CO2

[brenthutch 444]

Vote for the one that is closest to your view.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

It's kinda like water.

Without it, you die.

With the right amount of it, you do great.

Too much of it and you are in trouble.

The amount of CO2 that we (as a whole) are putting into the atmosphere is unsustainable.
The fact that we are destroying huge amounts of forests (particularly South American and South East Asian rain forests) compounds the problem.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[normiss 898]

Sounds like what love is.

Wait. Wrong poll.

[rehmwa 2]

is there any way I could exploit this poll to gain political power?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[turtlespeed 226]

brenthutch

Vote for the one that is closest to your view.

Hey look - Funjumper voted.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 226]

wolfriverjoe

It's kinda like water.

Without it, you die.

With the right amount of it, you do great.

Too much of it and you are in trouble.

The amount of CO2 that we (as a whole) are putting into the atmosphere is unsustainable.
The fact that we are destroying huge amounts of forests (particularly South American and South East Asian rain forests) compounds the problem.

What does a skydiver and a scuba diver have in common?

Neither one ever wants o run out of air.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[brenthutch 444]

wolfriverjoe

It's kinda like water.

Without it, you die.

With the right amount of it, you do great.

Too much of it and you are in trouble.

The amount of CO2 that we (as a whole) are putting into the atmosphere is unsustainable.
The fact that we are destroying huge amounts of forests (particularly South American and South East Asian rain forests) compounds the problem.

Elevated CO2 levels will help those (and other) forests regrow, problem solved.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

brenthutch

***It's kinda like water.

Without it, you die.

With the right amount of it, you do great.

Too much of it and you are in trouble.

The amount of CO2 that we (as a whole) are putting into the atmosphere is unsustainable.
The fact that we are destroying huge amounts of forests (particularly South American and South East Asian rain forests) compounds the problem.

Elevated CO2 levels will help those (and other) forests regrow, problem solved.

Well, in theory, yes. But humans are destroying forests all over the planet at a rate far, far above what could possibly regrow. Naturally, "enhanced" with extra CO2 or even by being planted by people.

Haiti, for example is practically defoliated. As a result, hurricanes and the rainfall that accompany them are causing serious landslides because the vegetation that would hold the ground in place is gone.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 3,120]

>Elevated CO2 levels will help those (and other) forests regrow

They won't regrow without water. And CO2 does almost nothing to help forests regrow.

But again I am glad to see you have switched to type III denial. It's the least dishonest of all the types of climate change denial. (Of course, if you are anything like most deniers, you'll switch back as soon as Breitbart publishes a new "there's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 2015!" type story.)

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>Elevated CO2 levels will help those (and other) forests regrow

They won't regrow without water. And CO2 does almost nothing to help forests regrow.

If being wrong were flying, you would be a jet.

"LONDON – Australian scientists have solved one piece of the climate puzzle. They have confirmed the long-debated fertilization effect.

Plants build their tissues by using photosynthesis to take carbon from the air around them. So more carbon dioxide should mean more vigorous plant growth – though until now this has been very difficult to prove.

Arid areas could be transformed by green plants as carbon dioxide levels rise.
Credit: Samat Jain

Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization in Canberra, Australia, and his colleagues developed a mathematical model to predict the extent of this carbon dioxide fertilization effect.

Between 1982 and 2010, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere increased by 14 percent. So, their model suggested, foliage worldwide should have increased by between 5 and 10 percent.

Measuring uncertainties

It is one thing to predict an effect, quite another to prove it. Satellite observations can and successfully do measure seasonal changes in vegetation, the growth of deserts, the change from open prairie to savannah, the growth of new trees in the tundra and so on, but it’s very difficult to be sure that these changes have anything to do with carbon dioxide fertilization: changes in temperature and rainfall patterns would also have an impact.

Also, some regions – tropical rainforests, for example – are already completely covered by forest canopy: orbiting satellites are unlikely to measure much change there.

Donohue and his team, in a study appearing in Geophysical Research Letters, the journal of the American Geophysical Union, looked at those regions where leaf cover really would stand out, and where carbon dioxide fertilization would be the best explanation for new growth.

These were the warm, dry places: while the researchers focused on changes in arid regions in North America’s south-west, Australia’s Outback, the Middle East and parts of Africa, they also had to find a technique that allowed for natural seasonal and cyclic changes, alterations in land use and so on.

They calculated that in these conditions, plants would make more leaves if they had the water to do so. “A leaf can extract more carbon from the air during photosynthesis, or lose less water to the air during photosynthesis, or both, due to elevated CO2,” says Donohue. That is the CO2 fertilization effect.

More carbon dioxide should mean more vigorous plant growth – though until now this has been very difficult to prove.

