warming remains a sensationalis, fear-mongering myth.

nauthiz
2009-Dec-13, 04:40 PM
This, among several other reasons highlighted around these forums, including historical data over millions of years, is why runaway global warming remains a sensationalis, fear-mongering myth.

Yes indeed. Historical data over millions of years shows us that it's completely impossible for average temperatures to go up by more than a couple degrees, and such changes are categorically good for life on earth.

Or maybe not. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum)

Phil-B
2009-Dec-13, 05:18 PM
And here in Chicago I went to the grocery store without bothering to put on a jacket today.

You pick your cherries, I'll pick mine. ;)

??????

http:///weather.chicagotribune.com/auto/chicagotribune/history/airport/KMDW/2009/12/12/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

http://weather.chicagotribune.com/auto/chicagotribune/history/airport/KMDW/2009/12/13/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

mike alexander
2009-Dec-14, 12:27 AM
That's shirtsleeve weather in the American Midwest.

neilzero
2009-Dec-14, 02:44 AM
So there has been a tiny increase in temperature over many periods of time over the last century. The last ten years shows no or negligible increase in temperature except for cherry picked sections of the Arctic. The carbon dioxide has also increased by a tiny amount and may reach 500 parts per million in a few decades or centuries. Most plants can tolerate or thrive on 2000 parts per million, nearly all species benefit from 1000 parts per million.
Of course a 5 degree c = 9 degree f average temperature rise, which may occur somewhere will produce minor climate change for the better for most species, but not for all of the present species, at that location. On the average rain fall should increase proportional to the kelvin temperature increase = not much. Plants won't remove as much water from the soil with 500 parts per million of carbon dioxide, but plants likely remove about 10% of the water a millimeter (average) below the surface (other mechanisms remove about 90%) so increased run off water will rarely occur, even less often be significant. Perhaps 1001 millimeters of water flooding your house (instead 1000 millimeters) if the carbon dioxide was still 360 parts per million. Of course my numbers slightly favor the climate change debunkers. Optimism wins over gloom and doom about 90% of the time. Neil

Strange
2009-Dec-14, 08:28 AM
From an environmental standpoint the one positive thing humans are doing is increasing CO2 levels.

Of course, if atmospheric CO2 is increasing then so is ocean CO2. Which is bad for things like coral and all the other species that are dependent on that habitat.

So, how about a bit of balance. Nothing is universally good (or bad).

Swift
2009-Dec-14, 02:47 PM
We might not like all the plants that will enjoy higher CO2 levels.

From National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060530-warming.html)

Rising levels of carbon dioxide—a so-called greenhouse gas that traps heat within Earth's atmosphere—can fuel booming poison ivy growth, a new study reports.

Even worse, the rash-inducing vines may become more potent.

Working in a Duke Univerity-owned forest near Chapel Hill, North Carolina, researchers used a system of carbon dioxide-pumping pipes to create atmospheric CO2 levels that were some 200 parts per million higher than the current norm.

Many global warming models predict that such levels will be a reality by 2050. (Related: "Global Warming Could Cause Mass Extinctions by 2050, Study Says" [April 12].)

Poison ivy growth surged some 150 percent in the carbon dioxide-rich forest plots.

Ivan Viehoff
2009-Dec-14, 03:38 PM
Increased CO2 reduces desertification.
Slipped in, not in the first post, and not fully justified. A major cause of desertification is due to shortage of water, not shortage of CO2. Higher temperatures increases evaporation, so there is less water available for the plants, at constant rainfall. Despite the increases in CO2 in recent times, desertification seems to progress. So your claim seems to sit in face of the evidence.

You seem to show that typical plants need less water if there is more CO2. But plants on desert margins are not typical plants, rather they are already generally adapted to arid conditions. I doubt they have the opportunity to conserve much more water.

Anyway, at the end of the day, so what? It is acknowledged that climate change will result in some ecosystems being more productive and others less productive. A large net cost of climate change is all those people living in the wrong place.

And many things living in the sea don't seem to like too much more CO2, or getting much warmer, especially the more immobile things. Maybe other things that like it more will take their place, but that's to be seen and not clear.

There is a general advertising campaign going on "CO2 is good for the planet". CO2 is a fertiliser, so it is good for certain things in a limited sense. Nitrates are a fertiliser too. But what has been the result of overuse of nitrates - eutrophication, dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, toxic algal blooms, etc. And if it gets into teh drinking water you have to pay to take it out. Like many things, you can have too much of a good thing, or need to use it carefully. There's that lake in Cameroon that burps out CO2 occasionally and kills most of the locals, though now they've put some bleed into it to leak it out slowly in hope that that won't happen again. And there's a valley in Indonesia with a CO2 seep that results in a permanent layer of CO2 at the bottom - lush plants but no (higher) animals there, except corpses. Venus isn't a good advert for an excess of the stuff either.

mike alexander
2009-Dec-14, 03:50 PM
To extend a thought from Ivan Viehoff's post #64:

If William's assertion that a large increase in CO2 will decrease transpiration by about 30% while increasing plant growth rate by 50%, wouldn't that still result in a net absolute increase in transpiration?

Roughly, twice as much plant giving off half as much water vapor seems a wash.

grant hutchison
2009-Dec-14, 06:18 PM
To extend a thought from Ivan Viehoff's post #64:

If William's assertion that a large increase in CO2 will decrease transpiration by about 30% while increasing plant growth rate by 50%, wouldn't that still result in a net absolute increase in transpiration?

Roughly, twice as much plant giving off half as much water vapor seems a wash.Yes, I gave a link in an earlier post on this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/1641399-post15.html), which discusses this effective cancellation: the reduction in the number of stomata is offset by the increased photosynthetic efficiency and increased leaf area. In global terms you see slightly fewer stomata putting out slightly more water per stoma.

Grant Hutchison

mike alexander
2009-Dec-14, 08:40 PM
Boink. Brain blank, Grant.

grant hutchison
2009-Dec-14, 10:04 PM
Boink. Brain blank, Grant.No worries. It's a busy thread. :)

Grant Hutchison

Webbo
2009-Dec-15, 03:59 PM
Yes indeed. Historical data over millions of years shows us that it's completely impossible for average temperatures to go up by more than a couple degrees, and such changes are categorically good for life on earth.

Or maybe not. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum)

...or maybe so. Form the link you provided;

"The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1000 years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction. Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time."

That was for 6 degrees of warming so maybe we wont all be burnt to a crisp after all.

Webbo
2009-Dec-15, 04:15 PM
Higher temperatures increases evaporation, so there is less water available for the plants, at constant rainfall.

Interesting that you qualified that statement with the "at constant rainfall" comment. Why would the rainfall be constant if the water content of the air has increased? Where has that extra evaporated water gone?

nauthiz
2009-Dec-15, 04:22 PM
...or maybe so. Form the link you provided;

"The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1000 years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction. Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time."


I said "categorically good". The first sentence of the passage you quote shows that the PETM did not come anywhere close to being good for all the planet's life forms.

Swift
2009-Dec-15, 04:33 PM
I think this article from laboratoryequipment.com (http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/News-engineering-water-wise-crops-121509.aspx?xmlmenuid=51&wnnvz=1756,2148134) is particularly relevant.

Biologists have identified plant enzymes that may help to engineer plants that take advantage of elevated carbon dioxide to use water more efficiently. The finding could help to engineer crops that take advantage of rising greenhouse gases.

Plants take in the carbon dioxide they need for photosynthesis through microscopic breathing pores in the surface of leaves. But for each molecule of the gas gained, they lose hundreds of water molecules through these same openings. The pores can tighten to save water when CO2 is abundant, but scientists didn't know how that worked until now.

A team led by Julian Schroeder, professor of biology at the Univ. of California, San Diego, has identified the protein sensors that control the response. Enzymes that react with CO2 cause cells surrounding the opening of the pores to close down they report in the journal Nature Cell Biology.

The discovery could help to boost the response in plants that do not take full advantage of elevated levels of the gas, Schroeder says. "A lot of plants have a very weak response to CO2. So even though atmospheric CO2 is much higher than it was before the industrial age and is continuing to increase, there are plants that are not capitalizing on that. They're not narrowing their pores, which would allow them to take in CO2, while losing less water," he says. "It could be that with these enzymes, you can improve how efficiently plants use water, while taking in CO2 for photosynthesis. Our data in the lab suggest that the CO2 response can be cranked up."

Plants lose 95% of the water they take in to evaporation through these pores, also called stoma. Modifying crops to be more responsive to CO2 could help farmers meet demand for food as competition for water increases. In California, for example, 79% of water diverted from streams and rivers or pumped from the ground is used for agriculture according to the California Department of Water Resources.

I think the 4th paragraph is particularly relevant for this thread.

Webbo
2009-Dec-15, 04:48 PM
I said "categorically good". The first sentence of the passage you quote shows that the PETM did not come anywhere close to being good for all the planet's life forms.

As far as I am aware, the AGW viewpoint isn't for the survival of benthic foraminifera is it? I though the dangers were mainly mammalian related.

Aside from that, which is the correct temperature that's "categorically good" for all species then?

nauthiz
2009-Dec-15, 04:54 PM
Aside from that, which is the correct temperature that's "categorically good" for all species then?

I don't think that question really has a precise answer, but presumably a good approximation would be that the most comfortable temperature range overall for the currently extant species would be the one that they are currently evolved to. That isn't to say that life on earth couldn't evolve to do quite well in a different range as it did in the PETM, but natural selection is almost by definition an unpleasant business.

Webbo
2009-Dec-15, 05:08 PM
I don't think that question really has a precise answer, but presumably a good approximation would be that the most comfortable temperature range overall for the currently extant species would be the one that they are currently evolved to. That isn't to say that life on earth couldn't evolve to do quite well in a different range as it did in the PETM, but natural selection is almost by definition an unpleasant business.

Yes, life will adapt to whatever range it experiences, however, as your link demonstrated mammals "radiated profusely" during much higher average temperatures then even the worst case IPCC scenarios indicate. And as mammals are essentialy at the top of the food chain it stands to reason that the underlying food source of vegetation must have also been abundent to support such radiance. We already know that insects and reptiles thrive in warmer climes, and birds will no doubt enjoy the increased vegetation and insects provided thereon.

In conclusion I think that the potential benefits to four major specie groups should outweigh the potential loss of a few specific species.

nauthiz
2009-Dec-15, 05:15 PM
That a class is "radiating profusely" does not imply that all the members of that class are living the life of lotus-eaters.

Ivan Viehoff
2009-Dec-15, 05:33 PM
Interesting that you qualified that statement with the "at constant rainfall" comment. Why would the rainfall be constant if the water content of the air has increased? Where has that extra evaporated water gone?
We are not discussing whether increased CO2 will reduce deserts by increasing rainfall. We are discussing whether increased CO2 will aid plants to grow better in drier conditions, ie, for a given level rainfall. So "at constant rainfall" is the appropriate standard, because that is appropriate to William's argument.

I made explicit "at constant rainfall", because I agree with you that increased CO2 will increase rainfall by warming the earth. But William probably wouldn't. But in any case that is a different issue. And it is far from obvious whether the areas where increased rainfall is greater than increased evaporation will exceed the areas where it is the other way around. But I think the general judgment is the latter.

Webbo
2009-Dec-15, 06:03 PM
That a class is "radiating profusely" does not imply that all the members of that class are living the life of lotus-eaters.

No, but it does imply a substantial net benefit of the entire class which is more important than individual success isn't it?

Strange
2009-Dec-15, 06:05 PM
In conclusion I think that the potential benefits to four major specie groups should outweigh the potential loss of a few specific species.

Even if humans (or some of the animals or plants we are are dependent on) are the ones to go? That's very generous of you. But, really... after you...

Swift
2009-Dec-15, 06:14 PM
Aside from that, which is the correct temperature that's "categorically good" for all species then?
The correct temperature, is the one that the Earth would currently be at, if it wasn't for man's uncontrolled changes to the planet.

Webbo
2009-Dec-15, 06:17 PM
I made explicit "at constant rainfall", because I agree with you that increased CO2 will increase rainfall by warming the earth. But William probably wouldn't. But in any case that is a different issue. And it is far from obvious whether the areas where increased rainfall is greater than increased evaporation will exceed the areas where it is the other way around. But I think the general judgment is the latter.

Ok, so you concede then that increased warming will cause increased evaporation which will cause increased rainfall. Therefore one would expect increased vegetaion and an increase in all species that rely on that increased vegetation, yes? And thats a bad thing because...?

Whether the increase in evaporation is greater than the increase in rainfall (or vice versa) is irrelevant. Both increase so either way vegetation will benefit.

Webbo
2009-Dec-15, 06:21 PM
Even if humans (or some of the animals or plants we are are dependent on) are the ones to go? That's very generous of you. But, really... after you...

Of course, however, as it was made clear that mammals "radiated profusely" at average temps 6 degrees higher than now, and man is arguably the most adaptive of all mammalian species, I doubt we have much to worry about.

Strange
2009-Dec-15, 06:22 PM
Ok, so you concede then that increased warming will cause increased evaporation which will cause increased rainfall. Therefore one would expect increased vegetaion and an increase in all species that rely on that increased vegetation, yes? And thats a bad thing because...?

Whether the increase in evaporation is greater than the increase in rainfall (or vice versa) is irrelevant. Both increase so either way vegetation will benefit.

There is such a thing as too much rain. Also, like the temperature, it won't just increase proportionally everywhere. Climate is a complicated thing (apparently) so some areas which need water will end up dry. Some that have enough now, will end with mudslides and floods. OK, some people/plants will be better off. But you can't pretend it is all good.

Strange
2009-Dec-15, 06:28 PM
I doubt we have much to worry about.

That may be true, as a species. Possibly not as individuals.

I'm never very happy with this "it'll all be OK in the long run" argument because it seems to ignore the misery, suffering and death on the way there.

Webbo
2009-Dec-15, 06:33 PM
The correct temperature, is the one that the Earth would currently be at, if it wasn't for man's uncontrolled changes to the planet.

So if the planet were to proceed to an ice age (as it will one day) without mans changes, and the subsequent extinction event that would cause; you would advocate we should allow that to happen even if we were able to stop it?

Also, can you indicate who holds the correct temperature figures and where that indicates mans influence at 0?

Webbo
2009-Dec-15, 06:41 PM
There is such a thing as too much rain. Also, like the temperature, it won't just increase proportionally everywhere. Climate is a complicated thing (apparently) so some areas which need water will end up dry. Some that have enough now, will end with mudslides and floods. OK, some people/plants will be better off. But you can't pretend it is all good.

Not all good but as mammals "radiated profusely" the net effect sounds very good to me. If this caused excessive mudslides and floods most mammals would have drowned wouldn't they? Not sure how they would have radiated profusely in that case. I guess it wasn't a problem. Maybe the extra food available and warmer climate offset the drowning problems.

Ivan Viehoff
2009-Dec-15, 06:42 PM
Ok, so you concede then that increased warming will cause increased evaporation which will cause increased rainfall. ... And thats a bad thing because...?
It is uncontroversial there will be increased rainfall. But there will also be increased evaporation. Which is why certain mediterranean areas, for example, with similar rainfall to UK, are not as lush as UK, but rather have scrubby vegetation. They need increased rainfall to overcome the higher evaporation. But of course irrigation-fed agriculture in the Med is more productive than agriculture in the UK.

The increased rainfall will be unevenly distributed. Some areas will experience increased rainfall in excess of evaporation. Some areas will experience increased evaporation in excess of the change in rainfall. It is obviously difficult to know what is the balance, but I believe most detailed predictions are for the latter to be larger in area.

It is uncontroversial that climate change will benefit some areas, and increase crop yields in some cases. But some areas will be damaged by being flooded out or made desert. This results in economic losses and the need to rehouse people from the areas which are made less inhabitable. This could even result in costly political messes from the resulting population movements.

You talk about "more animals" eating "more vegetation". But many animals depend upon specific habitat. Man has reduced some habitats to small islands. Climate change can then change the habitat, without necessarily providing somewhere suitable for the animal inhabitants to go. (This is so blindingly obvious I don't know why I'm bothering). So some animals may become more common if there is more to eat in their habitat. But many others will be put under pressure through further habitat loss. So the loss may be of species diversity, while some other things benefit in numbers.

