A stormy Forecast for Climate Change Reporting

[TimG]

sorry, the 2008 meta study I linked trumps whatever the Idso clan presumes to state from a decade earlier references to a couple of isolated studies.

Your meta study is irrelevent unless it looked at what happens if fertilization techniques are changed. The Idsos cannot be refuted unless that specific point is addressed.

just how will your planned fertilization adjustment technique manage to get the actual fertilizer into the plant (uptake) given a reduced water usage by the plants?

Isdo's referenced studies they claim supports their assertion that better fertilization techniques will offset the effect.

Here is the actual study:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=962435

The likely consequences of future high levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grain nutritional and baking quality were determined. ○ Two free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE; 550 mmol mol-1) experiments were conducted at ample (Wet) and limiting (Dry) levels of irrigation, and a further two experiments at ample (High-N) and limiting (Low-N) nitrogen concentrations. Harvested grain samples were subjected to a battery of nutritional and bread-making quality tests. ○ The Dry treatment improved grain quality slightly (protein +2%; bread loaf volume +3%). By contrast, Low-N decreased quality drastically (protein -36%; loaf volume -26%). At ample water and N, FACE decreased quality slightly (protein -5%; loaf volume -2%) in the irrigation experiments and there was no change in the nitrogen experiments. At Low-N, FACE tended to make the deleterious effects of Low-N worse (protein -33% and -39%, at ambient CO2 and FACE, respectively; loaf volume -22% and -29% at ambient CO2 and FACE, respectively). ○ The data suggest that future elevated CO2 concentrations will exacerbate the deleterious effects of low soil nitrogen on grain quality, but with ample nitrogen fertilizer, the effects will be minor.

Edited November 11, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

sorry, the 2008 meta study I linked (did you get that... meta study) trumps whatever the Idso clan presumes to state from a decade earlier references to a couple of isolated studies...

Your meta study is irrelevant unless it looked at what happens if fertilization techniques are changed. The Idsos cannot be refuted unless that specific point is addressed.

Isdo's referenced studies they claim supports their assertion that better fertilization techniques will offset the effect.

Here is the actual study:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=962435

did you think/hope that I didn’t actually read the complete (meta) study I linked to? – Effects of elevated CO2 on the protein concentration of food crops: a meta-analysis (Taub, Miller, Allen – 2008)

as I said, it trumps your Idso clan (Idso & Idso, 2001) study… and by your own qualifying statement, refutes it. The meta study includes your linked Idso clan paper, as well as the latest link/abstract reference you provided (Kimball et al., 2003)

The effect of elevated CO2 on human protein nutrition might be mitigated by agricultural practices that increase the protein content of crops. Idso & Idso (2001) argued that any effects of elevated CO2 on crop protein content could be ameliorated by increased use of N fertilizer, and the current results demonstrate that increasing soil N minimizes the effect of elevated CO2 on crop protein concentration, at least for wheat. However, even under high nitrogen treatments, wheat still experienced a mean reduction in protein concentration of nearly 10%. It is, therefore, possible that nitrogen fertilizer can minimize, but not eliminate, the reduction in protein concentration associated with increased atmospheric CO2. However, if fertilizer can be used to mitigate the effects of elevated CO2 on protein concentration, it cannot be regarded as a panacea as smallholder farmers in many countries have little access to chemical fertilizers (United Nations Millennium Project, 2005) and may be unable to increase fertilizer use in response to increases in atmospheric [CO2]. In addition, runoff from agriculturally applied N fertilizer is associated with potentially undesirable ecological effects across a wide variety of ecosystems (Galloway et al., 2003).

While our analyses have focused on changes in crop protein as atmospheric [CO2] rises over the 21st century, it is also possible that crop protein concentrations have already been affected by recent increases in atmospheric [CO2]. Conroy & Hocking (1993) reported that for wheat grown in New South Wales, protein concentration had declined by ∼16% between 1968 and 1990. Davis et al. (2004) found a median decrease in protein concentration of 6% across 43 garden crops from 1950 to 1999. The authors of both papers suggested that changes in the cultivars used probably explained most of this reduction, but that increasing CO2 may have played an additional role. Experimentally, both Ziska et al. (2004) and Rogers et al. (1998) found that the protein concentration of wheat flour was lower in plants grown at current atmospheric CO2 concentrations than in those grown at concentrations representative of atmospheric concentrations before the industrial revolution. It, therefore, appears likely that rising atmospheric [CO2] has already affected the protein content of some plant foods.

Conclusions

Rising atmospheric [CO2] is likely to reduce the protein concentration for many plant crops. The magnitude of this effect is difficult to estimate, due to the sensitivity of this effect to experimental conditions. Nonetheless, decreases in protein are seen consistently for several species across a wide range of experimental techniques and environmental conditions. This effect may be partially mitigated by increased use of nitrogen fertilizers, but this seems likely to be only a partial solution to the effect of elevated CO2 on the protein concentration of human foods. The effect of atmospheric CO2 on crop protein therefore seems likely to be of genuine importance for human nutrition in and beyond the 21st century.