Calculating greenness

The team averaged the greenness of each location over three year periods, and then grouped the greenness data from different locations according to known records of rainfall. They also looked at variations in foliage over a 20 year period. In the end, they teased out the carbon dioxide fertilization effect from all other influences and calculated that this could account for an 11 percent increase in global foliage since 1982."

[DanG 1]

From your article:

Quote

They calculated that in these conditions, plants would make more leaves if they had the water to do so.

Which is what Bill said. They need carbon dioxide and water, not just carbon dioxide.

- Dan G

[brenthutch 444]

No, Bill said, "And CO2 does almost NOTHING to help forests regrow."

From the study, "These were warm DRY places"

BTW never been to Breitbart, and I never said that CO2 levels were not rising. I just said the effect would be from benign to beneficial. Looks like I was right.

To be fair Bill DID say there would be winners and losers under increased CO2. Looks like the only winners are plants and anything that depends on them.

[billvon 3,120]

>>They won't regrow without water. And CO2 does almost nothing to help forests regrow.

>If being wrong were flying, you would be a jet.

"They calculated that in these conditions, plants would make more leaves if they had the water to do so."

Which is exactly what I said. Even if rainfall stays exactly the same, higher temps = less water in the soil. And without water, those forests won't regrow.

You don't actually read anything you post, do you? You just google "CO2 is good" and post the first hit you get. (Which explains a lot of your positions, come to think of it.)

[brenthutch 444]

And since global foliage is up by 11%, it is self-evident that there is no shortage of water. Of course if you wish to live in the land of ifs and buts be my guest.

[brenthutch 444]

Crickets??? Where are the "big brains"? I am awaiting a
pithy rejoinder.

[billvon 3,120]

Quote

BTW never been to Breitbart, and I never said that CO2 levels were not rising. I just said the effect would be from benign to beneficial. Looks like I was right.

To be fair Bill DID say there would be winners and losers under increased CO2. Looks like the only winners are plants and anything that depends on them.

I know you'll take the following as an attack, but for anyone else reading, some research:
===============
North American forests unlikely to save us from climate change, study finds
July 20, 2016
Phys.org

Forests take up 25-30 percent of human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide—a strong greenhouse gas—and are therefore considered to play a crucial role in mitigating the speed and magnitude of climate change. However, a new study that combines future climate model projections, historic tree-ring records across the entire continent of North America, and how the growth rates of trees may respond to a higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has shown that the mitigation effect of forests will likely be much smaller in the future than previously suggested.

Published in the journal Ecology Letters, the study is the first to reveal the possible impact of a changing climate on the growth rate of trees across all of North America, in other words, how their growth changes over time and in response to shifting environmental conditions. The result are detailed forecast maps for the entire North American continent that reveal how forest growth will be impacted by climate change.

The research team, led by scientists at the University of Arizona in Tucson, combined climate projections for North America developed by the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) with historic tree-ring records based on samples covering the period 1900 to 1950 at 1,457 sampling sites across the continent.

"We then looked at how the growth of those trees changed historically under various past climates and used that to predict how they will grow in the future across the continent all the way from Mexico to Alaska," said the study's first author, Noah Charney, a postdoctoral research associate in UA's Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

"The research is unprecedented and novel in the use of big biological data," said co-author Brian Enquist, a professor in the UA's Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and a fellow of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies in Aspen, Colorado. "We utilized a network of more than two million tree-ring observations spanning North America. Tree-rings provide a record into how trees that grow in different climates respond to changes in temperature and rainfall."

The study calls into question previous conclusions about how forests will respond to warmer average temperatures, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and shifting rainfall patterns.

The team was startled to find no evidence for a greenhouse-gas absorbing process called the boreal greening effect in their simulations. Boreal greening refers to the assumption that trees in high latitudes, where colder temperatures limit growth, should benefit from warmer temperatures and higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and, as a result, "green" under the effects of climate change. In turn, these thriving boreal forests should be able to scrub more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so goes the idea, dampening climate change.

"Until now, there wasn't a good way to take into account how trees respond to climate change under novel climate conditions," added senior author Margaret Evans, an assistant research professor in the UA's Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research (LTRR) and the UA's Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. "Our study provides that perspective. We see that as trees are pushed under the effect of climate change, their response changes."

"Many previous climate modeling studies counted on the boreal forests to save us from the climatic disaster by offsetting our emissions, but we don't' see any greening in our results," said Valerie Trouet, an associate professor in the LTRR. "Instead, we see browning. The positive influence warmer temperatures are believed to have on boreal forests—we don't see that at all."

The most dramatic changes in projected forest growth rates were found in the interior West of the North American continent, with up to 75 percent slower growth projected for trees in the southwestern U.S., along the Rockies, through interior Canada and Alaska. Increases in growth were seen only along certain coastal areas, mostly in the Pacific Northwest, Northeastern Quebec and the Maritime Provinces and the Florida panhandle.

