rushmc 23
GeorgiaDon 385
QuoteSome climate scientists are saying we are in a carbon drought, what ever the heck that means (first time I heard that was just yesterday and I have yet to able to find anything more about this)
Edited to add the following link
http://notrickszone.com/...w-for-life-on-earth/
I had never heard this argument before....
From one of the comments (Rachel) to the blog you linked:
"Some plants grow faster under higher CO2 concentrations but at a cost: protein concentrations in the tissues of these plants decrease and so do minerals of nutritional importance including calcium, magnesium and phosphorus. So while crop yields might increase, the quality of the crop decreases and so animals feeding on these crops will need to eat more of them to compensate for the loss of nutrients.
As someone else has pointed out, C4 plants do not benefit at all with elevated CO2. These plants include important crops like maize, sugar cane, sorghum and millet. There are fewer C4 species but they occupy a large area on Earth. The enormous tropical grasslands of Africa and South America are C4 plants and these will not benefit much from elevated CO2.
source"
So, even a fairly modest increase in CO2 will result in crops that have less protein and minerals. People will have to consume more to achieve the same intake of protein and essential minerals such as calcium, magnesium, and phosphorus. Eating more means consuming more carbohydrates to get the same amount of protein as before. Of course, more land/fertilizer/water will have to be used to generate the same amount of protein as we currently produce.
The argument that higher CO2 levels will be good for us is unfortunately not supported by actual facts.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
billvon 3,132
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>I'll ask the same question...You got peer review on that conclusion?
Nope. It's just a fact - the average temperature around 1850. Since we have actual measurements, asking for "peer review" is sort of silly.
Like seeing 12,500 feet on your altimeter, and 13,500 feet on the aircraft's altimeter (if your DZ is at 1000 feet MSL) and asking "hey, is that a PEER REVIEWED number?" No, it's just data. You could claim that the aircraft's altimeter, and every altimeter on the load, is wrong - but then YOU would have to prove that, since it flies in the face of actual data.
>By stating that figure is "what's best for us and the species currently here, you've
> made an anthropocentric judgement placing humans before other species
Nope. I am making the judgment that the temperature of the planet (which was stable for a long time before 1850) is the temperature that life on this planet has adapted to. Now it's adapting to a new temperature.
>(alligators don't like 57 deg F as a lone example).
Alligators have adapted to their environment, which is NOT 57F. (57F is a global average, not a local average.) Nowadays they are adapting to rising average temperatures by moving north. Will they be successful in moving their habitat? Perhaps. Hopefully Virginians like gators.
Nope. It's just a fact - the average temperature around 1850. Since we have actual measurements, asking for "peer review" is sort of silly.
Like seeing 12,500 feet on your altimeter, and 13,500 feet on the aircraft's altimeter (if your DZ is at 1000 feet MSL) and asking "hey, is that a PEER REVIEWED number?" No, it's just data. You could claim that the aircraft's altimeter, and every altimeter on the load, is wrong - but then YOU would have to prove that, since it flies in the face of actual data.
>By stating that figure is "what's best for us and the species currently here, you've
> made an anthropocentric judgement placing humans before other species
Nope. I am making the judgment that the temperature of the planet (which was stable for a long time before 1850) is the temperature that life on this planet has adapted to. Now it's adapting to a new temperature.
>(alligators don't like 57 deg F as a lone example).
Alligators have adapted to their environment, which is NOT 57F. (57F is a global average, not a local average.) Nowadays they are adapting to rising average temperatures by moving north. Will they be successful in moving their habitat? Perhaps. Hopefully Virginians like gators.
Nope...lived in Florida for a couple of years and talked to some gator hunters and the isssue of temperature came up. Gators don't like the cold according to them.
But still, you have no peer review, just an educated (I'm being gratutious here) WILD ASS GUESS!
But still, you have no peer review, just an educated (I'm being gratutious here) WILD ASS GUESS!
[Reply]Some plants grow faster under higher CO2 concentrations but at a cost: protein concentrations in the tissues of these plants decrease and so do minerals of nutritional importance including calcium, magnesium and phosphorus.
