Originally posted by SpastiGovOnes which aren't N limited, which most are.
a non-volatile gas that plants thrive on!!
Indeed, if plants are going to "soak up the excess" why what the atmospheric Co2 conc went up over the last 100 years? Surely, the plants would have "soaked it up" in that time. Unless they can't, that is.
Originally posted by scottishinnzYour view is at odds with others, perhaps more highly qualified, who argue that increased CO2 is indeed beneficial to the biosphere. See: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Ones which aren't N limited, which most are.
Indeed, if plants are going to "soak up the excess" why what the atmospheric Co2 conc went up over the last 100 years? Surely, the plants would have "soaked it up" in that time. Unless they can't, that is.
If anything, global warming would be a good thing for mankind, not a bad thing.
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhich brings me to a question that nocody seems to have an answer for.
Ones which aren't N limited, which most are.
Indeed, if plants are going to "soak up the excess" why what the atmospheric Co2 conc went up over the last 100 years? Surely, the plants would have "soaked it up" in that time. Unless they can't, that is.
How much of the rise in CO2 can be attributed to deforestastion?
Originally posted by MerkPick a random number and multiply it by the complexity factor. That's what the alarmists in the science community do. In other words, merely inject your random guess into your computer modelling program and the answer is holy writ.
Which brings me to a question that nocody seems to have an answer for.
How much of the rise in CO2 can be attributed to deforestastion?
Originally posted by SpastiGovFrom your first post:
You obviously didn't read it properly. It was agryson who said the earth was supposedly "overdue" another ice age but that Man's carbon emissions have somehow been sufficient to completely reverse this supposed trend! I was merely responding to this absurd notion.
As for your suggestion that plants are not necessarily removing carbon dioxide as quickly ...[text shortened]... s, the more CO2 in the system, the more lush and prolific the growth. One follows the other.
"...Stern's...account of our possible climate future...fails to consider the all too likely eventuality of future cooling."
If you don't agree with that, why did you post it?
1 edit
Originally posted by SpastiGovWho would be more qualified in the subject that me, a person with a PhD in plant biology, specialising in plant photosynthesis and N dynamics?
Your view is at odds with others, perhaps more highly qualified, who argue that increased CO2 is indeed beneficial to the biosphere. See: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
If anything, global warming would be a good thing for mankind, not a bad thing.
as for that article, much of their analysis is not good. Non-linear modelling should have been used, rather than the linear modelling, since the data they are applying the technique to does not fit the assumptions of the test they are applying (in this case it gives too much credence to the (rather arbitrary) start and end points chosen) (the test (linear regression) assume data to be relatively normally distributed in 2 dimensions (this data is not normally, but rather regularly, distributed through time).
Of course, I am not denying that there will be some effect of CO2 enrichment. However, that's NOT what you are alluding to. Plants cannot and will not have a big enough drawdown effect to ameliorate current overproduction in CO2.
Likewise, figure 22 is deliberately misleading. Also, I am worried they call it "peer reviewed" yet don't have a citation for it. This is a breach of copyright, at least.
[edit; why do graphs 11 and 12 contradict each other?]
1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaYou are completely missing the point. My response to agryson was specifically about his contention that mankind's carbon emissions are somehow sufficient to haul the earth back from his "statistically overdue" ice age and turn it into a heat wave instead.
From your first post:
"...Stern's...account of our possible climate future...fails to consider the [b]all too likely eventuality of future cooling."
If you don't agree with that, why did you post it?[/b]
If you read it carefully, you will see I took issue with two points in this assumption of his: 1. That the earth is "overdue" another ice age, and 2. That industrial carbon dioxide, which represents an utterly minute proportion of the atmosphere - and a vital life-giving gas at that! - is somehow potent enough to force global climate into a complete u-turn!
It doesn't make any sense because, as I keep pointing out, there is not enough gain in the system. In other words, the biosphere is not THAT sensitive to such tiny adjustments in its constituent parts it is likely to spin out of control. If it were, life would have disappeared millions of years ago. Yet here we sit still debating it.
Originally posted by SpastiGovWe are about overdue for another ice age.
You are completely missing the point. My response to agryson was specifically about his contention that mankind's carbon emissions are somehow sufficient to haul the earth back from his "statistically overdue" ice age and turn it into a heat wave instead.
If you read it carefully, you will see I took issue with two points in this assumption of his: 1. T ...[text shortened]... of the atmosphere, is somehow potent enough to force global climate into a complete u-turn!
Normally, they manifest about every 12,000 years or so (the last glacial was quite an exception!), but we haven't had one for about 14,000 years. Paleoecology is just a wee hobby of mine.
1 edit
Originally posted by SpastiGovHow can you sit there and argue that?
If anything, global warming would be a good thing for mankind, not a bad thing.
Benefits:
Increased growing season
More CO2 for plants (just to humor you)
Drawbacks:
Destruction of wildlife habitats (which in itself has many subcategories)
Sea level rising
Increased intensity in severe weather
Increased spread of disease (mosquitoes thrive in warm weather)
Economic drawbacks (which has dozens of subcategories; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Economic)
Glacial retreat
Increased forest fires (which affect human as well as animal habitats)
Increased number of heat strokes (see Thread 71202)
Edit: I forgot positive feedback, which is the release of gases through global warming (a feeding cycle) of marshes, permafrost, etc.
Need I say more?
Originally posted by wittywonkaIncreased CO2 diffusion from the oceans as they heat.
How can you sit there and argue that?
Benefits:
Increased growing season
More CO2 for plants (just to humor you)
Drawbacks:
Destruction of wildlife habitats (which in itself has many subcategories)
Sea level rising
Increased intensity in severe weather
Increased spread of disease (mosquitoes thrive in warm weather)
Economic drawbacks (whi ...[text shortened]... gases through global warming (a feeding cycle) of marshes, permafrost, etc.
Need I say more?
Destruction of wildlife habitats (which in itself has many subcategories)Pure conjecture and guesswork. You are merely repeating the sacred Al Gore mantra which is based on sensationalist melodramatic and completely arbitrary scenarios derived from nothing but computer modelling. Unfortunately for you, it's utter nonsense.
Sea level rising
Increased intensity in severe weather
Increased spread of disease (mosquitoes thrive in warm weather)
Economic drawbacks (which has dozens of subcategories; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Economic)
Glacial retreat
Increased forest fires (which affect human as well as ...[text shortened]... habitats)
Increased number of heat strokes (see Thread 71202)
Need I say more?[/b]
But you got the benefits right. I hope the planet IS warming!
Originally posted by SpastiGovI agree. The carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can't force global climate into a total transformation.
...carbon dioxide...is [not] potent enough to force global climate into a complete u-turn
However, the climate has not been cooling off any time recently; thus, the warming that the earth is experiencing is not a drastic transformation from one extreme to another.