Swift
2009-Dec-15, 06:51 PM
You talk about "more animals" eating "more vegetation". But many animals depend upon specific habitat. Man has reduced some habitats to small islands. Climate change can then change the habitat, without necessarily providing somewhere suitable for the animal inhabitants to go. (This is so blindingly obvious I don't know why I'm bothering). So some animals may become more common if there is more to eat in their habitat. But many others will be put under pressure through further habitat loss. So the loss may be of species diversity, while some other things benefit in numbers.
Most plants depend upon specific habitats too. If boreal forests, for example, suddenly (in an ecological sense) become too warm to support the evergreens in them, the evergreens will die out. Sure, eventually something else will replace them, but such changes take time. Meanwhile, all the other species that depend upon those evergreens will be impacted too.

I don't think any of us are saying that AGW will wipe out life on Earth, or that ecosystems won't eventually adapt. But such adaptions will take a long time, and until they happen, the changes will, for the most part, be more negative than positive.

Strange
2009-Dec-15, 06:53 PM
Not all good but as mammals "radiated profusely" the net effect sounds very good to me.

Great. Well, I hope it is you and your family who drown in the floods then. For the net good of course. :)

Webbo
2009-Dec-15, 06:56 PM
That may be true, as a species. Possibly not as individuals.

I'm never very happy with this "it'll all be OK in the long run" argument because it seems to ignore the misery, suffering and death on the way there.

More suffering and death is caused by lack of food and clean water than will ever be caused by global warming effects. And the billions spent in the name of AGW industry could go a long way to appeasing that suffereing.

If you cared that much you would campaign to have that funding diverted to immediate and continued problems, rather than to a poorly modelled one that history shows isn't even a problem, and should actually have a net benefit to life on earth.

Have a look at this and tell me what you think we should concentrate our efforts on to help deal with suffering;

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/globalhealthriskfactors.png

Webbo
2009-Dec-15, 07:04 PM
It is uncontroversial there will be increased rainfall. But there will also be increased evaporation. Which is why certain mediterranean areas, for example, with similar rainfall to UK, are not as lush as UK, but rather have scrubby vegetation. They need increased rainfall to overcome the higher evaporation. But of course irrigation-fed agriculture in the Med is more productive than agriculture in the UK.

The increased rainfall will be unevenly distributed. Some areas will experience increased rainfall in excess of evaporation. Some areas will experience increased evaporation in excess of the change in rainfall. It is obviously difficult to know what is the balance, but I believe most detailed predictions are for the latter to be larger in area.

It is uncontroversial that climate change will benefit some areas, and increase crop yields in some cases. But some areas will be damaged by being flooded out or made desert. This results in economic losses and the need to rehouse people from the areas which are made less inhabitable. This could even result in costly political messes from the resulting population movements.

You talk about "more animals" eating "more vegetation". But many animals depend upon specific habitat. Man has reduced some habitats to small islands. Climate change can then change the habitat, without necessarily providing somewhere suitable for the animal inhabitants to go. (This is so blindingly obvious I don't know why I'm bothering). So some animals may become more common if there is more to eat in their habitat. But many others will be put under pressure through further habitat loss. So the loss may be of species diversity, while some other things benefit in numbers.

Indeed. However, as stated many times, the net benefit resulted in mammals "radiating profusely". You dont make a statement like that if it averages out do you. Mammals wont be the only ones to gain either. Insects and reptiles both prefer warmer climates and birds should indirectly benefit (they have the added benefit on not worrying about floods). So, whatever specfic effects you like to cherry pick, the result of a warmer climate should and would be a huge net benefit to the majority of life on earth.

mike alexander
2009-Dec-15, 07:38 PM
Parts of this thread are like Candide.

DR. PANGLOSS
Let us review
Lesson eleven!

STUDENTS:
Paragraph two
Axiom seven

PANGLOSS:
Once one dismisses
The rest of all possible worlds
One finds that this is
The best of all possible worlds!

STUDENTS:
Once one dismisses
The rest of all possible worlds
One finds that this is
The best of all possible worlds!

PANGLOSS:
Pray classify
Pigeons and camels

MAXIMILLIAN:
Pigeons can fly!

PAQUETTE:
Camels are mammals!

PANGLOSS:
There is a reason
For everything under the sun!

CANDIDE:
There is a reason
For everything under the sun!

MAXIMILLIAN:
Objection!
What about snakes?

PANGLOSS:
Snakes!
'Twas snake that tempted mother Eve
Because of snake we now believe
That though depraved
We can be saved
From hellfire and damnation
(Because of snake's temptation!)

If snake had not seduced our lot
And primed us for salvation
Jehova could not pardon all
The sins that we call cardinal
Involving bed and bottle!

ALL
Now onto Aristotle!

PANGLOSS
Mankind is one
All men are brothers!

STUDENTS:
As you'd have done
Do unto others!

PANGLOSS
It's understood in
This best of all possible worlds--

MAXIMILLIAN
All's for the good in
This best of all possible worlds!

CANDIDE:
Objection!
What about war?

PANGLOSS:
War!
Though war may seem a bloody curse
It is a blessing in reverse
When canon roar
Both rich and poor
By danger are united!
(Till every wrong is righted!)

Philosophers make evident
The point that I have cited
'Tis war makes equal -- as it were --
The noble and the commoner
Thus war improves relations!

ALL:
Now onto conjugations!

PANGLOSS:
Amo, amas,
Amat, amamus!

STUDENTS:
Amo, amas,
Amat, amamus!

PANGLOSS:
Proving that this is
The best of all possible worlds
With love and kisses
The best of all possible worlds!

STUDENTS:
Proving that this is
The best of all possible worlds
With love and kisses
The best of all possible worlds!

PANGLOSS
Quod erat demunstrandum!
QED!
Amo, amas,
Amat amamus!

MAXIMILLIAN: (overlapping)
Quod erat demunstrandum!
QED!
Amo, amas!
Quod erat demunstrandum!

PAQUETTE: (overlapping)
Quod erat demunstrandum!
QED!
Amo, amas!

CANDIDE: (overlapping)
Quod erat demunstrandum!
QED!

CUNEGONDE: (overlapping)
Quod erat demunstrandum!

ALL:
Quod erat demunstrandum
In this best of all
Possible, possible, possible worlds!
Quod erat demunstrandum!
Q!
E!
D!

nauthiz
2009-Dec-15, 07:41 PM
No, but it does imply a substantial net benefit of the entire class which is more important than individual success isn't it?

To you maybe. I recognize that you feel that the potential benefit outweighs the potential risk. I'm sure, though, that you could also understand why other people might not be so interested in making such a big dice roll.

mike alexander
2009-Dec-15, 07:50 PM
STUDENTS
What about the Mayon volcano?

PANGLOSS
Like war, eruptions from the earth
Constrain our foolishness and mirth!
Though wiping out your years of toil
They make your grandchild's fertile soil!
Without volcanoes we would die
So either now, or by and by!

Volcanoes exist in
This best of all possible worlds!
No call to resist in
This best of all possible worlds!

Torsten
2009-Dec-15, 07:55 PM
Parts of this thread are like Candide.


Yep. Reading through this and the AGW thread last night, and thinking about the references to broken records, the picture of a scratched vinyl LP on an old record player came to mind - skipping, playing some inane line over and over.

Stroller
2009-Dec-15, 08:43 PM
Yep. Reading through this and the AGW thread last night, and thinking about the references to broken records, the picture of a scratched vinyl LP on an old record player came to mind - skipping, playing some inane line over and over.

Well it may seem inane to you, but having a reliable open publicly accessible and verifiable temperature record seems more like common sense to me. Especially with the evidence of bias (instrumental and human) coming to light.

Or will you continue to PanGloss over that?

PANGLOSS:
War on climate change!
Though co2 may seem a bloody curse
It is a blessing in reverse
When canon Gore
Speaks to the poor
By Mannian graph so blighted!
(Till every wrong way up mud series is righted!)

Swift
2009-Dec-15, 08:54 PM
I think this thread may be close to a complete derailment.

I would suggest that everyone stop the snipping, stop the poetry, and even stop the general debate on AGW (we already have a thread for that). Let's leave this thread focused on the interaction between plants and increasing CO2 levels, and directly related issues.

Thanks,

mike alexander
2009-Dec-15, 08:56 PM
Just remember that history is inevitable in hindsight. Just because something did happen does not mean it had to happen. The Cambrian explosion mat have ramped up in earnest 540 million years ago, but there is not yet any plausible reason it could not have happened earlier or mlater. And a couple of hours difference means the KT asteroid doesn't impact and the age of mammals never happens or is delayed by another 20 million years.

Stroller
2009-Dec-15, 09:18 PM
Recent epigenetic studies show that plants suddenly switch on hundreds of extra genes when the co2 level rises above 500ppm. Clearly, plants know how to deal with higher co2 concentrations. A recent study by a professor of climate in my home town has shown trees have got fatter since the co2 levels have risen.

mike alexander
2009-Dec-15, 10:42 PM
I guess there's nothing more for me to say than I'm very happy for the plants. Not being a plant, my viewpoint is somewhat different.

But in fifty years I'm long gone and forgotten, so from my place nothing much matters, anyhow.

Stroller
2009-Dec-15, 10:50 PM
I guess there's nothing more for me to say than I'm very happy for the plants. Not being a plant, my viewpoint is somewhat different.


Tests done in submarines found that humans are fine up to a co2 concentration of around ten thousand parts per million in air. The highest co2 concentration that we know of in geological history in an age of higher life forms was around 7000ppm, about 550m years ago.

Below 160ppm, trees die. Given that the seas didn't boil or turn to fish dissolving acid 550M years ago, anywhere in between these two values seems to be a non-problem.

Squink
2009-Dec-16, 12:32 AM
The simple point is that increasing CO2 levels is beneficial to plants. Do we all agree that is a fact?

CO2 supplementation can increase the rate of plant growth, if it is the rate limiting nutrient. You can also get too much of it: Above 2,000 PPM, CO2 starts to become toxic to plants and above 4,000 PPM it becomes toxic to people. (http://www.stonerforums.com/lounge/advanced-techniques/3152-carbon-dioxide-enrichment-methods.html)
Nice graph in post #2 of the thread.

Now if added CO2 is acidifiying your water to the point that alga won't grow, you end up with much lower oxygen production per square mile of sea surface.
That could be a bad thing for us animals, but since Oxygen competes with CO2 for reaction with ribulose bisphosphate (see RuBisCO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuBisCO)) it could end up increasing the photosynthetic efficiency of land plants still further.

mike alexander
2009-Dec-16, 12:40 AM
Tests done in submarines found that humans are fine up to a co2 concentration of around ten thousand parts per million in air. The highest co2 concentration that we know of in geological history in an age of higher life forms was around 7000ppm, about 550m years ago.

Below 160ppm, trees die. Given that the seas didn't boil or turn to fish dissolving acid 550M years ago, anywhere in between these two values seems to be a non-problem.

You're correct, of course. Life forms have evolved to live in hot springs, near undersea vents and within polar ice and rocks two miles underground. In the broadest context, I'm quite sure that life will exist on earth for the next billion years, until the increasing heat output from the sun makes it untenable. Given that view, any minor fluctuations are, well, minor.

The loss of a few species, here and there, is inconsequential, given that almost all species that have ever existed are extinct. And given that humans, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, will always choose paths that maximize our survival, the very idea that major alterations to our environment are a dicey thing is just plain silly.

May you live in interesting times.

Webbo
2009-Dec-16, 01:36 AM
To you maybe. I recognize that you feel that the potential benefit outweighs the potential risk. I'm sure, though, that you could also understand why other people might not be so interested in making such a big dice roll.

What dice roll?

As stated in the link you supplied; when temperatues were 6 degrees higher than now (much higher than the worstcase scenarios of the IPCC), mammals "radiated profusely". Which in turn must be related to an improvement in vegetation.

You only need a cursory glance at historical and geological records and papers to confirm this fact. And there isnt any hidden data to unearth or statistical methods to navigate either.

Webbo
2009-Dec-16, 01:45 AM
I guess there's nothing more for me to say than I'm very happy for the plants. Not being a plant, my viewpoint is somewhat different.

Well you should be concerned about plants as they are the main reason virtually all land animals exist. When plants thrive so do all other land based animals.

Unless of course your main concerns are bacteria and water based creatures.

BrentArsement
2009-Dec-16, 01:49 AM
No worries. It's a busy thread.

And a fun one.:)

ToSeek
2009-Dec-16, 02:35 AM
Great. Well, I hope it is you and your family who drown in the floods then. For the net good of course. :)

Definitely not the sort of sentiments we like to see on this forum. Please take care in future.

mike alexander
2009-Dec-16, 03:16 AM
What dice roll?

As stated in the link you supplied; when temperatues were 6 degrees higher than now (much higher than the worstcase scenarios of the IPCC), mammals "radiated profusely". Which in turn must be related to an improvement in vegetation.

You only need a cursory glance at historical and geological records and papers to confirm this fact. And there isnt any hidden data to unearth or statistical methods to navigate either.

You really don't understand that the future isn't predetermined, do you?

Strange
2009-Dec-16, 08:47 AM
Definitely not the sort of sentiments we like to see on this forum. Please take care in future.


I apologise. It was intended as a joke ... but clearly not funny.

Webbo
2009-Dec-16, 03:52 PM
You really don't understand that the future isn't predetermined, do you?

Of course it isn't. I not suggesting it will rise 6 degrees. I'm just indicating form nauthiz's link what happens when it has previously.

Alternatively we can look at effects during the recent so-called "unprecedented" rise in CO2 & temperature over the last few decades;

Analyses of satellite greenness index data sets indicate a significant greening of
the northern latitudes since the early 1980s. This greening trend show a strong
correlation with the pronounced warming of surface temperatures observed in
these regions, and the spatio-temporal pattern of greening coincides with the
major modes of global climate variability, namely, the El Nino Southern
Oscillation and the Arctic Oscillation.

Recent results indicate that global changes in climate have eased several critical
climatic constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production
increased 6% (3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years) globally. The largest
increase was in tropical ecosystems. Amazon rain forests accounted for 42% of
the global increase in net primary production, owing mainly to decreased cloud
cover and the resulting increase in solar radiation.

Source: Myeni (2006)

nauthiz
2009-Dec-16, 05:28 PM
I'm just indicating form nauthiz's link what happens when it has previously.

. . . and from there you're drawing some very large inferences from a shred of information that's much too small to support them.

Murphy
2009-Dec-16, 07:01 PM
@ Webbo, I'm no expert on paleoclimatology (and clearly neither are you), but if you ask the people who are experts in this field, i.e. the paleoclimatologists, you'll find that not only do they not support the ideas that you are coming up with, they are some of the leading people telling us that Global Warming will be catastrophic for Mankind. So for you to try to use their work in your Anti-Global Warming agenda is a bad idea. You're reading these papers and articles about paleoclimatology and coming up with things that they aren't coming up with, You're creating inferences they don't, which strongly leads me to believe that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Nobody (as far as I'm aware) ever said that Global Warming would destroy all life on Earth or that it would be detrimental to all lifeforms, clearly there are some plants and animals that would do better in a much hotter world, but certainly not most of them. If the Ice caps completely melted and there was tropical conditions in Greenland then sure that might be good for some lifeforms, but the rather large downside being that vast areas in lower latitudes once habitable will be left as deserts. For every bit of "Greening" experienced in Northern Canada and Siberia, you will see another bit of desertification in most of the rest of the world, that's not a price worth paying in my opinion. And if you can't understand the negative consequences of that for both Man and life on Earth then, you really have a gap in understanding this issue.

William
2009-Dec-17, 03:15 AM
CO2 supplementation can increase the rate of plant growth, if it is the rate limiting nutrient. You can also get too much of it: Above 2,000 PPM, CO2 starts to become toxic to plants and above 4,000 PPM it becomes toxic to people. (http://www.stonerforums.com/lounge/advanced-techniques/3152-carbon-dioxide-enrichment-methods.html)
Nice graph in post #2 of the thread.

