Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

Your certainty/gullibility is irrelevent to the facts presented. In general, species require more than centuries to adapt to such changes. Changes this fast most often result in extinction, not evolution.

We're not talking about evolution, we're talking about adaptation. Plant adaptation is several orders of magnitude faster than evolution. The comparison to evolution is erroneous quite possibly intellectually dishonest.

This is yet another sorry display of alarmism designed to fuel the Global Warming propaganda machine. Grasping at a single flawed study despite years of well documented science is desperate to say the least.

 

[macdoc]

It says why in the paper: "Because solar radiation is the primary driving force for all the activities within the Earth’s climate system and radiation at different wavelengths reaches and warms different atmospheric layers"

Just what don't you understand about climate "change".
Solar input is of course the primary input of energy but climate shifts based not on solar changes but on the retention of that energy +/-.

The sun is NOT the primary driver of climate change, currently the accumulation of fossil C02 is as it is retaining more energy and so shifting the climate. The C02 has shifted the radiative balance between incoming solar and outgoing IR so the geophysical systems are retaining more of the energy delivered.

suggested reading

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/resources/gcc/contents.html

.7. Climate Feedback

The state of the global climate is one of general stability, engendered by a balance existing between the coupled components of the global climate system. The amount of incoming solar radiation is balanced by the amount of outgoing terrestrial radiation (section 1.2.3), so that the Earth neither continues indefinitely to heat up nor cool down. The Earth's climate is said to exist in equilibrium. When the climate system responds to radiative forcing (see section 2.3), this equilibrium is temporarily upset and a discrepancy between incoming and outgoing radiation exists. In an attempt to restore equilibrium, the global climate subsequently alters by either heating up or cooling down, depending on the direction of initial forcing.

Although the climate system is in balance, that balance is dynamic, ever-changing. The system is constantly adjusting to forcing perturbations and, as it adjusts, the climate alters. A change in any one part of the climate system will have much wider consequences as the initial effect cascades through the coupled components of the system. As the effect is transferred from one sub-component of the system to another, it will be modified in character or in scale. In some cases it will be amplified (positive feedback), in others, it may be reduced (negative feedback) (Cess & Potter, 1988). It is easiest to understand the concept of feedback by way of an example, the ice-albedo feedback.

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/resources/gcc/2-7.html

absolutely nothing in what you are trying put forward challenges fossil C02 release as the primary primary driver of climate change.

 

[Dancing David]

You've been presented the science, you just deny it. I'm not sure what the purpose of lying is serving?

The change in flux is only part of the significance. What's the other?

What level of correlation from what level of error bars on the proxies and what level or effect on global temperatures?

 

[Zeph]

Everyone knows CO2 increases plant growth.

CO2 can indeed increase plant growth in some circumstances, IF there are no other limiting factors. On much of the planet, water or soil factors (eg: nutrient deficits) are the limiting factors in plant growth rather than "lack of enough atmospheric CO2".

In the bioregion in which I live, a major factor in determining vegetation coverage is evapotranspiration deficits; where there is enough water in the soil *at the right times of the year*, there is plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere already to support increased plant biomass; where there isn't, more CO2 won't help.

The changes in temperature (which increases ET!) and annual precipitation patterns (not just totals but timing, and harder to predict) are likely to be FAR greater influences than the increase in CO2 (which was not a limiting factor in the total biomass in our case).

In some other geographic areas with the right conditions (natural and human influenced - eg: not being clearcut), increased CO2 will result in increasing vegetative mass - for a while, until a new equilibrium is reached. We are not going to start getting 600' tall trees packed shoulder to shoulder just because CO2 doubles, you know. More CO2 will only increase plant biomass to a modest degree.

Also be aware that absorbing carbon from CO2 into biomass does not sequester it permanently - as others have pointed out, the carbon returns via fire and decay.

If you just want to reinforce your beliefs, pretend that you never heard of evapotranspiration deficits and keep chanting your CO2=more plants mantra. If you are seriously trying to discern the truth, you have been given all the hints you need to do some real investigation, which might cause you to reduce your reliance on at least that particular argument.

By your response, others will know your motives. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that you may just be unread but sincere.

 

[Trakar]

You've been presented the science, you just deny it. I'm not sure what the purpose of lying is serving?...

I agree, lying about such issues is a disservice to science and humanity in general, given the subject at hand. Those who engage in such lies should be exposed and ridiculed. Those with fact and truth supporting them tend to demonstrate such with links to reputable science sources and references which confirm and support their statements. I welcome and encourage any efforts you might undertake to discuss the science of anthropogenic climate change and applaud any usage of references to legitimate science sources that you care to in support your understandings.

 

[Trakar]

Nonsense, nobody expects the change in atmosphere to happen overnight. It has no bearing on reality. Everyone knows CO2 increases plant growth. It's just garbage science looking for a piece of the Global Warming pie.

How about discussing the science presented and addressing the science issues you disagree with? Blanket denials of demonstrated and published science is rather where the "denier" term originates with respect to AGW.

Link and point out the science which rejects, refutes or at least challenges the CO2-plant growth studies I've presented, and then we can compare and assess the issue in a valid and useful manner instead of merely throwing out argumentum ad numerum/omniscience fallacies.

 

[Trakar]

Climate scientists of course. The journal has already been cited several times.

I have not seen such and in looking do not find such. Please provide a link to the journal paper or journal published response.
What are the names of the Scientists and which journal are their responses published in?

Why is the greybody's radiation temperature depend on the frequency?

Not real sure exactly what you are asking about, but I'm assuming from the tangle of terms above, that you are trying to lead up to calculations of the Te (Temperature of the Earth) based upon the incident solar radiation, typical albedo, atmospheric greenhouse effects, etc.,?

The review discussion questions the hemispheric isotropic radiation approach because it leads to an overestimate of the entropy flux...

Which review discussion would this be? What Journal or other reputable science source is the discussion published in?

 

[Trakar]

TShaitanaku, Capel Dodger et al.

A lurker appreciates your contributions and is learning a lot.

Regards

Hey, Welcome!

I've always considered a good conversation to be one where learn as much or more than I share, and Capel D is a good one to learn from, he always seems to have much more to share than I can entice him to spill forth!

Please join in and participate, it is such a diverse topic with seemingly so few aspects that really get much discussed, and we often get caught up addressing the same issues (over and over again!), that we don't think to discuss other areas of importance until someone else brings them up.

(btw, Thank-you for your kind words)

 

[Mikemcc]

Climate scientists of course. The journal has already been cited several times. Really? Where?

Why is the greybody's radiation temperature depend on the frequency?
Stefan-Boltzmann Law - I take it you have heard of that one?

The review discussion questions the hemispheric isotropic radiation approach because it leads to an overestimate of the entropy flux. Do you think that's significant? Isn't the conversion to long wave from short wave isotropic anyways?
No - it will radiate away from the surface, so half of the sphere will be eliminated

It says why in the paper: "Because solar radiation is the primary driving force for all the activities within the Earth’s climate system and radiation at different wavelengths reaches and warms different atmospheric layers"
Shock horror - last I noted, the sun warmed the Earth sufficient to produce over 30 deg of warming over and above that described by simple insolation, all due to the green house effect. Increasing the greenhouse effect increases the temperature rise, increasing the CO2 increases the greenhouse effect...

My comments in bold

 

[CapelDodger]

Two severe Amazon droughts in five years alarms scientists


http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/1466/


Are they being alarmist if they themselves are alarmed? That's a knotty philosophical problem .

Dr Lewis added: "Two unusual and extreme droughts occurring within a decade may largely offset the carbon absorbed by intact Amazon forests during that time. If events like this happen more often, the Amazon rainforest would reach a point where it shifts from being a valuable carbon sink slowing climate change, to a major source of greenhouse gasses that could speed it up.