… which brings us full circle back to TrueMetis initial reference/claim of reduced nutrition associated with elevated CO2 atmospheric levels. So, again… the meta study shows exactly that, particular to this discussion focus, reduced protein nutrition... which is shown to already be occurring. Notwithstanding a most significant point not emphasized in your earlier rush to a fertilizer panacea – dramatic ecological impacts associated with runoff from agriculturally applied nitrogen fertilizer.

if nothing else, I believe we managed to get you to recognize the difference between nutrition and nutrients – hey? By the by, in your exclusive and only Adapt-R-Us best, do you consider enhanced fertilizer agricultural practice... as adaptation... or mitigation?

[waldo]

Amazing how the true believers simply have no room for rational debate.....CO2's agricultural impact is indeed an interesting area. Logic (common sense, actually) supports much of what you've raised but thanks for referencing some of the findings. You can bet that your posts will fall on the deaf ears and blind eyes of the usual suspects.....but the site stats will support that many passive readers are enjoying what you bring to the debate.

Simple, I'm aghast that you would interpret a rational and logic/common sense disparity between discussion sides? About those denying deaf ears and blind eyes of yours... in any case, it's a real treat to have you actually come down from your perch, mix with the common folk and pass your denier judgment... on the usual suspects!

[TimG]

as I said, it trumps your Idso clan (Idso & Idso, 2001) study… and by your own qualifying statement, refutes it.

No it does not. It acknowledges the mitigating effect but throws in a completely ignorant opinion about farmers in poor countries not being able to afford fertilizer (it is ignorant because it forgets that the IPCC's own economic models assume that people who are poor farmers today will be as rich as we are today by the time CO2 concentrations reach those levels - they will be able to afford fertilizer).

Even then all of the tests used the crops we have today instead of the crops we will have in the future as farmers develop different varieties to deal with the changing conditions. It also does not take into account the higher water availability due to warming.

Bottom line: the assumption that nothing changes but CO2 is wrong.

do you consider enhanced fertilizer agricultural practice... as adaptation... or mitigation?

Adaption of course - adaption that will occur without any special government policy because farmers have been doing these kinds of things for millennia.

[wyly]

1) The earth has been cycling in and out of ice ages for a million years or more. Mammoths survived everyone of those except the last one. Climate change is NOT a plausible explaination for their extinction. Same goes for most of the other mega fauna that disappeared.

sorry it's the only explanation, loss of habitat, reduction of numbers to critical level...

2) There are plenty of times where the climate has changed faster than it is today and there are no associated extinction events. This pretty much eliminates climate change as a primary trigger for extinction events. It is, at best, a contributing factor.

so wrong...any time there is CC there is an extinction event, the size of the extinction is determined by the rapidity of the CC...the PT extinction the largest of extinction events has CC as the primary suspect...the Quaternary extinction event of last ice age was the prime cause of the extinction...

pile of BS pulled from a single study using bogus method. Links to the supporting sources can be found here:

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/another-ipcc-train-wreck-species-extinction-part-1/.

wow that's got to be embarassing, blog site by Donna Laframboise, field of expertise womens studies...great source tim don't know how anyone can top that source...maybe Answers on Yahoo?

1) By using 'rain' as an explanation you are effectively agreeing with me that crop productivity is primarily determined by things other than temperature which means hypothetical studies about a decrease in productivity due to temp rises are irrelevant.

whoa tim didn't you claim a few degrees don't matter? and now you say it does?

2) The IPCC itself claims that water availability will INCREASE in most places as a result of climate change. This could actually increase agricultural productivity in many place (OMG - AGW might be a good thing! heresy!)

really tim, how did the crops in saskatchewan do this year with that added rain...how did Pakistan cope with the extra rain tim...

3) The Sahara is already showing signs of 'greening' as a result of this increased rain.

tim-A 2-3 degC rise may be likely but I have yet to see any compelling evidence that such a rise will be a catastrophe.

didn't you say a 2-3 deg change wouldn't be a catastrophe? obviously a 2-3 degree change caused the Sahara that qualifies as a catastrophe does it not, a 2 or 3 degree drop in temp is enough to send us back into an ice age, isn't that a catastrophe tim?...it seems to me you have no concept of what a another 2 or 3 let alone a 5 degree rise change can do...

[TimG]

sorry it's the only explanation, loss of habitat, reduction of numbers to critical level.

You need a remedial lesson in logic. The assertion is that rapid climate change always causes extinction events. The fact that most of the mega fauna survived 10+ ice ages just fine indicates that they are pretty adaptable and that there must have been some confounding factor. Perhaps a primate that learned to hunt in packs?

so wrong...any time there is CC there is an extinction event, the size of the extinction is determined by the rapidity of the CC

Actually, we don't even know IF extinctions actually occurred.

"During the Cretaceous period (146 to 65 million years ago), dominated by dinosaurs, there were periods of intense global warming which saw dramatic rises in sea levels so severe that the oceans flooded Europe, turning it into an archipelago of little islands. This forced shallow marine species and land animals to migrate from their usual habitats.

