Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by alexa, Jul 11, 2019.
Yeah I love when leftists claim that increasing CO2 and heat will 'KEEL ALL TEH PLANTZ".
Trees and other plants help keep the planet cool, but rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are turning down this global air conditioner. According to a new study by researchers at the Carnegie Institution for Science, in some regions more than a quarter of the warming from increased carbon dioxide is due to its direct impact on vegetation.
This warming is in addition to carbon dioxide's better-known effect as a heat-trapping greenhouse gas. For scientists trying to predict global climate change in the coming century, the study underscores the importance of including plants in their climate models.
"Plants have a very complex and diverse influence on the climate system," says study co-author Ken Caldeira of Carnegie's Department of Global Ecology. "Plants take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, but they also have other effects, such as changing the amount of evaporation from the land surface. It's impossible to make good climate predictions without taking all of these factors into account."
Plants give off water through tiny pores in their leaves, a process called evapotranspiration that cools the plant, just as perspiration cools our bodies. On a hot day, a tree can release tens of gallons of water into the air, acting as a natural air conditioner for its surroundings. The plants absorb carbon dioxide for photosynthesis through the same pores (called stomata). But when carbon dioxide levels are high, the leaf pores shrink. This causes less water to be released, diminishing the tree's cooling power.
The warming effects of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas have been known for a long time, says Caldeira. But he and fellow Carnegie scientist Long Cao were concerned that it is not as widely recognized that carbon dioxide also warms our planet by its direct effects on plants. Previous work by Carnegie's Chris Field and Joe Berry had indicated that the effects were important. "There is no longer any doubt that carbon dioxide decreases evaporative cooling by plants and that this decreased cooling adds to global warming," says Cao. "This effect would cause significant warming even if carbon dioxide were not a greenhouse gas."
In their model, the researchers doubled the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide and recorded the magnitude and geographic pattern of warming from different factors. They found that, averaged over the entire globe, the evapotranspiration effects of plants account for 16% of warming of the land surface, with greenhouse effects accounting for the rest. But in some regions, such as parts of North America and eastern Asia, it can be more than 25% of the total warming. "If we think of a doubling of carbon dioxide as causing about four degrees of warming, in many places three of those degrees are coming from the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and one is coming from the direct effect of carbon dioxide on plants."
The researchers also found that their model predicted that high carbon dioxide will increase the runoff from the land surface in most areas, because more water from precipitation bypasses the plant cooling system and flows directly to rivers and streams. Earlier models based on greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide had also predicted higher runoff, but the new research predicts that changes in evapotranspiration due to high carbon dioxide could have an even stronger impact on water resources than those models predict.
"These results really show that how plants respond to carbon dioxide is very important for making good climate predictions," says Caldeira. "So if we want to improve climate predictions, we need to improve the representation of land plants in the climate models. More broadly, it shows that the kind of vegetation that's on the surface of our planet and what that vegetation is doing is very important in determining our climate. We need to take great care in considering what kind of changes we make to forests and other ecosystems, because they are likely to have important climate consequences."
The study is published in the May 3-7 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Time is running out. This comment on that video says what is being said again and again
under vid at Youtube.
Note how the powers that be are far more scared of a Social Democrat/Democratic Socialist Government that they are of fascism. They would support fascism rather than allow a Government that even hints at this such as Corbyn's....all because they serve the most wealthy Capitalists. Our planets future needs a different mindset. Interestingly Mark Blyth, Prof of economics at Brown University believes that Climate necessity is the one thing which will save us from fascism. He believes that eventually the fossil fuel industry will have to admit it lied about this and be forced to provide the needed money to sort things out. I would argue that even if this happens it may be too late.
Wildfires are something we are seeing a big increase in and will continue to do so more as climate disaster continues and for some time after if we do get our act together and stabilise things.
We have seen them in the States and even in England last year.
This time it is the Canaries.
