• In total there are 5 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 5 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Global Greening verses Global Warming

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Global Greening verses Global Warming

Unread post

I've been going through this topic recently with a sense of cautious optimism. There's a video lecture linked below with a transcription and illustration of the entire lecture:

http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-glob ... -greening/

Image
In this lecture Myneni presented ingenious analysis of data from satellites proving that much of the vegetated area of the planet was getting greener, only a little bit was getting browner, and that overall in 30 years there had been a roughly 14% increase in green vegetation on planet Earth.

In this slide he argued that this was occurring in all vegetation types – tropical rain forests, subarctic taiga, grasslands, semi-deserts, farmland, everywhere.

What is more, Myneni argued that by various means he could calculate that about half of this greening was a direct result of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, rather than the application of agricultural fertiliser, irrigation, warmer temperatures or increased rainfall.

Carbon dioxide, along with water, is the raw material that plants use to make carbohydrates, with the help of sunlight, so it stands to reason that raising its concentration should help plants grow.

I was startled by Myneni’s data. I knew that there had been thousands of so-called free-air concentration (FACE) experiments, in which levels of CO2 had been increased over crops or wild ecosystems to find out if it boosted their growth (it did), and that commercial greenhouse owners now routinely maintain CO2 levels in their greenhouses at more than double ambient levels – because it makes their tomatoes grow faster.

But the global effect of CO2 levels on the quantity of vegetation had not, as far as I could tell, been measured till now.

Other lines of evidence also pointed to this global greening:

the increased rate of growth of forest trees,
the increased amplitude of seasonal carbon dioxide variation measured in Hawaii and elsewhere,
photographic surveys of vegetation,
the increased growth rate of phytoplankton, marine plants and some corals, and so on.
I published an article in the Wall Street Journal in January 2013 on these various lines of evidence, including Myneni’s satellite analysis, pointing to the increase in green vegetation.
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Global Greening verses Global Warming

Unread post

User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Global Greening verses Global Warming

Unread post

Hi Tat
Ridley massively understates the risks of global warming. Even if higher CO2 has some benefits, these are swamped by the speed of warming, which is the biggest disruption to ecosystems and biodiversity since the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Global Greening verses Global Warming

Unread post

The models
The climate models have failed to get global warming right. As the IPCC has confirmed, for the period since 1998,

“111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations”. [IPCC Synthesis report 2014, p 43]

Image

That is to say there is a consensus that the models are exaggerating the rate of global warming.

The warming has so far resulted in no significant or consistent change in the frequency or intensity of storms, tornadoes, floods, droughts or winter snow cover.

As two climate scientists, Richard McNider and John Christy, have put it,

“We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate.”

In 1990, the first IPCC assessment included this statement, forecasting a temperature increase of 0.3 Cº per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 Cº to 0.5 Cº).

In fact in the two and half decades since, even though emissions have risen faster than in the business-as-usual scenario, the temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.15 C per decade based on surface measurements, or 0.12C per decade based on satellite data; that is, less than half as fast as expected and below the bottom of the uncertainty range!

What about 2015 and 2016 both being record hot years? Well, because of the massive El Nino, the HADCRUT4 surface temperature line just about inched up briefly in early 2016 into respectable territory in among the lower half of the model runs for a few months before dropping back out again [Clive Best chart]. That’s all.
I'm very interested in Ridley showing this tendency to exaggerate warming. Further down the article:
So, if it’s consensus that floats your boat, there is an emerging consensus from observational estimates that climate sensitivity is low.

The models are assuming too rich a feedback.

Image

What’s more, all the high estimates of warming are based on an economic and demographic scenario called RCP 8.5, which is a very, very unrealistic one.

It assumes that population growth stops decelerating and speeds up again.

It assumes that trade and innovation largely cease.

It assumes that the ability of the oceans to absorb CO2 fails.

It assumes that despite all this the income of the average person trebles.

And most absurd of all, it assumes that we go back to using coal for almost everything, including to make motor fuel, so that by 2100 we are using ten times as much coal as we are today.

In short, it is a barking mad scenario, yet whenever you hear a scientist or a politician say something like we are committed to warming of “up to” four degrees, that – and implausibly high sensitivity – is what they are assuming, often without knowing it.
The models being stacked towards the interests of alarm are very concerning to me. The more I understand about this problem the more concerned I become about political interests tainting science.
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
14
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: Global Greening verses Global Warming

Unread post

Perhaps too much focus is being put on the fact of the climate's change.