"Once the sea level dropped again these species migrated back with it, and the fossil record laid down in sedimentary rock during those periods of high sea level was largely destroyed over time by wind, rain and glacial erosion," continued Professor Gale.

"The interruption in the fossil record during these periods was caused by species migration and the loss of the fossil record of that migration, and not by a mass extinction."

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01zp.html

I realize the 'climate change' = 'extinctions' narrative is politically convenient for you but the historical record does not support it. The most you can say is some climate change events may have causes some extinctions but most did not.

Edited November 11, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

You need a remedial lesson in logic. The assertion is that rapid climate change always causes extinction events. The fact that most of the mega fauna survived 10+ ice ages just fine indicates that they are pretty adaptable and that there must have been some confounding factor. Perhaps a primate that learned to hunt in packs?

you need a lesson in humility and archeology/anthropology...rapid climate change always causes extinction events, only the severity varies...the mega fauna of the of Quaternary extinction event were wiped out on every continent, humans had nothing to do with the event, the mega fauna were well on their way to extinction in N America before humans arrived some were already gone...plus humans rarely hunted mega fauna it's a fatal pastime, the old, weak and young were the targets and hunter gatherer societies don't cause enough fatalities to threathen the overall numbers...even with your limited knowledge you may be aware that until the introduction of firearms the mega fauna of Africa were in no danger of extinction despite a much larger human presence than in the sparsely populated asian and American continents...

Actually, we don't even know IF extinctions actually occurred.

we? ... please don't assign your ignorance to the rest of us...apparently you're the only one that hasn't noticed the lack of Dire wolves, Cave Bears, Giant Sloths, Stag Moose, Giant Bison, Cave Bear, Woolly Rhino all of which died according to you not because of climate change but because of hunting ya why hunt a ferocious white tailed deer into extinction when you can go after far more dangerous game, oh ya that's so logical...

I realize the 'climate change' = 'extinctions' narrative is politically convenient for you but the historical record does not support it. The most you can say is some climate change events may have causes some extinctions but most did not.

I realize being self deluding is politically convenient and face saving excuse for you but denial of the facts does not help in the least hiding your ignorance on the subject.

[waldo]

did you think/hope that I didn’t actually read the complete (meta) study I linked to? – Effects of elevated CO2 on the protein concentration of food crops: a meta-analysis (Taub, Miller, Allen – 2008)

as I said, it trumps your Idso clan (Idso & Idso, 2001) study… and by your own qualifying statement, refutes it. The meta study includes your linked Idso clan paper, as well as the latest link/abstract reference you provided (Kimball et al., 2003)

… which brings us full circle back to TrueMetis initial reference/claim of reduced nutrition associated with elevated CO2 atmospheric levels. So, again… the meta study shows exactly that, particular to this discussion focus, reduced protein nutrition... which is shown to already be occurring. Notwithstanding a most significant point not emphasized in your earlier rush to a fertilizer panacea – dramatic ecological impacts associated with runoff from agriculturally applied nitrogen fertilizer.

No it does not. It acknowledges the mitigating effect but throws in a completely ignorant opinion about farmers in poor countries not being able to afford fertilizer (it is ignorant because it forgets that the IPCC's own economic models assume that people who are poor farmers today will be as rich as we are today by the time CO2 concentrations reach those levels - they will be able to afford fertilizer).

Even then all of the tests used the crops we have today instead of the crops we will have in the future as farmers develop different varieties to deal with the changing conditions. It also does not take into account the higher water availability due to warming.

Bottom line: the assumption that nothing changes but CO2 is wrong.

no – your Idso clan claim is refuted… you, yourself quoted their absolutes (bold highlighted in your quote, as follows). The absolutes that don’t stand up to the scrutiny and results of that meta study I linked/quoted from… the meta study that includes the ‘Idso, Idso, 2001’ paper and the papers it references in your same quote:

However, it has been convincingly demonstrated by Rogers et al. (1996), Pleijel et al. (1999) and Kimball et al. (2001) that higher levels of nitrogen fertilizer application have the capacity to totally offset this negative impact of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, as we (Sherwood and Keith) discuss in some detail in our recent review of the subject (Idso and Idso, 2001), so that with proper crop husbandry there need be no reductions in either grain nitrogen or protein contents, or in the baking properties of flour derived from the grains of those crops. Hence, as noted in our paper, "it would appear that given sufficient water and nitrogen, atmospheric CO2 enrichment can significantly increase grain yield without sacrificing grain protein concentration in the process."

so, yes… again, TrueMetis’ initial suggestion/claim that nutrition is reduced in an enhanced CO2 environment stands.

and now, you troll even further… describing as “ignorant opinion” a reference to the 2005 United Nations Millennium Project. To top it all off, you reach for a reliance on your presumed understanding of IPCC economic models (as you interpret and selectively apply them)… while in the past you’ve trashed those same IPCC economic models for all you’re worth. Hypocrite! And what’s this! Along with your fertilizer panacea you know… just know… new crop varieties, adjusted for and robust to the effects of enhanced CO2, will be “engineered”. You just know it! Of course, reducing those emissions in the first place… working to avoid the need for your “wishful thinking’… nah, that makes no sense (to you)!

