Environment gets Bushed

[ainwood]

ainwood, I know about upwilling areas, and I can also read satellite data, e.g. from the amazon era. Interestingly, there biomass is in a whopping DECLINE - with a reduction of photosynthesis rate and biomass of about 50% when primary rain forest is cleared. Sure, initially you will see enormous growth after the slash&burn, and the folks that wrote your nice propaganda article sure love that data - but what about the average seen over ten years?

:shrug: The article refers to trends over 20 years. And just because you disagree with the central tennets of the article, doesn't make it propoganda. That's up there with referring to sceptics as "deniers'.

Same goes for African and Asian rain forests and Canadian boreal forests and and and. Sorry, the claim they make is not believable, simply because it appears to me, who has seen loads of data on deforestation, that they are high-grading the data: picking what they like, even if that makes their conclusions wrong.

Then take it up with Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA. I'm sure they'd be interested.

Also, faster photosynthesis only reduces CO2 levels if the created biomass is there to stay, that means reproduced at a rate equal to its destruction. Certainly by far not the case when forests are cleared, certainly not the case when reefs die. The on average EXISTING biomass must go up to sequester CO2, the REPLACEMENT rate is irrelevant.

Which is apparently what they're saying.

 

[Simple Simon]

:shrug: The article refers to trends over 20 years. [7quote]

read it carefully. Where does it say 'trend', where does it give data?

And just because you disagree with the central tennets of the article, doesn't make it propoganda. That's up there with referring to sceptics as "deniers'.

No, the highly emotional tone makes it propaganda.

Then take it up with Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA. I'm sure they'd be interested.

Argument from authority :yawn:

Which is apparently what they're saying.

If you read the article carefully, the increase is in PRODUCTION RATE. rate, Rate rate! Not total biomass. if the grass grows faster, but gets cut and burnt, then the rate does nothing for CO2 retention. What they infer about total biomass present is an inference. Where is that biomass? The grass in my yard is neither higher nor denser.

:shrug:

 

[BasketCase]

WHERE IS YOUR MYSTERY PLANT MASS????????????

There seems to have been a slight increase, but

You just admitted the possibility.

I win.

Also, faster photosynthesis only reduces CO2 levels if the created biomass is there to stay

Absolutely. So, what happens when plants die and get mixed in with the soil?

They start to turn into coal. In other words, they get taken out of circulation for ten million years or so.

I keep telling you, and as long as you ignore it I'm going to continue telling you: you have to do REAL-WORLD MEASUREMENTS. You have to measure how much biomass is where. You actually have to take a microscope to a few thousand sample points all over the world's oceans and SEE how many microscopic plants are where. And you can't just measure your back yard, you have to measure everybody else's as well.


The reason I went all mondo about Mythbusters is because that TV show is always finding real-life results that don't square with common sense or expectations. Mythbusters have discovered that elephants actually are afraid of mice. I am not making that up. Mythbusters have discovered that higher-powered firearms are LESS dangerous, not MORE dangerous, when fired into water. The bullet from a Winchester 30-06 actually SHATTERED when fired into water. The least powerful pistol had the most penetrating power. And, also, they discovered that ordinary firearms WILL work when the gun is submerged underwater (the automatic pistol could only fire once, because the water prevented the gun from properly ejecting the spent shell--and the shotgun EXPLODED when fired--but all the guns did fire).

Take a lesson from the pros. Test in real life.

 

[BasketCase]

It is not in forests - we are cutting them down.
It is not in swamps - we are drying them out.
It is not in prairies - we are turning them into deserts.
It is not in steppes - we are turning those into desert, too.
It is not in the ocean - we do not see a massive increase in phytoplankton.

In order from first to last:

-- We are cutting SOME forests down. Not others. The extra biomass is in those others.

-- Probably true.

-- Geological history shows that as the Earth warms up, more of the planet's land is farmable. Therefore, even though some land is turning into desert, it follows that other land is becoming habitable--say, changing from tundra to farmland.

-- For steppes, see above.

-- We're not looking hard enough. I've already explained several times that in order to accurately measure plankton, we need to take a large number of samples from as many different locations as possible. We're not. Therefore there is an increase in plankton that we're not seeing.

 

[BasketCase]

HAT TRICK!

And you (or more properly, Skad) would have us believe that a whole bunch of people (from everywhere on Earth, not just Europe) were bribed/coerced by a government to fake and lie about indicators of climate change?

And global warming alarmists have been constantly accusing Evil Corporations of exactly that for decades.

That screeching noise you just heard is the sound of the buck skidding to a halt on your front doorstep.

And that groaning noise is everybody in CFC wincing in pain at my worst worn-out-saying remake ever.