It isn't so much will the planet be inhabitable. Because the answer is probably yes. At least in the timeframe of your great grand kids. The problem is if the climate changes then that means change everywhere, and change is bad.

because the bread belt will move. Because rivers will dry up and start someplace else. Because coastal cities will flood. Because lakes will go away and appear elsewhere. access to fresh water will go away in one place and become available in a new place. Rain forest ecology will be disrupted. oceanic ecology will be disrupted. fishing will change, or be reduced.

All these shifting and reduced resources means widespread disruption in our cultures. Starvation for sure, and huge amounts of conflict. Destabilization will kill millions.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Global Greening verses Global Warming

Unread post

The massive impact of climate change on coral reefs is sufficient to show that Ridley's optimism is irrational, because he ignores science. My view, which is entirely scientific, is that reducing emissions will do absolutely nothing to save coral reefs, because emission reduction is too slow and indirect, rather like pushing on a string. Major rapid direct technological intervention is needed, through large scale ocean based algae systems deployed around coral reefs to reduce the heat, acidity and nutrient levels in the water to protect the biodiversity from extinction. The climate movement has not bitten this bullet and instead imagines that if only we made everyone poorer by making energy more expensive we could save the world. Imagining that emission reduction could save coral reefs is like suggesting the Poles could have stopped the Nazi invasion by revising their tax code. See this article from the New Scientist on coral extinction https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... urth-year/
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Global Greening verses Global Warming

Unread post

Will the algae spread to the reef and grow on the coral?
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Global Greening verses Global Warming

Unread post

johnson1010 wrote:Perhaps too much focus is being put on the fact of the climate's change.

It isn't so much will the planet be inhabitable. Because the answer is probably yes. At least in the timeframe of your great grand kids. The problem is if the climate changes then that means change everywhere, and change is bad.

because the bread belt will move. Because rivers will dry up and start someplace else. Because coastal cities will flood. Because lakes will go away and appear elsewhere. access to fresh water will go away in one place and become available in a new place. Rain forest ecology will be disrupted. oceanic ecology will be disrupted. fishing will change, or be reduced.

All these shifting and reduced resources means widespread disruption in our cultures. Starvation for sure, and huge amounts of conflict. Destabilization will kill millions.
That makes me think of the Nile once running right along the Pyramids and main sites in Egypt. I was watching an aerial view on the series The Pyramid Code showing the Nile having migrated far to the east of where it once was. Now there's cities built up around the Nile and if it's moved in the past chances are it will continue move. I think people expect that things will always stay the same. Coastal building is the same situation. Change is natural and certain, our civilizing needs to take that into account. When I see news reports of houses flooded because a river spilled it's banks I ask myself, "Why is there no regulation on construction in that region?" In the Florida Keys and in many of the gulf coastal cities there's regulation on building. We live in stilt houses that have to be at least 10' off the ground. In Pine Island up in the Big Bite there's homes 15' or more high. Storm surge will literally over take the entire Island. Homes any where near the flood range of a river have no business being built any way aside from up.

I think we ought to be much more fluid about how we approach inhabiting the planet in general. We need to expect change and do our best to prepare for life on those terms. Buddhist's are probably laughing at all of this. Nothing is permanent.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Global Greening verses Global Warming

Unread post

tat tvam asi wrote:Will the algae spread to the reef and grow on the coral?
My suggestion, building on NASA's Offshore Membrane Enclosures for Growing Algae (OMEGA) research, is intensive controlled industrial algae production, gradually expanding with safety the primary concern.

If there are breakages in the membrane due to lightning etc that is no problem as all the algae will be eaten by fish.

Algae production is the best way to prevent the main threats to coral reefs, which are hot water, acidity and excessive nutrient. This system is a way to stop coral being infested by bad algae, which is caused by excess nutrient runoff from fertilizer and waste water.

Without responses like this proposal, coral reefs will continue to have massive die offs. Unfortunately, many in the climate lobby think it is more important to reduce carbon emissions than to fix the climate, so we can expect ongoing loss of biodiversity.
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Global Greening verses Global Warming

Unread post

This is what's going on here in Florida: https://mote.org/research/program/coral ... estoration



And he's conditioning these corals for adaptability to projected future conditions for a higher survival rates. It's really interesting. So reef restoration is probably something that will work in unison with the idea of carbon mining. Maybe you should try reaching out to Dr. Vaughan because there's a possibility that he might implement these carbon mining ideas and get the ball rolling, at least here in Florida. And from there it could potentially ride the coat tails of the coral reef restoration movement that's already in motion.
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”