Environment gets Bushed

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's possible the Earth's remaining plants (i.e. all of them, everywhere) are producing oxygen faster. Prove this wrong.

You make the claim, you prove it.

If you can't prove it, I have no reason to believe it. C'mon. Don't boast it, post it.

Again. Have a bit of your own medicine.

 

[BasketCase]

You make the claim, you prove it.

I don't have to because I used the word "possible".

If you say it's false, you must disprove it.

Again. Have a bit of your own medicine.

Like any snake, I am immune to my own venom.

 

[Simple Simon]

Yes it is. You have to measure plant mass or you don't know how much you have.

erh, nope!

Your understanding of ecology and the methods used is insufficient. Sorry to be so frank, but you are simply not sufficiently informed.

Fact is that the amount of biomass per area is fairly constant for each ecosystem type. Changes in biomass go along in changes with the ecosystem. You can e.g. get a denser forest, with more densely packed trees - but unless you change the tree species, the individual tree will have less room, less light, therefore less volume (and mass). The total remains fairly constant.

To get more plant mass you either must change ecosystems to other types (we see that today all over the world - however, it is usually a change in the OPPOSITE direction), or you must change the relative abundance of different plant types within an ecosystem - but this gives you only limited additional mass, before the ecosystem changes to a different type.

Sadly, as is evident from the wiki links I provided, ecosystem changes go the WRONG way, from complex systems with much biomass to simpler systems with less biomass. There is no need to go and weigh my lawn!

How often you mow your lawn proves nothing.

in fact, it does!

How can I see if a lawn produces more biomass per time and area than earlier?
If the plants grow faster, then I must mow more often.
If the plants grow denser, then the characteristics of the lawn would change, because denser grass creates a different microclimate. I would have to see more or less moss growing, and the lawn should change how it reacts to stress, such as too much sunlight or kids playing soccer.

Any change in how the plants grow will produce a VISIBLE change in main characteristics of the lawn.

When I was a kid, I did several experiments with bean sprouts for science class. Know what I discovered? The healthiest bean plants, that received the most sunlight, were the SHORTEST. They were less than six inches tall, deep green, with leaves everywhere, and they were growing SIDEWAYS rather than up--they were extending stalks to the sides to get even more of that delicious sunlight.

Whereas the bean plants that didn't get enough light grew two feet tall in an attempt to find some sunlight.

So? what is that supposed to prove? it is a simple FACT that plants with insufficient light available will shoot like crazy, it is called etiolation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiolation

It's not enough to just look at your back yard.

But you SAID I should look in my back yard to see the additional biomass, right here:

Here's a hint: go take a look in your back yard.

were you trying to mislead me? Or were you simply wrong?

And, there's a second possibility you have completely ignored--

It's possible the Earth's remaining plants (i.e. all of them, everywhere) are producing oxygen faster. Prove this wrong.

I did not ignore it - I know that your mystery-handwaving thingy does not work.

You suggest that plants can produce oxygen faster without additional growth (otherwise we should see more biomass). However, there is no know mechanism in a plant cell for creating oxygen but for photosynthesis. Increased photosysthesis rates lead to faster growth, or at least faster production of ATP. So either plants grow faster (which is NOT happening), or they must have higher ATP content - which they do not. Why should they - after all, the best thing they could do with extra ATP is grow faster, grow more seeds, whatever.

You are simply waving your hands and are saying 'maybe God did it' in this case. Do you have any idea how photosynthesis works, and what its products are, and how these are 'used' in plants?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't have to because I used the word "possible".

If you say it's false, you must disprove it.

Cop out

Like any snake, I am immune to my own venom.

Allright then

The rate at which oxygen is being consumed has gone up. That much is known fact. Six and a half billion humans, lots of cars and factories. And it's also known that the world's oxygen content is going down. Don't believe me--look it up on the web.

There.

Slamdunk. Homerun. Ace. Game Set and Match Ziggy.

I win! \o/ End of discussion.

*victory dance*

See you in the next thread my arch enemy

 

[El_Machinae]

I think he's saying that the current models don't accurately deal with clouds, and that the impact of CO2 on cloud cover leads to negative feedback, not positive feedback that is assumed in teh models (where impact on clouds is largely ignored).

Negative feedback which is self-correcting. It's like the increase in biomass due to increased CO2 ppm. Unfortunately, isn't the CO2 ppm going to continue rising? It's being pumped up artificially. The biomass/clouds might upregulate to compensate for what's already happened, but I don't think he's suggesting that they'll upregulate sufficiently to overcome the additional strain on the system.

The body self-corrects when it comes to temperature too. Increasing heat will increase sweating. However, if you continue to scale up the heat, you'll still get warmer and warmer.

On a separate note (i.e., opening a side-bar), I'm a little confused as to why people don't seem to think that we know what will happen with clouds. Different latitudes have different temperatures and thus can contain different amounts of moisture. You'd think that we'd know what would happen with increased temperatures (& cloud cover) just by looking at a warmer latitude.

 

[bigfatron]

You said it yourself: economic wealth and greenhouse emissions are loosely correlated.

Yes - 'loosely'.

In your analysis you were assuming a direct, linear correlation.

You were wrong to do so.

BFR

 

[BasketCase]

The rate at which oxygen is being consumed has gone up. That much is known fact. Six and a half billion humans, lots of cars and factories. And it's also known that the world's oxygen content is going down. Don't believe me--look it up on the web.

I did. You should have.

The real truth

"The changes we are measuring represent just a tiny fraction of the total amount of oxygen in our air (20.95 per cent by volume). The oxygen reduction is just 0.03 per cent in the past 20 years and has no impact on our breathing," says Mr Langenfelds.

"Typical oxygen fluctuations indoors or in city air would be far greater than this," says Mr Langenfelds.

The measured decline is smaller than the margin of error. Making it meaningless.

Slamdunk. Game, set and match to BasketCase.

If you say it's false, you must disprove it.

Cop out

Nope. If you claim something is false, you must disprove it. You didn't. Therefore your accusation of a cop-out was a cop-out.

Ouch. Kicking Ziggy after he's down. BasketCase gets penalized for bad sportsmanship!!

in contrast, I can prove that plant matter is on the DECLINE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

Simon, I asked for the GRAND TOTAL. The part I italicised above, shows that you understood this perfectly. Yet you refused to provide it.

How fast are plants growing OUTSIDE of forests and deserts?

Prove that total plant matter worldwide is going down. I require the GRAND TOTAL, and absolutely nothing else will do. Unless I see you post this, I'm done with you.


And BasketCase wins again.

In your analysis you were assuming a direct, linear correlation.

No, I did not. And you were wrong to claim that I did.

I assumed a correlation. I never said what kind.

 

[skadistic]

UN asked to admit climate change errors

by maggie

A group of four scientists has sent a letter to the UN’s IPCC asking them to “admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures.”

This is reprint of the letter sent to the IPCC on Monday, April 14

14 April 2008

Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC

We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.

If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.

We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.

More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically.
The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) [1] as well as by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted - Hadley CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D’Aleo [4], and are shown below.

These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade, and may now even be falling.

A third important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2]

IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food - maize as biofuel - has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5].

Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?

We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.

Yours sincerely,

Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist, mMensa, hans@tech-know.eu

Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist UK, Dir. WeatherAction.com, piers@weatheraction.com

Dr Don Parkes, Prof. Em. Human Ecology, Australia, dnp@networksmm.com.au

Svend Hendriksen, Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared), Greenland, hendriksen@greennet.gl

Cc: IPCC’s yu.izrael@g23.relcom.ru christy@nsstc.uah.edu spencer@nsstc.uah.edu dy.pitman@gmail.com

Tim Yeo MP (Chairman Environmental Audit Committee) Lord Martin Rees (President Royal Society)

Gordon Brown MP David Cameron MP Nick Glegg MP

Footnote 1: Two heavily publicised quotations which emerged from your organisation, respectively in February and December last year, are:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4).{2.4} [6] and

The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction. (Summary statement, Bali Conference.) [7].

Footnote 2: “Data over the past two decades indicates that temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes. This completely contradicts conventional global warming models. Before we radically rearrange the political economy of the world because some scientists claim anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of climate change, it might be worthwhile for anyone taking a position on the topic to consider whether or not this is indeed “well settled science.” Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, March 2008.

References:

1. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa...te/research/msu.html

2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

3. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

4. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consultant Meteorologist,

Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), Executive Director Icecap.us

5. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0801.htm

6. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/asse.../syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

7. http://www.climate.unsw.edu.au/bali/

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Great. Now answer to my questions?

 

[History_Buff]

Nope. Suppose those two billion people ARE doing that.

Then you've got 2.3 billion people puffing 26 tons a year.

Now suppose the United States cuts its output in half--which is actually a lot more than we can reasonably expect, but just for arguments' sake.

Then you've got the equivalent of 2.15 billion people puffing 26 tons a year.

So your conclusion is bogus. "Just a little" progress in the U.S. will definitely not erase the problem. Won't even come close.