This stuff is becoming so overly simplified and forgetting about the details it's getting to be ridiculous on both sides. Predicting what increased CO2 will do for flora is like predicting predicting what it will do for animals. A whole range of complicated relationships are taken into consideration.
Talking about protein in plant tissues is a fine example. That has more to do with nitrogen and water than ith CO2. Some research suggests that increasing CO2 makes it easier for plants to get to it. So the leaves have narrower stoma. This means that the plants transpire less water. This creates a situation where circulation decreases, and thus the movement of nitrogen through the plants is lessened. So less protein in plants. Which, because maintaining proteins takes energy and metabolism, means the plant doesn't respire as much.
In a sense, plants flourish so much with more CO2 that they get lazy. They trap more CO2, need less protein, make less protein, use less water, and keep on growing. Sequestering more carbon, using less water, but having less protein and structurally weaker branches (any botanist knows that vigorous growth equals weaker branches).
This is one scenario. Hat happens if nitrogen is increased? Like by adding fertilizer like every damned farmer does? More CO2. More crop. Same protein. Same water need.
This is but one scenario! A projection. This doesn't even include things like fruits/nuts/etc. Note that protein concentration doesn't matter much in these plants, since they do a fine job of concentrating the protein into the fruits. Imagine almonds with high CO2. It takes about one gallon of water per almond per year. What if it was .95 gallons of water per almond per year? Considering the US almond crop is almost 850 thousand tons per year, that's a lot of water saved.
I'm not saying this will happen. But this is just one scenario.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,132
>Nope...lived in Florida for a couple of years and talked to some gator hunters and
>the isssue of temperature came up. Gators don't like the cold according to them.
Exactly. And now that Virginia isn't that cold, they are appearing there.
But no one has peer reviewed those alligators so I guess they don't exist.
>the isssue of temperature came up. Gators don't like the cold according to them.
Exactly. And now that Virginia isn't that cold, they are appearing there.
But no one has peer reviewed those alligators so I guess they don't exist.
[Reply]It's just a fact - the average temperature around 1850. Since we have actual measurements, asking for "peer review" is sort of silly.
It's actually something that would require peer review due to the smoothings and assumptions necessary. 150 years ago there two weather stations in all of South America - on the east coast of Argentina. There were six in Australia - all along the east and southern coast. That is the extent of temperature data for half the planet. All other temperature records from that time focused on Europe, the mediterranean, the US (particularly northeast), widely spaced in Russia, and some in the Indian subcontinent.
It's why many alarmists insist that the "Little Ice Age" and "Medievel Warm Period" could not be shown to be global - records just don't exist. And since so much of the Southern Hemisphere is ocean, proxy data is harder to find.
It's not a fact. It is, at best, an estimate, based on a thin instrument record over 90 percent of the earth. And - an instrument record that has been subjected to adjustment and homogenization that is still ongoing.
The global temperature in 1850 has to be an estimate because there wasn't enough information to say what it was. Heck, even temps today are estimates. And all the data sources disagree.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,132
>It's actually something that would require peer review due to the smoothings and
>assumptions necessary. 150 years ago there two weather stations in all of South
>America - on the east coast of Argentina. There were six in Australia - all along
>the east and southern coast.
That's true. And per your example, you never know what altitude you are at in an airplane either. Altimeters might be up to 100 feet off, and the airplane's altimeter might be 10 feet higher when the plane is climbing (tail low, you know.) And sometimes there are only eight altimeters on the whole plane. And sometimes one is broken.
Still, skydivers can generally agree on what the altitude is without a single peer reviewed study. Although such a study might set your mind at ease, and tell you that you were really still climbing, even though Dave forgot his altimeter and Jerry's altimeter is sticking again. If so this might help:
=========================================
Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: A new data set from 1850
Copyright 2006 by the American Geophysical Union.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012)
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012)
Volume 111, Issue D12, 27 June 2006
[1] The historical surface temperature data set HadCRUT provides a record of surface temperature trends and variability since 1850. A new version of this data set, HadCRUT3, has been produced, benefiting from recent improvements to the sea surface temperature data set which forms its marine component, and from improvements to the station records which provide the land data. A comprehensive set of uncertainty estimates has been derived to accompany the data: Estimates of measurement and sampling error, temperature bias effects, and the effect of limited observational coverage on large-scale averages have all been made. Since the mid twentieth century the uncertainties in global and hemispheric mean temperatures are small, and the temperature increase greatly exceeds its uncertainty. In earlier periods the uncertainties are larger, but the temperature increase over the twentieth century is still significantly larger than its uncertainty.