It really is essential to get rid of the unnecessary destruction of the planet and the Number one thing we should be looking at is the effect of war and in particular the adventurism of the country whose military are the No 1 consumer of hydrocarbons in the world.
People are beginning to talk about the idea of massive fines to those further damaging our world. Clearly here we could kill two birds with one stone, stop US wars and reduce the damage to the planet....but I suspect too many would rather be in the kill industry than saving the planet.
It all still comes down to money and our 'way of life'. Hopefully before it is too late people will understand climate catastrophe is fundamental to neo liberal type capitalism with its lack of regulations and a change in how we live our lives is one hell of a lot better than no future for the world and could instead be a very creative thing.
Ahem... you see, in the US, we understand that periodically rivers flood. It happens, we have insurance, and we get over it. Weather happens. We have insurance, we rebuild, and we get past it. I'm terribly sorry for the loss of the campers in Greece from this storm. That doesn't make it a climate emergency though. That's just ridiculous. To suggest that this topic is laughable, well, ok, it is.
I'd just point out that sheet ice is actually artificially rising the sea level, so once it melted, the sea state would lower. I know, science just isn't your thing... right? And they your super funny joke about michael mann and to "believing in making exaggerated claims"... I was really glad I wasn't drinking something, lest I snorted it out my nose laughing uncontrollably.
Except for the fact that the most destructive fires were in the late 1800's early 1900's, and the reason we have more fires now is because there are more people.
Most fires now are set by people. In the past, it was mostly lightning.
But sure, global warming and stuff.
Sad. what you say suggests no understanding.
Crop failure and the resulting starvation and wars for food are expected as one of the consequences of climate disaster. I believe that there was a very poor harvest in both the US and Europe for the last two years. There has been a prediction that three consecutive years of crop failure would lead to mass starvation.
I noticed in something I was reading yesterday that the US is not including in its reports on harvest success this year the many farmers who were not able to sow seed due to your unusual March floods.
There is so much information available about how the US is already suffering considerably from climate destruction that there really is no excuse for not knowing.
Possibly it is because of the massive contribution to climate catastrophe made by the US military that the American right denies reality.
Isn't this also more to do with over population and people straying into areas that are not suitable for sustainable crop growth? It reminds me of people in the UK that buy houses that are built in known flood plains and complain when there is flooding and blame it on climate change....?
Again are these people confusing farming methods with climate? I seem to recall reading that in the US farms moved onto marginal areas and used artesian water to irrigate crops and when the water tables ceased to provide sufficient water; loss of the artesian water and the subsequent build up of salts caused these areas to became unsustainable again and the resulting desertification was blamed on the climate?
you begin your sentence with possibly...why? One could say that possibly climate change is due to the unusual number of UFO's flying through the atmosphere and their warp drives interfering with natural planet dynamics! I notice that a lot of articles regarding climate change doom and gloom start with "may be"...or "could be"...or other nebulous phrases which basically translates to "there is nothing verifiable or proven in anything we are about to say...." .....anyway de omnibus dubitandum!
It is a good beginning but
will still have to happen sooner.
There are two areas where things are different from in the past with agriculture particularly grains. One is that whereas they used to be grown locally, it is now a global business so harvest failure can affect everyone. The other is to do with climate changes bringing ever more extreme weather. For instance in the US I think they had some problems due to the weather in autumn of last year but they most certainly did in Spring of this year which resulted in massive floods. This affected both the seeds they had kept - either for seeding or some emergency - they were wiped out and they also were unable to plant as their ground was still flooded. These are the sort of things which previously would have happened once in a hundred years or so and are becoming ever more 'normal . I read somewhere that the US harvests which did not come into being are not included in the lists on the success of harvests, no doubt a US tactic to keep people in the dark. Similarly I noticed today that Scotland was having problems with its wheat harvest due to the August rains. These unusual weather activities are caused by the changes in the climate. It will also likely mean that we will find our most usual veg stop working and there are other problems to do with the soil but no, starvation and wars because of that is one of the most expected things, if we do not get our act together while we still have time.
because there could be other reasons why climate denial seems to be restricted in the main to right wingers or possibly extreme right wingers.
well I have told you now my possibility had nothing to do with climate disaster and near extinction.
I think now there is a massive amount which is known. For example the arctic will melt and that will cause a massive sea rise and global warming. People cannot be definite though when and how this will happen. The other thing is that far from most climate scientists trying to scare they are doing the exact opposite. They are afraid that to tell people the truth would get them to give up hope which they say will not be helpful. Others accept that it is indeed a very depressing situation particularly when you first face it and that the first reaction can be one of thinking there is no hope. However they believe that after that people are much more likely to respond with, right what can we do right now to prevent this...and there still is stuff but not for long.
Due the the fact that the ice at the Arctic has been lost far faster than we expected one very astute climate scientist gave an estimate a few years ago that the Arctic would be ice free in 2016, give or take 3 years either side. Who knows we will need to wait till September to see and it certainly has been having a heatwave and wildfires this year but it looks like he is wrong. Another is giving the prognosis that this will happen by 2022. Then when it does happen what will happen. This again changes depending on whether the people believe in putting the best possible or just the possible. I was listening to someone speaking of flooding and I think talking about the Arctic. The amount of ice lost is 66% -75% depending on who you are talking to. This man was trying to get countries to start planning for moving people who live in areas which will be wiped out when the seas rise for this - London being one. So when he spoke of the likelihood of the Arctic being ice free, the person interviewing him said 'so that will mean these areas will be flooded very quickly. The scientist then did the most strange change of stance 'oh no, that will take hundreds and hundreds of years to happen'. he said. He sounded like he was just saying that what he had said before was not true. It was shortly after that that I started reading that the scientific world itself believes that you have to try not to frighten people too much.
If the Arctic becomes ice free we could have a massive rise in sea level and temperature within a matter of months. It could also take years. Some people seem to believe it could take a century or more but I think that is unlikely but they cannot be sure of it.
We know that catastrophic things are coming. We know we did not pay attention and rather than sorting it out when we had a chance to do so without creating permanent damage - or damage which will take hundreds or thousands of years to repair, we are now at a point where if we do not start working at break neck speed we will have a situation which could lead to extinction on the planet. We do have time. We are unsure how much but it could be as little as 2030 or 2035. To know it could be as little as that and not to work so that we are prepared to deal with things if it is, is suicidal. (We do not know the full extent of the damage we have already done as it takes 20-30 years for it to make it's mark on earth. Even if we went full out now to change things, things would still be getting worse for some time until we stabilised it. Thank you for the manner in which you replied.
You seem not to understand the difference between what is, and what might be. If you ignore that the world is producing more food today than it ever has, you're simply refusing reality. To not understand that worst case scenarios are just meant to scare you, well, it's difficult to understand then why anyone should ever take you seriously. Talk to the Soviets though. They were super good at not understanding markets or productivity an consequently starved their nation. Why would anyone want to revisit the same mismanaged greed that led to that? The US isn't suffering. The world isn't suffering. Most, if not all, of the BS worst case scenarios not only have not happened, but are simply unlikely ever to happen. So, saying that suffering happens might make you feel better about yourself, but it isn't the reality. It also isn't helpful. But if it makes you happy, well, who are we to stop you?
Would it not be more productive to call for the investment to be channeled into researching VIABLE alternative energy sources such as those being researched by one of the world's leading scientific research establishments and a highly successful UK company to boot - Tokomak Energy. But then I guess the money would not go to the charities or "scientists" as they intend....ah but there's the rub I guess....the industrialisation of the psuedo-AGW hyperbole allows snake-oil purveyors access to the government tax trough.
Can you imagine what Tokomak Energy could do with this kind of investment and the amount of jobs and revenue this would create for the UK!
If we just deal with what they said. Changing the country to electric cars as near to immediately as possible, is one thing that would greatly reduce our carbon emissions. The other things they suggest are also needed but involve more than just sustainable energy. If you have an interest in providing work for Tokomak Energy there would be nothing stopping you putting in your application to the appropriate places when the time is right.
According to all the hype and doom merchants the time is right, surely the application and implementation of sustainable and commercially viable fusion reactors is a game changer!!
Electric cars need electricity...the industrial processes required to produce electric cars requires electricity...aluminium smelters and lithium mines require viable and sustainable sources of electricity!! Giving money to Oxfam or Christian aid is not going to achieve diddly-squat other than make them very happy people since they have a nice sustainable tax revenue source.
Frankly I think the Government should be giving enormous grants out to people to change to electric now and making diesel illegal in say 3 years. They could possibly offer one free car per household. Busses could change to electric with a greatly increased timetable and free fares. We now have the ability for people to have decent electric cars. As soon as we have that ability we ought to be making it obligatory, if necessary with financial aid.
I am not sure that they were saying the money should be given to them. They said it was needed. These organisations have recently come under massive criticism from organisations like Extinction Rebellion and others for not making it clear how near the point of no return we are. If they are now making their voice heard then that is good. I really cannot see them providing electric cars of building houses. These seem to have been their suggestions of things which need attention to. The point is we are going far too slow if we want to be able to have sustainable living under the kind of set up we have now for much longer.
...the set up we have now is a dynamic system of lobbyists, governments and shrills all vying for a slice of the taxation pie. They have no common understanding of what they want to achieve or viable alternative strategy of how they want to proceed other than they don't like what they see now and tell government to change it!!?? Its the classic case of passing the buck that allows the likes of Extinction Rebellion etal to strut pompously around feeling they are on top of the mandate when in fact they have little to say.
People are afraid and resist what they don't understand and unfortunately the complexities of modern life lead people down the path of least resistance. Ergo they want change but don't know what or how to achieve it or what is required; especially so that it doesn't interupt their lives too much - electric cars are not going to change the situation other than make the shrill middle to upper class holier-than-thou women in the school run smug that they have an electric car and others don't.
I am going out so will need to be quick here.
Ok I don't know about fusion power but I see
I have no idea of the arguments around this but at first glance there is deep concern among many scientists about using nuclear due to the expected increase in monster storms. Electric cars are far more clean than diesel and we have the ability to implement them now.
No I do not believe this. We live in a Plutocracy. Our Parliamentarians answer to those who fund them and that is more often than not fossil fuel merchants.
Extinction Rebelion does not expect our Government to have things sorted out in time due to their relying on those providing the worst problems. Their suggestion is citizen assemblies where a group of citizens with nothing to gain decide on various issues which is the best way to go forward.
I think that is against research. Clearly a lot more is needed than that but that is one thing we could implement very quickly.
It is to be expected people are scared. When they get a bit more informed they will likely become more scared - once that is integrated they will be motivated to do what is necessary.
Now I must get out!
The Scotsman, speaking of Tokamak you may have something if what the OP says here is true
1973 was around the time I first became aware of what we now call Climate Change. This video from 1973 is about an Australian computer's predictions and to date is roughly correct. It predicted what would happen if we did not make the necessary changes. The computer was correct. Where the video is not correct was in its assumption that we would make the necessary changes before we caused irreparable damage. The clock is still ticking on how bad we will get before we halt the damage or whether we will indeed as the computer predicted sleepwalk into human extinction. They question whether we ought to be taking the responsibility for this away from Private enterprise and giving it to Government in order to make sure the planet is protected but argue in favour of Capitalism though very definitely not the sort of capitalism we used to have, prior to WW2 which was the very same Capitalism which Thatcher and Regan reintroduced in the 80's called neo liberalism which has continued to take us to the abyss.
Separate names with a comma.