[TimG]

rapid climate change always causes extinction events, only the severity varies.

Prove it. There have been thousands - if not millions of periods of rapid climate change in the past. So lets se the evidence that *every one* causes an extinction event. Once you done that you have to catalog the extinction events that occur without any climate change event and demonstrate that there is statistically significant increase in exictinions associated with those millions of climate change events. Good luck. I don't believe the data exists which means you are just making crap up when you say climate change always causes extinction events.

rapid the mega fauna of the of Quaternary extinction event were wiped out on every continent, humans had nothing to do with the event

But the same mega fauna survived many identical events in the past. What was different? It was likely something unrelated to the climate change itself. Edited November 11, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

no – your Idso clan claim is refuted… you, yourself quoted their absolutes (bold highlighted in your quote, as follows). The absolutes that don’t stand up to the scrutiny and results of that meta study I linked/quoted from

All your meta study did is make generalize comments about how other studies suggested the effect could not be complete compensated by better fertilizer. There is nothing in that study that shows that the Idso linked studies were inferior to studies that claimed otherwise.

In any case, I find it very strange that all these studies on nutrition ignore the most important thing these staple foods provide: carbohydrates.

The CO2-enriched tomato fruit contained significantly higher concentrations of TSS, fructose and glucose during development. The amount of reducing sugars increased at the advancement of maturity, with fructose being the predominant sugar. The treated fruit showed significantly higher activity of soluble AI and SuSy activities compared to the control. There were no significant differences in sucrose concentration and SPS activity between the treatments. The results indicate that enriched CO2 treatment enhances fruit growth, and improved the carbohydrate contents of tomato fruit compared to fruits exposed to ambient CO2 concentration, which might be due to enhanced translocation of photosynthate with elevated enzyme activities in the CO2-enriched treatment.

http://www.fspublishers.org/ijab/past-issues/IJABVOL_8_NO_2/5.pdf

Even though photosynthesis is down regulated, leaves tend to accumulate greater sugar and starch levels resulting in non-structural carbohydrate levels that are 10–40% higher than levels observed in plants grown under today's CO2 conditions. Overall, the C/N ratios of eaves increase by 20–30% under 2× elevated CO2 conditions; these responses occur in both C3 and C4 photosynthetic pathway plants (Fig. 2).

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/3/424.full

So again looking at the big picture elevated CO2:

1) Decreases protein content

2) Increases carbohydrate content.

Better fertilization techniques and new plant hybrids can at least partially address 1)

But 2) is a clear benefit of CO2 emissions which easily outweighs the reduction in protein because the quantity of protien we need in our diet is much less than quantity of carbohydrates we need. Carbohydrates are the real concern when it comes to supporting a large human population.

IOW, you have not made the case that CO2 reduce nutrition content. All it does is CHANGE the nutrition content and that change is partially good and partially bad.

Edited November 11, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

Prove it. There have been thousands - if not millions of periods of rapid climate change in the past. So lets se the evidence that *every one* causes an extinction event. Once you done that you have to catalog the extinction events that occur without any climate change event and demonstrate that there is statistically significant increase in exictinions associated with those millions of climate change events. Good luck. I don't believe the data exists which means you are just making crap up when you say climate change always causes extinction events.

no the onus is on you to disprove it, you're the one in denial...it's absolutely true that a climate change whether local, regional, hemispherical or global will cause the disappearance of life forms with specialized climate requirements, this isn't disputable...polar bears don't live in the tropics, date palms don't grow in the arctic...

change the environment and a species from which it has no escape route and it becomes extinct...this isn't rocket science, the fossil records are filled with extinct life forms that were climatically adapted...your evidence demands is the same as that of creationist asking for continuous link of fossil hominid specimens, it's absurd...

the mammoths of 4 million years ago were not the same as the mammoths of the last ice age, the early mammoths were not adapted to ice age conditions, it's an adaptation they slowly evolved into over 2 million years...evolving from a generalized elephant of the tropics to a highly specialized cold adapted animal that no longer ate leaves but grasses...the more it adapted to it's cold weather niche the more trapped it became by it's own evolution...warmer climes bringing more forests and reduced grasslands would've shrunk it's environment/food source and the numbers required for viable reproduction, when it reaches critical levels it only requires a little nudge to send it into extinction......

polar bears are highly specialized niche predators that have only been around for 150-200,000 years, if climate change destroys their main food source seals, walrus by eliminating pack ice, the bears will not adapt quickly enough and become extinct....and that will be more evidence that you or like minded grandkids will be in denial of...

But the same mega fauna survived many identical events in the past. What was different? It was likely something unrelated to the climate change itself.

the mega fauna themselves evolve over time can become more specialized and environmentally adapted, specialization is niche for survival but also an evolutionary trap should conditions that prompted that specialization change rapidly...why did the plains bison survive in the millions while the giant bison, mammoth and mastodon disappear? it wasn't predatory, they would have few predators, they would have been the victims of their own specialization and the loss of food source/environment due to climate change...humans went through the same process coming perilously close to extinction about 70,000 YBP due to climate change from the ice age event or possibly by a super volcano...