Now if added CO2 is acidifiying your water to the point that alga won't grow, you end up with much lower oxygen production per square mile of sea surface.
That could be a bad thing for us animals, but since Oxygen competes with CO2 for reaction with ribulose bisphosphate (see RuBisCO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuBisCO)) it could end up increasing the photosynthetic efficiency of land plants still further.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

C02 was at 1000 ppm 0.1% to 2000 ppm 0.2% for almost 300 million years.

Plants waste almost 50% of the solar energy that they absorb due to low CO2.

C3 plants can use almost all of the solar energy at CO2 levels of 1500 ppm to 2000 ppm.

The increase in plant productivity is roughly 50% for all C3 plants.

Plants reduce the number of stomata when CO2 increases to reduce the amount of water loss. Plants reduce the number of stomata when CO2 increases because they are currently CO2 deficient. If plants can reduce their loss of water they can survive in low water areas and there is more water for other plants which increase the forest biosphere mass.

The size of life on the planet is indicative of the productivity of plants. (i.e. Think of the size of herbivore dinosaurs. Carnivore dinosaur size is proportional to the herbivores.) The large size of the dinosaurs is because there was more CO2 and because the planet was warmer. (See comment concerning CO2 saturation.)

CO2 levels of 280 ppm 0.028% is not optimum, hence greenhouses inject CO2 to increase yield and reduce growing time.


Comment:
As I noted planetary temperature does not correlate with CO2 levels. Planetary temperature has been low when CO2 has been high and planetary temperature has been high when then CO2 levels are low. That fact supports the assertion that the CO2 greenhouse affect saturates.

We live in during an interglacial period of an ice epoch (The have been approximately 22 glacial periods, the glacial periods are now 100 kyrs long, the interglacial around 12kyr. There are ice caps on both poles. This ice epoch is the coldest period since ice ball earth.)

Warmer temperatures mean more rainfall and an expansion of the biosphere. Colder temperatures result in less rainfall, increased desertification and a contraction of the biosphere.

It is ironic that scientifically more CO2 and a warmer planet is positive for the biosphere not negative. The scientifically base environmental argument is to increase CO2 and to warm the plant. Note increasing CO2 will not warm the planet.

jlhredshift
2009-Dec-17, 04:17 AM
We live in during an interglacial period of an ice epoch (The have been approximately 22 glacial periods, the glacial periods are now 100 kyrs long, the interglacial around 12kyr. There are ice caps on both poles. This ice epoch is the coldest period since ice ball earth.)



To quote another member of this board, "Oh dear".

Your statement is a gross over simplification and misleading, but it would require a new thread to sort it out. G. M. Dawson, the great Canadian geologist, identified Permian glacial rocks, with striations, in Canada. The continents have moved since then. If you have a reference for discounting the Permian glaciation, I would like to see it.

William
2009-Dec-17, 05:00 AM
To quote another member of this board, "Oh dear".

Your statement is a gross over simplification and misleading, but it would require a new thread to sort it out. G. M. Dawson, the great Canadian geologist, identified Permian glacial rocks, with striations, in Canada. The continents have moved since then. If you have a reference for discounting the Permian glaciation, I would like to see it.

If you would like start a separate thread to explain the previous ice epochs.

I would be interested in a explanation as to why there is no correlation of CO2 levels and the past ice epochs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

William
2009-Dec-17, 05:04 AM
What has CO2 every done for us?

Plants? Life on this earth. Carbon based life forms.

CO2 was 0.028% it is now 0.038%. For 300 million years it was 0.1% to 0.2%.

CO2 is pollution?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr3BUBnuptI

It is a scientific fact that increased CO2 levels (up to around 1500 ppm) will result in a more productive and larger biosphere.

jlhredshift
2009-Dec-17, 02:10 PM
If you would like start a separate thread to explain the previous ice epochs.

I would be interested in a explanation as to why there is no correlation of CO2 levels and the past ice epochs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

I did and it did not go very far because our knowledge is incomplete. The younger Dryas is a good example. It was very severe for a very short time geologically speaking. Too short for a global driver to come and go, and it was nice in Tahiti during that period. It was a cold snap in the northern hemisphere for about fifteen hundred years. Why? Research is on going. I am fairly certain that living in Iowa at that time was probably pretty miserable.

Swift
2009-Dec-17, 02:28 PM
It is a scientific fact that increased CO2 levels (up to around 1500 ppm) will result in a more productive and larger biosphere.
Really? How do measure and define "productive" and "larger"?

Strange
2009-Dec-17, 02:40 PM
What has CO2 every done for us?

Plants? Life on this earth. Carbon based life forms.

It has also made it warm enough for us to be comfortable due to the greenhouse effect. Don't forget that one.

ETA: or maybe it was the appearance of oxygen that made it cool enough...

Webbo
2009-Dec-17, 03:19 PM
. . . and from there you're drawing some very large inferences from a shred of information that's much too small to support them.

The inferrence I am making is that to support the extra abundence of mammals extra vegetation is required. If you think that is an absurd inference then so be it. Although I'm not sure what you think this abundence of mammals used for extra food.

And, yes I am infering that insects and reptiles were also in abundence as would be expected from cold blooded animals in warmer regions. Again maybe you think that is ridiculous.

Maybe the other animals didn't radiate as profusely as mammals but they certainly weren't harmed as, according to the link you provided;

"There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota."

So, no increased terrestial extinctions and mammals radiated profusely. And this during a period 6 degrees above now. No inferences required, it's in the direct quotes.

Doesn't sound so bad for life does it.

Webbo
2009-Dec-17, 04:06 PM
@ Webbo, I'm no expert on paleoclimatology (and clearly neither are you), but if you ask the people who are experts in this field, i.e. the paleoclimatologists, you'll find that not only do they not support the ideas that you are coming up with, they are some of the leading people telling us that Global Warming will be catastrophic for Mankind. So for you to try to use their work in your Anti-Global Warming agenda is a bad idea. You're reading these papers and articles about paleoclimatology and coming up with things that they aren't coming up with, You're creating inferences they don't, which strongly leads me to believe that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

I'm no expert which is why I have provided quotes rather than interpret myself. I have made some IMO reasonable inferences. If they are ridiculous ones then comment directly on them rather than use ad hominem arguments.


Nobody (as far as I'm aware) ever said that Global Warming would destroy all life on Earth or that it would be detrimental to all lifeforms, clearly there are some plants and animals that would do better in a much hotter world, but certainly not most of them.

I never said they said AGW would destroy all life, but many are saying it is bad for life in general and humans in particular. I'm stating that the evidence and even current effects of supposed recent warming show the opposite is true. Warming is good for life on earth. It was in the past, it is now and it will be in the future. And according to the link provided by nauthiz, while it may not be good for most, it was good for most mammals and certanly didn't harm the other biota.


If the Ice caps completely melted and there was tropical conditions in Greenland then sure that might be good for some lifeforms, but the rather large downside being that vast areas in lower latitudes once habitable will be left as deserts. For every bit of "Greening" experienced in Northern Canada and Siberia, you will see another bit of desertification in most of the rest of the world, that's not a price worth paying in my opinion. And if you can't understand the negative consequences of that for both Man and life on Earth then, you really have a gap in understanding this issue.

Unfortunately you are completely incorrect about desertification which is caused by a lack of water not an abundence of heat. An increase in heat increases evaporation which increases rainfall which reduces dessertification. How do you suppose that mammals radiated profusely if desertification were pronounced? What did they evolve to eat during the average 6 degrees increase in temps, sand?

Swift
2009-Dec-17, 04:31 PM
The inferrence I am making is that to support the extra abundence of mammals extra vegetation is required. If you think that is an absurd inference then so be it. Although I'm not sure what you think this abundence of mammals used for extra food.

And, yes I am infering that insects and reptiles were also in abundence as would be expected from cold blooded animals in warmer regions. Again maybe you think that is ridiculous.

Maybe the other animals didn't radiate as profusely as mammals but they certainly weren't harmed as, according to the link you provided;

"There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota."

So, no increased terrestial extinctions and mammals radiated profusely. And this during a period 6 degrees above now. No inferences required, it's in the direct quotes.

Doesn't sound so bad for life does it.
I suspect that the part of this that you are leaving out is the rate of change. Except for catastrophic changes in climate (like a comet hitting the Earth), past climate changes were at much slower rates of change than the current change, and so ecosystems have time to adjust.

If, for example, the temperature in the boreal forests of the world increase 2, 3, 4 degrees in the next century, you will not see that rapid a change in the species. Animals just don't shift habitats that fast; trees don't grow that fast. I suspect that over the course of a few centuries that the ecosystems will adjust, but it will take considerable time, at least by human standards.

Webbo
2009-Dec-17, 05:37 PM
I suspect that the part of this that you are leaving out is the rate of change. Except for catastrophic changes in climate (like a comet hitting the Earth), past climate changes were at much slower rates of change than the current change, and so ecosystems have time to adjust.

Not according to nauthiz's link;

"This rate of carbon addition almost equals the rate at which carbon is being released into the atmosphere today through anthropogenic activity."


If, for example, the temperature in the boreal forests of the world increase 2, 3, 4 degrees in the next century, you will not see that rapid a change in the species. Animals just don't shift habitats that fast; trees don't grow that fast. I suspect that over the course of a few centuries that the ecosystems will adjust, but it will take considerable time, at least by human standards.

Funny though. They seem to survive in daily and seasonal fluctuations far greater than 2, 3 or 4 degrees. Odd that. Why don't they die?

I would agree that an increase in adverse circumstances over a short period would be detrimental. However, it makes no sense to say that an increase in favourable circumstances over a short period would be detrimental. Why would more available water, warmth, vegetation etc. be detrimental on the whole? Makes no sense whether the change is short or long. Maybe the trees won't adapt as in your example but there are a lot of other species that will take hold very quickly.

Lets see what the UN Africa Report on desertification says;

"The Sahel has been greening in recent years.
Greening of the Sahel as observed from satellite images is now well established,
confirming that trends in rainfall are the main but not the only
driver of change in vegetation cover. For the period 1982-2003, the overall
trend in monthly maximum Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
(NDVI) is positive over a large portion of the Sahel region, reaching up to
50 per cent increase in parts of Mali, Mauritania and Chad, and confirming
previous findings at a regional scale."

Greening in just 21 years (coinciding with "uprecedented" GW). That's pretty rapid. Nature doesn't seem to mind quick favourable changes. Maybe humans should be thanked for this increase in vegetation. Maybe African nations will issue the developed nations a credit against the compensation demanded at Copenhagen.

What else does the report say;

"The Niger has witnessed reforestation and
population increase at the same time.
Better conservation and improved rainfall have led to at least 6 million
newly tree-covered acres in the Niger, achieved largely without
relying on large-scale planting of trees or other expensive methods
often advocated for halting desertification. Moreover, these gains
have come at a time when the population of the Niger has grown
rapidly, confounding the conventional wisdom that population
growth leads to the loss of trees and accelerates land degradation."

To quote "confounding the conventional wisdom". How inconvenient. Even the obviously evil and unnatural infestation of man cannot stop it. And (apparently quite surprisingly for some) those 6 million acres of trees adapted and grew pretty fast.

mike alexander
2009-Dec-17, 07:02 PM
Or, the evolving situation in the Murray-Darling watershed in Australia (http://act-adapt.org/?p=37).

Swift
2009-Dec-17, 09:05 PM
Not according to nauthiz's link;

"This rate of carbon addition almost equals the rate at which carbon is being released into the atmosphere today through anthropogenic activity."

I'm sorry, could you reproduce the link, I can't find it and I don't get what that sentence means. What I'm saying is that the rate of both temperature increase (degrees per year) and CO2 concentration currently is much faster than normally occurs during climate changes.

I also suspect that even for natural, historic changes, that what we see, in the fossil record for example, are things at equilibrium, before and after the change. I suspect that during the change, there are negative impacts on ecosystems (and numbers of species) until everything settles down again.



Funny though. They seem to survive in daily and seasonal fluctuations far greater than 2, 3 or 4 degrees. Odd that. Why don't they die?
Because you are completely confusing weather and climate. A daily 10 degree change in temperature, for example from day to night, or from season to season, is absolutely no big deal in most ecosystems and is quite normal.

Even a 5 degree change in temperature for a climate is huge.


I would agree that an increase in adverse circumstances over a short period would be detrimental. However, it makes no sense to say that an increase in favourable circumstances over a short period would be detrimental. Why would more available water, warmth, vegetation etc. be detrimental on the whole? Makes no sense whether the change is short or long.
But, for many cold-adapted species, warmth is not a favorable circumstance. A tree that is used to a sub-arctic climate might not be well adapted for a temperate climate. Same for animal species.


Maybe the trees won't adapt as in your example but there are a lot of other species that will take hold very quickly.
But if an ecosystem converts from trees to something else (grassland for example) that's a different ecosystem, and it will not support the species that used to live among the trees. And the species that might live in such an ecosystem aren't going to magically and instantly arrive there. Such changes take decades, centuries, or longer.

Squink
2009-Dec-17, 09:20 PM
C02 was at 1000 ppm 0.1% to 2000 ppm 0.2% for almost 300 million years.Do you seriously think that that plants which were around during that 300 million years are still major players in the ecosystem? Times have changed, and if CO2 gets knocked up in a geological eyeblink, there'll be hell to pay as the ecosystem readjusts to new conditions.
Sure in 30,000 years we may all be happily growing corn north of the arctic circle, but getting through the transition to that happy day when everything is CO2 fertilized will be traumatic.

Stroller
2009-Dec-17, 09:35 PM
Do you seriously think that that plants which were around during that 300 million years are still major players in the ecosystem? Times have changed, and if CO2 gets knocked up in a geological eyeblink, there'll be hell to pay as the ecosystem readjusts to new conditions.
Sure in 30,000 years we may all be happily growing corn north of the arctic circle, but getting through the transition to that happy day when everything is CO2 fertilized will be traumatic.

Today's plants which are grown in commercial market garden greenhouses with co2 elevated to over 1000ppm do just fine, give increased yields, and require less water. Trees are loving up the extra co2. What is your evidence that a transition to higher co2 levels would be traumatic?

William
2009-Dec-17, 09:44 PM
Do you seriously think that that plants which were around during that 300 million years are still major players in the ecosystem? Times have changed, and if CO2 gets knocked up in a geological eyeblink, there'll be hell to pay as the ecosystem readjusts to new conditions.
Sure in 30,000 years we may all be happily growing corn north of the arctic circle, but getting through the transition to that happy day when everything is CO2 fertilized will be traumatic.

This is in support to Stroller's comment.

Increased CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere.

From an environmental standpoint the key problem is habitat preservation and consumption per person. Increasing CO2 is beneficial.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#f1

Ontario Department of Agriculture scientific advise for greenhouses.



For most crops the saturation point of CO2 will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness. The increase in yield of tomato, cucumber and pepper crops is a result of increased numbers and faster flowering per plant.



http://www.kansascity.com/400/story/1610055.html


Study: Increased carbon dioxide benefits aspen trees

Aspen trees, the backbone of Minnesota's paper industry, are liking the extra carbon dioxide in the air linked to global warming.
New research published Friday found that aspen growth rates increased by 53 percent during the past half-century, as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased about 20 percent.

"Trees eat carbon dioxide for a living," said Don Waller, study author and University of Wisconsin-Madison botany professor.

As carbon dioxide increases in the air, he said, plants can extract more of it and convert it to sugar through photosynthesis. That speeds up their growth.

The results could be especially important for Minnesota and Wisconsin, where aspen is the dominant species on about 7.3 million acres of timberland.

"It's the most abundant and the most used species by the forest products industry," said Tim O'Hara, vice president of forest policy at Minnesota Forest Industries. It is the main species used for paper and certain construction board, he said, and is also used for pallets and other products.

The Wisconsin research is one of the first to study aspen and outdoor carbon dioxide levels in their native forest environment.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090218135031.htm


Published today in Nature, the 40 year study of African tropical forests–one third of the world's total tropical forest–shows that for at least the last few decades each hectare of intact African forest has trapped an extra 0.6 tonnes of carbon per year.


The reason why the trees are getting bigger and mopping up carbon is unclear. A leading suspect is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere itself, which may be acting like a fertiliser. (My comment: I wonder why the writer qualifies with may?)


