Climate Science 101

[Pliny]

Mr. Wizard says it's all being done wrong!

I purposely linked that EPA reference/quote expecting Pliny to either finally drop his boring idiocy... or... double-down against it. Of course, Pliny came through - big time. Apparently, Pliny doesn't recognize (or doesn't care) that the EPA is officially mandated with maintaining the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions inventory... just as every country has an agency/organization that is similarly mandated to maintain their respective inventories, as agreed to by being signatories to the UNFCCC. Clearly, everything revolves around the inventories in climate change policy negotiations; effectively the single point of attention in establishing agreements that will bind the world together in an effort to limit future greenhouse gas emissions... requiring accurate estimates of existing emissions, negotiating on emission reduction levels, auditing/monitoring changes over time, etc. I suggested Mr. Wizard take up his concerns with the EPA... given his latest response let's invite Mr. Wizard to also take up his concerns with, uhhh... say... the National Academies (Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Methods to Support International Climate Agreements)... or, perhaps the IPCC (2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories)... or, perhaps directly to the UNFCCC (GHG data from UNFCCC)

... time is running short on the upcoming Cancun negotiations - can Pliny git er dun?

Glad to oblige, Waldo. I see the UN, that bastion of socialist propaganda, is the source of much of your info. Soldier on saving the world.

With any luck the upcoming Cancun negotiations won't even occur?

[waldo]

Nope. See link.

yes... of course... did I miss the sarcastic tag?

[waldo]

excellent Pliny! In your shell-shocked best, your last two posts have simply been re-quotes (in their entirety) of posts by dre/myself... if I may be so bold as to speak for MLW member, dre,... we accept your unconditional surrender!

on edit: whaaa! Acknowledging Pliny actually edited one of the posts to add PlinySpeak™... what's with the placeholder, hey Pliny? (/snarc)

Edited November 23, 2010 by waldo

[GostHacked]

nonsense... about you playing that, "CO2 is plant food" meme before (several times now). What's your point?

It was a simple question that did not demand a complicated answer. It's not a meme, it is a scientific FACT, what is so eluding about photosynthesis to you?

Edited November 23, 2010 by GostHacked

[jbg]

yes... of course... did I miss the sarcastic tag?

I knew it was.

But this is my point that basically I'm still a liberal at heart. I feel better being on the anti-McCarthy side than having to side with the likes of Bush or Reagan.

[Pliny]

Pliny !!!!

BUT BUT ... it's a laughable idea to think that CO2 is plant food. Planting more trees is not feasible. It would also cost to much. But the cost of a carbon tax and cap n trade is actually higher and allows money to change hands without getting to the root of the issue.

Yes all this talk about the natural carbon cycle and the fact it is a closed loop is a distraction to say the least. Increased plant life, in the form of trees, would of course sink more carbon thus removing more CO2 from the atmosphere. But of course, you can't be forgetting that when we eat the trees, along with our potatoes, it will cycle back.

[waldo]

It was a simple question that did not demand a complicated answer.

and I didn't give you a complicated answer... I simply re-quoted one of the several past times you've trotted out the, "CO2 is plant food" meme. Have another!

nonsense... about you playing that, "CO2 is plant food" meme before (several times now). What's your point?

CO2 IS plant food, along with water and sunlight. We breathe out CO2, plants turn it into oxygen. More CO2 means more plants!! This was something that was taught in first year science classes in high school (or in some cases earlier)

Very good point.

I can't believe I've wasted my time discussing these issues with apparently a colossal idiot who's never heard of photosynthesis!

Waldo may want to retake grade 9 science before lecturing other people on the reality of complex weather phenomenon!

...

even isolating the discussion

towards plant related impacts... and

even excluding implications

towards the broader effects of increased warming and AGW climate change... what does your and GostHacked's, "grade 9 and first year high school science class", inform you about the effect of increased CO2 on acclimated plants? What effect does CO2 soil saturation have on plants? In a real world - practical - context, what science exists to convincingly link increased CO2 as a tangible net benefit for crops and crop yields? What effect does increased CO2 have on undesired plant growth among invasive weeds? What effect does increased CO2 have on the efficacy of widely used herbicides? What effect does increased CO2 have on the prevalence of pests? In a real world - practical - context, what science exists to speak to elevated CO2 effects having no effect on pasture and rangeland photosynthesis? Etc, etc, etc,.....

of course, we could also extend this discussion around the devastating impact of elevated CO2 on ocean acidification and it's related ecosystems... marine fauna, corals, etc. Of course, we could open it wide up and speak to the broader effects of increased CO2 on warming - on AGW climate change itself... or... we could sit back and beak off fallaciously about the marvels and magic of, Shady's "CO2 as plant food"!

[GostHacked]

So are you denying photosynthesis?

[jbg]

So are you denying photosynthesis?

He's a known photosynthesis denier. </sarcasm>

[waldo]

So are you denying photosynthesis?

what's your point in continuing to proliferate the, "CO2 is plant food" meme?

[GostHacked]

what's your point in continuing to proliferate the, "CO2 is plant food" meme?

The point is you can't answer a simple yes or no question.

[waldo]

what's your point in continuing to proliferate the, "CO2 is plant food" meme?

The point is you can't answer a simple yes or no question.

no - the point is you refuse to recognize and/or acknowledge the answers you receive... repeatedly. And still you continue - just how bad is it, when you begin to parrot yourself - hey? Oh ya, what was your point, again?

(note: of course, we danced around this lil' ditty recently with TimG in this very thread... bringing forward additional papers/studies showing the impact of elevated CO2 on various aspects of nutrition/yield. Surely, GostHacked... you don't want those replayed for you - do you? Huh?)

The fact that C02 is plant food.

To bad more CO2 is bad for plants in much the same way the more cake is bad for fat people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

Plant food. Again, if you did biology in high school, then you'd know this. Why is this outright dismissed? Seriously?

because GostHacked, it's typically peddled in the context of 'since CO2 is "simply" plant food', more of it can only be good... for plants! But we went down this path once before in another MLW thread - one in which you participated... just a couple of examples, notwithstanding the Denial Crock video that TrueMetis just linked to:

I can't believe I've wasted my time discussing these issues with apparently a colossal idiot who's never heard of photosynthesis!

In a real world - practical - context, what science exists to convincingly link increased CO2 as a tangible net benefit for crops and crop yields?

Well the simple fact is that CO2 is food for the plant. Plants cannot survive in an oxygen rich or mostly oxygenated atmosphere. You breath in probably more C02 than oxygen on every breath.

Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations

Abstract: Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050, the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses. The CO2 fertilization factors used in models to project future yields were derived from enclosure studies conducted approximately 20 years ago. Free-air concentration enrichment (FACE) technology has now facilitated large-scale trials of the major grain crops at elevated [CO2] under fully open-air field conditions. In those trials, elevated [CO2] enhanced yield by ~50% less than in enclosure studies. This casts serious doubt on projections that rising [CO2] will fully offset losses due to climate change.

enclosure studies, Shady... like your Idso denier clan videos enclosed hood, artificial environment, "Seeing is Believing" pap smear!

I can't believe I've wasted my time discussing these issues with apparently a colossal idiot who's never heard of photosynthesis!

What effect does increased CO2 have on the efficacy of widely used herbicides? What effect does increased CO2 have on the prevalence of pests?

Anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide compromises plant defense against invasive insects

Abstract: Elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), a consequence of anthropogenic global change, can profoundly affect the interactions between crop plants and insect pests and may promote yet another form of global change: the rapid establishment of invasive species. Elevated CO2 increased the susceptibility of soybean plants grown under field conditions to the invasive Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica) and to a variant of western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera) resistant to crop rotation by down-regulating gene expression related to defense signaling [lipoxygenase 7 (lox7), lipoxygenase 8 (lox8), and 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate synthase (acc-s)]. The down-regulation of these genes, in turn, reduced the production of cysteine proteinase inhibitors (CystPIs), which are specific deterrents to coleopteran herbivores. Beetle herbivory increased CystPI activity to a greater degree in plants grown under ambient than under elevated CO2. Gut cysteine proteinase activity was higher in beetles consuming foliage of soybeans grown under elevated CO2 than in beetles consuming soybeans grown in ambient CO2, consistent with enhanced growth and development of these beetles on plants grown in elevated CO2. These findings suggest that predicted increases in soybean productivity under projected elevated CO2 levels may be reduced by increased susceptibility to invasive crop pests.

[dre]

It has to originate out of a process combining carbon and oxygen.

The carbon is turned into chains of glucose molecules during photosynthesis and the oxygen is released into the atmosphere.

Right.

I get it. The 15 billion pounds of CO2 we breathe into the atmosphere daily is cycled out of the atmosphere in the natural carbon cycle. The added CO2 from burning fossil fuels is all that the EPA counts in global warming because it is excess carbon dioxide. If I understand correctly the CO2 from breathing is in the atmosphere in the form of CO2 more or less as a constant.

So my question is if CO2 is the big concern regarding GW why is the amount of CO2 constantly in the atmosphere from the natural carbon cycle of no concern? Also population growth coupled with deforestation must be increasing that constant on an exponential level.

You see, the more people there are the more carbon is necessary to sustain the population and the more carbon consumed from the "glucose" in plants the more volume of CO2 is generated. In other words, the closed cycle of carbon becomes larger.

Seven billion people generate about 15 billion pounds of CO2 daily. Half that population would decrease the size of the natural carbon cycle and generate about 7.5 billion pounds of CO2 daily. While doubling the population would double the "constant" in the natural carbon cycle to 30 billion pounds of CO2. Why is it insignificant?

Is that too complicated?

It seems I'm often on the other side of "science". But really am I?

I am against politicians and skeptics who claim to be the "representatives of science" who prematurely give legs to concepts or theories that, may even have a consensus, but are still just concepts or theories. A prime example is the theory of a chemical imbalance in the brain that produces odd behavior. Fact is there is no test in existence that has determined a chemical imbalance. It just sounds good, and if chemicals such as neuroleptics, ritalin and SSRI's affect behavior it must be true. It's an unproven theory which is recklessly and enthusiastically pursued and promoted by pharmaceutical companies.

It has to originate out of a process combining carbon and oxygen.

That will happen regardless of what humans do. The plants and animals would release their co2 during decomposition and the cycle would get closed whether or not humans breath air.

While doubling the population would double the "constant" in the natural carbon cycle to 30 billion pounds of CO2. Why is it insignificant?

Is that too complicated?

No and Iv explained that already. Your statement is wrong, and human respiration in itself is a COMPLETE NON FACTOR.

Also population growth coupled with deforestation must be increasing that constant on an exponential level.

BINGO! And therein lies the problem. Its not human breathing that matters it OTHER behaviors. We cut down forests to produce glucose, and we release carbon thats been trapped in the earth for millions of years to produce energy.

[GostHacked]

Holy hell, Waldo.... you make me laugh, talking about how Pliny is DEEP with just rehashing with the requote, and you are doing the same thing. Pot meet kettle.

Are you denying the process that IS photosynthesis that turns CO2 into O2? If you deny this fact, then the rest of your so called science is absolute 100% bunk and worthless.

And you ever think the amount of PESTICIDES we use in agricutlure has ANYTHING to do with the plants ability to do the photosynthesis?

I've said it before the CO2 and AGW is a distraction from the REAL issue which is POLLUTION on the whole.

What other tests have been done? How about sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide that comes out of cars because of burning fossil fuels, what kind of effect does THAT have on plants?

[GostHacked]

BINGO! And therein lies the problem. Its not human breathing that matters it OTHER behaviors. We cut down forests to produce glucose, and we release carbon thats been trapped in the earth for millions of years to produce energy.

But planting trees is not feasible it seems.

[dre]

But planting trees is not feasible it seems.

Planting trees IS feasible and so is reducing deforestation. We should do both of those things, and lots of other things as well.

[GostHacked]

Planting trees IS feasible and so is reducing deforestation. We should do both of those things, and lots of other things as well.

I am with you on that one Dre ... when I said that some pages ago, it was thrown to the floor by Waldo.

I think this is more or less looking for a solution to a problem that does not really exist.

[waldo]

But planting trees is not feasible it seems.

as I said, your selective skim and recall process, (coupled with your own difficulties in interpretation), doesn't allow you to actually understand what's being stated. Of course, there are many environmental related reasons for reforestation/afforestation... as relates to meaningful CO2 mitigation, an effective result is one that would only arise within tropical climates/latitudes. You were challenged to dispute this claim... you chose not to. Wyly commented on the impracticalities of actually attempting to undertake wide-spread targeted reforestation/afforestation... you had an opportunity to dispute wyly's commentary in that regard... you chose not to. You choose to ignore (not challenge) attempts to dispute your proliferation of the nonsensical, "CO2 is plant food" meme... your proliferation of the, "just plant more trees" panacea. It's simply a recycled undertaking with you - over and over, while you fail to provide any substantiation to your meme/claims.

Really? Impractical? Planting trees to mitigate at least PART of the problem is not practical?

yes, impractical... but we are making progress since you've now pulled back and speak to a "PART(ial)" solution. What you propose, even if a global political will were to suddenly miraculously appear, would require a monumental effort of land transformation over a decades long period... while CO2 levels increased in line with continued reliance on and use of fossil fuels. Any ball-park estimates for your pie-in-the-sky solution, particularly as might be compared to, uhhh... say actual reductions in fossil fuel emissions?

you also appear to have no insight into actual scientific work in this area of mitigation... yes... it is a mitigation approach, one of many. You offer a personal anecdote but seem oblivious to actual studies that have shown an effective mitigation might only arise within a tropical climates/latitudes context where year round growth is possible - because active growth is the key. You apparently aren't aware of studies that have looked at northern/temperate latitude implications to albedo impacts and slow/shortened growth periods... where trees in temperate latitudes have a net warming effect on climate outweighing their carbon sink abilities.

wyly pretty much nails it on the land reclamation point and the handling of affected peoples. Where would they go? - are you suggesting the same Harper Conservative like positions that threw up visa restrictions to Mexicans would suddenly open the borders to "thousands" of displaced refugees?

[GostHacked]

Waldo, keep the frothing up, looks good on you.

[waldo]

GostHacked, buddy... trust in the MLW search function - it really nails your past rambling and nonsensical, 'wash, rinse & repeat" recycling... doesn't it - hey?

[wyly]

Planting trees IS feasible and so is reducing deforestation. We should do both of those things, and lots of other things as well.

reforestation is a great idea...but considering the conservative opposition to the cost of cap and trade, carbon taxes or emission reduction, I can't imagine the resulting clamor from the conservative ranks when the bill comes in for reforesting the rainforests and subsidizing the hundreds of millions of displaced poor of those third world countries involved...

every solution is going to cost the world trillions, to do nothing is not an option...

[dre]

I am with you on that one Dre ... when I said that some pages ago, it was thrown to the floor by Waldo.

I think this is more or less looking for a solution to a problem that does not really exist.

My feeling is that you dont need to separate those things.

For example... One of the ways we could prevent deforestation is to limit urban sprawl, and design better cities. If we did that we reduce the ammount of natural habitat we destroy, but we would also burn less fossil fuels because people live closer to work, and the communities would be more suitable for mass transit schemes etc etc.

We can grow food better and smarter as well and that will make a huge difference. Improvements in farm practices have reduced the ammount of CO2 emissions by THIRTY PERCENT since the industrial revolution.

ScienceDaily (June 14, 2010) Advances in high-yield agriculture over the latter part of the 20th century have prevented massive amounts of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere -- the equivalent of 590 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide -- according to a new study led by two Stanford Earth scientists.

The researchers also calculated that for every dollar spent on agricultural research and development since 1961, emissions of the three principal greenhouse gases -- methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide -- were reduced by the equivalent of about a quarter of a ton of carbon dioxide -- a high rate of financial return compared to other approaches to reducing the gases.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100614160209.htm

Edited to add link

Edited November 23, 2010 by dre

[dre]

reforestation is a great idea...but considering the conservative opposition to the cost of cap and trade, carbon taxes or emission reduction, I can't imagine the resulting clamor from the conservative ranks when the bill comes in for reforesting the rainforests and subsidizing the hundreds of millions of displaced poor of those third world countries involved...

every solution is going to cost the world trillions, to do nothing is not an option...

You could reduce deforestation simply by investing in agricultural technology and designing smarter communities with higher population density.

but considering the conservative opposition to the cost of cap and trade, carbon taxes or emission reduction

Thats just how it is. Some people are enthusiastic about changing some of our behavior in this regard and some people will need to be dragged kicking and screaming. Thats been the case with every major epoch in human history.

[GostHacked]

GostHacked, buddy... trust in the MLW search function - it really nails your past rambling and nonsensical, 'wash, rinse & repeat" recycling... doesn't it - hey?

Unlike you, I have at least offered solutions to the problem. You are still stuck defining what the problem is.

[waldo]

My feeling is that you dont need to separate those things.

For example... One of the ways we could prevent deforestation is to limit urban sprawl, and design better cities. If we did that we reduce the ammount of natural habitat we destroy, but we would also burn less fossil fuels because people live closer to work, and the communities would be more suitable for mass transit schemes etc etc.

yes - conceptually... urban planning's so-called 'smart communities'. But in the context of preventing "deforestation"??? Most significantly sized cities are already bordered by farm-land... land that's already been deforested. Of course there are exceptions; however, stopping sprawl has many facets - unfortunately, many people intent on raising families aren't interested in living in, "shoe-box size high-rise condo's"... which, rightly or wrongly, is the perception many people have of avoiding sprawl by, "living central/downtown". Designing "better cities" is one thing... winning people over to the concept of living other than in 'suburbia' is another.