[TimG]

no the onus is on you to disprove it

You made the claim. You PROVE it. I have already pointed out that the mega fauna that dissappeared 10000 years ago survived several ice age cycles. That pretty much refutes your claim that climate change always cause exinction events. If you want to change your claim to "climate change events sometimes result in extinction events" then I will agree. Basically, you are claiming more certainity than is justified given the evidence (the entire problem with the climate debate).

no it's absolutely true that a climate change whether local, regional, hemispherical or global will cause the disappearance of life forms with specialized climate requirements

Only if they cannot move or cannot evolve. Polar bears have survived prior episodes ice free arctic conditions. They probably moved inland and found other prey.

change the environment and a species from which it has no escape route and it becomes extinct.

But that is not what you claimed. You claimed that climate change *always* causes extinctions. You are now qualifying your statement by talking about escape routes. The fact is species are very good at migrating or even evolving to the point where they become a new species.

the mammoths of 4 million years ago were not the same as the mammoths of the last ice age, the early mammoths were not adapted to ice age conditions

Nothing but speculation and we are not just talking mammoths. The more likely explaination is something other than climate change triggered their extinction.

warmer climes bringing more forests and reduced grasslands would've shrunk it's environment/food source and the numbers required for viable reproduction

You got cause and effect backwards. Fewer mammoths mean more forests. Something killed off the mammoths which allowed the trees to encroach on the grasslands. The effect of large herbivores on tree cover in Africa is well documented.

http://www.sanparks.org/parks/kruger/conservation/scientific/noticeboard/science_network_meeting_2009/Presentations/heitkonig.pdf

polar bears are highly specialized niche predators that have only been around for 150-200,000 years, if climate change destroys their main food source seals

They will move on the next convenient food source: human garbage and other land based prey. Edited November 12, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

You made the claim. You PROVE it. I have already pointed out that the mega fauna that dissappeared 10000 years ago survived several ice age cycles. That pretty much refutes your claim that climate change always cause exinction events. If you want to change your claim to "climate change events sometimes result in extinction events" then I will agree. Basically, you are claiming more certainity than is justified given the evidence (the entire problem with the climate debate).

it's established science, climate change causes extinction events, you're the one in denial not me...it's yours to disprove...

Only if they cannot move or cannot evolve. Polar bears have survived prior episodes ice free arctic conditions. They probably moved inland and found other prey.

they have only been through one interglacial period the Eemian and then they had thousands if not tens of thousands of years to adapt to a warmer arctic, now you expect them to adapt in a hundred years, that's ridiculous...

But that is not what you claimed. You claimed that climate change *always* causes extinctions. You are now qualifying your statement by talking about escape routes. The fact is species are very good at migrating or even evolving to the point where they become a new species.

climate change it will always cause extinctions and I've quite clearly stated the extent of the extinctions are dependent on the severity of the change, the niche the animal occupies, escape routes/isolation... I quite clearly posted-"rapid climate change always causes extinction events, only the severity varies"...what new species did the wooly mammoth become, the woolly rhino?, the short faced bear? where did they migrate to?...here you are using evolution to claim they change but then denying evolutionary dead ends of niche species ...

Nothing but speculation and we are not just talking mammoths. The more likely explaination is something other than climate change triggered their extinction.

You got cause and effect backwards. Fewer mammoths mean more forests. Something killed off the mammoths which allowed the trees to encroach on the grasslands. The effect of large herbivores on tree cover in Africa is well documented.

the more likely explanation is your denial grasping for straws in defending your claim we need do nothing because a 2-3 degree change can have no harmful catastrophic effect, extinction is a myth in your denier world...mammoths are not africa elephants, different behaviour they did not eat tree leaves, trees which could not have existed in the cold regions they occupied, the only way trees can exist in the mammoth range is if the climate changed to allow trees to move north, you may have noticed there are no trees in the arctic now and there are no mammoths either to stop the spread of trees...

http://www.sanparks.org/parks/kruger/conservation/scientific/noticeboard/science_network_meeting_2009/Presentations/heitkonig.pdf

savanna elephants Loxodonta africana not forest elephants Loxodonta cyclotis, two different species

They will move on the next convenient food source: human garbage and other land based prey.

no when the pack ice forms late they starve this is well documented, they don't change their behaviour these aren't black bears..human garbage, oh ya, that'll save them from extinction ... Edited November 15, 2010 by wyly

[TimG]

it's established science, climate change causes extinction events, you're the one in denial not me...it's yours to disprove.

Established "science" that makes an irrational claim does not mean much to me. In the last million years the earth has cycled in and out of ice ages at least 10 times. The magnitude and speed of the change is roughly the same each time which means (according to your logic) there must of been an equivalent megafauna extinction event after each one. Please provide a list of mega fauna that went extinct after each one of those ice ages. If your claim has merit you should be able to provide such a list. I can;t really prove a negative (i.e. tha no extinctions occurred) - so the onus is on you whether you like it or not.

What you will likely find is there is no data that supports your claim of 10 major extinction events in the last million years. All your are doing is repeating an narrative that may be believed by many scientists but it is nothing but an assumption.

they have only been through one interglacial period the Eemian and then they had thousands if not tens of thousands of years to adapt to a warmer arctic, now you expect them to adapt in a hundred years, that's ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is you think a recent offshoot of the bear species can't go back to being regular bears. In fact, nature has already shown one path to the polar bear's survival:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly%E2%80%93polar_bear_hybrid

Edited November 15, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

What's ridiculous is you think a recent offshoot of the bear species can't go back to being regular bears. In fact, nature has already shown one path to the polar bear's survival:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly%E2%80%93polar_bear_hybrid

You don't know much about evolution do you? Species that specialize can almost never reverse their evolution, ie a whale will never regrow legs, sabertooths couldn't re-adapt to smaller faster prey, and ostriches and emus will never fly again. And a hybrid is not the polar bear surviving it the polar bear dying out, hybridization is not evolution, Hybrids are almost always sterile and have health problems associated with being a hybrid, the most common being a shortened lifespan.

[TimG]

Species that specialize can almost never reverse their evolution.

Sure they can - by breading with their cousins that still have that ability. Dogs and wolves can mate. It really depends on how close the relationship is.

In any case, the artic was much warmer than today 5000-8000 years ago. Possibly even ice free. The polar bears did fine. They will adapt. If they don't. So what? Species go extinct all of the time. We can possibly ensure the survival of all of the them. Nor should we.

Edited November 15, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

Sure they can - by breading with their cousins that still have that ability. Dogs and wolves can mate. It really depends on how close the relationship is.

Dogs and wolves are the same species. Canis lupus, the dog being a sub-species Canis lupus familiaris. And despite what you think they do not regain anything, any dog that can hybridize with a wolf is already sufficiently like a wolf. And once again what you are describing is not evolution. I admitted I couldn't understand the math you posted, it's time for you to admit you don't understand evolution.

In any case, the artic was much warmer than today 5000-8000 years ago. Possibly even ice free. The polar bears did fine. They will adapt. If they don't. So what? Species go extinct all of the time. We can possibly ensure the survival of all of the them. Nor should we.

Bullshit, there is no way the Artic was ice free 5000-8000 years ago.

[waldo]

no – your Idso clan claim is refuted… you, yourself quoted their absolutes (bold highlighted in your quote, as follows). The absolutes that don’t stand up to the scrutiny and results of that meta study I linked/quoted from… the meta study that includes the ‘Idso, Idso, 2001’ paper and the papers it references in your same quote:

so, yes… again, TrueMetis’ initial suggestion/claim that nutrition is reduced in an enhanced CO2 environment stands.

All your meta study did is make generalize comments about how other studies suggested the effect could not be complete compensated by better fertilizer. There is nothing in that study that shows that the Idso linked studies were inferior to studies that claimed otherwise.

nonsense – the meta study includes the Idso 2001 paper as well as the papers it references… it doesn’t conclude they’re inferior – it includes the decades old papers, adding updated research. More to the point, your Idso clan took liberty using the absolute verbiage I highlighted; more to the point, the studies the Idso’s referenced never spoke in absolutes… they spoke in terms of decreased minimal effect or defined reductions… they most certainly did not speak in the absolutes the Idso 2001 paper stated. So, yes… again – that Taub meta paper does refute the Idso 2001 paper (the paper that speaks in false absolutes… the false absolutes, I highlighted).

In any case, I find it very strange that all these studies on nutrition ignore the most important thing these staple foods provide: carbohydrates.

before you divert us away to highlight more of your vast insight on nutrition, let’s recap – hey?

- you repeatedly failed to distinguish nutrients from nutrition

- without substantiation, you presumed to negate the decreased output of nitrogen subject to enhanced CO2 growth

- you scrambled to find your ‘substantiation’ based upon increased fertilization, ignoring the significant environmental impacts of nitrogen runoff… ignoring the prohibitive cost and access to fertilizer for developing countries, ignoring the fact that even with increased fertilization, protein nutrient levels are still reduced. In your TimG fantasy world, the estimated 1 billion underfed and/or malnourished, will simply need to ‘bump up’ fertilization levels!

- without substantiation, you reached for your described, “IPCC economic models”, to offset fertilization costs based on a premise that developing countries will progressively increase their material wealth… the same “IPCC economic models” you consistently and repeatedly decry. Did I say hypocrite?