African forests have the highest mammal diversity of any ecosystem, with over 400 species, alongside over 10,000 species of plants and over 1,000 species of birds. According to the FAO deforestation rates are approximately 6 million hectares per year (almost 1% of total forest area per year), although other studies show the rate to be half that (approximately 0.5% of total forest area per year). The African Tropical Rainforest Observation Network, Afritron brings together researchers active in African countries with tropical forest to standardise and pool data to better understand how African tropical forests are changing in a globally changing environment.





http://www.irri.org/publications/wrrc/wrrcPDF/session19-01.pdf

Increased rice production in high CO2 environment.


Those previous studies showed that elevated [CO2] accelerated rice development; nearly doubled [CO2] increased leaf photosynthesis by 30–70%, canopy photosynthesis by 30–40%, and crop biomass yield by 15–30%, depending on genotype and environment; and that elevated [CO2] had a minor effect on rice nitrogen (N) uptake, which appeared to be associated with the relatively insensitive response of leaf area growth to [CO2]. Those rice responses to [CO2] resulted in a substantial grain yield increase under elevated [CO2] and nearly optimum temperature conditions. Analysis of reported data on rice yield …

Swift
2009-Dec-17, 09:53 PM
Today's plants which are grown in commercial market garden greenhouses with co2 elevated to over 1000ppm do just fine, give increased yields, and require less water. Trees are loving up the extra co2. What is your evidence that a transition to higher co2 levels would be traumatic?
It sounds like it is much more of a mix of good and bad. For example, this study from the US Dept. of Agriculture (http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2009/091207.htm):

Long-term, open-top chamber studies of how rising carbon dioxide (CO2) could affect crops, forests, and pastures reveal a wide range of impacts, according to Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists.

Plant physiologist Steve Prior at the ARS National Soil Dynamics Laboratory in Auburn, Ala., heads this research effort. He, plant pathologist Brett Runion, and other colleagues at the Auburn laboratory have found that fast-growing exotic weedy invasives such as Chinese privet, nutsedge and tropical spiderwort could become even more troublesome as CO2 levels increase to 550 parts per million as predicted by 2050.

For forest species such as longleaf pine, higher CO2 levels improve water use efficiency, which may improve drought tolerance, by causing leaf pores or stomates to stay partially closed longer.

In their studies, growth and survival of pine trees went up, while growth and survival of understory plants declined by half.

In addition to increased pine needle production under high CO2, the scientists also found some chemical changes in these needles that litter the forest floor, resulting in less nutritional content for millipedes and other bugs and microbes that feed on them. These changes may alter carbon and nutrient cycling in these natural systems.


I also found this article from the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0702/how-will-global-warming-affect-plants) on the broader effects of global warming (not just CO2 concentration), to be interesting:

In areas of the world where temperatures are documented to be growing warmer, plants are showing the effects. Some of these effects are good – increased microbial action in the soil making plants more productive. Some are bad – plants moving to cooler locations.

And other effects tend to be neutral (or maybe it's who's doing the perceiving).

mike alexander
2009-Dec-17, 09:55 PM
Yes, you posted these before. I assume the truth cannot be repeated too often.

I also take it that the long-term drought in Australia, since it doesn't fit with CO2- induced warming and increased plant growth, as well as increased rainfall, is... well, what is it?

Torsten
2009-Dec-17, 10:26 PM
http://www.irri.org/publications/wrrc/wrrcPDF/session19-01.pdf

Increased rice production in high CO2 environment.

William fails to quote relevant portions of the document he puts forth in support of his position.

From the paragraph following the one William quoted:


"Importantly, elevated [CO2] increased spikelet susceptibility to high-temperature damage (Kim et al 1996). Nearly doubled [CO2] decreased the threshold temperature for high-temperature damage of spikelets by 1–2 ºC more than the ambient [CO2]."

and from the concluding paragraphs:


"At Kyoto, where summer temperature is high, doubled [CO2] with a 2 ºC temperature rise will significantly reduce the yield of Nipponbare, reflecting the increased spikelet susceptibility to high temperature damage by elevated [CO2]. It was predicted that doubled [CO2] with a 4 ºC temperature rise would have severe negative effects on rice yield at most Asian locations except for northern areas such as Iwate. The negative effects were more pronounced in warm-temperature regions such as Kyoto and Nanjing than in tropical areas such as Ubon."

"The model predicts that, while doubling [CO2] with a temperature rise of more than 2 ºC will significantly increase rice yield in cool temperate areas, it will drastically reduce the yield in warm temperate areas and for dry-season rice in the tropics."

Squink
2009-Dec-17, 10:52 PM
Increased CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. Increased CO2 does in fact cause plants to grow faster and larger. Naturally, that means that CO2 fertilized plants compete better with their neighbors in the plant community. Some plants will benefit more from CO2 enrichment than others, and that in itself will change the balance of the community, as photosynthesis becomes less of a limiting factor versus water and chemical nutrients.
Perhaps all the poplars will be outcompeted for water by rampant kudzu, which in turn will fall before an onslaught of elm. Whatever changes specifically go on, we humans will have to live through, or not.
In the long term we may well see increased total biomass, but that alone will not get anyone through an interim in which major crop species are no longer competitive in traditional farming areas.

Stroller
2009-Dec-17, 11:15 PM
What?

Farmers prepare ground, sow crops and weed out competitors. Always have, always will.

Have you ever grown any food yourself?

mike alexander
2009-Dec-17, 11:33 PM
We seem to keep moving around from trees to greenhouses to whole biospheres to farms as though they are all pretty much the same thing.

While I won't speak for Squink, I grow a pretty decent garden every year. And I have to add nutrients, lime and quite a bit of extra water in addition to the carbon dioxide to get good crops. Except for the potatoes, which enjoy a shot of ag sulfur to keep the soil pH down. And the blueberries, of course.

On the other hand, I don't fertilize or water the woods behind the house. As far as I know, very few hectares of forest are regularly irrigated or fertilized.

Maybe some of us don't automatically equate quantity with quality. If I didn't keep after them the Himalayan blackberries and scotch broom (not to mention the Russian thistles) would take over my property, crowding out everything else, including native grass, ferns, wild strawberries and mushrooms. But I guess that's okay, since there would be an ungodly lot of them.

Squink
2009-Dec-18, 12:22 AM
What?

Farmers prepare ground, sow crops and weed out competitors. Always have, always will.Yup, and every new or extra aggressive weed is a new challenge. Sometimes it takes a while to figure out how to deal with em, you know? Changes in agricultural practices do not take place in an instant, so even if increased atmospheric CO2 will bring about long term benefits to agriculture, it can still bring short term headaches. Ahh, what's a few decades of low grain yields matter anyway? We Americans are way too fat!

The nation is not prepared for agricultural change, and it's not preparing either: (http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/agriculture-secretary-spotlights-climate/)
The new funding commitment will bring U.S.D.A. spending on climate change mitigation and adaptation research for agriculture to more than $320 million over the next four years

Stroller
2009-Dec-18, 12:54 AM
I hope some of that $320M is going on working out how to adapt to colder times.

Just in case.

Rebuilding a grain reserve would be a good plan for starters. This JIT agriculture to keep stock prices up gives me nightmares.

mike alexander
2009-Dec-18, 01:10 AM
I hope some of that $320M is going on working out how to adapt to colder times.

Just in case.

Rebuilding a grain reserve would be a good plan for starters. This JIT agriculture to keep stock prices up gives me nightmares.

Why are you worried about stock prices?

What does the WSJ say?

From one viewpoint, one man's disaster is another man's business opportunity.

Webbo
2009-Dec-18, 01:22 AM
Or, the evolving situation in the Murray-Darling watershed in Australia (http://act-adapt.org/?p=37).

Rather than look at a press release by a commision with a vested interest in that particular region, lets look at the bigger picture from the abstract of an actual paper (my bold);

"Using Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer data spanning 1981-2006 and calibrated for long-term analyses of vegetation dynamics, we examine whether vegetation cover has increased across Australia and whether there has been a differential response of vegetation functional types in response to changes in climatic growing conditions. Trends in vegetation cover are interpreted within Budyko's energy - water limitation framework. Results from an Australia-wide analysis indicate that vegetation cover (as described by the fraction of Photosynthetically Active Radiation absorbed by vegetation; fPAR) has increased, on average, by 0.0007 per year - an increase of ∼8% over the 26 years. The majority of this change is due to a 0.0010 per year increase in persistent fPAR (representing nondeciduous perennial vegetation types; up 21%). In contrast, recurrent fPAR (representing deciduous, annual and ephemeral vegetation types) decreased, on average, by 0.0003 per year (down 7%), the trends of which are highly seasonal. Over the same period, Australian average annual precipitation increased by 1.3 mm yr−2 (up 7%). A site-based analysis using 90 long-term meteorological stations with minimal localized land-cover changes showed that energy-limited sites where total fPAR increased generally experienced decreases in precipitation, and water-limited sites that experienced decreases in cover were almost always associated with decreases in precipitation. Interestingly, where vegetation cover increased at water-limited sites, precipitation trends were variable indicating that this is not the only factor driving vegetation response. As Australia is a generally highly water-limited environment, these findings indicate that the effective availability of water to plants has increased on average over the study period. Results also show that persistent vegetation types have benefited more than recurrent types from recent changes in growing conditions. Regardless of what has been driving these changes, the overall response of vegetation over the past 2-3 decades has resulted in an observable greening of the driest inhabited continent on Earth. "

Donohue et al. (2009) (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/gcb/2009/00000015/00000004/art00020)

Indeed. And all during the same period as "unprecedented" global warming.

As I said, if man is the cause, then we should collectively pat ourselves on the back for a job well done.

Webbo
2009-Dec-18, 01:49 AM
I'm sorry, could you reproduce the link, I can't find it and I don't get what that sentence means. What I'm saying is that the rate of both temperature increase (degrees per year) and CO2 concentration currently is much faster than normally occurs during climate changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum


I also suspect that even for natural, historic changes, that what we see, in the fossil record for example, are things at equilibrium, before and after the change. I suspect that during the change, there are negative impacts on ecosystems (and numbers of species) until everything settles down again.

Just your suspicion. Do you have anything you could reference? According to the link there was no extinction for other biota so it would have been pretty coincidental for them to decline then return to normal at 6 degrees warmer. Seems illogical to me but if that's your suspicion then go with it.


Because you are completely confusing weather and climate. A daily 10 degree change in temperature, for example from day to night, or from season to season, is absolutely no big deal in most ecosystems and is quite normal.

Even a 5 degree change in temperature for a climate is huge.

So animals and plants can survive from say 0 to 25 degrees range but could die out if the range were 5 to 30. If you believe that then fine. Shame none of the recent evidence of the increases in biomass during the "unprecedented" warming supports it, but I guess you know better.


But, for many cold-adapted species, warmth is not a favorable circumstance. A tree that is used to a sub-arctic climate might not be well adapted for a temperate climate. Same for animal species.

Fortunately the vast majority of vegetation and animals do not live in sub-artic climates so I guess it's not too much to worry about.


But if an ecosystem converts from trees to something else (grassland for example) that's a different ecosystem, and it will not support the species that used to live among the trees. And the species that might live in such an ecosystem aren't going to magically and instantly arrive there. Such changes take decades, centuries, or longer.

Do you have any example of trees dying out because it became too warm and wet; to be replaced by warmer loving grass?

Anyway, if true, at least that is still replaced by a living ecosystem. I'd take a change in some ecosystems if it meant that lifeless, arid ecosystems became more habitable and therefore able to support a net increase in the total amount of life the earth can support. If you prefer to save a few individual species at the expense of the potential future diversification and growth of all other species, then that's up to you.

Squink
2009-Dec-18, 03:33 AM
As I said, if man is the cause, then we should collectively pat ourselves on the back for a job well done.Man does not feed himself with cacti and pine trees (representing nondeciduous perennial vegetation types). We feed ourselves primarily with deciduous, annual and ephemeral vegetation types.
Is a pat on the back deserved when we decrease the prevalence of such plant types?



I hope some of that $320M is going on working out how to adapt to colder times.

Just in case.Why? AFAIK, unless the gulf stream shuts down a cooling trend is about as far from mainstream as is possible in climatology; and if it happens anyway, we're really very badly screwed as a civilization. There will no longer be a stock exchange for you to worry over.
Rising CO2 is already here plain as day, for everyone to see. It makes more sense to spend resources on dealing with problems we know are likely to arise than to go haring off after every possible disaster scenario.

Stroller
2009-Dec-18, 06:13 AM
AFAIK, unless the gulf stream shuts down a cooling trend is about as far from mainstream as is possible in climatology; and if it happens anyway, we're really very badly screwed as a civilization. There will no longer be a stock exchange for you to worry over.
Rising CO2 is already here plain as day, for everyone to see. It makes more sense to spend resources on dealing with problems we know are likely to arise than to go haring off after every possible disaster scenario.

I think you and Mike misunderstood my comment about stock prices. The reason there is no longer any grain reserve is that it kept stock prices down. So if there are a couple of bad harvests, the money jugglers will be fine, but millions of ordinary people will suffer. This is lunacy. The Egyptians knew 4,000 years ago that you needed to keep a grain reserve to cover up to seven years of poor harvests. There has been no global warming for years. This is a fact, whatever you believe to be 'mainstream climatology'. Now this may be a temporary respite in a long term upward trend if co2 really does cause long term warming, but there is no adequate proof it does as yet. Or it might be that temperatures in a perfectly natural cycle have peaked and we are headed for cooler times.

Squink
2009-Dec-18, 02:05 PM
There has been no global warming for years. This is a fact, whatever you believe to be 'mainstream climatology'. Now this may be a temporary respite in a long term upward trend if co2 really does cause long term warming....Most importantly to the subject of this thread, CO2 is still rising.
While that may produce some positive effects in terms of crop productivity, cheering it on as a universal good makes as much sense as cheering on the fertilization of lakes and streams with phosphate containing detergents. Sure, it did wonders for total aquatic biomass, but it also did icky, icky things for water quality fish populations.

Webbo
2009-Dec-18, 02:52 PM
Man does not feed himself with cacti and pine trees (representing nondeciduous perennial vegetation types). We feed ourselves primarily with deciduous, annual and ephemeral vegetation types.
Is a pat on the back deserved when we decrease the prevalence of such plant types?

Man is just one species. It shouldn't just be about how we benefit.

And what about this part;

"Australian average annual precipitation increased by 1.3 mm yr−2 (up 7%)."

Thats a good thing isnt it? And as it happened during "unprecedented" global warming, man must be to blame.

EDIT - If you are are principally worried just about humans maybe they could grow some of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitaya) which are supposedly quite good for you.

Webbo
2009-Dec-18, 03:13 PM
Why? AFAIK, unless the gulf stream shuts down a cooling trend is about as far from mainstream as is possible in climatology; and if it happens anyway, we're really very badly screwed as a civilization. There will no longer be a stock exchange for you to worry over.
Rising CO2 is already here plain as day, for everyone to see. It makes more sense to spend resources on dealing with problems we know are likely to arise than to go haring off after every possible disaster scenario.

Better still, instead of spending resources on problems likely to arise, why not concentrate on actual problems that affect us right now?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/globalhealthriskfactors.png

IsaacKuo
2009-Dec-18, 03:26 PM
Better still, instead of spending resources on problems likely to arise, why not concentrate on actual problems that affect us right now?
Who says we aren't already spending resources on the other problems also?

Webbo
2009-Dec-18, 03:42 PM
Who says we aren't already spending resources on the other problems also?

In the ratio above?

IsaacKuo
2009-Dec-18, 03:54 PM
In the ratio above?
Why should spending be in the ratio above? Why, exactly, should the spending be in that ratio?

Hint--cost vs benefit is not the same for all things.

Squink
2009-Dec-18, 03:57 PM
Can we all agree that the indiscriminate use of fertilizers is a bad thing?