"Considerable uncertainty remains surrounding the impacts of climate change on the Amazon. This new research adds to a body of evidence suggesting that severe droughts will become more frequent leading to important consequences for Amazonian forests.

As Zeph pointed out, other limiting factors exists. Global plant life hasn't been gasping for CO₂ since ... well, ever, really. Water, nutrients, light and space are what plants compete for, and they do it vigorously. I've yet to hear of a species that competes by grabbing more than its fair share of CO₂, but I'd love to hear of any.

 

[Dancing David]

We're not talking about evolution, we're talking about adaptation. Plant adaptation is several orders of magnitude faster than evolution. The comparison to evolution is erroneous quite possibly intellectually dishonest.

This is yet another sorry display of alarmism designed to fuel the Global Warming propaganda machine. Grasping at a single flawed study despite years of well documented science is desperate to say the least.

What kind of adaptation are you talking about?

Do you mean genetic modification, that is not generally referred to as adaptation.

 

[Furcifer]

My comments in bold

Please don't comment in the body of the quote. it only takes a second to copy and paste and and [/quote]


The last page.

I have. How do you think it applies here?

Your response makes no sense.

Actually no, if you understood the paper you'd know what that isn't entirely correct.

This is why we don't "talk science". Unless you can copypasta from a propaganda site there isn't much to be discussed.

 

[macdoc]

See the problem with your approach 3b is it is very shallow - you make a simplistic statement....

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem Everyone knows CO2 increases plant growth.

but forget there may be and in fact ARE complicating factors that come into play....

We know all about increasing CO2′s effect on the climate and oceans, but new research finds that it could have a huge impact on the nutritional value of our food as well. Our editor here at Eat.Drink…Better., Becky Striepe, passed this story on to me as a potential follow-up to my article last week on the massive decline in the nutritional value of our food in the last 50 years or so. I had never heard anything of the following beforehand (but I assume that is because this is very new research). A new study published in the journal Science on May 14 finds that rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere could have a great negative effect on the nutritional value of the world’s crops. The scientists from the University of California-Davis who conducted the study found that increased CO2 could reduce the protein content of crops by as much as 20%. The reason given is that increased levels of CO2 interfere with plants’ abilities to take up nitrate and transform it into organic compounds, such as protein. The problem with this being that “most crop plants … use nitrate as their main form of nitrogen,” as Arnold Bloom, lead author of the study says.

Testing two common forms of soil nitrogen, nitrate and ammonium, on wheat plants exposed to elevated levels of CO2, the scientists found that the wheat plants had a reduced ability to produce proteins.

20% Decrease in Nutritional Value of Foods Could Occur in 20-50 Years

The researchers say that if new fertilizers are not produced to counteract this response (and CO2 levels increase as predicted in the next 20-50 years), this 20% decrease could occur on a great scale in the coming decades.

“Wheat grain that has been exposed to conditions that we expect in the next few decades declines about 20 percent,” says Bloom.

http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2010/05/20/increasing-co2-to-affect-nutritional-value-of-food/

original paper
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/899.full?ijkey=F39k67XVc8VU2&keytype=ref&siteid=sci

and another article on the same topic

http://www.scidev.net/en/news/rising-co2-levels-could-reduce-protein-in-crops.html

snip

Gerald Nelson, an agricultural economist at the International Food Policy Research Institute, United States told SciDev.Net that the new study "reinforces the point that we cannot count on CO2 fertilisation to offset the negative productivity effects of climate change on agriculture

 

[CapelDodger]

... we often get caught up addressing the same issues (over and over again!) ...

It's the "same old same-old" that has put me of over time. The subject was much more interesting when it was still to some extent speculative, and there were new subjects I was made aware of to study-up on. (Oops, did I just say "the science is settled"? )

There's only so many ways one can refute each distraction, such as "CO₂ - We Call It Life". These days I'm mostly following the unfolding train-wreck which is the denialist movement. I do like a good laugh, and I knew it was just round the corner when Monckton became a Messiah.