You have fasely assumed that the third world emissions will grow as fast as Western cuts, as well as that third world people will be as polluting as Americans and Canadians. Niether of these are true by default.

 

[ainwood]

Didn't you mention that the theory in question was peer reviewed? This is only some testimony - which in addition to not being peer-reviewed is probably simplified for the Senate.

In his testimony, he refers to a paper that is soon to be published on these points, which has been peer reviewed by two lead IPCC scientists - I quoted excerpts from his testimony. It was simplified for the senate - I'm not arguing the merits of his testimony, I'm providing salient points from that testimony. Did you read it, by the way?

You are right that some of the criticism is against the person and not the work. Nevertheless there is some reason for this. The whole things went like this :

1) Journals wants to sponsor serious discussion with those who do not belief in GW (caused by man)
2) So they invite people, including Mr. Viscount to write a paper (not peer-reviewed)
3) He does so and they publish it after some minor editorial corrections
4) The "No human-caused GW-side" declares total victory :
"Scientific Proof in Journal that there is no GW" and even claimed that the whole APS had switched sides.

That's underhanded and you can't blame people to be upset about tactics like that.

IIRC, yes there were some people who claimed that the entire APS had changed their stance, and I believe this was promoted via the media. The more reputable sites that I do actually read on occasion were making it clear that it was the editor who had changed his mind. So I suggest that its the mainstream media that should have the finger pointed at them for not bothering with fact-checking, and it still doesn't excuse playing the man, and not the ball.

On a similar note, it may be underhanded, but is it any worse than the stories we see in the media about how darn near everything is to be blamed on global warming, when there is no real proof (eg. hurricanes).

This being said I have no idea what background you have on science, but it has become so specialized that it's really hard for someone who doesn't work in that particular area to just read the relevant papers published each month.

So while he still *might* have a point you really have to ask yourself whether you yourself are biased. How many peer-reviewed articles did you read which argued for a global warming caused by man? If you have any specific scepticism (like measuring how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by burning fossil fuels) have you done any research on the methods the scientists use?

I have a honours degree in Chemical & Process engineering. I don't pretend to understand climate science, but I do understand the scientific method. I model relatively simple systems for a living, so I do have an appreciation of the accuracy (or otherwise) of complex models. I don't envy anyone having to do climate modelling, because I think there are too many variables. Its hard enough to accurately model systems when the science you are modelling is well-understood, and you have instant feedback data (ie. systems with short time-constants) to calibrate you models with. In climatology, not all the science is understood, and the models are difficult to calibrate. In short: I am extremely sceptical of any claims of accuracy in these models - and I note that the IPCC calls the outputs 'projections' because they don't dare call them forecasts.

I consider myself a sceptic, and don't like the label 'denier'. What I want to see is that the politics are pushed aside, and the scientists left to get on and do the research, in a proper manner, without fear of having their funding cut etc for reaching the 'wrong' conclusion. It seems pretty clear that people on both sides of the fence have this issue, and my concern is that because the issue is so political (and weighted towards the AGP side), that we are simply not getting a balanced, objective analysis. If you read my posts on the subject, a number of them are about the scientific process, not the results (although I have a few on real-world observations, too).

Negative feedback which is self-correcting. It's like the increase in biomass due to increased CO2 ppm.

Negative feedback is self-correcting, by definition. It just means moving to a new equilibrium.

Unfortunately, isn't the CO2 ppm going to continue rising? It's being pumped up artificially. The biomass/clouds might upregulate to compensate for what's already happened, but I don't think he's suggesting that they'll upregulate sufficiently to overcome the additional strain on the system.

Why won't it? Negative feedback means that a new equilibrium will be reached. The IPCC are worried about a 'tipping point', at which a new equilibrium won't be reached, and positive feedback will lead to temperatures going out-of-control. They appear to suggest that this positive feedback can be driven largely by CO2, but unless there is a fundamental change in something else, then it can't happen. And even if there is a tipping point, can it be reached through the effects of CO2 alone? If the IPCC are suggesting that it can, yet they've over-estimated the effects of CO2, then the question of whether the 'tipping point' can be reached without their over-estimation is the very important question.

The body self-corrects when it comes to temperature too. Increasing heat will increase sweating. However, if you continue to scale up the heat, you'll still get warmer and warmer.

Yes, you reach a new equilibrium.

On a separate note (i.e., opening a side-bar), I'm a little confused as to why people don't seem to think that we know what will happen with clouds. Different latitudes have different temperatures and thus can contain different amounts of moisture. You'd think that we'd know what would happen with increased temperatures (& cloud cover) just by looking at a warmer latitude.

