Eco Worriers: “CO2 is a pollutant!” Gaia: “Tell that to the biosphere.” Biosphere: “Yumm, burp!”
The SeaWiFS instrument aboard the Seastar satellite has been collecting ocean data since 1997. By monitoring the color of reflected light via satellite, scientists can determine how successfully plant life is photosynthesizing. A measurement of photosynthesis is essentially a measurement of successful growth, and growth means successful use of ambient carbon. This animation shows an average of 10 years worth of SeaWiFS data. Dark blue represents warmer areas where there tends to be a lack of nutrients, and greens and reds represent cooler nutrient-rich areas which support life. The nutrient-rich areas include coastal regions where cold water rises from the sea floor bringing nutrients along and areas at the mouths of rivers where the rivers have brought nutrients into the ocean from the land.
See an animation of the Earth;s Biosphere: 512×288 (30 fps) MPEG-1 10 MB. More here at NASA SVS
With less heat and less carbon dioxide, the planet could become less hospitable and less green
Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post, Don Mills, Ontario
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Planet Earth is on a roll! GPP is way up. NPP is way up. To the surprise of those who have been bearish on the planet, the data shows global production has been steadily climbing to record levels, ones not seen since these measurements began.
GPP is Gross Primary Production, a measure of the daily output of the global biosphere –the amount of new plant matter on land. NPP is Net Primary Production, an annual tally of the globe’s production. Biomass is booming. The planet is the greenest it’s been in decades, perhaps in centuries.
Until the 1980s, ecologists had no way to systematically track growth in plant matter in every corner of the Earth — the best they could do was analyze small plots of one-tenth of a hectare or less. The notion of continuously tracking global production to discover the true state of the globe’s biota was not even considered.
Then, in the 1980s, ecologists realized that satellites could track production, and enlisted NASA to collect the data. For the first time, ecologists did not need to rely on rough estimates or anecdotal evidence of the health of the ecology: They could objectively measure the land’s output and soon did — on a daily basis and down to the last kilometer.
The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA satellite data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.
Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature’s fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up — carbon is the building block of life — and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: “Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century.”
From the 2004 abstract: Our 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.
Lush as the planet may now be, it is as nothing compared to earlier times, when levels of CO2 and Earth temperatures were far higher. In the age of the dinosaur, for example, CO2 levels may have been five to 10 times higher than today, spurring a luxuriantly fertile planet whose plant life sated the immense animals of that era. Planet Earth is also much cooler today than during the hothouse era of the dinosaur, and cooler than it was 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warming Period, when the Vikings colonized a verdant Greenland. Greenland lost its colonies and its farmland during the Little Ice Age that followed, and only recently started to become green again.
This blossoming Earth could now be in jeopardy, for reasons both natural and man-made. According to a growing number of scientists, the period of global warming that we have experienced over the past few centuries as Earth climbed out of the Little Ice Age is about to end. The oceans, which have been releasing their vast store of carbon dioxide as the planet has warmed — CO2 is released from oceans as they warm and dissolves in them when they cool — will start to take the carbon dioxide back. With less heat and less carbon dioxide, the planet could become less hospitable and less green, especially in areas such as Canada’s Boreal forests, which have been major beneficiaries of the increase in GPP and NPP.
Doubling the jeopardy for Earth is man. Unlike the many scientists who welcome CO2 for its benefits, many other scientists and most governments believe carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant that must be removed from the atmosphere at all costs. Governments around the world are now enacting massive programs in an effort to remove as much as 80% of the carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere.
If these governments are right, they will have done us all a service. If they are wrong, the service could be all ill, with food production dropping world wide, and the countless ecological niches on which living creatures depend stressed. The second order effects could be dire, too. To bolster food production, humans will likely turn to energy intensive manufactured fertilizers, depleting our store of non-renewable resources. Techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere also sound alarms. Carbon sequestration, a darling of many who would mitigate climate change, could become a top inducer of earthquakes, according to Christian Klose, a geohazards researcher at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Because the carbon sequestration schemes tend to be located near cities, he notes, carbon-sequestration-caused earthquakes could exact an unusually high toll.
Amazingly, although the risks of action are arguably at least as real as the risks of inaction, Canada and other countries are rushing into Earth-altering carbon schemes with nary a doubt. Environmentalists, who ordinarily would demand a full-fledged environmental assessment before a highway or a power plant can be built, are silent on the need to question proponents or examine alternatives.
Earth is on a roll. Governments are too. We will know soon enough if we’re rolled off a cliff.
Sponsored IT training links:
Testking offers100% pass guarantee for 70-401 exam. Download 74-404 practice questions that will prepare you for 70-177 exam within days.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does it have to do with the human race’s maintenance and it’s desire to steward it’s “house” and keep it green. Yep.
Here’s just a quick link I found from here http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/DanielChen.shtml
I don’t know that it’s definitive, but it’s a start.
The percentages of earth’s land surface can be divided into different types: 20% covered by snow land, 20% mountains, 20% dry land, 30% good land that can be farmed, 10% land doesn’t have topsoil.
If we got a 20% increase, off of less than 30% of our landmass, we humans are really cranking it up, wouldn’t you say?
You have to do something!
Great site! A clearinghouse of up-to-date climate information. As the CO2 steadily increases and the temperature continues in decline, climate change as a function of other causes will become obvious to all. Sure is cold out- check out this link: http://www.komonews.com/news/19657944.html
“You forgot to add the 32,000 scientists that recently signed the Oregon Petition as choice 3.”
You mean the completely debunked list of ‘31,000 scientists’ that has included ‘Geri Halliwell’ (Spice Girls), ‘Perry Mason’ (fictitious detective), ‘Michael J. Fox’ (Back To The Future!) and a bunch of others that show the list up for what it is – unverified bullshit. Anyone can sign the list with any name and qualification they choose – it will get added to the list of ‘scientists’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/oregon-petition-redux/
REPLY: Sorry, you are wrong. Wrong list. There was an earlier one that was invaded by a handful of bogus names from unscrupulous people seeking to discredit it, but this one is brand new, with stricter controls to keep people with no scruples from putting bogus names on it.
For example, by his own admission, Michael J. Murphy aka Big City Lib lied and connived to get on the list, but failed: http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2008/05/and-i-are-on-that-list.html
The screening process denied him.
BTW Michael J. Fox was indeed a real scientist with the same name, as was Mr. Mason.
Do your homework before making claims.
I think that we should stop call CO2 a greenhouse gas but instead call it a greengrowth gas.
One problem with the green movement and the ecological academic community as a whole is the view that the different ecological niches are always in a delicate balance and any push on it, be it climate change or a change in the chemical balance of the oceans much somehow be catastrophic. In fact nature is quite sturdy and plants and animals can adopt and evolve to survive most changes be it manmade or natural.
It is a hard struggle in the academic environment to get notice and with the desire to achieve something important. The result can be seen all over in the number of scientific studies that are alarming or catastrophic. Naturally no of those academics are ever accountable for the unintentional consequences that may come about as a result of their studies.
For example, Global Warming Hysteria is now leading to increasing poverty, famine and death.
When the world continues to cool, they will switch from global warming to acidification of the oceans. And claim that there will be a rapid dying of plankton, coral reefs and of fish.
Well er: “…there actually isn’t total concensus.”
I’ll repeat myself: every scientific body of national or international standing on the planet accepts and confirms human influence on recent climate change and the likely results of that. How much consensus do you need? The only people who don’t agree are almost entirely right wing, bible belt wing nuts, congregated in the USA.
philw1776: you’re unable to challenge the referenced sources on that Wikipedia page, so you attempt to discredit Wikipedia. Bush has played that type of game for 8 years – most of us are wise to it now.
D. Overcast: “…what does “consensus” have to do with scientific facts.”
If 99 engineers told you a plane was likely to crash and 1 said that it wouldn’t, you’d be pretty dumb to get on it. I suggest you read http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics to help you differentiate ‘fact’ from propaganda and idiocy.
Fortunately, this is rapidly becoming a non-issue. Every industrialized country on the planet accepts the reality of AGW. Obama is very clear on the threat and the urgency with which it needs to be addressed. It is one of his priorities when he becomes president.
All that’s left is a few reality deniers, congregated in dusty corners of the internet, such as this. I guess denial of reality is to help alleviate the guilt of driving those hideous SUVs?
In the hope that some people here might want to educate themselves, instead of relying on the echo chamber of dishonest climate change deniers:
http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11462
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
REPLY: Good use of stereotypes there. No more of calling people dishonest for having an opinion that is different from yours. An apology is warranted.
Sorry, MA, but you’re wrong. Scientific bodies make policy statements based on political decisions. They do not imply that all members of that body agree with the policy statement. How much money do you think a scientific body would get if they said CO2 is no big deal?
Oh please, not this tired old, inappropriate analogy. Airplanes are made by engineers. The climate wasn’t made by humans, and we’re still trying to understand it. Extremely poor analogy.
“Sorry, you are wrong.”
I note that you make no effort to refute the evidence I have provided with evidence of your own. You simply state I’m wrong – not a very convincing rebuttal, but I understand the reason – you have nothing to use as a rebuttal.
Even the blog post you link to makes it clear that there is no verification process for the list – you just write any name, any ‘scientific’ experience and post it back. Also, the ‘new’ list is just the old list at a different URL – how dumb would you need to be to fall for that?
Pathetic.
REPLY: I said do your homework, I’m not going to do it for you. You made the claims first, back them up.
Ah, what the heck, you won’t do it, so here read this one:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/17/32-000-deniers.aspx
And the blog post you referenced, the man who wrote it admits lying to try to get on, then you use his word as a reference? Pathetic indeed.
STOP IMPORTING OIL FOR THE GOOD OF INDIA !!
Dr.V.N.Vasudev, 8.6.08 vasu.sacredtrust@gmail.com
[ off topic, deleted]
As usual, this is as productive as debating creationists, who are also immune to evidence, logic and rational discourse.
Also, like creationists, the reality deniers are some combination of deluded, dishonest and dumb. Maybe all three.
I’ll leave you folks to your science-free escape from reality.
REPLY: Congratulations on following the script exactly. I see it all the time. You can’t win the argument, and don’t provide evidence to back up the claims, so you toss some angry labels out, and leave.
That’s fine, we don’t encourage anger here, so you’d eventually violate the website terms of use policy anyway.
lol Too good to miss:
“And the blog post you referenced, the man who wrote it admits lying to try to get on, then you use his word as a reference?”
Are you simple? YOU referenced the blog post, not me. Or is there some rule that you can use a ‘dishonest’ blogger to prove a point, but I can’t use the same one?
Dude, you are looking so stoopid right now.
REPLY: I pointed out an effort using a deceit as a tool to discredit, you pointed out the effort as bona-fide fact for a procedure, simply because you seem to agree with the blogger. Big difference. Huge.
You can read up on the procedure here: http://www.petitionproject.org/
Still waiting for that proof on the bogus names.
Question: what is the ‘normal’ level of CO2? It has varied all over the place as far as we can tell. The 280 ppmv may or may not be valid, so it may have risen 100 ppmv in the last few centuries, or perhaps half that if the errors in ice cores are real.
Point is, we don’t know. To base wide and expensive conclusions on suspect data is foolish. And dangerous, if it results in food shortages.
As for consensus: All the Western nations (and almost all of the Democrats in Congress) thought Saddam had WMD’s in the late 90’s. Voted to give Pres. Clinton authority to use any means, including force, to remove him. Don’t hear much about that now, only a decade later. Conclusion based on limited facts, turned out not to be true.
The cost of a wrong conclusion this time around could be far worse.
Frank:
And the “normal” concentration is . . . ?
http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif
Jeff Alberts,
“Mike Lawler, the things you mention have always happened and will always happen. There’s no evidence of anything catastrophic occurring after 40 years of so-called “unprecedented” warming.”
It sounds like you’re referring to the historical record. I agree, concentrations of greenhouse gases and the earth’s temperature have likely seen rapid and dramatic change in the distant past. But by saying that nothing ‘catastrophic’ has happened you highlight an important point. No one is saying the earth is going to overheat and everything is going to die as a result of climate change- no informed person thinks this. But the earth’s human population density is immense now, so changes in the amount and distribution of resources (perhaps most importantly fresh water) can have a dramatic impact on the people who rely on them to be as they currently are. What could be ‘catastrophic’ for humans now is just a blip on the long-term climate of the earth.
The biosphere is like a whacky control loop. It controls a freezer. Instead of providing a steady, well controlled, constant 17 Deg F temperature, this thing is either on or off. It’s a duty cycle control – 90% hard frozen, 10% thawing. Guess where we are right now.
I’m not sure why you say our contribution to CO2 is only 3%, given an increase of roughly 100 ppm since preindustrial concentrations of ~280 ppm. 3% is well-known, and accepted Mike. Why? Do you have some other figure? The 100ppm increase is also wrong, it’s more like 55ppm, due to how C02 was measured, and to how measurements were cherry picked. None of this matters, though, because it has almost nothing to do with the warming we’ve experienced. Got that? C02’s warming effect is logarithmic. The first 20 ppm has more warming effect than the next 400ppm. If the C02 levels were now at 1000ppm, it would have little warming effect, but a very beneficial effect on plants, and increased food production.
Per Strandberg :
“When the world continues to cool, they will switch from global warming to acidification of the oceans. And claim that there will be a rapid dying of plankton, coral reefs and of fish.”
Here it comes from the UK in today’s Daily Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/08/eaocean108.xml
There was a rebuttal last week on Icecap.
Anthony: Why do you even bother to respond to anyone that calls you simple or stoopid (sic)?
MA is obviously indoctrinated into the cult of gorebull.
The science is settled – stop studying or discussing it.
Shut down your site now!!
REPLY: Well its simple, Google searches. Both sides need to be presented. People can call me anything they want, they can rail, scream yell, whatever. But a good dose of fact following that almost always cures it for the future.
I’m waiting for MA to provide some scientific proof. It should be easy to do right?
Perhaps a graph of the 1900’s showing how increased CO2 and increased temps are tightly connected. (heh)
Or perhaps a graph showing the last 30 years of so of satellite data. Perhaps we could compare Jan. 1979 with May 2008 and we’ll see the clear signs of manmade global warming……on the precipice of “irreversible climate change” (change…change…change)
Waiting….waiting……….
Mike from Canmore :
“Normal” concentration of CO2 is… whatever concentration is where life is sustainable, where changes are slow and progressive. It seems to me that industries and vehicules spewing 27 gigatons of C02 in the atmosphere per year raise this concentration in ways that change our ecosystems significantly, and rapidly. How can life adapt to this?
Even this “good news” of augmenting biomass should be taken with caution. Lets say this augmentation in biomass is mostly due to Cyanobacteria proliferation (as it should be, since it is one of the most prevalent form of plant life on Earth): what do we know about the effects of Cyanobacteria colonization on other species? Next to nothing.
Lets roll the dice with CO2 concentration levels, and see what happens.
MA, Anthony has provided a list of over 30,000 scientists who have signed their names to a statement refuting the anthropogenic global warming theory. Can you provide us with a list of scientists who have signed their names to a statement in support of AGW?
Frank
“When man plays God, and affects Earth’s future by rapid change in his global environment, he is playing dice. Who needs that?”
Your paradigm seems a bit skewed. Man is not separate from nature but a part of it. Life on earth is carbon-based and we also share dna to greater and lesser extents with the other living creatures who inhabit this planet. We all belong here.
We do, however, have a special gift. And that is our capacity to learn about and to affect our surroundings in ways that no other creature has yet achieved. This is not a ‘bad’ thing, per se. In fact it is our way of adapting. It is the reason we’re basically at the top of the food chain.
Throughout the history of carbon-based life on our planet, carbon has been removed from the atmosphere and placed underground through various processes. The ‘carbon-cycle’ does not replenish all of the carbon taken out of the atmosphere which is why the CO2 PPM has gradually diminished (with a couple of exceptions) over the past 600 million years!
Recent studies (by AGW people, in fact) have shown (as a minor conclusion) that glaciations have not occurred when the CO2 PPM is above 500. Before the industrial age the CO2 during the warm interglacials was under 300 which is most likely the reason we’ve popped in and out of these glaciations and would continue to do so.
And as the earth cools, CO2 drops even more and we come dangerously close to stopping photosynthesis.
So mankind, without consciously knowing this, about 150 years ago started digging that carbon out of the ground and tossing it back into the atmosphere.
We did the right thing, though we didn’t know why.
How far we need to go with this climate fix is still an open question. But putting carbon back into the atmosphere was not an evil anti-gaia immoral humans-be-damned thing.
Not at all!
MA has no evidence, no facts, no science (though plenty of pseudoscience), just its “consensus” and ad hominems. AGW religion has addled its brains (what little of them it has). So very sad. You have no idea what you are talking about, don’t have anything to offer but your obvious hatred of us, and no desire to learn anything. Buh bye, Troll.
[…] knew that increasing CO2 could have a beneficial effect? I mean, other than anyone who took biology in high school. They found that over a period of […]