Therefore your post is of no consequence.
Therefore your post is of no consequence.
Last edited by owedtojoy; 25th February 2012 at 05:47 PM.
If you are not aware of the crazy beliefs of most climate science deniers on the thread, then you have been extraordinarily blinkered. Certainly, too quick to point out the dust speck in other eyes.
There are Holocaust deniers, nicotine deniers, unabashed fascists, believers that the President of the United States is a Muslim communist from Kenya, greenhouse effect deniers, creationists, ... you name it.
You should take a serious look at the company you keep.
Whaddya know! There's hope for the US yet. Not all their young are brainwashed science deniers.
Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Well. 500 billion tons are equivalent to 500 cubic kilometres. That would cover Ireland with more than 20 feet of ice.
Last edited by SirCharles; 25th February 2012 at 09:59 PM.
Barry Bickmore tears to shreds the amateurish graph published by the Wall Street Journal 16.
Because the error bars would look something like this:So before I go on, let me be blunt about these guys. They know about error bars. They know that it’s meaningless, in a “noisy” system like global climate, to compare projected long-term trends to just a few years of data. And yet, they did. Why? I’ll let you decide.
RealClimate: Bickmore on the WSJ response
If we take a look at the Global Ocean Heat Content the picture is even clearer.
What happens if you heat a glass with water and ice cubes, say with a hair dryer? Well. First the ice melts. Then the water heats up. So what can we expect when summer ice will be gone in the Arctic, possibly by 2030?
current sea level rise (currently 3.3 mm per year).
John Nielsen-Gammon (Texas State climatologist) has a great post on his site tacking the old "CO2 is plant food" meme. The expectation here is that as CO2 in the atmosphere increases, plants will flourish and become more abundant. Forget for the moment, as climate science deniers hope you do, that most plants are considered weeds when it comes to growing foodstuffs.
Downer for climate science deniers. Carbon dioxide assimilation is non linear so that at about 450ppm (which the atmosphere will reach quite soon), carbon assimilation starts to saturate and level out. In other words, the biosphere as a "sink" for carbon becomes nullified.
Worse:Notice how the net assimilation vs. ambient CO2 concentration curve trails off towards a flat response above about 500 ppm. The shape of the curve is very similar between the leaves, while one assimilates more efficiently than the other. I included two lines to represent the approximate slope of the curve in the region 300-600 ppm ambient CO2. Both lines show a much lower than double increase of assimilation for the prescribed doubling of CO2 (note that current CO2 levels are nearing 400 ppm, while preindustrial levels were just below 300 ppm), and the higher CO2 becomes, the lower that slope.
This means that even if all plants on earth showed this particular response, it is not efficient in removing the extra atmospheric CO2 provided, and becoming less and less efficient the more CO2 is offered, facts conveniently omitted by people who want to mislead.
Guest Post: Carbon Dioxide and Plants | Climate Abyss | a Chron.com blogSo [limitations on soil on water] further reduces the biosphere’s ability to uptake CO2-carbon in response to increasing ambient CO2 concentrations. Only in situations, where there are little to no other limitations on growth, such as in modern industrial agriculture providing irrigation and fertilization, does increased ambient CO2 unfold its full potential to spurt plant growth.
Roughly as a result of the above, the IPCC concluded, cited by John, that plant yields will increase somewhere between 0-25% (10-25% for C3 plants) when doubling CO2. There will be large geographical and species-related differences, with well-nurtured woody plants representing the high end number.
And, finally and ominously,
At some point in the future, depending on factors including the absolute amount and rate of warming, as well as the plant growth response itself (aka how much extra carbon has come in), the terrestrial biosphere as a whole will become a net source to the atmosphere again.
The scientific debate is about when that will be (mid century? end century? next century?), not if. So while the IPCC (and John) is right, in the long term the message is more of a mixed bag, and this is likely going to be reflected better in the next IPCC report.