================================================
>assumptions necessary. 150 years ago there two weather stations in all of South
>America - on the east coast of Argentina. There were six in Australia - all along
>the east and southern coast.
That's true. And per your example, you never know what altitude you are at in an airplane either. Altimeters might be up to 100 feet off, and the airplane's altimeter might be 10 feet higher when the plane is climbing (tail low, you know.) And sometimes there are only eight altimeters on the whole plane. And sometimes one is broken.
Still, skydivers can generally agree on what the altitude is without a single peer reviewed study. Although such a study might set your mind at ease, and tell you that you were really still climbing, even though Dave forgot his altimeter and Jerry's altimeter is sticking again. If so this might help:
=========================================
Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: A new data set from 1850
Copyright 2006 by the American Geophysical Union.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012)
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012)
Volume 111, Issue D12, 27 June 2006
[1] The historical surface temperature data set HadCRUT provides a record of surface temperature trends and variability since 1850. A new version of this data set, HadCRUT3, has been produced, benefiting from recent improvements to the sea surface temperature data set which forms its marine component, and from improvements to the station records which provide the land data. A comprehensive set of uncertainty estimates has been derived to accompany the data: Estimates of measurement and sampling error, temperature bias effects, and the effect of limited observational coverage on large-scale averages have all been made. Since the mid twentieth century the uncertainties in global and hemispheric mean temperatures are small, and the temperature increase greatly exceeds its uncertainty. In earlier periods the uncertainties are larger, but the temperature increase over the twentieth century is still significantly larger than its uncertainty.
================================================
[Reply]Still, skydivers can generally agree on what the altitude is without a single peer reviewed study. Although such a study might set your mind at ease, and tell you that you were really still climbing, even though Dave forgot his altimeter and Jerry's altimeter is sticking again.
Isn't that peer review? "Hey, bill. My altimeter is showing 11.8k. What's yous?"
"I'm showing 12k on my wrist and on 12k on my chest, jerry. Hey, Dave - what's your alti showing?"
"12k, Bill."
"Okay. I'll move mine up to 12k. Thanks, bill and dave."
That IS peer review. Probably in its purest and simplest sense.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,132
>Isn't that peer review? "Hey, bill. My altimeter is showing 11.8k. What's yous?"
>"I'm showing 12k on my wrist and on 12k on my chest, jerry. Hey, Dave - what's
>your alti showing?"
>"12k, Bill."
Good point.
Of course, then there's a few freeflyers in the back saying "we're NOT CLIMBING! And even if we are, the plane isn't causing it! Things go up and down all the time without airplanes. Don't you idiots know that?"
>"I'm showing 12k on my wrist and on 12k on my chest, jerry. Hey, Dave - what's
>your alti showing?"
>"12k, Bill."
Good point.
Of course, then there's a few freeflyers in the back saying "we're NOT CLIMBING! And even if we are, the plane isn't causing it! Things go up and down all the time without airplanes. Don't you idiots know that?"
rushmc 23
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/09/24/Communist-Agenda-Behind-Climate-Change
http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2014/09/23/climate-movement-drops-mask-admits-communist-agenda/?singlepage=true
Nice group of people supporting this climate stuff![[:/]](//www.dropzone.com/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png "[:/]")
http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2014/09/23/climate-movement-drops-mask-admits-communist-agenda/?singlepage=true
Nice group of people supporting this climate stuff
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
I'll ask around but I promise to report a gator sighting in VA as soon as I see one.
QuoteAnd now that Virginia isn't that cold, they are appearing there.
I'll ask around. But If I see any gators (most like in the Southern Tidewater Region) YOU will be the first to know.
QuoteBut no one has peer reviewed those alligators so I guess they don't exist.
Well, maybe you should be the first to ask them assuming you do "gator speak." That's a visual I'd pay the prices of admission to!
SkyDekker 1,465
Quote"Okay. I'll move mine up to 12k. Thanks, bill and dave."