Which is, I believe, what Spencer did to conclude that the system is dominated by negative feedback, and that including the effects of clouds in the models is critical (not sure it was him, but it was someone I read somewhere...)

 

[BasketCase]

You have fasely assumed that the third world emissions will grow as fast as Western cuts, as well as that third world people will be as polluting as Americans and Canadians. Niether of these are true by default.

Third World emissions are already growing much faster than Western cuts, and they will in fact be polluting just as much as (actually, more than) Americans--assuming they're not already doing so.

Don't take my word for it. Just read the daily newspaper, and you will see it happen.

 

[History_Buff]

They are growing faster now, but actual emissions cuts in the West have only just begun, and a great deal of the polluters have not done anything at all. And I have a hard time believing that the third world is already polluting more per capita than Americans. You have a source for that number?

 

[Ammar]

In his testimony, he refers to a paper that is soon to be published on these points, which has been peer reviewed by two lead IPCC scientists - I quoted excerpts from his testimony. It was simplified for the senate - I'm not arguing the merits of his testimony, I'm providing salient points from that testimony. Did you read it, by the way?

Not yet, since I hoped to get the original article. But since that's out of the question for now; I'll go and read the testimony now.

@Monckton : Sorry, I can't take the man seriously. He has a history of pandering to the energy industy (i.e. Exxon) and threatening the press with libel charges if they criticize his articles.

 

[El_Machinae]

Why won't it? Negative feedback means that a new equilibrium will be reached.

A new equilibrium cannot be reached because the ppm continues to increase year-to-year. The negative feedback will have to follow any changes, and so we'd see things equilibrate (after a delay) after any change. However, the change is ongoing and unlikely to stop.

Additionally, how will the climate 'negative feedback' mechanisms not result in a changing climate? How can clouds shunt/reflect more heat without changing current climes?

I don't think you are, but don't expect that I'm imagining a 'hockey stick' scenario, unless some (unlikely) tipping point is reached.

 

[bhsup]

They are growing faster now, but actual emissions cuts in the West have only just begun,...

What? The Clean Air Act has been around for decades. Are you saying nothing has improved since the 70s?

 

[El_Machinae]

Western CO2 emissions have risen year-to-year for the last 30 years, until recent changes.

 

[El_Machinae]

Skadistic:

We know to look twice at your graph, because CO2 ppm does not increase in a steady fashion like that. The two graphs are not really comparable, because CO2 is using a running average. If we're going to do that, we should use running averages from both sets of data. I went through your citations, and the CO2 data is from this graph. The wave is due to what I call 'the planet breathing' in other posts.

I went looking through the MSU data, because your report implies (?states?) that trends seem to be level or falling. First off, the graph is presenting a January 1998 to June 2008 (I think) which might not be the best starting points (if you're going to show a ten year graph, use ten years). Secondly, if you run a regression line through the data, you'll see that it trends upwards. Temperatures are rising when you look at the ten year trend. The only time the ten year trend doesn't (lately) is when you use the peak 1998 data as your starting points.

The two lines are looking at different massagings of the data, which is a bit dishonest.

 

[History_Buff]

What? The Clean Air Act has been around for decades. Are you saying nothing has improved since the 70s?

The Clean Air Acts went a long ways to reducing conventional pollutants in the air, that caused smog and acid rain, but did nothing to actually reduce CO2 outputs.

The exectutive order calling for higher has mileage in American vehicles was only made in 2007. And that has far more to do with reducing America's dependancy on foriegn oil that it does emission control.

 

[ainwood]

A new equilibrium cannot be reached because the ppm continues to increase year-to-year.

Diminishing returns. Consider, for example, adding salt to water. This changes the freezing point of the water. But there is a limit at which the water becomes saturated, and adding any more salt won't make any difference.

The negative feedback will have to follow any changes, and so we'd see things equilibrate (after a delay) after any change. However, the change is ongoing and unlikely to stop.

Additionally, how will the climate 'negative feedback' mechanisms not result in a changing climate? How can clouds shunt/reflect more heat without changing current climes?

I don't think you are, but don't expect that I'm imagining a 'hockey stick' scenario, unless some (unlikely) tipping point is reached.

You are correct that the equilibrium change must follow the change in CO2. The point though is not whether the CO2 makes a change, but the magnitude of that change: The IPCC has us believe that it is an unstable, positive feedback-dominated system, which would result in large (potentially run-away) temperature changes. If it is dominated by negative feedback, then the temperature rises will be necessarily much lower (by their own models)