Swift
2009-Dec-18, 04:07 PM
Originally Posted by Swift
I'm sorry, could you reproduce the link, I can't find it and I don't get what that sentence means. What I'm saying is that the rate of both temperature increase (degrees per year) and CO2 concentration currently is much faster than normally occurs during climate changes.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Thank you for the link. And thank you for proving my point; from the link:

The event saw global temperatures rise by around 6°C (11°F) over 20,000 years, with a corresponding rise in sea level as the whole of the oceans warmed.
So, the event you are talking about was a 6C rise in 20,000 years. The current event is will be maybe a 3 to 5C rise in a couple of hundred years - thus orders of magnitude faster and much more difficult for ecosystems to adjust to without difficulties.

Webbo
2009-Dec-18, 04:10 PM
Why should spending be in the ratio above? Why, exactly, should the spending be in that ratio?

Hint--cost vs benefit is not the same for all things.

It doesn't, but the majority of the major issues related to poverty are completely unnecessary. A fraction of the money spent in the name of AGW would reduce most of those.

In fact some resources spent in the name of AGW are directly contributing toward increasing the other more serious problems.

Strange
2009-Dec-18, 04:21 PM
It doesn't, but the majority of the major issues related to poverty are completely unnecessary. A fraction of the money spent in the name of AGW would reduce most of those.

Most of the problems (poverty, hunger, poor water, etc) are political - caused, or at least exacerbated, by bad governance and corruption. It isn't clear to me that any amount of money (by itself) will solve these problems. In fact, I am pessimistic about many of these problems ever being solved.

Webbo
2009-Dec-18, 04:24 PM
Thank you for the link. And thank you for proving my point; from the link:

So, the event you are talking about was a 6C rise in 20,000 years. The current event is will be maybe a 3 to 5C rise in a couple of hundred years - thus orders of magnitude faster and much more difficult for ecosystems to adjust to without difficulties.

And as I already pointed out the current rate of temperature rise isnt doing much harm to the vegetation of the planet is it. In fact, contrary to your beliefs, it's helping. And 6 degrees is way above the worst case scenarios anyway.

IsaacKuo
2009-Dec-18, 04:24 PM
It doesn't,
Thank you for conceding the point.

In fact some resources spent in the name of AGW are directly contributing toward increasing the other more serious problems.
This is a rather meaningless statement coming from you, since you seem to think AGW is actually beneficial rather than a "problem". Therefore, from your perspective all problems are more serious than AGW.

Webbo
2009-Dec-18, 04:30 PM
Most of the problems (poverty, hunger, poor water, etc) are political - caused, or at least exacerbated, by bad governance and corruption. It isn't clear to me that any amount of money (by itself) will solve these problems. In fact, I am pessimistic about many of these problems ever being solved.

Indeed. And you think the AGW movement isnt political? Do you think the governments mentioned above are going to invest their AGW compensation on improving their populations wellbeing? Will they try to help reduce CO2?

Webbo
2009-Dec-18, 04:33 PM
AGW is actually beneficial

Thank you for conceding that point.

Webbo
2009-Dec-18, 04:35 PM
This is a rather meaningless statement coming from you, since you seem to think AGW is actually beneficial rather than a "problem". Therefore, from your perspective all problems are more serious than AGW.

From the perspective of the World Health Organisation there are quite a few problems more serious than AGW.

IsaacKuo
2009-Dec-18, 04:42 PM
From the perspective of the World Health Organisation there are quite a few problems more serious than AGW.
You mean the perspective of Goklany. Get your sources right.

And they're using WHO data for 2004. Not for 2010, or other years in the future (which are years which we may be able to do something about).

Webbo
2009-Dec-18, 04:47 PM
You mean the perspective of Goklany. Get your sources right.

And they're using WHO data for 2004. Not for 2010, or other years in the future (which are years which we may be able to do something about).

So do you have a link to a paper or report highligting this massive increase in the health risks associated with AGW?

William
2009-Dec-18, 04:50 PM
AWG followers.

Please start your own thread. "Scary AWG related changes." Floods, droughts, hurricanes, rising oceans, melting ice caps, starving polar bears, and so on. The misconceptions concerning CO2 is a tragedy. (Money to address environmental problems is limited. It is important to understand what is and is not a problem. Stop repeating urban legend news reports and think about the subject.)

Does anyone have a scientific disagreement with the following comments?

Atmospheric CO2 is at the lowest level in 300 Million years, 0.028% and now 0.0384% (280 ppm to 384 ppm). Extremely low levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a good thing in terms of biosphere size and productivity.

It is a fact plants eat CO2. All life on this planet is carbon based.

Plants regulate the number of stomata on their leaves. When CO2 increases in the atmosphere plants can survive with less water.

C3 plants waste almost 50% of the absorbed sunlight due to current low levels of CO2. The optimum level of CO2 for photosynthesis is around 0.15% to 0.2% (1500 ppm to 2000 ppm.)



Due to anthropological increase in CO2, the biosphere has expanded. Plants are using 18% more CO2. Desertification has been reduced.

Ironically, the one change that humans are making to the planet that is beneficial to the biosphere is vehemently opposed by Environmentalists.


Equation for Photosynthesis

http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/michael.gregory/files/bio%20101/Bio%20101%20Lectures/Photosynthesis/photosyn.htm


This experiment was published by Jan Baptisa van Helmont in 1648:

"...I took an earthenware vessel, placed in it 200 pounds of soil dried in an oven, soaked this with rainwater, and planted in it a willow branch weighing 5 pounds. At the end of five years, the tree grown from it weighed 169 pounds and about 3 ounces. Now, the earthenware vessel was always moistened (when necessary) only with rainwater or distilled water, and it was large enough and embedded in the ground, and, lest dust flying be mixed with the soil, an iron plate coated with tin and pierced by many holes covered the rim of the vessel. I did not compute the weight of the fallen leaves of the four autumns. Finally, I dried the soil in the vessel again, and the same 200 pounds were found, less about 2 ounces. Therefore 169 pounds of wood, bark, and root had arisen from water only."

Most of the weight of the tree described in the above experiment came from carbon dioxide and water. The equation for photosynthesis shows that these compounds are used to produce glucose.

6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy  C6H12O6 + 6O2

IsaacKuo
2009-Dec-18, 04:56 PM
Most of the problems (poverty, hunger, poor water, etc) are political - caused, or at least exacerbated, by bad governance and corruption. It isn't clear to me that any amount of money (by itself) will solve these problems. In fact, I am pessimistic about many of these problems ever being solved.
Indeed. And you think the AGW movement isnt political?
Do you think the problem is AGW or "the AGW movement"?

Do you think the governments mentioned above are going to invest their AGW compensation on improving their populations wellbeing? Will they try to help reduce CO2?
We have already had success in efforts to reduce other pollutants. Our past successes with things like lead, mercury, dioxin, and so on at least gives us a model to go with.

In contrast, we have not had much success with reducing poverty and hunger, despite many attempts using many different approaches. Your claim that we could simply throw a little money at these problems to solve them is therefore rather dubious.

NEOWatcher
2009-Dec-18, 05:02 PM
Could somebody please clarify your uses of AGW?
I have traditionally heard it as Anti-global Warming meaning those who don't believe that global warming exists.

So when I come to statements like this:


So do you have a link to a paper or report highligting this massive increase in the health risks associated with AGW?

Then I wonder if I'm going to keel over because somebody doesn't think we have global warming.

Squink
2009-Dec-18, 05:09 PM
the one change that humans are making to the planet that is beneficial to the biosphere...]That's an unproven assumption onyour part right there. Can you point to some other case where indiscriminate use of fertilizers improved the function of the biosphere?
It seems that you're falling prey to the fallacy of taking "if a little is good, more is better" as an axiom.
That's just not often the case in biological systems.

nauthiz
2009-Dec-18, 05:11 PM
Could somebody please clarify your uses of AGW?

It stands for anthropogenic global warming.

NEOWatcher
2009-Dec-18, 05:31 PM
It stands for anthropogenic global warming.
Thank you. I wasn't sure. I think I'm going to have to go back and re-read this thread without the confusion.

Webbo
2009-Dec-18, 05:43 PM
Do you think the problem is AGW or "the AGW movement"?
I doubt AGW exists but GW is not a problem IMO. It's beneficial. The "AGW movement" is the real problem as it consumes resources that could otherwise deal with real problems.


We have already had success in efforts to reduce other pollutants. Our past successes with things like lead, mercury, dioxin, and so on at least gives us a model to go with.
Yes, that well known list of pollutants, lead, mercury, dioxin and CO2.

By the way, due to the AGW movement, there is far more mercury in circulation in low energy bulbs than there ever was in the past. Check with your local goverment health & safety department regarding what you should do if you break one.


In contrast, we have not had much success with reducing poverty and hunger, despite many attempts using many different approaches. Your claim that we could simply throw a little money at these problems to solve them is therefore rather dubious.

Money is used to alleviate these problems. If more were used it would alleviate some more. In total it would still be less than the amount spent on solving something that isnt even a problem. I think every penny we have spare should go to alleviate real and measured continual problems before any is spent elsewhere. We certainly shouldn't spend money subsidising biofuels which in turn reduce the availability of agricultural land and therfore increase the price of food, which, in turn, forces rich nations to import more from impoverished countries. That doesnlt exactly help world hunger does it. All in the name of stopping AGW.

Swift
2009-Dec-18, 07:05 PM
Does anyone have a scientific disagreement with the following comments?

Atmospheric CO2 is at the lowest level in 300 Million years, 0.028% and now 0.0384% (280 ppm to 384 ppm). Extremely low levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a good thing in terms of biosphere size and productivity.

It is a fact plants eat CO2. All life on this planet is carbon based.

Plants regulate the number of stomata on their leaves. When CO2 increases in the atmosphere plants can survive with less water.

C3 plants waste almost 50% of the absorbed sunlight due to current low levels of CO2. The optimum level of CO2 for photosynthesis is around 0.15% to 0.2% (1500 ppm to 2000 ppm.)

Just so you know, yes, I have a disagreement. Mostly because it is entirely too simple a model of plants and of ecosystems. The details have been posted multiple times in this thread.

I'm sure you now ask me for proof and I'm not going to do it. I stupidly got involved once again in one of these pointless global warming threads, a leason I thought I had learned, but seem to forgot from time to time. I'm done with this - if you want to take that as a victory, have fun with that.

mike alexander
2009-Dec-18, 07:16 PM
Just so you know, yes, I have a disagreement. Mostly because it is entirely too simple a model of plants and of ecosystems. The details have been posted multiple times in this thread.

I'm sure you now ask me for proof and I'm not going to do it. I stupidly got involved once again in one of these pointless global warming threads, a leason I thought I had learned, but seem to forgot from time to time. I'm done with this - if you want to take that as a victory, have fun with that.


^^^What he said.

IsaacKuo
2009-Dec-18, 08:35 PM
I doubt AGW exists but GW is not a problem IMO. It's beneficial. [...] Money is used to alleviate these problems. If more were used it would alleviate some more. In total it would still be less than the amount spent on solving something that isnt even a problem. I think every penny we have spare should go to alleviate real and measured continual problems before any is spent elsewhere.
This is exactly what I noted before with:

"This is a rather meaningless statement coming from you, since you seem to think AGW is actually beneficial rather than a "problem". Therefore, from your perspective all problems are more serious than AGW."

This is why your statements ring hollow and content free. You're trying to sound reasonable by saying, "Money shouldn't be spent on AGW because it would be more cost effectively spent on different problems." However, everyone can tell what you really think is, "Money shouldn't be spent on AGW because it's not a problem."

You just end up sounding two-faced.

Webbo
2009-Dec-19, 12:12 AM
This is exactly what I noted before with:

"This is a rather meaningless statement coming from you, since you seem to think AGW is actually beneficial rather than a "problem". Therefore, from your perspective all problems are more serious than AGW."

This is why your statements ring hollow and content free. You're trying to sound reasonable by saying, "Money shouldn't be spent on AGW because it would be more cost effectively spent on different problems." However, everyone can tell what you really think is, "Money shouldn't be spent on AGW because it's not a problem."

You just end up sounding two-faced.

Your comment makes no sense. Of course I think money should be spent on other more important things. I think AGW isnt a problem and money should be spent on real problems. The WHO has data that shows GW to be negligible. Either it's not a problem (my view) or it's a tiny problem (WHO view). Exactly where am I being two-faced?

I'll tell you what. Ignore my view and after reading the WHO health risks report yourself, why don't you suggest to me where we should focus our efforts?

distraction tactics
2009-Dec-19, 07:27 AM
I am not sure what is the motivation behind your emotional outburst.

I think I explained it clearly - I would suggest that you read my post again, as I bvelieve you are quite capable of understanding it.


The temperature in Winnipeg is currently -28C and will cool off to -32C this evening.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/camb0244

Do you live in a different Winnipeg on a different planet?

So you can use the internet - bravo! Am I supposed to believe this relevant to the broader debate on global warming? Winnipeg just experienced one of the warmest Novembers on record - so why are you not accounting for that if such local, temporal data is relevant? Seems to be a very clear bias in your posts to a preconceived agenda.


Increasing CO2 is beneficial to plants and hence to the biosphere. That is a fact. I have provided a list of papers that support that assertion. You have provide no scientific counter point.

Clearly you have failed to read my post, as I referenced a paper - one which you probably do not have access to, thoug I would be more than happy to provide a complete reference if I thought you might actually read and understand its contents.


You appear to have some other concern. I am not sure what your concerns are but I am genuinely interested in your viewpoint as other people appear also to be suspicious and assume that I am trying to "trick" them. Hence other emotional outbursts. I am not.

I would be very interested in discussing the benefits of a warmer planet vs a colder planet, however, let's leave that subject for a different thread.

As a geologist I'm trained to think in long terms, and as such, do not feel the need to get political on the issue of global warming. That said, I think attempts to ignore the issue, confuse it, or downplay it are unscientific, and that forms the basis for my response toward you.

William
2009-Dec-19, 08:15 PM
I think I explained it clearly - I would suggest that you read my post again, as I bvelieve you are quite capable of understanding it.


As a geologist I'm trained to think in long terms, and as such, do not feel the need to get political on the issue of global warming. That said, I think attempts to ignore the issue, confuse it, or downplay it are unscientific, and that forms the basis for my response toward you.

distraction tactics,

It seems it is a scientific fact that plants eat CO2. Increasing atmospheric CO2 up to around 1500 ppm (0.15%) to 2000 ppm (0.2%) results in a 50% increase in the efficiency of photosynthesis (i.e. At current very low CO2 levels C3 plants waste 50% of the sunlight they absorb). As CO2 increases plants require less water, yield of food crops increases, and plant growing time decreases. These scientific facts are the reason why commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse.

Strictly from a standpoint of plants, increasing CO2 is positive for the biosphere.

CO2 levels have been around 1500 ppm (0.15%) to 2000 ppm (0.2%) or higher for majority of time life has existed on this planet.

If you disagree with these statements, reply in a scientific manner. (i.e. Present data and logic to support your assertion.)

The other issues you bring up are interesting and should be discussed (Is the planet warming? If so, how much will the planet warm? Is warming positive or negative from the complete biosphere's standpoint?), however, it is more efficient to have a separate thread for each topic and to again present data and logic to prove or disprove the assertion.

http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/97969-plants-eat-co2-true-false-5.html#post1645333


http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/97969-plants-eat-co2-true-false-6.html#post1645798

It is a fact plants eat CO2. All life on this planet is carbon based.

Plants regulate the number of stomata on their leaves. When CO2 increases in the atmosphere plants can survive with less water. (Correct?)

C3 plants waste almost 50% of the absorbed sunlight due to current low levels of CO2. The optimum level of CO2 for photosynthesis is around 0.15% to 0.2% (1500 ppm to 2000 ppm.) (Correct?)

Due to the anthropological increase in CO2, the biosphere has expanded. Plants are using 18% more CO2. Desertification has been reduced. (Correct?)


Equation for Photosynthesis

http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/fa...s/photosyn.htm
Quote:

This experiment was published by Jan Baptisa van Helmont in 1648:

"...I took an earthenware vessel, placed in it 200 pounds of soil dried in an oven, soaked this with rainwater, and planted in it a willow branch weighing 5 pounds. At the end of five years, the tree grown from it weighed 169 pounds and about 3 ounces. Now, the earthenware vessel was always moistened (when necessary) only with rainwater or distilled water, and it was large enough and embedded in the ground, and, lest dust flying be mixed with the soil, an iron plate coated with tin and pierced by many holes covered the rim of the vessel. I did not compute the weight of the fallen leaves of the four autumns. Finally, I dried the soil in the vessel again, and the same 200 pounds were found, less about 2 ounces. Therefore 169 pounds of wood, bark, and root had arisen from water only."

Most of the weight of the tree described in the above experiment came from carbon dioxide and water. The equation for photosynthesis shows that these compounds are used to produce glucose.

Plants require 6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy (Plants produces) C6H12O6 + 6O2

nauthiz
2009-Dec-19, 08:32 PM
Due to the anthropological increase in CO2, the biosphere has expanded. Plants are using 18% more CO2. Desertification has been reduced. (Correct?)

This, as far as I've been able to determine, is not true.

What I'm seeing when I poke around looking for information is statistics such as the United Nations estimating that if Africa continues to desertify at its current rate than its capacity to support a human population will be reduced by 75% over the next fifteen years. Or that dust bowl around the Gobi that's so bad that it has a measurable impact on air quality on the east coast of North America.

So no, as far as I can tell desertification is still going strong.

Squink
2009-Dec-19, 08:58 PM
CO2 levels have been around 1500 ppm (0.15%) to 2000 ppm (0.2%) or higher for majority of time life has existed on this planet.
Single celled marine organisms have been the dominant life form for the majority of time life has existed on the planet. Such creatures don't give a damn what the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is.

nauthiz
2009-Dec-19, 09:38 PM
Not even cyanobacteria?

SolusLupus
2009-Dec-19, 09:41 PM
Ocean life? Those don't matter, surely. I mean, how much Ocean is there in the world, anyways? All the important stuff goes on on land.

captain swoop
2009-Dec-19, 10:00 PM
By the way, due to the AGW movement, there is far more mercury in circulation in low energy bulbs than there ever was in the past. Check with your local goverment health & safety department regarding what you should do if you break one.

You have a source for this stgatement?
How much mercury is in the bulbs? How much mercury has been taken out of use in industial processes and products over the last 10 - 20 years?

Can you show me that there is in fact 'more mercury in circulation'

Looking at the several old lab thermomenters I have here I would think there is more mercury in them than I would ever get from at least a hundred low energy bulbs.

How much mercury was used in the old 'Mercury Arc Rectifiers'? Even a small one held at least a kile of Mercury. How many bulbs is that?

nauthiz
2009-Dec-19, 10:07 PM
I don't have a link, but I heard in a radio interview a while back that the amount of mercury in a CFL bulb is equal to about 1/10 of the mercury that is released into the atmosphere in the process of generating the additional electricity consumed by incandescent bulbs.

Torsten
2009-Dec-19, 10:51 PM
William:

Stop repeating urban legend news reports and think about the subject.

I'd like you to do the same, please, because so far you have shown us that once you hatch an idea, you are impervious to information that contradicts it. Your request for us to reply in scientific and logical ways is ironic given your wholly unscientific approach. Anyway, contrary to my better instincts and Swift's conclusion (http://www.bautforum.com/1645886-post166.html) . . .

You have failed to demonstrate that increasing CO2 concentration is unequivocally good for all plants. You have extrapolated the experience with some greenhouse crops to the entire biosphere. Not only that, you have ignored the fact that the greenhouse environment is regulated in ways that are difficult, if not impossible, to achieve in open environments around the globe. For example, the factsheet (http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm) that was first linked by mike alexander and again by you gives an example of a potential problem with tomatoes:


"Depending on the crop, the increased growth rate related to CO2 application may require the nutrient solution to be applied at a higher electrical conductivity (EC). As well, the increased CO2 levels can result in partial closure of the stomata reducing transpiration and increasing leaf conductance in some crops. This decrease in transpiration reduces calcium (Ca) and boron (B) uptake, which may affect tomato fruit quality. Increased applications of these nutrients, within reason, will adequately compensate the decreased uptake."

(My bold, quoted from the "notes" section of that factsheet)

I hadn't read the whole factsheet when I made my comment on page 2 of this thread regarding the boron deficiency symptoms in the lodgepole pine that I monitor, but it fits nicely with the observation in other species of reduced boron uptake when stomata are partially closed. In the case I observed, fully one third of the trees on some plots were showing symptoms in 2009. This is a drastically negative effect for trees whose commercial value comes from having a straight form. When tops die back and are replaced by upturning branches, the straight form is compromised, as well as a full year's height increment. We do not have the resources to fertilize millions of hectares of forest land with boron.

Later in this thread you linked to this paper (http://www.irri.org/publications/wrrc/wrrcPDF/session19-01.pdf) and provided us with a selected quote from it in hopes of showing that increased CO2 concentrations are universally beneficial to rice production. Merely by reading the actual paper, anyone can see that you have misrepresented its conclusions. You completely ignored the implication that rice production will become a risky affair in some regions, even if the general temperature regime stays the same. This is because as CO2 concentration increases, the temperature at which spikelet damage occurs goes down. So yes, some years the crops will produce rice in great quantities. But if the temperature goes above the now-lowered threshold for damage, the whole system falters and crop yield is greatly reduced. This is the conclusion for a CO2 concentration that is twice the current level. I can only conclude that your promoting a world-wide increase to levels that are 4 to 5 times greater than present is reckless and irresponsible.

You have no idea what the response spectrum will be for millions of species in varied habitats and therefore absolutely no basis for saying that increased global CO2 concentration is "good for the biosphere". Actually, the biosphere doesn't care what the CO2 concentration is. It'll be here long after our species is gone. What matters to humanity is whether the biosphere can deliver the services our species demands of it, and you know we are demanding ever more.

And while I'm at it, a few more nits:


Atmospheric CO2 is at the lowest level in 300 Million years, 0.028% and now 0.0384% (280 ppm to 384 ppm).

Actually, during glacial maxima CO2 concentrations fall to ~180 ppm.


It is a fact plants eat CO2.

As I told you in March, this is not actually a good way to characterize what plants do with it, regardless of some scientists using the expression when they popularize their work. Plants do not derive energy from the CO2 they consume, so in that respect they do not "eat it". They use sunlight energy to fix it into other compounds, as in the high school level equation that you seem to enjoy posting. It's no wonder you would continue to use this misleading description though, as at the time your response was to tell me "think for your self rather than parroting" (http://www.bautforum.com/1457481-post654.html).

Squink
2009-Dec-19, 11:30 PM
How much mercury was used in the old 'Mercury Arc Rectifiers'? Even a small one held at least a kile of Mercury. How many bulbs is that?To heck with those rarities, my old mercury thermostat contains about 2ml of mercury (26 grams), and there were millions of those used in the US alone.
A modern compact fluorescent bulb holds about 3-5 milligrams of mercury. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp)

BrentArsement
2009-Dec-20, 01:16 AM
CO2 levels in the past where typically around 2000 ppm.

During the glacial period CO2 levels reached 180 ppm. That is the lowest CO2 level in the planet's history.


William and anyone else, are these quoted figures undeniable truths? If they are deniable, what historical levels (high and low) have scientist agreed upon. I am trying to understand Earth's historical CO2 levels, from the lowest to the highest and during what time period.

Thanks.

Brent.

nauthiz
2009-Dec-20, 02:03 AM
William and anyone else, are these quoted figures undeniable truths? If they are deniable, what historical levels (high and low) have scientist agreed upon. I am trying to understand Earth's historical CO2 levels, from the lowest to the highest and during what time period.


I don't think there really is a typical CO2 concentration; it varies quite widely from period to period. Over the quaternary and neogene periods (<23 million years ago), <300ppm is typical. It averaged 500ppm over the paleogene (65-23 Mya).

Once you get back to the mesozoic era it does float around closer to the figure that William gave, averaging ~1800ppm - but that was 250-65 million years ago and the planet was a very different place back then.

Before that, it dips down to <1000ppm again until you get back to the devonian period during which it floated at 2000ppm. Now we're a really long time; the devonian is when the first tetrapods and seed-bearing evolved.

Once you get back to trilobite territory the typical concentration pushes up above 4000ppm.


All in all, looking through the biological history of the planet alongside the climate history of the planet from the cambrian era onward cements my conviction that William is erroneous and has oversimplified things in asserting that a much higher carbon dioxide concentration would be generally good for the planet's biosphere. It really drives home how very long a time life has spent adapting to an environment with CO2 concentrations that are similar to the contemporary level. To get back to an era when the kinds of CO2 concentrations that William is proposing were common, you have to go back to an era where therian mammals (placentals and marsupials) didn't exist yet.

(source - trolling my way through the geologic history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale) articles in Wikipedia)

BrentArsement
2009-Dec-20, 02:19 AM
Thank you Nauthiz. Quick response.

I have read that Earth's CO2 level was near 2000 ppm around 1200 A.D.ish. True?

nauthiz
2009-Dec-20, 02:27 AM
According to the ice core data, atmospheric CO2 has rarely popped much above 300ppm over the past 400,000 years.

And what with how slow the carbon cycle is, it would be a complete mystery as to how it could get from 2000ppm down to current levels in less than 1000 years.

loglo
2009-Dec-20, 04:56 AM
What has CO2 every done for us?

Plants? Life on this earth. Carbon based life forms.

CO2 was 0.028% it is now 0.038%. For 300 million years it was 0.1% to 0.2%.

CO2 is pollution?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr3BUBnuptI

It is a scientific fact that increased CO2 levels (up to around 1500 ppm) will result in a more productive and larger biosphere.

And a human-free one too!

William
2009-Dec-20, 11:14 AM
As I said, atmospheric CO2 levels have been in the 1000 ppm to 2000 ppm (0.1% to 0.2%) range for most of the time life has existed on this plant.

CO2 levels or 280 ppm (0.028%) are exceptionally low. Plants are at the level are continually stressed. The optimum CO2 level for plants is 1500 ppm to 2000 ppm.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

http://www.co2science.org/subject/t/summaries/transpiration.php

Transpiration

Transpiration - Summary
Most plants respond to increases in the air's CO2 content by displaying reduced stomatal conductances, which typically leads to reduced rates of transpirational water loss. This water savings often results in greater soil moisture contents in CO2-enriched ecosystems, which positively feeds back to increase plant growth. In this summary, we review a few papers that treat various aspects of this phenomenon.

In a review of studies conducted over the prior decade, Pospisilova and Catsky (1999) compiled over 150 individual plant water use responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. They found that elevated CO2 increased rates of net photosynthesis in about 85% of the reported studies, while reducing stomatal conductances and rates of transpiration in approximately 75% of the cases analyzed.


Consequently, atmospheric CO2 enrichment increased plant water-use efficiency in more than 90% of the experiments that were conducted; and it reduced total water uptake in more than 50% of the studies, while slowing the development of water stress as indicated by plant water potential data. As a result Pospisilova and Catsky concluded that plants growing in future atmospheres of higher CO2 concentration "will probably survive eventual higher drought stress and some species may even be able to extend their biotope into less favourable sites."

nauthiz
2009-Dec-20, 01:09 PM
Plants are at the level are continually stressed. The optimum CO2 level for plants is 1500 ppm to 2000 ppm.

I'm not sure you've made a compelling case for that. You've indicated that they grow faster, and that that is interesting to humans under certain circumstances for economic reasons.

I also know that if you raise cattle on corn they grow faster, and that is something humans also like because of an economic benefit to themselves. And it's something that only works out for the cattle at all because they're being kept in a controlled environment that shields them from many of the negative repercussions that would normally be associated with such a situation.

Stroller
2009-Dec-20, 01:20 PM
William also indicated that they require less water when co2 is more abundant.

And I indicated that tests have shown that a lot more genes become active when levels rise above 500ppm.

Murphy
2009-Dec-21, 04:57 PM
Just a note on the ridiculousness of Global Warming "Sceptics" saying that Compact fluorescent bulbs are polluting the planet with Mercury. By far the biggest emitters of Mercury into the atmosphere are Coal burning power plants, something which such sceptics usually support (a cursory look a Wiki will confirm this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)#Releases_in_the_environment). This kind of double standard attempt to look environmental sickens me. Global Warming Deniers are Anti-Environmentalists and should admit it.

Yes CFLs produce mercury, but only a tiny fraction compared to that dumped every minute into our air by Coal plants, not to mention all the other toxic pollutants coal contains, lead, arsenic, sulphur compounds, even radioactive elements. So by using CFLs to conserve energy that would usually be produced from coal burning, you are actually taking mercury out of the environment by using them. If CFLs are too dirty for you, don't worry, LED lighting is likely to take over soon anyway, and they're even more efficient and don't have any mercury.

nauthiz
2009-Dec-21, 05:15 PM
I wouldn't say it's a double-standard - if fluorescent lights did produce a serious mercury problem (rather than mitigating it) then that would be a valid concern.

That said, it's a distressingly easy figure to fact-check.

Torsten
2009-Dec-22, 06:09 AM
William:
Do you understand that with reduced transpiration, the generally xylem-mediated delivery of micronutrients such as boron and calcium to the most rapidly growing portions of plants can become too low in some species to allow them to continue to grow properly? Yes or no, please.

Numerous crops over vast areas of the globe are prone to boron deficiency. As an example, I pointed out to you that tomatoes can have this problem induced in a CO2 enhanced greenhouse environment due to the reduction in water transpiration. You should have been aware of it as it was in a link you provided. I also pointed out the problem with a forest species that is an enormous part of the economy where I live. (The last picture on this page (http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HRE/standman/trtfert_pics.htm) is an example of severe deficiency induced by nitrogen fertilization. The symptoms I find are less severe, but nevertheless very damaging to annual height increment and form). Do you care to predict what might happen to crops worldwide under a 1500-2000 ppm CO2 concentration?


Atmospheric CO2 as a Global Change Driver Influencing Plant-Animal Interactions
JAMES R. EHLERINGER, THURE E. CERLING, AND M. DENISE DEARING
Department of Biology, University of Utah, 257 South 1400 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0840

SYNOPSIS. Plants respond to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. To herbivores, the decreased leaf protein contents and increased C/N ratios common to all leaves under elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide imply a reduction in food quality. In addition to these fine-scale adjustments, the abundance of C3 and C4 plants (particularly grasses) are affected by atmospheric carbon dioxide. C4 grasses currently predominate over C3 grasses in warmer climates and their distributions expand as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels decreased during glacial periods. C4 grasses are a less nutritious food resource than C3 grasses both in terms of reduced protein content and increased C/N ratios. There is an indication that as C4-dominated ecosystems expanded 6–8 Ma b.p., there were significant species-level changes in mammalian grazers. Today there is evidence that mammalian herbivores differ in their preference for C3 versus C4 food resources, although the factors contributing to these patterns are not clear. Elevated carbon dioxide levels will likely alter food quality to grazers both in terms of fine-scale protein content, C/N ratio) and coarse-scale (C3 versus C4)
changes.

PDF of paper here (http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/42/3/424.pdf)

Other things in that paper that should get your attention:

"In response to increasing atmospheric CO2, protein levels decrease in leaves of all species (Fig. 2)."

"Both mammalian and insect herbivores respond to leaves grown under elevated CO2 with responses resulting in slower growth rates."

"Most of these responses fit into the general category of reduced digestibility and can be directly related to leaf C/N ratios."

They also mention how the amounts of secondary compounds, such as some defensive compounds, can increase twofold as a result of doubling the CO2 concentration. Herbivores will be impacted in species specific ways. Can you imagine how many species interactions that we take for granted could change in ways that surprise us?

William, it took a long time for the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to go from those high levels you cite to those of the last million or so years. Today's species and ecosytems have evolved in that context. To rapidly change the concentration back to the way it was that long ago is playing with the Law of Unintended Consequences.

My own experience is that it can be quite unforgiving.

EricFD
2009-Dec-22, 06:40 AM
Excellent points, Torsten. And the paper Atmospheric CO2 as a Global Change Driver Influencing Plant-Animal Interactions was very enlightening. Thanks for posting.

Eric

William
2009-Dec-22, 07:08 AM
William:
Do you understand that with reduced transpiration, the generally xylem-mediated delivery of micronutrients such as boron and calcium to the most rapidly growing portions of plants can become too low in some species to allow them to continue to grow properly? Yes or no, please.



The paper that you provide a link to shows that as CO2 increases C3 grasses which are more nutritious dominate.

The plants will of course optimize to the higher CO2 adjusting their growth. That is how evolution works. Spruce trees have lived in higher CO2 levels and thrived.

There are microbe soil changes that also occur when CO2 levels rise which increase the micro nutrients. The problem may in the specific case of the Spruce tree be an issue with the microbes in the soil.

The fact that Aspen trees are growing 50% faster and trees in the tropics (70,000 trees were checked different species) are responding by growing faster, not dying, is a good sign.

How (what is the reason) and how quickly CO2 levels have changed in the past is not known. Without question CO2 levels have been 1500 ppm to 2000 ppm for 100 of millions of years.

From a standpoint of a forest management, what is needed is a spruce tree that is optimized for higher levels of CO2. It is interesting to look at the Nordic countries that have a 100% managed forests.

The concept is straightforward. That is how rice and cereal crops and the other food crops where optimized.

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/42/3/424.pdf

Disinfo Agent
2009-Dec-23, 12:51 PM
William, it took a long time for the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to go from those high levels you cite to those of the last million or so years. Today's species and ecosytems have evolved in that context. To rapidly change the concentration back to the way it was that long ago is playing with the Law of Unintended Consequences.It's playing God.

A surprising number of people seem unconcerned about doing that, these days.

mike alexander
2009-Dec-23, 02:20 PM
William got half-right:

The paper that you provide a link to shows that as CO2 increases C3 grasses which are more nutritious dominate.

Down in the body of the paper (that long thingy under the abstract):

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/808/plantgrowth.jpg (http://img704.imageshack.us/i/plantgrowth.jpg/)

As they say, see Figure 2. Shift in CO2 down results in less leaf mass but also shifts the protein/carbohydrate ratio upward, making the leaves more nutritious in low CO2 . Higher CO2 shifts protein synthesis downward and carbohydrate synthesis upward, resulting in more 'empty calories' in the leaves. Herbivore growth depends on protein. Both insects and mammals show slowed growth rates eating plants grown under high CO2.

Know I said I wasn't going to, but I admit being curious if William read the paper, not just the abstract; and if he did, did he not understand or just elide over the more detailed explanation?

William
2009-Dec-23, 05:23 PM
William got half-right:

Down in the body of the paper (that long thingy under the abstract):

Know I said I wasn't going to, but I admit being curious if William read the paper, not just the abstract; and if he did, did he not understand or just elide over the more detailed explanation?

mike alexander,

There are a couple of different issues in this quote.


Both mammalian and insect herbivores respond to leaves grown under elevated CO2 with responses resulting in slower growth rates. In insects, these responses range from modified ingestion rates to longer maturation times (Arnone et al., 1995; Agrell et al., 2000; Ko¨rner, 2000). In cattle, there is some evidence for possible reduced growth rates of steers, particularly in spring when leaves have their highest protein contents under today’s CO2 conditions (Owensby et al., 1996). Most of these responses fit into the general category of reduced digestibility and can be directly related to leaf C/N ratios.


The studies that showed low protein in grasses and leaves for elevated levels of CO2 limited the soil microbes. The soil microbes respond to elevated CO2 by producing more Nitrogen which hence resolves this problem. The C3 and C4 plants leaves are not lower in protein for elevated CO2.

The microbes in the insect and mammals digestive tracts change with time to optimize the increase in C3 plants which are more nutritious.

The biosphere is significantly more productive for higher levels of CO2. Plants eat CO2. When there is more CO2 there are more healthier plants.

Plants currently waste 50% of the absorbed solar energy due to low CO2. Plants loss almost 50% of the absorbed water due to lower CO2.

When CO2 levels are higher plants require less water which increases soil moisture content in the vicinity of plant roots which increases the productivity of soil microbes. In a forest the increased moisture around trees enables additional plants to grow. Gaia is more productive and diverse with higher CO2. That is a fact.

The size of the herbivores and the carnivores that eat the herbivores is indicative of the amount of food available and its nutritional value. As we are all aware animal size was significantly larger when CO2 levels were high.

William
2009-Dec-23, 05:39 PM
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/35/14014.abstract


Increases in nitrogen uptake rather than nitrogen-use efficiency support higher rates of temperate forest productivity under elevated CO2

Forest ecosystems are important sinks for rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2. In previous research, we showed that net primary production (NPP) increased by 23 ± 2% when four experimental forests were grown under atmospheric concentrations of CO2 predicted for the latter half of this century. Because nitrogen (N) availability commonly limits forest productivity, some combination of increased N uptake from the soil and more efficient use of the N already assimilated by trees is necessary to sustain the high rates of forest NPP under free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE).

In this study, experimental evidence demonstrates that the uptake of N increased under elevated CO2 at the Rhinelander, Duke, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory FACE sites, yet fertilization studies at the Duke and Oak Ridge National Laboratory FACE sites showed that tree growth and forest NPP were strongly limited by N availability.

By contrast, nitrogen-use efficiency increased under elevated CO2 at the POP-EUROFACE site, where fertilization studies showed that N was not limiting to tree growth. Some combination of increasing fine root production, increased rates of soil organic matter decomposition, and increased allocation of carbon (C) to mycorrhizal fungi is likely to account for greater N uptake under elevated CO2.

Regardless of the specific mechanism, this analysis shows that the larger quantities of C entering the below-ground system under elevated CO2 result in greater N uptake, even in N-limited ecosystems. Biogeochemical models must be reformulated to allow C transfers below ground that result in additional N uptake under elevated CO2.

Swift
2009-Dec-23, 08:31 PM
The size of the herbivores and the carnivores that eat the herbivores is indicative of the amount of food available and its nutritional value. As we are all aware animal size was significantly larger when CO2 levels were high.
But as Torsten pointed out, and I pointed out, such changes take a very long time. Over the next 100 years we are going to make a very large change in the CO2 concentration of our atmosphere and the temperature, much faster than ecosystems, plants, and animals can adapt. Maybe in a few hundred years it will all work out, but there is going to be a big bump in the road between now and then.

William
2009-Dec-23, 10:08 PM
But as Torsten pointed out, and I pointed out, such changes take a very long time. Over the next 100 years we are going to make a very large change in the CO2 concentration of our atmosphere and the temperature, much faster than ecosystems, plants, and animals can adapt. Maybe in a few hundred years it will all work out, but there is going to be a big bump in the road between now and then.

The scientific research shows that plant yield increases, plant growing time is reduced, and that plants require less water for CO2 levels up to 1500 ppm. There is no adaptation required.

The reduction in desertification has started to take place. There are less dust storms which is attributed to plants moving into desert areas and due to increased rainfall due to the planet warming.

http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/97969-plants-eat-co2-true-false-7.html#post1648771

Animals do not need to adapt to take advantage of a abundance of their food source.

We have been taught that any man made change is negative. That is not correct.

The CO2 increase is beneficial to the biosphere.

What is needed is habitat protection.

The real environmental problem is consumption per person and the number of people on the planet not CO2 levels.

Swift
2009-Dec-23, 10:17 PM
The adaption is to the changing environment, not just CO2. If the average temperature in Ohio is now X, and in 50 years it is X + 5, the same species of plants and trees may not be able to survive. Yes, eventually species that can survive that will move in, but it takes a long time. Forests don't grow overnight, it usually takes hundreds of years to reach a new equilibrium. Animals that are adapted to these new plants will take time to establish themselves.

If the only thing that was happening was that CO2 levels were increasing, you might be right, it might not be such a bad thing. But the increase in CO2 is driving a rise in temperature and that will change many things.

I have never been taught that "any man made change is negative". But I've sure seen many examples of man made changes that were.

nauthiz
2009-Dec-23, 11:15 PM
There are less dust storms

I'm not sure I believe this. For example:



Andrew Goudie, professor of geography at Oxford University, reports that Saharan dust storms - once rare - are now commonplace. He estimates they have increased 10-fold during the last half-century. Among the countries in the region most affected by topsoil loss from wind erosion are Niger, Chad, Mauritania, northern Nigeria, and Burkino Faso. In Mauritania, in Africa's far west, the number of dust storms jumped from two a year in the early 1960s to 80 a year today.
(http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38343)



To study the climatic contribution to dust storm increases in Inner Mongolia in recent years. . .
(http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/106565626/abstract)

m74z00219
2009-Dec-26, 12:56 AM
The optimum CO2 level for plants is 1500 ppm to 2000 ppm.


Doesn't this preclude the fact that plants evolve? Temporarily accepting this statement as a blanket fact, I still cannot help but wonder why optimum CO2 levels should be the same now as they were for plants existing 100 million years ago.

M74

William
2009-Dec-26, 05:13 AM
I'm not sure I believe this. For example:



C3 plants require 50% less water for a doubling of CO2 levels. The lower plant water requirement increases moisture in the root area which increase the productivity of the soil microbes that produce the micro-nutrients required by the plants.

C3 and C3 type plant yield is increased up to around 50% with a doubling of CO2, growing times are reduced, and the plants are healthier. (Less susceptible to disease.)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm

Due to increased CO2 plants are moving into desert regions.

The plants hold the soil and produce the soil which stops and rolls back desertification.


Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments

The Weizmann team found, to its surprise, that the Yatir forest is a substantial “sink” (CO2-absorbing site): its absorbing efficiency is similar to that of many of its counterparts in more fertile lands. These results were unexpected since forests in dry regions are considered to develop very slowly, if at all, and thus are not expected to soak up much carbon dioxide (the more rapidly the forest develops the more carbon dioxide it needs, since carbon dioxide drives the production of sugars). However, the Yatir forest is growing at a relatively quick pace, and is even expanding further into the desert.

Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, which leads to the production of sugars. But to obtain it, they must open pores in their leaves and consequently lose large quantities of water to evaporation. The plant must decide which it needs more: water or carbon dioxide. Yakir suggests that the 30 percent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution eases the plant’s dilemma. Under such conditions, the plant doesn’t have to fully open the pores for carbon dioxide to seep in – a relatively small opening is sufficient. Consequently, less water escapes the plant’s pores. This efficient water preservation technique keeps moisture in the ground, allowing forests to grow in areas that previously were too dry.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html



Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?

The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers).
Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.


The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including central Chad and western Sudan.

In the eastern Sahara area of southwestern Egypt and northern Sudan, new trees—such as acacias—are flourishing, according to Stefan Kröpelin, a climate scientist at the University of Cologne's Africa Research Unit in Germany.


"Shrubs are coming up and growing into big shrubs. This is completely different from having a bit more tiny grass," said Kröpelin, who has studied the region for two decades



In 2008 Kröpelin—not involved in the new satellite research—visited Western Sahara, a disputed territory controlled by Morocco.
"The nomads there told me there was never as much rainfall as in the past few years," Kröpelin said. "They have never seen so much grazing land."

"Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass," he said.

"Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back," he said.

"The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable."

HenrikOlsen
2009-Dec-26, 10:31 PM
Better still, instead of spending resources on problems likely to arise, why not concentrate on actual problems that affect us right now?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/globalhealthriskfactors.png
That table is specifically about factors affecting disease, it's dishonest and manipulative to use that specific focus to claim that this table indicate the whole impact on humanity.
But then, that's the classical ATM approach used by AGW deniers.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Dec-26, 10:49 PM
Could somebody please clarify your uses of AGW?
I have traditionally heard it as Anti-global Warming meaning those who don't believe that global warming exists.

So when I come to statements like this:

Then I wonder if I'm going to keel over because somebody doesn't think we have global warming.
That's just the result of Webbo finding a table that happens to have global warming listed as having very little influence on something, disease in this case.

And as it's a table with global warming at the bottom it's immediately used as an argument that global warming isn't going to affect anyone any way, while the only thing it's actually indication is that global warming wasn't a significant factor in causing diseases in 2004.

It's classical denier manipulation.

William
2009-Dec-26, 11:35 PM
That table is specifically about factors affecting disease, it's dishonest and manipulative to use that specific focus to claim that this table indicate the whole impact on humanity.
But then, that's the classical ATM approach used by AGW deniers.

HenrikOlsen,

A scientific assessment of pros & cons of higher levels of atmospheric CO2 requires an neutral unbiased analysis. That has not taken place as of yet.

If CO2 does not cause a massive increase in planetary temperature (go to AWG thread for data and discussion.) what are the pros/cons of more CO2 in the atmosphere?

It does seem from the standpoint of land based plants increasing CO2 is significantly beneficial. A 50% reduction in water requirements, a 50% increase in plant yields of all the major cereal crops, faster growth rates, and healthy plants due to more productive soil microbes.

70,000 tropical tree have been sampled. There is evidence of a 18% increase in tropical forest growth rate due to the current increase in CO2. There is evidence of shrubs and hardy trees moving into desert areas.

Greenhouses do inject CO2 into the greenhouse to increase yields and reduce growing times.

CO2 is part of the cycle of life. Increased CO2 will make the biosphere larger and more productive. Environmentalists should logically be advocating increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

Comment:
It should be noted that one can logically advocate conservation of materials, habitat protection. conservation of energy without specifically focusing on massive reduction of CO2.

Conservation of materials, habitat protection, conservation of energy would in fact be more effective and would have widespread public and political support.

When people make statements that are scientifically incorrect they adversely threaten and complicate the entire environmental protection program.

What is being proposed to reduce CO2 levels back to 340 ppm (0.034%) is not practical from an economic or a political standpoint, if there is no driver. (i.e. Great sacrifices and changes require motivation. Assume for a moment the planet is cooling. Would you get support for great sacrifices and changes?)

SolusLupus
2009-Dec-27, 08:03 AM
HenrikOlsen,

A scientific assessment of pros & cons of higher levels of atmospheric CO2 requires an neutral unbiased analysis. That has not taken place as of yet.

[...]


CO2 is part of the cycle of life. Increased CO2 will make the biosphere larger and more productive. Environmentalists should logically be advocating increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

These positions are very obviously contradictory.

Squink
2009-Dec-28, 03:46 AM
These positions are very obviously contradictory.What are you saying, that hog farms shouldn't be allowed to spread their natural fertilizer to rivers?
Fixed nitrogen, such as that found in pig waste, increases growth in the biosphere, so ecologists should want to slather it around as widely as possible.
Nah, that's just not true. Excess fixed nitrogen destabilizes ecosystems, as do excess phosphates. That's why we have laws against dumping nitrates and phosphates willy-nilly over the landscape.
It's reasonable to expect that excess CO2 will also destabilize ecosystems, so without pretty darn convincing proof to the contrary, it's also reasonable to pass laws against dumping CO2 willy-nilly over the landscape.

SolusLupus
2009-Dec-28, 06:05 AM
I was more going with, "Scientists haven't done a neutral assessment of the pro/cons of the effects of CO2, BUT I know exactly what we should do with it and what the effects will be!"

I guess William thinks he's above the scientists.

William
2009-Dec-30, 03:59 AM
These positions are very obviously contradictory.

SolusLupus,

I presented a series of paper that all show that increased CO2 will and is benefiting land based plants.

There is a logical reason why that is true. Plants eat CO2. Plants are more productive, grow faster, and have greater yields when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. The optimum level of CO2 for plants is around 1500 ppm (0.15%) to 2000 ppm (0.2%).

I am quite serious. Increased CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere.

Commercial greenhouse inject CO2 into greenhouses at 1000 ppm to 1500 ppm to increase yield and to reduce growing times.

There are unequivocal advantages of higher CO2 levels.

That is a fact.

The environmental problems of the planet are habitat protection, consumption per person, not specifically massive CO2 limiting.

At the Copenhagen conference people emotionally lobbied to roll back CO2 levels to 340 ppm (0.034%). Why? What is the scientific basis? What are the problem(s) that are being solved by limiting CO2?

William
2009-Dec-30, 04:04 AM
Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial to the biosphere.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm



Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments

The Weizmann team found, to its surprise, that the Yatir forest is a substantial “sink” (CO2-absorbing site): its absorbing efficiency is similar to that of many of its counterparts in more fertile lands. These results were unexpected since forests in dry regions are considered to develop very slowly, if at all, and thus are not expected to soak up much carbon dioxide (the more rapidly the forest develops the more carbon dioxide it needs, since carbon dioxide drives the production of sugars). However, the Yatir forest is growing at a relatively quick pace, and is even expanding further into the desert.

Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, which leads to the production of sugars. But to obtain it, they must open pores in their leaves and consequently lose large quantities of water to evaporation. The plant must decide which it needs more: water or carbon dioxide. Yakir suggests that the 30 percent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution eases the plant’s dilemma. Under such conditions, the plant doesn’t have to fully open the pores for carbon dioxide to seep in – a relatively small opening is sufficient. Consequently, less water escapes the plant’s pores. This efficient water preservation technique keeps moisture in the ground, allowing forests to grow in areas that previously were too dry.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html


Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?

The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers).
Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.

The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including central Chad and western Sudan.

In the eastern Sahara area of southwestern Egypt and northern Sudan, new trees—such as acacias—are flourishing, according to Stefan Kröpelin, a climate scientist at the University of Cologne's Africa Research Unit in Germany.


"Shrubs are coming up and growing into big shrubs. This is completely different from having a bit more tiny grass," said Kröpelin, who has studied the region for two decades

William
2009-Dec-30, 04:18 AM
Increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is good news for plants.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6036529.ece


There is no doubt that the enrichment of the air with CO2 is increasing plant growth rates in many areas,” said Professor Martin Parry, head of plant science at Rothamsted Research, Britain’s leading crop institute.

Trees and plants are growing bigger and faster in response to the billions of tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by humans, scientists have found.

Researchers in Germany recently discovered that wheat grown in similar conditions would produce up to 16% more grain.


http://www.azocleantech.com/details.asp?newsID=4587


Rather than assessing plants grown in chambers in a greenhouse, as most studies have done, Leakey's team made use of the Soybean Free Air Concentration Enrichment (Soy FACE) facility at Illinois. This open-air research lab can expose a soybean field to a variety of atmospheric CO2 levels – without isolating the plants from other environmental influences, such as rainfall, sunlight and insects.

Some of the plants were exposed to atmospheric CO2 levels of 550 parts per million (ppm), the level predicted for the year 2050 if current trends continue. These were compared to plants grown at ambient CO2 levels (380 ppm).

The results were striking. At least 90 different genes coding the majority of enzymes in the cascade of chemical reactions that govern respiration were switched on (expressed) at higher levels in the soybeans grown at high CO2 levels. This explained how the plants were able to use the increased supply of sugars from stimulated photosynthesis under high CO2 conditions to produce energy, Leakey said. The rate of respiration increased 37 percent at the elevated CO2 levels. The enhanced respiration is likely to support greater transport of sugars from leaves to other growing parts of the plant, including the seeds, Leakey said.



http://www.springerlink.com/content/w7gy1cyyr5yey994/


Carbon dioxide effects on stomatal responses to the environment and water use by crops under field condition

Reductions in leaf stomatal conductance with rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) could reduce water use by vegetation and potentially alter climate. Crop plants have among the largest reductions in stomatal conductance at elevated [CO2]. The relative reduction in stomatal conductance caused by a given increase in [CO2] is often not constant within a day nor between days, but may vary considerably with light, temperature and humidity. Species also differ in response, with a doubling of [CO2] reducing mean midday conductances by <15% in some crop species to >50% in others. Elevated [CO2] increases leaf area index throughout the growing season in some species. Simulations, and measurements in free air carbon dioxide enrichment systems both indicate that the relatively large reductions in stomatal conductance in crops would translate into reductions of <10% in evapotranspiration, partly because of increases in temperature and decreases in humidity in the air around crop leaves.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090218135031.htm


Published today in Nature, the 40 year study of African tropical forests–one third of the world's total tropical forest–shows that for at least the last few decades each hectare of intact African forest has trapped an extra 0.6 tonnes of carbon per year.

The scientists then analysed the new African data together with South American and Asian findings to assess the total sink in tropical forests. Analysis of these 250,000 tree records reveals that, on average, remaining undisturbed forests are trapping carbon, showing that they are a globally significant carbon sink.

The reason why the trees are getting bigger and mopping up carbon is unclear. A leading suspect is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere itself, which may be acting like a fertiliser. (My comment: I wonder why the writer qualifies with may?)

African forests have the highest mammal diversity of any ecosystem, with over 400 species, alongside over 10,000 species of plants and over 1,000 species of birds. According to the FAO deforestation rates are approximately 6 million hectares per year (almost 1% of total forest area per year), although other studies show the rate to be half that (approximately 0.5% of total forest area per year). The African Tropical Rainforest Observation Network, Afritron brings together researchers active in African countries with tropical forest to standardise and pool data to better understand how African tropical forests are changing in a globally changing environment.

Ozzy
2009-Dec-30, 10:51 AM
Plants like CO2. Agreed

Increase CO2 will lead to increased plant growth. Agreed.

Inference: Increased plant growth will benefit mankind so CO2 increase is good for mankind. Disagree.
Not all areas will experience increase plant growth. Hard to grow food when the soil is infused with sea water or your vegie patch is under 10cms of ocean.

Loss of coastal dwelling areas due to sea level rise will increase the uptake of valuable crop land for habitation.

Increased atmospheric moisture leads to more volatile storms, resulting in catastrophic loss of life and food crops.

Increases in intrusive weeds and insects (bugs really like it warm and wet) leading to a need to increase the use of pesticides and herbicides.

Increased plant growth from increased Co2 is a well known expected result which may be beneficial in some parts of the globe. However it is one small benefit that is outweighted by the negative impacts resulting from increased CO2.

So if a little CO2 increase is good for plants (and hence mankind) then a huge increase to 1500ppm - 2000ppm must be even better is a very naive outlook. The insects will make your life hell, and you better hope they come up with a malaria vaccine.



The biosphere is the global sum of all ecosystems. It can also be called the zone of life on Earth. From the broadest biophysiological point of view, the biosphere is the global ecological system integrating all living beings and their relationships, including their interaction with the elements of the lithosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere


Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial to the biosphere.

Increasing CO2 is not "beneficial" to the biosphere. It will lead to changes. Many of these changes are not beneficial to humans, and as we are part of the biosphere it cnat be called beneficial.

Stroller
2009-Dec-30, 11:19 AM
In the 70's the Australians diverted a river and irrigated a large swathe of land to grow more profitable crops. Result? The raised water table brought salt from a previous natural inundation to the surface which rain had washed downwards over previous millenia, so the land could then only be used for salt tolerant crops such as rice - more labour intensive, less profitable. If they had waited for co2 levels to rise on the 800 year lag from the medieval warm period, they could have grown crops requiring less water.

Lesson: the law of unintended consequences can bite you on the bum.

Conclusion: Humankind is adaptable and farmers will find ways round problems brought about by change.

Swift
2009-Dec-30, 01:33 PM
What are the problem(s) that are being solved by limiting CO2?
The increase in the temperature caused by increasing CO2.

NEOWatcher
2009-Dec-30, 01:38 PM
...C3 and C3 type plant yield is increased up to around 50% with a doubling of CO2...
So;
150% plant yield with 200% CO2. What does that extra 50% CO2 do to the environment?

Stroller
2009-Dec-30, 02:22 PM
The increase in the temperature caused by increasing CO2.

I think, that as a moderator on this forum, if you wish to keep the debate on the truth or falsity of the Co2 driven warming Hypothesis contained in the AGW thread, it would be wise to avoid making categorical statements for which there is a lack of clear evidence.

Squink
2009-Dec-30, 02:24 PM
What does that extra 50% CO2 do to the environment?I dunno. What has been our experience with raising the level of other limiting nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus? Have they provided the unmixed blessing William forsees arising from worldwide CO2 supplementation?
Of course not.

Swift
2009-Dec-30, 04:46 PM
I think, that as a moderator on this forum, if you wish to keep the debate on the truth or falsity of the Co2 driven warming Hypothesis contained in the AGW thread, it would be wise to avoid making categorical statements for which there is a lack of clear evidence.
If you have a problem with my post, you should report it. Another moderator will make a judgment on it.

William
2009-Dec-30, 06:08 PM
The increase in the temperature caused by increasing CO2.

Hi Swift,

I think there is agreement that the data and analysis indicates increased CO2 is significantly beneficial to plants and hence to humans, if there are no other significantly negative consequences to increased atmospheric CO2.

The next question is how much will the increased CO2 increase planetary temperature.

Ozzy's point about sea level is dependent on the amount of warming.
If the change in planetary temperature due to increasing CO2 is minor, there will be no sea level change.

William
2009-Dec-30, 06:21 PM
I dunno. What has been our experience with raising the level of other limiting nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus? Have they provided the unmixed blessing William forsees arising from worldwide CO2 supplementation?
Of course not.

Hi Squink,

The soil microbes are more efficient due to the increased water in the soil and because there are also microbes that require CO2. (The plants require less water.) It appears also the trees respond by producing increased small roots to absorb more nitrogen.

The fact that there is an increase in forest and plant growth plant wide is proof that there is no limiting issue.

As plants are food for herbivores, when there are more and healthy plants there is a larger more diverse biosphere.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/35/14014.abstract



Increases in nitrogen uptake rather than nitrogen-use efficiency support higher rates of temperate forest productivity under elevated CO2

Forest ecosystems are important sinks for rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2. In previous research, we showed that net primary production (NPP) increased by 23 ± 2% when four experimental forests were grown under atmospheric concentrations of CO2 predicted for the latter half of this century. Because nitrogen (N) availability commonly limits forest productivity, some combination of increased N uptake from the soil and more efficient use of the N already assimilated by trees is necessary to sustain the high rates of forest NPP under free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE).

In this study, experimental evidence demonstrates that the uptake of N increased under elevated CO2 at the Rhinelander, Duke, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory FACE sites, yet fertilization studies at the Duke and Oak Ridge National Laboratory FACE sites showed that tree growth and forest NPP were strongly limited by N availability.

By contrast, nitrogen-use efficiency increased under elevated CO2 at the POP-EUROFACE site, where fertilization studies showed that N was not limiting to tree growth. Some combination of increasing fine root production, increased rates of soil organic matter decomposition, and increased allocation of carbon (C) to mycorrhizal fungi is likely to account for greater N uptake under elevated CO2.

Regardless of the specific mechanism, this analysis shows that the larger quantities of C entering the below-ground system under elevated CO2 result in greater N uptake, even in N-limited ecosystems. Biogeochemical models must be reformulated to allow C transfers below ground that result in additional N uptake under elevated CO2.

NEOWatcher
2009-Dec-30, 06:34 PM
As plants are food for herbivores, when there are more and healthy plants there is a larger more diverse biosphere....
...Producing more Methane (which is more detrimental than CO2).

CDavidNeely
2009-Dec-30, 07:32 PM
I think there is agreement that the data and analysis indicates increased CO2 is significantly beneficial to plants and hence to humans


If, and only if, all plants are beneficial to humans.


if there are no other significantly negative consequences to increased atmospheric CO2.


The available evidence indicates that there are other significantly negative consequences to increased atmospheric CO2

captain swoop
2009-Dec-31, 01:59 AM
This thread has gone round in circles since it started. William, you don't seem to have advanced your OP in response to any of the other posters points. All you do is repeat your original position and posts.
If there is nothing new to add why should this thread remain open

William
2010-Jan-01, 02:54 PM
This thread has gone round in circles since it started. William, you don't seem to have advanced your OP in response to any of the other posters points. All you do is repeat your original position and posts.
If there is nothing new to add why should this thread remain open

Hi captain swoop,

I have gone through the thread and I believe I have answered everyone's questions related to the subject of this thread.

Plants' response to increased CO2 is very important as CO2 levels will rise for sometime. There are many long term high quality research projects concerning plants' response to increased CO2. I am sure there will from time to time be new information.

I will keep looking for new data and papers and will update this thread (CO2's affect on plants) if I have something new. At this time I do not have anything new to say. If it is OK I will not respond to peoples comments that are off the topic of this thread.

People's concern about increasing CO2 levels appears to be more that the planet will warm if CO2 increases. How much the planet will warm is a different subject that is being discussed in the AGW thread. That is an important subject also but outside the scope of this thread.

I provided links to papers and to specific quotes to support the assertion that increased CO2 is beneficial to plants.

There is lots of good news here which makes sense as greenhouses inject CO2 to increase yields and reduce growing times. The hard data that shows desertification is being reduced is good news. I would suspect many people would not know plant's requirement for water is reduced by 50% for a doubling of CO2.

http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/97969-plants-eat-co2-true-false-7.html#post1649736


http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/97969-plants-eat-co2-true-false-8.html#post1651633


http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/97969-plants-eat-co2-true-false-8.html#post1651945

Strange
2010-Jan-01, 06:58 PM
There is lots of good news here ...

But you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that there could be any negative effects. (Which, to answer your question in the other thread, is why this appears to be a religious issue.)

William
2010-Jan-01, 07:53 PM
But you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that there could be any negative effects. (Which, to answer your question in the other thread, is why this appears to be a religious issue.)

Hi Henna Oji-san,

This thread is limited to plant's response to increased atmospheric CO2. There is detailed analysis and widespread analysis (See papers linked to above) that confirms plants respond positively to increased CO2. If there is any new data or papers concerning plant's response to increased CO2 I will or you can add it to this thread.

In the meantime, I suggest we let this thread move down because there is nothing new at this time to discuss concerning plant's responses to increased atmospheric CO2.

http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/97969-plants-eat-co2-true-false-8.html#post1653143

The AGW question, whether increased CO2 will cause dangerous global warming, sea level rise, and so forth is not a subject for this thread.

That question is definitely valid and needs to be addressed. I acknowledge that dangerous global warming would be a problem.

If anyone has questions concerning that subject please ask them in the AGW thread.

Best wishes

William

Strange
2010-Jan-01, 10:57 PM
This thread is limited to plant's response to increased atmospheric CO2. There is detailed analysis and widespread analysis (See papers linked to above) that confirms plants respond positively to increased CO2.

Which just confirms my point. There have been plenty of papers and other data posted here pointing out possible negative effects on plants, or the wider ecosystem, from increased CO2 levels.

William
2010-Jan-01, 11:14 PM
Which just confirms my point. There have been plenty of papers and other data posted here pointing out possible negative effects on plants, or the wider ecosystem, from increased CO2 levels.

Hi Henna Oji-san,

I accept your point which I assume is that if there was a dangerous increase in planetary temperature that would adversely affect plants and humans. This thread is the effect of CO2 on plants.

Over and out.

William

Strange
2010-Jan-01, 11:33 PM
I accept your point which I assume is that if there was a dangerous increase in planetary temperature that would adversely affect plants and humans.

No. That is not my point at all. As I said, you appear to be unwilling to admit that there could be any negative effects on plants from rising CO2. Or, even where the effects are beneficial for some plants, they may not be entirely positive for the rest of the biosphere (includng mankind).

SolusLupus
2010-Jan-01, 11:47 PM
Surely all plants are good, edible, and friendly to humans. Poison ivy, stinging nettles, grass, weeds...

captain swoop
2010-Jan-02, 12:54 AM
OK I think this has about finshed, William has nothing new to add and won't accept any criticism of his OP so I think we can put it to bed. Anyone think different can report this post

William
2010-Jan-02, 02:12 AM
Surely all plants are good, edible, and friendly to humans. Poison ivy, stinging nettles, grass, weeds...

Hi SolusLupus,

What is on your mind?

If you have something to discuss send me a direct note or perhaps start a new thread. Do not be shy. I will respond if I have something to contributed.

There were some news media reports that had no research backing that stated increasing atmospheric CO2 would only benefit weeds.

There is no scientific basis for that statement. All land based plants are benefiting from higher CO2, with a couple of exceptions.

A species which is having trouble is the pine tree in British Columbia. I do not know the details concerning that species however, there are 25 evergreen tree species in British Columbia. The other species are benefiting from higher CO2. (I am repeating a editorial comment that has made by a University of British Columbia professor of forestry to an article in the Economist.)

What I have presented in this thread is what I could find out concerning this subject. The increased soil productivity and change in nitrogen uptake is interesting and quite positive. The reduction in desertification is not known by the general public.


http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/97969-plants-eat-co2-true-false-8.html#post1653143

Anyone else have a question?

Please word it as a question.