Some of the predictions arising from the simulations are already happening, the team found.

"In Alaska, for example, where trees have been projected to respond positively to warming temperatures under the boreal greening effect, we see that trees are now responding negatively instead," Evans said. . . .

The research indicates that the warming climate already is rapidly pushing many forests towards that tipping point, which may be reached as early as 2050. In addition to being rapidly exposed to temperatures they have not experienced in their lifetimes and are not evolutionarily prepared for, being hampered in their growth makes trees even more vulnerable to added stresses.

"There is a critical and potentially detrimental feedback loop going on here," Charney said. "When the growth rate of trees slows down in response to environmental stressors such as cold or drought, they can get by for a few years, but over time, they deplete their resources and are much more susceptible to additional stressors, such as damage by fire or a big drought or insect outbreaks. Year after year of slow growth therefore means forests become less and less resilient."

As a result, a forest can go from being a climate asset to a carbon producer very quickly.

"It's like a thermostat gone bad," Evans said. "Forests act as a carbon sink by taking carbon dioxide out of atmosphere, but the more the climate is warming, the slower the trees are growing, the less carbon they suck up, the faster the climate is changing."

"The results also highlight the potential importance of locally adapted forest management strategies to help mitigate the decreases in forest growth predicted by our analyses," Charney said.

The implications could potentially apply worldwide. While their models did not include data from outside the North American continent, it "seems very likely that the conclusions drawn in this study apply in the Eurasian forest as well," Evans said. "The boreal forests in Eurasia are more extensive and even more important than the ones in continental North America."

http://phys.org/news/2016-07-north-american-forests-climate.html

===================================
Climate change is killing our trees
November 30, 2015

Climate change and extreme climatic events appear to be killing trees around the world.

In a report released by the Ecological Society of Australia, Dr Niels Brouwers from Murdoch University's Centre of Excellence for Climate Change, Woodland and Forest Health (CECCWFH), and colleagues, suggest these changes in climate are also reducing tree growth and health.

"In Western Australia we found that more than 25% of mature trees across 7000 hectares of forest died in response to extreme drought and multiple heatwaves in 2010-11," said Dr Brouwers.

"We saw similar numbers of trees dying in arid areas of Queensland in response to the 2003-07 drought, and there are similar reports from around the world."

"It is of enormous concern that more frequent extreme climate events such as droughts and heatwaves are projected for Australia and other parts of the world in the near future. We can expect to see further deterioration of our woodlands and forests."

"Tree declines also affect the animals dependent upon them," added Dr Brouwers. "For instance, already vulnerable Australian Glossy Black-cockatoos have fewer offspring during droughts because food, such as she-oak cones, are harder to find."

Climate change may also reduce the ability of trees to sequester carbon. "The role of forests in sucking carbon out of the atmosphere is well known. But if trees die more rapidly and are not replaced due to climate change, this critical ecosystem service is threatened."

"There is an urgent need for more monitoring of climate change impacts on the world's forests," added Dr Brouwers.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-11-climate-trees.html#jCp

[brenthutch 444]

"While their models did not include data from outside the North American continent"

Vs

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide,
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer..."

Speculation vs reality
Projections vs observation

[turtlespeed 226]

brenthutch

"While their models did not include data from outside the North American continent"

Vs

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide,
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer..."

Speculation vs reality
Projections vs observation

uh oh - watch as the science is now worthless.
Either they will completely ignore what you post - or they will attack it's source, or go off on some other discrediting direction.

You won't change the fanatical mind.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,120]

Quote

"While their models did not include data from outside the North American continent"

Vs

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide"

So your study ignored 75% of the land on the planet and is therefore relevant. The study I quoted ignored boreal forests outside North America and is therefore worthless.

Par for your course.

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

Quote

"While their models did not include data from outside the North American continent"

Vs

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide"

So your study ignored 75% of the land on the planet and is therefore relevant. The study I quoted ignored boreal forests outside North America and is therefore worthless.

Par for your course.

See.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

Quote

"While their models did not include data from outside the North American continent"

Vs

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide"

So your study ignored 75% of the land on the planet and is therefore relevant. The study I quoted ignored boreal forests outside North America and is therefore worthless.

Par for your course.

Where did you get 75%? Anyway,

My study was based on observation, your study is based on speculation (go back and count the "ifs" and "mays"), so yes, your study is worthless.

[billvon 3,120]

>so yes, your study is worthless.

Thank you for once again proving my point.

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>so yes, your study is worthless.

Thank you for once again proving my point.

SEE.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,151]

Sums up this thread.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

kallend

Sums up this thread.

Damn you Professor!!

I've been wanting to post that scene on here for a long time. I've never been able to find it.

I do have to admit that the "Upper Class Twit Competition" sketch would be appropriate for some of these discussions too.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo