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.
MA
Are you able to carry on an intelligent conversation without resorting to childish name calling? Anthony is being a gentleman. I wish I could say the same for you.
And where is the list of scientist who signed a statement saying they do agree with the AGW theory?
D. Overcast,
At least MA will discuss things so there is hope for him. Most extreme liberals I know refuse to discuss their beliefs beyond a certain point and that point is not very far! If they don’t call you a name out loud, you can guess they have you “pegged” as this or that in their mind. They figure they can’t change your mind with reasonable discussion perhaps because they judge everyone by their own measure.
Green4u
You said:
“And where are the dinosaurs now… oh that is right they are all dead. I hope we don’t end up like the dinosaurs.”
Are you suggesting that CO2 killed the dinosaurs? As I recall the popular scientific theory is that they were killed by an asteroid. Or are you suggesting that CO2 attracts asteroids?
You are awesome MA. You make us evil capitalists and Holocaust deniers smile with glee when you arive here with your namecalling, ad hominem attacks, and childish language. You’re side has had so much real world scientific data thrown your way debunking your religion (satellite data, Antarctic ice and temps, cooling oceans, weak sun, no warming until 2015 or 2020, 31,000 and growing skeptical AMERICAN ONLY scientists) that all you can muster is anger and pathetic cherry picking as you pray to Comrade Gore and the Supreme Green Soviet that the IPCC predicted planetary catastrophe is real and will happen if us Satanists have our way.
Oh, I can’t resist.
“There was only one phony: Spice Girl Geri Halliwell…. – Michael Fox, the actor, and Perry Mason, the fictional lawyer in a TV series — were actually bona fide scientists.”
Then why have all their names been scrubbed from the list? Again, you provide no evidence for any of your assertions, whereas I have – even though you deny *that* reality as well.
“Still waiting for that proof on the bogus names.”
I see a Perry S. Mason, PhD on the list. According to the wiki link you gave, that is the Perry Mason that was being questioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
REPLY: David you are correct, here are the “Masons” on the list in the “M” section: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p347.htm
Conrad Jerome Mason, PhD, Richard R. Mason, PhD, Perry S. Mason, PhD, Harry L. Mason, Jon L. Mason, Gayle Mason, William C. Mason, Michael R. Mason,
In the “F” Section we have these “Foxes”
David William Fox, PhD, Neil Stewart Fox, PhD, Russell Elwell Fox, PhD, Michael R. Fox, PhD, Brian D. Fox, G. Sidney Fox, Gerald Fox, James M. Fox, Irving H. Fox, MD, Harry James Fox, Forrest L. Fox, Corri A. Fox, Norman A. Fox, Timothy J. Fox, Bennett R. Fox, J. Fox, Donald W. Fox, Eugene K. Fox, Earl Fox,
There is a a Michael R. Fox, but no “Michael J.”…but there is a “J. Fox” so maybe he signed different this time to avoid the controversy from last time?
In any event, MA’s assertions aren’t holding up well.
David S.
I am not suggesting that CO2 attracted asteriods or arguing that an asteriod is not the reason why dinosaurs are extinct. I just think using an era when many of the living things on this planet were killed as an arguement for why the same thing happening again is good is some flawed logic.
-Green4u
Flowers,
to read your name is to laugh! Thanks buddy!
Jumping Jesus, I didn’t think I’d need to spell it out – a signatory dies in 1978, the list is compiled in 1999. Spot the problem? No? He died BEFORE the list was compiled. What are you gonna argue now? The list author held a seance? That wouldn’t surprise me at this stage.
You then ignore every argument and evidence that you cannot counter. You’re evidently some combination of delusional and deceitful. You don’t enter the debate with any integrity or honesty so there’s no point continuing it.
Also, YOU are the one who claimed the lists were different. Not me. Now that we’ve established they are not, you simply claim that the old one has been updated – again with NO EVIDENCE. Unfortunately for you, there is evidence – http://web.archive.org/web/20011127011126/www.oism.org/pproject/s33p333.htm – it was the same in 2001.
Does it get boring being proven wrong and shown to be a liar over and over again?
Whether you, or your delusional acolytes here, realise it or not, you’ve made yourself look like a total fool.
Much like creationists and the religiously-deluded, y’ all need to hide on little side-show websites, such as this, because you know you will be pilloried if you turn up amongst real scientists. Once again – pathetic.
REPLY: You wrote: “Also, YOU are the one who claimed the lists were different.”
Please point out where I specifically said the lists at those URL’s were different?
Ok I’ll check the deceased name, and the person to see if the 1978 is the same person or not. Your question there is valid.
I did check the Wayback Machine, for the last published page of the year 2001, and there are differences between that list in the wayback machine and the present one, for example, the last person in the A’s on the current list is “Azizollah Azhdam” and that name does not appear on the 2001 list. Another that appears on the current list but not in 2001 is “Willard Van Asdall, PhD” as well as “Zeki Al-Saigh, PhD“. So clearly the “A” list published today is different from the one from the wayback machine in 2001.
I suppose you would consider it unlikely that many of the same people that signed it then would sign it now? From my perspective, since they keep a record of every signer, names, address, phones, email if possible, they would send out new solicitations using that database? Or perhaps simply ask if you’d like to reaffirm and have your name kept on the list.
Freeman Dyson is on the list, on the front page at times. He’s a pretty smart guy. if the list were as corrupt as you claim, what makes you think he’d not catch that and ask his name be removed?
Your view assumes that the people conducting the second petition would be either stupid/lazy enough to simply repeat the last one and claim there were more names. Given the howling and visceral response from people like yourself to the first one, I doubt they’d leave themselves open to such easy criticism the second time around. The fact that my simple spot check of the “A” list reveals three differences (and there are likely many more) in names falsifies your assertion that “it was the same in 2001. ” It is not the same, some names are the same, some are new, as one would expect.
Finally, if you are going to call me a liar, which really isn’t necessary for a difference of opinion, stand behind it sir, you know mine, and have insulted my name, therefore it is only reasonable to ask what is your name? The email address “monoape” you use does not suffice.
See follow up reply regarding dead signatory issue below. – Anthony
TO Mike Lawlers, MA, Frank, Counter
Here what I think of your CO2 drives the climate perdictions.
“The Forecasting Models Are Unreliable.Complex forecasting methods are only accurate when there is little uncertainty about the data and the situation (in this case: how the climate system works), and causal variables can be forecast accurately. These conditions do not apply to climate forecasting. For example, a simple model that projected the effects of Pacific Ocean currents (El Niño-Southern Oscillation) by extrapolating past data into the future made more accurate three-month forecasts than 11 complex models. Every model performed poorly when forecasting further ahead.
The Forecasters Themselves Are Unreliable. Political considerations influence all stages of the IPCC process. For example, chapter by chapter drafts of the Fourth Assessment Report “Summary for Policymakers” were released months in advance of the full report, and the final version of the report was expressly written to reflect the language negotiated by political appointees to the IPCC. The conclusion of the audit is that there is no scientific forecast supporting the widespread belief in dangerous human-caused “global warming.” In fact, it has yet to be demonstrated that long-term forecasting of climate is possible.”
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308
Mike Lawler, you should check out this.
http://www.weatherquestion.com/Roy-Spencer-global-warming.htm
And tell us where he is wrong in his observations. BTW what has been CO2 “sensitivity” to the climate the last 7 years?
Counters- It seem your problem is with the coal mines which you want to regulated though CO2 drives the climate theory instead how they mine the coal. Sorry, different argument.
hmmmm here in N E Alabama it is in the low 90 range the first week of June. Not unusual certainly cooler than last year but still not unusual. They tell us it will cool by the end of the week so back to at or below normal temps. I did an experiment testing the cold water and hot water effect on CO2. I opened a cold soft drink (Coke-a-cola) and there was only a small pfft of gas. Then I opened a warm soft drink (also Coke-a-cola) and nearly all the liquid was expelled from the bottle by the gas as it expanded and escaped the liquid in the bottle. Makes one think.
I like winter I can breathe better but the garden doesn’t grow. So I think warm is better over all.
Bill Derryberry
Anthony, how’s about a variation on Godwin’s Law (I was going to add a Wikiphilia link to it, but realised just in time that this would make me one of the first violators…).
Anyhoo, just as Godwin’s Law fingers Nazi analogies, I think it’s high time for a law which does the same for Wiki: anyone arguing solely on the basis of a Wiki link shall henceforth be laughed out of the room. Or legalese to that effect.
But, we have a problem. It cannot be called Watt’s law, beacuse that’s volts times ohms equals sparks, or summat like that. So perhaps you could call for nominations, a bit like the Atlantic does with WordPlay, as a separate thread.
1 – for the precise wording of said Law
2 – for it’s name.
MA: Your NewScientist, Gristmill, RoyalSociety, and George Monbiot links have been ignored for good reason. They’re actually quite funny. No reason to debate them. From Gristmill: “Mona Loa is a volcano.” I liked that. It made me chuckle.
If those are the best links you could provide for a discussion on climate change, I understand now why Green Advocates are losing debates to skeptics.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/why-are-green-advocates-failing-in.html
You came poorly prepared.
Regards
Umm, it looks like you just did say it.
Without stopping all human industrial activity no meaningful reduction in CO2 can occur, therefore if you believe CO2 is a problem, which you DID state, you have to stop, now.
Well I can’t be certain, but I think that the article the Financial Post guy is quoting is a 2003 Science article by Nemani, Running, et al and not a 2004 article (at least I can’t find it). And when the Financial Post guy refers to “the earth as a whole,” I pretty sure that original source is referring to just land mass as the article is about [i]global terrestrial NPP[/i]. No oceanic discussion in there at all. BTW, the original article finds that 80% of the increase is in the tropics (increased moisture) and high northern latitudes (increased temperature).
[b]Climate-Driven Increases in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 1982 to 1999[/b]
Science 6 June 2003:
Vol. 300. no. 5625, pp. 1560 – 1563
DOI: 10.1126/science.1082750
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5625/1560
Thanks for helping me figure out Watt’s Up With That!
Btw, Running and Nemani are from University of Montana.
You can find a presentation from Running here:
http://www.forestry.umt.edu/personnel/faculty/swr/Presentation/SupportingFiles/ViewerWM64Lite.html
D. Overcast –
I don’t think they’re attempting to persuade as much as they’re attempting to bolster their own convictions by belittiling and denigrating any contrary opinions. They cannot support their own arguments intellectually, so they’re reduced to name calling and insults.
It’s kind of sad, really – what would twist a person so that they cannot look at the evidence and think for themselves, instead of having to depend on sound bites and talking points, some of which are very much out of date?
FOLLOW UP REPLY TO “MA”:
Ok here is the word on MA’s assertion that a dead person was added on the Oregon Petition after their death:
MA wrote: ‘Karl Spangler Quisenberry’. Guess what? Karl must be communicating from the grave because he’s been dead since 1978 – http://www.authorandbookinfo.com/ngcoba/qu.htm .
From that URL I find this entry:
Karl Spangler QUISENBERRY {US} (M: 1897 Aug 2 – 1978 Oct)
It doesn’t say what the author wrote about, or anything else.
I did find some references to an Atomic Physicist that might very well be deceased (he’d be 111 now) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956PhDT………1Q
And I found a record in the Spangler Family tree here:
http://www.spanglers.info/g0003857.html
But at the same time, I find a Karl S. Quisenberry alive and well and living in Asheville, NC.
He’s on the board of the symphony:
http://www.ashevillesymphony.org/about/board
He’s an AAUW Educational Foundation Fellow:
http://rwc.aauwnc.org/archive/03-04/fellows-reception/fellows.htm
He and his wife donated money in the last national election in 2004:
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/north_carolina_asheville_28805.asp?cycle=04
And he helps out the local radio station:
http://www.wcqs.org/WCQS_Capital_Campaign040106.pdf
He’s listed on the radio station page as:
Karl Quisenberry
Physicist (retired) &
Community Volunteer
So once again MA, your assertions don’t quite hold up. I have more proof of a living Physicist named Karl S. Quisenberry who may in fact be the signer, than you have of a dead author in 1978 being the “signer”.
Occams razor says that the simplest explanation would be that the living Karl S. Quisenberry who is a physicist is the signer.
In fact you are welcome to call him up and ask him:
Google Phonebook results for Karl Quisenberry, Asheville, NC (search on your own)
Karl Quisenberry 828-285-xxxx xxx xxxxxxx xx, Asheville, NC
I’ll take that apology for calling me a liar anytime you are ready.
I’ll just hit one more home run and leave you to your comfortable, science-free beliefs.
“Freeman Dyson is on the list, … if the list were as corrupt as you claim, what makes you think he’d not catch that and ask his name be removed?”
Maybe an 85 year old man has better things to do than chase after wingnut websites that misappropriate his name? However, I don’t know for sure – I’m not Freeman Dyson.
What I do know for sure is that he said:
“One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.” – http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
That wraps it up nicely. You’ve finished as you started – with science-free, evidence-free and error-strewn assertions.
It’s been good sport – in the same way that shooting cows with an automatic would be good sport.
REPLY: ah…running off into the sunset without acknowledging your errors, classic behaviour for a phantom who won’t use his real name.
Since you called me a liar, with no apology even though requested after showing the error of your claims, and plenty of solid evidence was presented. I’ll counter by saying: Sir, you are a coward.
I’ll leave you then with some things Freeman Dyson recently said here:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/freeman-dyson-on-heretical-thoughts-and-climate-change/
That’s quite a statement. But this one is really what hit home with me, because it captures the essence of what my http://www.surfacestations.org project is all about:
I think this study’s conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt.
Over the course of the study period, the area of the Amazon rain forests was reduced by apprx. 10-15 percent through deforestation.
Either the use of the deforested lands for grazing, cane, or soy production dramatically increased its’ production, or the increase in the forest production was approaching or exceeding 50% in a 15 year period. I’m sorry, that’s possible, but a little tough to swallow, seriously.
In the quote above, the researchers associate decreased cloud cover with an increase in production, but as sharp as these guys are, that screams to me that the spectral differences of differing cloud cover distorted their readings and conclusions and they were unable to correctly calibrate for the difference. The same could be true for other parts of the world.
If I were to be completely contrarian I could observe that depletion of fish stocks could also manifest itself as increased plankton populations, but as someone observed earlier, increased Ocean productivity may not be evident, although I haven’t researched that one.
Personally, I believe that the biosphere is benefiting from increased CO2 and there is a lot of evidence from worldwide agricultural production that buttresses that belief, but let’s try to be objective and skeptical in how we take in new information, lest we fall into the MA’s of ignorance.
More green is not necessarily good unless it’s also diverse. It’s kind of like if white rabbits began multiplying like crazy at the north pole and we call that a good thing because it’s more “white fur” replacing the declining polar bear population.
The planet is WAY more complex then just 1 gas = 1 result, and 1 color = 1 result, etc…..
Guys, guys! Stop the bickering! Don’t you know that there’s a war going on?
🙂
This is beautiful. Those of us with common sense have known it the whole time, but it’s good to have some in the scientific community finally backing it up.
tooby,
Why is that true exactly?
Did Al Kaholik and Amanda Reckonwith sign the petition? Julius Sneezer? Linoleum Blownapart? Phew! I worked outdoors for 30 years and the Sun has seemed to get noticeably brighter as of late. How do I know this without an advanced degree in Solar Physics? I look at the damn thing every day. I asked outdoor types—farmers, fisherman, pilots,lifeguards, my buddy Bob, if they noticed a slight increase in solar luminosity. Many said ‘Oh yeah!’ Now- all you brainiacs in academia need to do is leave the safe, secure confines of your government funded labs and un-scientifically talk to the old groundskeeper that maintains your athletic fields, ask if he’s noticed anything different about our sun. He just might have noticed something you missed indoors. A German physicist speculates theres a change in the random oscillations of Einsteinian gravity waves from the galactic core that mysteriously energize the sun’s magnetic field. Measureable data thats being ignored. The outer gas giants also have a huge gravitational effect on the inner planets. Gravity and magnetism generate heat and light. The solar system is a huge elegant rolling billiard table, where nothing physically touches, orbiting in an outer galactic arm. Where is the crucial input of Cosmologists? Are these distinguished educators objectively searching for empirical knowledge or standing on the shoulders of giants to reach the top shelf grant money in the PC cookie jar?
Diverse green? Well, I’m rather partial to hunter green, but I suppose there’s room enough for kelly green and olive green.
Anthony, do you really think you deserve an apology? After all you, me, and ~95% of the posters on this site, are, according to Comrade Gore Jong-Il, a laughably tiny minority of flat earthers who also believe the Moon landing was staged in Arizona. You KNOW that all we like to do is get together and party about how ignorant and stupid we are as we exchange “theories” about Earth’s climate. (sarcasm off).
Anthony, where is McCarthyism when you need it? I think it’s time to bring it back. Anyway, this arcticle (amazing how this discussion was first about a SCIENCE arcticle) is certainly compounding the establishment of scientific fact of more carbon dioxide=more flourishing plant life, and how it helps that the planet is warm, for now. Warm is warm and CO2 is CO2, and both are good things regardless if it was created accidentally by humans or “intentionally” by that little star that gives Earth light.