(btw, Thank-you for your kind words)

And thank you from me too .

 

[Furcifer]

I agree, lying about such issues is a disservice to science and humanity in general, given the subject at hand. Those who engage in such lies should be exposed and ridiculed. Those with fact and truth supporting them tend to demonstrate such with links to reputable science sources and references which confirm and support their statements. I welcome and encourage any efforts you might undertake to discuss the science of anthropogenic climate change and applaud any usage of references to legitimate science sources that you care to in support your understandings.

That's why I'm here exposing this AGW woo. People should remain skeptical, the scientists not getting money from the Al Gore induced hysteria are.

 

[Trakar]

We're not talking about evolution, we're talking about adaptation. Plant adaptation is several orders of magnitude faster than evolution. The comparison to evolution is erroneous quite possibly intellectually dishonest.

This is yet another sorry display of alarmism designed to fuel the Global Warming propaganda machine. Grasping at a single flawed study despite years of well documented science is desperate to say the least.

Indeed this does seem to a quite egregious display of deliberate scientific distortion.

Adaptation, without evolution, to environmental conditions beyond the range of viability for a given species is impossible,...but that is touched upon in the papers I listed previously and in full accord with accepted mainstream scietific understandings.

"Keeping up with a warming world; assessing the rate of adaptation to climate change" - http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1635/649.full

"The pivotal question in the debate on the ecological effects of climate change is whether species will be able to adapt fast enough to keep up with their changing environment. If we establish the maximal rate of adaptation, this will set an upper limit to the rate at which temperatures can increase without loss of biodiversity.

The rate of adaptation will primarily be set by the rate of microevolution since (i) phenotypic plasticity alone is not sufficient as reaction norms will no longer be adaptive and hence microevolution on the reaction norm is needed, (ii) learning will be favourable to the individual but cannot be passed on to the next generations, (iii) maternal effects may play a role but, as with other forms of phenotypic plasticity, the response of offspring to the maternal cues will no longer be adaptive in a changing environment, and (iv) adaptation via immigration of individuals with genotypes adapted to warmer environments also involves microevolution as these genotypes are better adapted in terms of temperature, but not in terms of, for instance, photoperiod..."

"Running to stand still: adaptation and the response of plants to rapid climate change" - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00796.x/full

 

[CapelDodger]

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that crops will be developed to take advantage on the increase in CO2. None.

Do let us know how that works out for you. In the meantime, have you heard of any work being done on that now?

From what I read the main effort is being put into creating drought- and pest-resistent strains and improved photosynthetic efficiency. I've yet to hear of anyone touting CO₂ uptake efficiency as a GM El Dorado.

 

[macdoc]

Actually no, if you understood the paper you'd know what that isn't entirely correct.

This is why we don't "talk science". Unless you can copypasta from a propaganda site there isn't much to be discussed.

oh I see - so you don't bother to try and validate any of your "arguments" with support.....and denigrate others that so support their contentions.

You can't "talk science" unless you know the science which you patently do not - having to be corrected in your continuous misperceptions or even misrepresentations...

Case in point

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem
Everyone knows CO2 increases plant growth.

and others had to correct your misunderstanding of the implications of increased C02.

Until you actually read the science you cannot discuss the science.
Others here do read it and can discuss it.

So don't try and diss others when they offer support and references for their argument and then have to explain to you the science of your own few references.

 

[Dancing David]

Actually no, if you understood the paper you'd know what that isn't entirely correct.

Why don't you provide us with the relevant part of the paper and cite the data they present?

 

[Furcifer]

Adaptation, without evolution, to environmental conditions beyond the range of viability for a given species is impossible,...but that is touched upon in the papers I listed previously and in full accord with accepted mainstream scietific understandings.

Complete rubbish, even after atmospheric CO2 doubles it's well below the threshold of becoming toxic to plants.

I suggest you go to a greenhouse and ask to see the CO2 system.