- but wait, it gets better… obviously, even accepting to your select use of your described “IPCC economic models”, developing countries will need assistance in gaining access to and purchasing said fertilizer… you know… wealth transfer! Oh my, TimG endorses wealth transfer to developing countries! New World Order!!!

and now, you’re all over increased carbohydrate production as a ‘trade-off’ to diminished protein within enhanced CO2 environments. Except your ‘trade-off’ ignores the fundamental requirements of balanced nutrition including carbohydrates and proteins (and fats, etc.). Your and the Idso clan attempt to equate/parallel western diet aspects to developing world particulars is ludicrous – at best. Again, about that 1 billion underfed and/or malnourished you propose to ‘carb-load’ their diets… while protein content decreases… save your fantasy world of increased fertilization! I’ll see your cited dramatic greenhouse grown tomato increases (/snarc), with something a tad more impacting – hey?... like a staple for 750 million people worldwide:

Growth and nutritive value of cassava are reduced when grown in elevated CO2:

Abstract

Global food security in a changing climate depends on both the nutritive value of staple crops as well as their yields. Here, we examined the direct effect of atmospheric CO2 on cassava, a staple for 750 million people worldwide. We grew cassava at three concentrations of CO2 (Ca: 360, 550 and 710 ppm) supplied together with nutrient solution containing either 1 mM or 12 mM nitrogen. We found that total plant biomass and tuber yield (number and mass) decreased linearly with increasing Ca. In the worst-case scenario, tuber mass was reduced by an order of magnitude in plants grown at 710 ppm compared with 360 ppm CO2. If leaves continue to be used as a protein supplement, they will need to be more thoroughly processed in the future. With increasing population density, declining soil fertility, expansion into marginal farmland, together with the predicted increase in extreme climatic events, reliance on robust crops such as cassava will increase. The responses to CO2 shown here point to the possibility that there could be severe food shortages in the coming decades unless CO2 emissions are dramatically reduced, or alternative cultivars or crops are developed.

as you dwell in your simplistic TimG nutrition/yield fantasy world, playing factor against factor, presuming to add the affects of one to negate the affects of another, you fail to recognize the most significant and representative interplay requirement; i.e., the inclusion of warming, elevated CO2, increased precipitation, and increased nitrogen deposition within studies... representing a comprehensive account of the four major components of global change caused by fossil-fuel burning. The recognized ground-breaking effort in that regard is the ongoing Stanford University, ‘Jasper Ridge Global Change Experiment’ - Grassland Responses to Global Environmental Changes Suppressed by Elevated CO2

Simulated global changes, including warming, increased precipitation, and nitrogen deposition, alone and in concert, increased net primary production (NPP) in the third year of ecosystem-scale manipulations in a California annual grassland. Elevated carbon dioxide also increased NPP, but only as a single-factor treatment. Across all multifactor manipulations, elevated carbon dioxide suppressed root allocation, decreasing the positive effects of increased temperature, precipitation, and nitrogen deposition on NPP. The NPP responses to interacting global changes differed greatly from simple combinations of single-factor responses. These findings indicate the importance of a multifactor experimental approach to understanding ecosystem responses to global change.

in other words… the simplistic TimG approach to, ‘just add more fertilizer’, won’t cut it in an ecosystem under the multi-factor influences of climate change. Ya think?

[waldo]

Sure they can - by breading with their cousins that still have that ability.

one can only assume TrueMetis didn't see your original unedited post... where you, in your ass-holey best, presumed to disparage by referencing his handle in the context of "specialized species breeding" (I paraphrase)...

[TimG]

and now, youre all over increased carbohydrate production as a trade-off to diminished protein within enhanced CO2 environments. Except your trade-off ignores the fundamental requirements of balanced nutrition including carbohydrates and proteins (and fats, etc.).

So what? It does not change the fact that more carbohydrates is generally a good thing. All it means is we will have to change the mix of foods we eat - big deal. We have lots to choose from plus we can use genetic engineering to create more. Bottom line: I never said nothing changes. I said there is no compelling evidence of a net reduction in nutrition. It appears I am right.

As I have said before: your doomsday scenarios are largely meaningless because it assumes that society cannot change in response to changing conditions. It is a rediculous position.

Edited November 15, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

Dogs and wolves are the same species. Canis lupus, the dog being a sub-species Canis lupus familiaris. And despite what you think they do not regain anything, any dog that can hybridize with a wolf is already sufficiently like a wolf.

Coyotes and wolves are no more related than Grizzlies and Polar Bears:

The offspring is generally intermediate in size to both parents, being larger than a pure coyote, but smaller than a pure wolf. A study showed that of 100 coyotes collected in Maine, 22 had half or more wolf ancestry, and one was 89 percent wolf. A theory has been proposed that the large eastern coyotes in Canada are actually hybrids of the smaller western coyotes and wolves that met and mated decades ago as the coyotes moved toward New England from their earlier western ranges.[160] These eastern coyote populations also have fewer sweat glands in their pawpads than western coyotes, but have more than wolves.[41] Researchers in the Northeast and Canada say the population of coywolf hybrids is growing in the Northeast region.[161] The red wolf is thought by certain scientists to be in fact a wolf/coyote hybrid rather than a unique species. Strong evidence for hybridization was found through genetic testing which showed that red wolves have only 5% of their alleles unique from either gray wolves or coyotes. Genetic distance calculations have indicated that red wolves are intermediate between coyotes and gray wolves, and that they bear great similarity to wolf/coyote hybrids in southern Quebec and Minnesota. Analyses of mitochondrial DNA showed that existing red wolf populations are predominantly coyote in origin.[159]

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

I understood what you said - the problem is there are subtleties which you ignore.