I'm sorry are you adjusting a data point?
GeorgiaDon 385
QuoteThis stuff is becoming so overly simplified and forgetting about the details it's getting to be ridiculous on both sides. Predicting what increased CO2 will do for flora is like predicting predicting what it will do for animals. A whole range of complicated relationships are taken into consideration.
As I'm sure you are well aware, the observation that protein levels decrease with increasing CO2 is founded on an extensively replicated data set generated from crops grown in the field under experimental conditions in which CO2 levels were manipulated.QuoteThis is one scenario. Hat happens if nitrogen is increased? Like by adding fertilizer like every damned farmer does?
I suppose some might consider that to be a "prediction". Just as one might consider statements that "the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning", or "skydivers will fall towards the ground once they exit the plane" are predictions. Of course, they are very high confidence predictions based on a very large number of replicated observations, which is what experimental research does.
Of course, one may change the behavior of the system by changing additional variables. A wingsuit flier may actually climb relative to the plane if he immediately opens his wings on exiting (though that would be a remarkably stupid thing to do). So yes, farmers may be able to compensate for the reduced transpiration and subsequent mineral and nitrogen uptake/protein synthesis by adding more fertilizer to the system, as I noted in my earlier post. Of course, that will add to the cost of food production, and will increase pollution problems due to fertilizer runoff into aquatic ecosystems. It may also not be economically viable in much of the developing world.
I believe my point still stands: a blanket assumption that increased CO2 levels will naturally provide more benefit than harm is not warranted.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Validating it against other people's observations from their instruments. My instrument probably wasn't accurate.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
[Reply]I believe my point still stands: a blanket assumption that increased CO2 levels will naturally provide more benefit than harm is not warranted.
I agree. I also would go with the other side and assert that a blanket assumption thay increased CO2 will naturally provide more harm than benefit is not warranted. If for no other reason than it calls for subjective judgement. But additionally, because there are pluses and minuses with everything (think of eliminating malaria - there are plenty of people who see malaria as a good thing because it helps control population).
[Reply]As I'm sure you are well aware, the observation that protein levels decrease with increasing CO2 is founded on an extensively replicated data set generated from crops grown in the field under experimental conditions in which CO2 levels were manipulated.
As I'm sure you're aware, studies haven't shown much of a consistent trend among vegetation for the effects of increased CO2. Most plant species show higher rates of photosynthesis, increased growth, decreased water use and lowered tissue concentrations of nitrogen and protein. But C4 plants don't show as much effect. And there are plenty of people out there looking to engineer C3 crops into C4 crops (which has been attempted even without climate change in mind due to C4 efficiency).
The effects on complex and individual. Some general ideas can be stated but any projections will be based upon assumptions. There are just too many variables. Too many assumptions.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
This is correct. I can only imagine what it was like 12k years ago, when paleo-Native Americans in the know warned others living on the respective shores of morainal dams that if they kept on building fires, the sea was going to continue to rise and the glaciers would keep melting. They would have warned that the spruce trees are being replaced with pines before their very eyes, that extinctions would occur, and that the ocean would inundate the coast up to 100 miles inland.
Today they would have looked back and said that we were warned it would happen. And that the Gods were paying us back by making the lakes overflow, the glaciers shrink and the seas rise.
Sure, it's incconsistent with nature to change the climate. It is inconsistent with nature to eradicate small pox. It is also inconsistent with nature to attempt to keep the temperature where it was in 1850.
We can. We can warm the climate quite nicely. We can even more easily cool the climate. Or we can try to geoengineer to keep the climate at a certain level. Question is, what level should that be? 1850 is good for people living in temperate climates? What about those in the torrid or frigid zones?
It requires subjective value and judgment to make the determination of what we want to earth temperature to be. And reasonable minds can differ.
Great points
the same can be said for the CO2 levels
We know it has been higer
We know is has been lower
what IS normal?
This too is very subjective
Some climate scientists are saying we are in a carbon drought, what ever the heck that means (first time I heard that was just yesterday and I have yet to able to find anything more about this)
Edited to add the following link
http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentrations-at-400-ppm-are-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/
I had never heard this argument before....
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln