Climate Science 101

[GostHacked]

what you perceive as outright dismissal is more a response that questions your reforestation/afforestation approached solution, that on a practical, scaleable level, borders on an almost geo-engineering mindset and applicability, notwithstanding it's viability, merit or subjected political/policy adherence.

Well we've already 'geo-engineered' the planet in some ways, one way has been through pollution and certain chemicals interaction with the Ozone layer. Seems like once we took the CFCs out of the air, the ozone layer reverted back to normal.

in putting your solution eggs in the reforestation basket, you may also want to give consideration to a recent paper - Ecosystem Carbon Stock Influenced by Plantation Practice: Implications for Planting Forests as a Measure of Climate Change Mitigation... a study that finds that reforestation and afforestation may lower the potential for forests to lessen the impacts of climate change - questioning whether large-scale plantation growths have the same ecosystem carbon stock as natural forests; in effect showing that plantations substantially reduce carbon stock in ecosystems in comparison with natural forests. The study challenges the idea that planting non-native or native-improved growth species on historical forest land yields greater carbon accumulation rates. The papers authors argue against the replacement of natural forests by reforestation (plantations), to help stave off climate change. This reforestation on non-forested fields (e.g. agricultural lands) does help with the control of carbon emissions; however, it in turn, has a negative impact in regards to the conversion of farmland to forests and a corresponding decrease in the amount of soil carbon absorption. Additionally, the papers shows that the conversion also has an affect on methane, as converted soil loses 80% of its capability to degrade methane as compared to natural forests.

There is something I noticed in that article. which shows a difference there. Natural forests are better carbon sinks than 'plantations' that are mentioned in the article. If the plantation was left up to nature after some time it would be just as effective as a regular forest. It won't happen overnight, might take a couple decades to become effective. There is much more to it that just planting trees I agree, let nature take it's course and eventually it will balance out again. But if we don't replace it, and at least mitigate the problem in some fashion through natural means, we will have more problems.

I guess I should clarify my stance, and say that I am advocating for more natural forests, not these plantations that they mention. Because there is a huge difference between the two, and that is quite obvious.

The article also shows a comparison of farmland being transformed into a plantation. IN many places a forest was cut down to provide some farmland (destroyed eco system that involved plants/animals) After farming it for some years, you will see that the land has lost the ability to absorb carbon (now a totaly different 'eco-system'). Because there is little to no vegitation in a farm field compared to a natural forest. Since it's harvested every year or every two years, there is little to no vegitation left behind to help the next generation of plants. This is why I see the plantation experiment as a failure.

Overall I liked the article, but they are comparing two quite different 'systems' if you will, which will give drastically different results. But in the end it does state that natural forests do soak up a good deal of carbon dioxide.

Edited October 16, 2010 by GostHacked

[Michael Hardner]

Only 30 years ago we were told that Gobal Cooling was going to be catastrophic. Were they wrong then? And are they wrong now?

This is a totally dead argument. I can't believe that you wouldn't know that.

[GostHacked]

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

Photosynthesis (from the Greek φώτο- [photo-], "light," and σύνθεσις [synthesis], "putting together", "composition") is a process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight.[1] Photosynthesis occurs in plants, algae, and many species of bacteria, but not in archaea. Photosynthetic organisms are called photoautotrophs, since they can create their own food. In plants, algae, and cyanobacteria, photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide and water, releasing oxygen as a waste product. Photosynthesis is vital for all aerobic life on Earth. As well as maintaining the normal level of oxygen in the atmosphere, nearly all life either depends on it directly as a source of energy, or indirectly as the ultimate source of the energy in their food[2] (the exceptions are chemoautotrophs that live in rocks or around deep sea hydrothermal vents). The rate of energy capture by photosynthesis is immense, approximately 100 terawatts,[3] which is about six times larger than the power consumption of human civilization.[4] As well as energy, photosynthesis is also the source of the carbon in all the organic compounds within organisms' bodies. In all, photosynthetic organisms convert around 100–115 teragrams of carbon into biomass per year.[5][6]

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

[GostHacked]

This is a totally dead argument. I can't believe that you wouldn't know that.

I am not arguing that. I guess the point I am trying to make is that there were differences of opinions in the scientific community no matter if they were real of concieved. It also shows the same divide among scientists today, through something like hackergate. That's all I wanted to indicate there.

[Michael Hardner]

I am not arguing that. I guess the point I am trying to make is that there were differences of opinions in the scientific community no matter if they were real of concieved. It also shows the same divide among scientists today, through something like hackergate. That's all I wanted to indicate there.

The same divide ? I don't agree, but it would depend on what you use to compare. If you're using the yardstick of there being any disagreement whatsoever then you're right. But since science is about disagreement and debate you would find that on many questions.

[waldo]

I am not arguing that. I guess the point I am trying to make is that there were differences of opinions in the scientific community no matter if they were real of concieved. It also shows the same divide among scientists today, through something like hackergate. That's all I wanted to indicate there.

no - with this, your reply, you continue to argue the point. Again, the 70's cooling meme is an outright media driven myth... not supported by scientists of the day. It's continually perpetuated by those who which to distort and cast suspicion over the overwhelming scientific consensus supporting the current view on AGW climate change... as you did/implied... when you asked, "Were they wrong then? And are they wrong now?".

what's the divide amongst scientists as evidenced, as you state, "through something like Hackergate"? Other than the mass denier distortion and hysteria that percolated into the mainstream, are you suggesting that anything in the Hackergate emails... even remotely... supports an attack on the consensus science as supported by the global science community (vis-a-vis your suggested divide amongst scientists)?

[GostHacked]

The same divide ? I don't agree, but it would depend on what you use to compare. If you're using the yardstick of there being any disagreement whatsoever then you're right. But since science is about disagreement and debate you would find that on many questions.

You got a point. But there really should not be a debate, the data should show all, leaving little to no room for debate.

[Michael Hardner]

You got a point. But there really should not be a debate, the data should show all, leaving little to no room for debate.

The data can never show cause and effect, therefore there will always be a question and always debate. Similarly with the proposition that smoking causes cancer, it can't be definitely proven.

[waldo]

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.

[GostHacked]

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 don't get it, photosynthesis proves and shows the process that plants turn C02 into oxygen. How you outright dismiss it as not plant food is simply amazing to me. If you understand the process, then you understand it is food.

The one thing I was wrong about in your post (a quote of mine) where I said you breath in more C02 than oxygen in every breath. You breath in about 75% nitrogen, 20% oxygen ant 0.04% C02.

And I say again that the crops are not a good comparison to forests in terms of how plants extract C02 from the air. They are drastically different 'eco-systems'.

[wyly]

Hey wyly, you spout a lot of points, but with little back-up. You just regurgitating the Mann et al schpele?

I asked some questions that you just ignored.

you claimed to be the chemistry whizz I asked you some very basic chem questions in our very first encounter and you refused to answer...I repeated those questions and you avoided them again...

get back to me when you find the balls to answer them...until then you have no credibility and I have no obligation to answer anything you direct at me...

Edited October 16, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

I don't get it, photosynthesis proves and shows the process that plants turn C02 into oxygen. How you outright dismiss it as not plant food is simply amazing to me. If you understand the process, then you understand it is food.

The one thing I was wrong about in your post (a quote of mine) where I said you breath in more C02 than oxygen in every breath. You breath in about 75% nitrogen, 20% oxygen ant 0.04% C02.

And I say again that the crops are not a good comparison to forests in terms of how plants extract C02 from the air. They are drastically different 'eco-systems'.

it's irrelevant to the debate anyways...more CO2 makes some plants grow faster but they also lose a corresponding nutrional value so there is no gain...and more CO2 is not good for sea life so a net loss because the oceans are what makes life possible on the planet...if the oceans die, we die...

[Pliny]

The data can never show cause and effect, therefore there will always be a question and always debate. Similarly with the proposition that smoking causes cancer, it can't be definitely proven.

Oh, I like that. "It can't definitely be proven." You are right, and it isn't a cause. It is only one thing, among many, that predisposes one to the disease. The cause of the disease is unknown.

[Michael Hardner]

Oh, I like that. "It can't definitely be proven." You are right, and it isn't a cause. It is only one thing, among many, that predisposes one to the disease. The cause of the disease is unknown.

The point is that some people interpret scientific debate to mean that we don't know anything. We know there is warming, we are pretty sure that humans are causing it. If we waited for unanimity on such matters, we'd still be allowing children to smoke.

[GostHacked]

it's irrelevant to the debate anyways...more CO2 makes some plants grow faster but they also lose a corresponding nutrional value so there is no gain...and more CO2 is not good for sea life so a net loss because the oceans are what makes life possible on the planet...if the oceans die, we die...

Photosynthesis is irrelevant? Nutritional value? You don't eat forests dude. You eat crops, which are not effective carbon sinks as your links show. I mean plants take C02 out of the air, and converts it into oxygen but it is irrelevant? It`s one solution that already exists and it`s been doing it for centuries. I mean, along with the oceans (not denying that) combined they can do an effective job on cleaning the C02 out of the air. If more forests exists, it takes the pressure off the oceans, allowing it to revert to some state of balance.

[TimG]

The point is that some people interpret scientific debate to mean that we don't know anything. We know there is warming, we are pretty sure that humans are causing it. If we waited for unanimity on such matters, we'd still be allowing children to smoke.

You are missing the point: uncertainty affects what policy choices we make. If the outcomes are extremely uncertain it is impossible to justify making significant sacrifices today. Alarmists spend a lot of time exgarrating the certainty because the (mistakenly) believe they can motivate people to support their preferred policies. Ironically, lying about the uncertainty has only undermined the credibility of alarmists an made it much tougher to sell their policies. Edited October 16, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Alarmists spend a lot of time exgarrating the certainty because the (mistakenly) believe they can motivate people to support their preferred policies.

If that's the point then let's say so instead of denying warming, bringing up the 70s global-warming scarecrow, or arguing the science itself, which is useless.

Let's just say "we think we're warming the earth, so what if anything should be done ?".

[TimG]

Let's just say "we think we're warming the earth, so what if anything should be done ?".

And we agree to disagree on that question. What next?

[Michael Hardner]

And we agree to disagree on that question. What next?

On what question - whether anything should be done ? The view that nothing should be done seems to come from the idea that if something arises from warming, we should deal with it at that time. If that's the view, then the question becomes - what will our responsibility be at that time ?

[TimG]

if something arises from warming, we should deal with it at that time. If that's the view, then the question becomes - what will our responsibility be at that time ?

Why is that question? Why would "acting now" change that responsibility if "acting now" failed to accomplish anything useful? All you are really doing with your question is moving the discussion from the realm of economics and technology to the realm of ethics. The trouble with ethics is they are even more subjective than economics and people are more or less free to invent whatever definition of ethics that suits them (i.e. almost anything is "ethical" if the majority in society deem it to be "ethical").

IOW - to answer your question: our responsibility will be whatever we decide it is at that time and there is no reason to believe we will apply the same standards as we would today when discussing hypothetical scenarios.

Edited October 16, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

Photosynthesis is irrelevant? Nutritional value? You don't eat forests dude. You eat crops, which are not effective carbon sinks as your links show. I mean plants take C02 out of the air, and converts it into oxygen but it is irrelevant? It`s one solution that already exists and it`s been doing it for centuries. I mean, along with the oceans (not denying that) combined they can do an effective job on cleaning the C02 out of the air. If more forests exists, it takes the pressure off the oceans, allowing it to revert to some state of balance.

ahh, I didn't see the point you were trying to make until now...forests are a carbon sink yes...but the rate of man is putting CO2 into the air quicker than the forests can remove it, plus those forests are fast being eliminated...and the important forests are the tropical rainforests not the northern forests of Canada and Russia...and those forests aren't coming back the land has been claimed by the poor of the third world...

I don't recall putting in a link to CO2 and forests...

[GostHacked]

ahh, I didn't see the point you were trying to make until now...forests are a carbon sink yes...but the rate of man is putting CO2 into the air quicker than the forests can remove it, plus those forests are fast being eliminated...and the important forests are the tropical rainforests not the northern forests of Canada and Russia...and those forests aren't coming back the land has been claimed by the poor of the third world...

I don't recall putting in a link to CO2 and forests...

Not many will. All the information you hear , rarely if ever talks about natural solutions to this problem. Resurrecting rain forests and other natural forests are going to take time, but eventually will be effective. We can start now with the replanting process and then let mother nature take over, but if we continue to take down the forests, we will see the problem accelerate some. To me this is the easiest short term implementation solution, with long term solution that will continue and maintain itself.

I've been called crazy here to propose this idea, and now I am glad that at least one person (you wyly) has thought about it a little.

Even if C02 is really not the problem it's made out to be, the replanting solution will help us all out all over the planet.

Edited October 18, 2010 by GostHacked

[Michael Hardner]

IOW - to answer your question: our responsibility will be whatever we decide it is at that time and there is no reason to believe we will apply the same standards as we would today when discussing hypothetical scenarios.

You're right - I should just cut to the chase: I suspect that the same people who deny AGW today would want to continue to "do nothing" in the future, if the negative results of warming didn't affect Canada as much as other places.

[GostHacked]

You're right - I should just cut to the chase: I suspect that the same people who deny AGW today would want to continue to "do nothing" in the future, if the negative results of warming didn't affect Canada as much as other places.

I would consider myself an AGW denier. However, I don't deny the amount of other pollution and toxins we throw into the air, along with many of the products we buy. We can do things to reduce pollution and toxins which will also have a positive impact on the environment and the I would guess (hypothetical) that the levels of C02 would go down as well.

I think we are focusing to much on C02 instead of other more immediate dangers in which solutions will have a more immediate and noticeable impact.

[waldo]

Not many will. All the information you hear , rarely if ever talks about natural solutions to this problem. Resurrecting rain forests and other natural forests are going to take time, but eventually will be effective. We can start now with the replanting process and then let mother nature take over, but if we continue to take down the forests, we will see the problem accelerate some. To me this is the easiest short term implementation solution, with long term solution that will continue and maintain itself.

you're completely and utterly deluded. There is no way, no how, no chance, no practical ability to presume to bring the existing and ever growing elevated CO2 levels back to the equilibrium stability level... by simply planting trees. With a tinge of sarcastic frivolity, when I initially didn't believe you were actually serious, I previously asked you to quantify your premise - how many trees/ppm reduction? I'll ask that little ditty again then...

trees/plants are not a sustainable commodity... not when AGW climate change is helping to erode growth environments, not when deforestation proceeds, essentially unabated... not when there is no political will to stop development and encroachment on land/forests... there is no political will to relocate existing encroachments on land/forests... etc., etc., etc. There's a reason there's an imbalance today... why CO2 levels are ever rising. Deforestation is a small part of that imbalance equation.

do you think there's any particular reason why your planting trees 'natural solution' isn't being touted/hyped... even by the most denying of the deniers?