Bullshit, there is no way the Artic was ice free 5000-8000 years ago.

Here is a reference:

”The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today

...

Astrid Lyså says that such old beach formations require that the sea all the way to the North Pole was periodically ice free for a long time.

http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/

Edited November 15, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

and now, you’re all over increased carbohydrate production as a ‘trade-off’ to diminished protein within enhanced CO2 environments. Except your ‘trade-off’ ignores the fundamental requirements of balanced nutrition including carbohydrates and proteins (and fats, etc.). Your and the Idso clan attempt to equate/parallel western diet aspects to developing world particulars is ludicrous – at best. Again, about that 1 billion underfed and/or malnourished you propose to ‘carb-load’ their diets… while protein content decreases… save your fantasy world of increased fertilization!

So what? It does not change the fact that more carbohydrates is generally a good thing.

yes, please... continue to highlight your ignorance on nutrition. That basic role of carbohydrates to supply energy requires a balance in supplying energy needs - carbohydrates can't do it alone; what is required is a combination of carbohydrates with proteins (and... water, vitamins, minerals, fats, etc.). As I said, your simplistic view has one offsetting reduced protein consequences of enhanced CO2 by "carb-loading". How's your diet of refined sugar doing, by the way?

All it means is we will have to change the mix of foods we eat - big deal. We have lots to choose from plus we can use genetic engineering to create more. Bottom line: I never said nothing changes. I said there is no compelling evidence of a net reduction in nutrition. It appears I am right.

"we eat"? Who is "we" buddy? Speak to that 1 billion underfed and/or malnourished - hey? No... you're not even right in your TimG fantasy world... protein reductions still exist even in your panacea, "just add fertilizer" resolution. Who will pay for access/application to increased nitrogen fertilizer in developing countries? How do you propose to manage environmental consequences of increased fertilizer? Oh right... developing countries... just let them eat cake, (more carbs - hey?)

As I have said before: you doomsday scenarios are largely meaningless because it assumes that society cannot change in response to changing conditions. It is a rediculous position.

what changes have you spoken to... other than your wishful certainty that new species will be developed... they just will, don't ya know? I'm not sure why you feel the need to label scientific study results as "doomsday scenarios" - other than they speak to scenarios that project the need for reduced CO2 emissions. Can't have that, right? That just gets in the way of your grand fertilizer solution!

[Guest TrueMetis]

Coyotes and wolves are no more related than Grizzlies and Polar Bears:

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

I understood what you said - the problem is there are subtlies which you ignore.

Cool you've found a potential exception to the rule. Go to the wiki page on red wolves and read the Taxonomy section there is a lot of dispute on just where the red wolf fits in.

ETA and hybridization with both the coyote and grey wolf is thought to have damaged red wolf populations.

Here is a reference:

http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/

That doesn't even come close to proving your assertion. It does prove that Northern Greenland had less ice.

Edited November 15, 2010 by TrueMetis

[TimG]

As I said, your simplistic view has one offsetting reduced protein consequences of enhanced CO2 by "carb-loading".

We need the most volume of carbohydrates. Since CO2 is increasing the carbohydrate content we will need less land to provide the carbs that society needs. That in turn frees up land for growing crops to supplement the slight reduction in protein content. IOW - I don't see any real problem.

"we eat"? Who is "we" buddy? Speak to that 1 billion underfed and/or malnourished - hey?

They won't be underfed and malnourished in 50 years. In fact, if they still are underfed and malnourished then that means CO2 levels will be much lower than what the IPCC predicts because the IPCC projections assume that poverty as we know it today will be gone.

"I'm not sure why you feel the need to label scientific study results as "doomsday scenarios" - other than they speak to scenarios that project the need for reduced CO2 emissions.

Would you wake up. Scientists have a product that they need to sell. They are no different than the nightly TV news in that sense. To sell their product they need a hook. Doomsday scenarios are the most convenient hook. But you lap these things up because for some bizarre reason you want to believe the end of the world is coming and you latch onto these narratives and completely reject the suggestion that people can change and adapt. For you the only "change" that is acceptable to you is reducing CO2 at enormous cost. It is an insane obession. Edited November 16, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

Cool you've found a potential exception to the rule. Go to the wiki page on red wolves and read the Taxonomy section there is a lot of dispute on just where the red wolf fits in.

Fair enough. But I made my comment because I had heard of viable cross species hybrids. Let's put this rest - I don't know if a polar bear-grizzly hybrid is viable. But I do believe these bears have had to make do with warmer temps in the recent past.

That doesn't even come close to proving your assertion. It does prove that Northern Greenland had less ice.

Read it. It says the *ocean* north of greenland had no ice. If that spot of ocean had no ice then it is unlikely that ice existed anywhere else. The quote from the scientists involved acknowledge that an ice free arctic is a plausible scenario.

BTW - nothing anyone says about the past is "proven". If you are going to apply that standard to ever hypothesis about past conditions then you will have to toss out almost all of the paleo that climate science relies on. All this particlar hypothesis does is show there is scientific support for my claim that the arctic was ice free.

Edited November 16, 2010 by TimG