 

[BasketCase]

Sweet, four in a row!

ainwood, I know about upwilling areas, and I can also read satellite data, e.g. from the amazon era. Interestingly, there biomass is in a whopping DECLINE - with a reduction of photosynthesis rate and biomass of about 50% when primary rain forest is cleared.

Then how do you explain why the Earth's oxygen content isn't going down?

 

[History_Buff]

HAT TRICK!


And global warming alarmists have been constantly accusing Evil Corporations of exactly that for decades.

That screeching noise you just heard is the sound of the buck skidding to a halt on your front doorstep.

And that groaning noise is everybody in CFC wincing in pain at my worst worn-out-saying remake ever.

I'm not saying nobody is being influenced. It seems obvious that people are, on both sides of the debate. But there are vastly more people in favor of the IPCC report, which is a very conservative estimate, than there are dissenters.

 

[skadistic]

I'm not saying nobody is being influenced. It seems obvious that people are, on both sides of the debate. But there are vastly more people in favor of the IPCC report, which is a very conservative estimate, than there are dissenters.

No the IPCC report is not conservative. It is blow way out of whack and relies on false data sets. I've already provided evidence to that point a few times. So if more people are in favour of an error filled exaggeration by the ICPP that's their fault for being duped. And a consensus doesn't mean very much when its wrong.

 

[BasketCase]

But there are vastly more people in favor of the IPCC report, which is a very conservative estimate, than there are dissenters.

Yep. And there was a time, long ago, when almost all scientists believed the Earth was flat.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Yep. And there was a time, long ago, when almost all scientists believed the Earth was flat.

No, there wasn't. Even the Greeks figured out that it was round and worked out an approximate size, and that was quite some time before scientists appeared.

 

[ainwood]

:shrug: The article refers to trends over 20 years.

read it carefully. Where does it say 'trend', where does it give data?

OK - the article doesn't mention 'trends'. The article mentions increases in production. It mentions it in terms of net production and gross production. It mentions an increase of 3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years (ie 3.4 billion tonnes).

No, the highly emotional tone makes it propaganda.

Does anything that you disagree with constitute 'propoganda'?

Argument from authority :yawn:

In response to your "argument from authority" where the 'authority' is you!

And your claim is entirely wrong. An "argument from authority" would be if I were claiming that I was correct, because I am the authority here. That is not the case.

Perhaps you've got your fallacious arguments terminology wrong here, and actually meant to deride me for "appeal to authority". An "appeal to authority" is more along the lines of saying that "it must be correct because <insert authority here> agreed with it". In this case, I am referring you back to the people who did the ground work that this article was based on. Can I dismiss any of the IPCCs work on the grounds that they were the ones who did the work? I am pointing you directly to the people who made the claims that you disagree with. I am pointing out that you are disagreeing with them, not with me!

If you read the article carefully, the increase is in PRODUCTION RATE. rate, Rate rate! Not total biomass. if the grass grows faster, but gets cut and burnt, then the rate does nothing for CO2 retention. What they infer about total biomass present is an inference.

As noted, they mention an increase in carbon of 3.4 billion tonnes over 18 years. This is an increase in biomass. As presented, this number it is not an increase in "rate", but it obviously derives from an increase in rate (which they mention) that outweighs any reductions. I expect that they would have done it the other way around - measured the increase in biomass, and inferred a rate from that. You see: Rates are hard to measure, without measuring changes in the output variable.

Where is that biomass? The grass in my yard is neither higher nor denser.

And you accuse me of a fallacious argument! This could be considered "argument by selective observation". I think you should heed the advice of this guy who pointed out that we must be very careful in making our comparisons.

 

[History_Buff]

Yep. And there was a time, long ago, when almost all scientists believed the Earth was flat.

There were actually a great number of scientists who knew that wasn't the case. Same with Heliocentricity. What there was was a great deal of establishment trying to shut them up. But science kept on truckin'.

 

[Simple Simon]

You just admitted the possibility.

I win.

Actually, you lose by default because you constantly claim wins based on false premisses. it is bad manners you show, nothing else.

Absolutely. So, what happens when plants die and get mixed in with the soil?

Most plant matter does not get 'mixed in with the soil'

They start to turn into coal. In other words, they get taken out of circulation for ten million years or so.

Nope - get your soil dynamics and geology right.
Most plant matter gets incorporated into the humus layer - after about 50% has decayed and released its carbon in the form of CO2 already! Most of that carbon that goes into the top soil is released quickly as well, within a few hundred years. Humus layers do not build up in most places, they remain relatively stable in thickness and carbon content.

So YOU ARE WRONG!

I keep telling you, and as long as you ignore it I'm going to continue telling you: you have to do REAL-WORLD MEASUREMENTS. You have to measure how much biomass is where. You actually have to take a microscope to a few thousand sample points all over the world's oceans and SEE how many microscopic plants are where. And you can't just measure your back yard, you have to measure everybody else's as well.

:sigh:

and you think ecologists do not have good data? You think the stuff in textbooks saying that the biomass per acre of desert is lower than that of a rainforest is wrong?

The reason I went all mondo about Mythbusters is because that TV show is always finding real-life results that don't square with common sense or expectations.

Which should tell you that your common-sense claim that contradicts scientific findings is probably wrong You just shot yourself in the foot with a 12-gauge shotgun - CONGRATULATIONS!

Mythbusters have discovered that elephants actually are afraid of mice. I am not making that up.

Mythbusters may have found that one specific elephant or two were afraid of mice in some given situation. I can tell you from year-long work with elephants that most don't give a fart about mice at all.

Mythbusters have discovered that higher-powered firearms are LESS dangerous, not MORE dangerous, when fired into water. The bullet from a Winchester 30-06 actually SHATTERED when fired into water. The least powerful pistol had the most penetrating power. And, also, they discovered that ordinary firearms WILL work when the gun is submerged underwater (the automatic pistol could only fire once, because the water prevented the gun from properly ejecting the spent shell--and the shotgun EXPLODED when fired--but all the guns did fire).

Yadd-yadda-yadda - just because some people believe idiotic things doesn't mean that scientific results are false.

It seems to me that you are a whole-hearted conspiracy theorist with a liking to TV shows and your own thinking cap. Doesn't solve anything though.

Take a lesson from the pros. Test in real life.

You call Mythbusters 'pros'?

OK, you just disqualified yourself from any serious discussion of scientific matter, thank you and goodbye!

 

[Simple Simon]

In order from first to last:

-- We are cutting SOME forests down. Not others. The extra biomass is in those others.

False - we are cutting VAST amounts of forests down, and the added biomass in others is minimal. Where on earth are forests expanding? Where are they growing significantly more biomass / acre that STAYS there (not a matter of production rate, but retention)?

-- Probably true.

Thank you.

-- Geological history shows that as the Earth warms up, more of the planet's land is farmable. Therefore, even though some land is turning into desert, it follows that other land is becoming habitable--say, changing from tundra to farmland.

And why are we not seeing any of this? May it be that fact that such a development requires ages, several hundreds of years at the very least? You need water, you need a relatively continuous plant cover on the surface, you need plant immigrating in that can sand the climatic conditions, in the actual seasonality of the place......

No, it is not happening on any timescale that might reduce CO2 in the atmosphere within the next hundreds of years.

-- For steppes, see above.

See above.

-- We're not looking hard enough. I've already explained several times that in order to accurately measure plankton, we need to take a large number of samples from as many different locations as possible. We're not. Therefore there is an increase in plankton that we're not seeing.

And that's being done, and nothing found. Except for an increase in jellyfish.

You claim there is more plankton, you go find it. Where are the massive additional algal blooms? Where is the increased biomass in upwelling zones? These are being studied a lot, e.g. for the foraminifera you can find there that give you good ecological data, and there is at best a tiny increase of them.

 

[Simple Simon]

Sweet, four in a row!


Then how do you explain why the Earth's oxygen content isn't going down?

The Earth's atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth that is retained by the Earth's gravity. It contains roughly (by molar content/volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere

if we double CO2 and use oxygen from the air for that, then how much O2 are we taking out?

Do the maths.....

 

[Simple Simon]

Does anything that you disagree with constitute 'propoganda'?

nope - can you read?

No, the highly emotional tone makes it propaganda.

it is not arguing facts, but trying to convince you through appeals to feelings. Propaganda.

EDIT: let me give you some examples:

Doubling the jeopardy for Earth is man. (gives the impression that fighting higher emissions increases risks massively)
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. (blantant lie)
Earth is on a roll. Governments are too. We will know soon enough if we’re rolled off a cliff. (earth on a 'roll'? Figure of speech, yes, but following it with 'governments are too' is obviously intending to make the former sound good and the latter ominous)

As noted, they mention an increase in carbon of 3.4 billion tonnes over 18 years. This is an increase in biomass. As presented, this number it is not an increase in "rate", but it obviously derives from an increase in rate (which they mention) that outweighs any reductions. I expect that they would have done it the other way around - measured the increase in biomass, and inferred a rate from that. You see: Rates are hard to measure, without measuring changes in the output variable.

I disagree with your reading of that part of the article. They say:

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.

So 'their results indicate [...] production increased'. That does not tell us ANYTHING about how they arrived at that value. Nowhere do they say 'we measured production'. And again, production without retention doesn't help. Where is that retention? They do not say that BIOMASS is up, only that biomass PRODUCTION is up. Or did I miss it? Can you post a quote from them that shows me wrong?

And you accuse me of a fallacious argument! This could be considered "argument by selective observation". I think you should heed the advice of this guy who pointed out that we must be very careful in making our comparisons.

I was not attempting to use this as selective data (sorry if it appeared to be so), but to emphasize my point about retention in a flippant manner. It was to serve as an example of how - even if production may have increased (we do not know that for my yard) - the total amount of carbon sequestered per acre may stay unchanged.

 

[BasketCase]

False - we are cutting VAST amounts of forests down, and the added biomass in others is minimal.

Prove the underlined part. Merely spouting the same old worn-out "boo hoo weza cuttin down da rainforist" won't CUT it (har har). Post some actual measurements of planetary biomass. Worldwide, not just in the rainforests.

if we double CO2 and use oxygen from the air for that, then how much O2 are we taking out?

Do the maths.....

Clearly not a lot. But if we are cutting down VAST amounts of forests (as you said), then the planet's ability to replace that oxygen must be going down. But it's not.

Human use of oxygen is going up. You claim worldwide plant mass is going down by VAST amounts. Therefore oxygen content must be going down. But it's not.

Explain this.

 

[BasketCase]

Actually, you lose by default because you constantly claim wins based on false premisses.

Since you refuse to provide any proof that my claims are false, your claim that my claims are false, is false.

it is bad manners you show

Yep. You brought that on yourself.

Most plant matter gets incorporated into the humus layer - after about 50% has decayed and released its carbon in the form of CO2 already! Most of that carbon that goes into the top soil is released quickly as well, within a few hundred years.

Boldface part = win for me.

I already covered that. Part of the dead plant matter in the Earth's soil gets taken OUT OF CIRCULATION.

Except that you don't know how long it stays out of circulation. Coal is dead plant matter that's been out of circulation for a lot longer than a couple centuries. And since we don't know how much coal is down there until we find it, we never know how much CO2 is out of circulation.

OK, you just disqualified yourself from any serious discussion of scientific matter, thank you and goodbye!

Why do you say goodbye???

You'll be back. I know you're type. You'll just keep coming back.

 

[Simple Simon]

BasketCase, it not so hard to understand, but I'll explain it once again, as have others before: if you make a claim, you bring proof of it, not demand someone else proves it wrong.

You fail to do so, your claim gets dismissed - period.

 

[ainwood]

I disagree with your reading of that part of the article. They say:

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.

So 'their results indicate [...] production increased'.

No, it says NET production increased.

That does not tell us ANYTHING about how they arrived at that value. Nowhere do they say 'we measured production'. And again, production without retention doesn't help.

How many physical changes can be measured directly by rate? How many do you have to measure the amount at two different points, and work-out the difference?

Where is that retention? They do not say that BIOMASS is up, only that biomass PRODUCTION is up. Or did I miss it? Can you post a quote from them that shows me wrong?

Ah yes! You're the one arguing against what appears to be a peer-reviewed article, because the result doesn't fit your own perceptions (not backed-up by any data that you have shared, I might add, and yet you require me to go and dig-up the data for you? Obviously you are really open-minded to the possibility that you might go and look for yourself?

If you did a quick google search yourself, you might find articles like this one which notes that the paper I referred to earlier may explain the "missing" carbon in the carbon balance between known carbon sources including deforestation and sinks. It also helpfully links to the original article, which notes that:

Most of the observed climatic changes have been in the direction of reducing climatic constraints to plant growth. To quantify this effect, we used a biome-specific production efficiency model (PEM) (12, 17) that combines monthly estimates of satellite-derived vegetation properties with daily NCEP climate data to estimate monthly and annual NPP at 0.5° x 0.5° resolution. The satellite-derived vegetation properties used were the fraction of absorbed photo-synthetically active radiation (FPAR) and leaf area index (LAI) derived from remotely sensed normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and a biome map (18, 19).

So they used satellites to measure absorption and leaf area.

Or you might want to note that Net Primary Production is:

i.e., the amount of vegetable matter produced (net primary production) per day, week, or year

So will you continue to argue that someone worked out how much extra plant & vegetable matter was being produced as a result of warmer temperatures, better growing conditions and higher CO2, yet assume that they somehow neglected to account for deforestation or the fact that you mow the lawn in your back yard?