Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Trees growing faster due to global warming, could fight global warming. Suck it, global warming zealots   (telegraph.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

2017 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Apr 2009 at 11:09 AM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



138 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-04-05 08:32:53 AM  
I, for one, welcome our leaf-bearing overlords.
 
2009-04-05 08:59:16 AM  
This should be good news for a friend of mine- he's a tree farmer.
 
2009-04-05 09:10:07 AM  
I would expect most people who believe in global warming to be happy to hear this. Of course, we would need some warming in order for this to occur, but it might at least slow things down.
 
2009-04-05 09:15:20 AM  

OregonVet: This should be good news for a friend of mine- he's a tree farmer.


I've gotten fantastic crops on my pear and apple trees the past two years. HOORAY GLOBAL WARMING!
 
2009-04-05 09:18:46 AM  

From TFA:

"Professor Martin Parry, head of plant science at Rothamsted Research, Britain's leading crop institute, said: "There is no doubt that the enrichment of the air with CO2 is increasing plant growth rates in many areas.

"The problem is that humans are releasing so much that plants can remove only a fraction of it," he said."

See, the thing is that plants didn't arrive on the planet last year. They've been seeing increased carbon dioxide for as long as we've been supplying it. And what are they doing to that carbon dioxide level?

www.esrl.noaa.gov

Put in another light, this article shows that carbon dioxide levels have been steadily increasing despite the expected increase in plant uptake.
 
2009-04-05 09:22:50 AM  

i125.photobucket.com

Does NOT agree...

 
2009-04-05 11:07:08 AM  

Scrophulous Barking Duck: I would expect most people who believe in global warming to be happy to hear this.


No, they would probably be extremely pissed. This self correcting solution doesn't require that the watermelons be given control of the economy. If it turns our rising Co2 is a self correcting problem, imagine how many people are out of work.
 
2009-04-05 11:12:36 AM  

Scrophulous Barking Duck: I would expect most people who believe in global warming to be happy to hear this. Of course, we would need some warming in order for this to occur, but it might at least slow things down.


Most people who believe in global warming will not be happy about this. Those idiots want to dismantle the industrial world so we can all live in tents.
 
2009-04-05 11:12:41 AM  
Ah, a 'suck it' and 'zealots' insult. This should help ensure this doesn't end up like every other flamewar global warming thread. Well done
 
2009-04-05 11:13:49 AM  
so, over the course of 100 plus years, the average temperature has risen less than one degree C. I doubt if the trees noticed the difference.
 
2009-04-05 11:19:36 AM  
I'm sick of hearing this crap. And to you Obamatards, the mere fact that he will let Yellowstone and the rest of Niagra falls continue to turn a good portion of our energy needs into pretty little splashes proves 100% that he doesn't give a shait either.

It's that or it proves the whole thing is fake or that the environment is less important than splashes.
 
2009-04-05 11:20:00 AM  

chimp_ninja: From TFA:
"Professor Martin Parry, head of plant science at Rothamsted Research, Britain's leading crop institute, said: "There is no doubt that the enrichment of the air with CO2 is increasing plant growth rates in many areas.

"The problem is that humans are releasing so much that plants can remove only a fraction of it," he said."
See, the thing is that plants didn't arrive on the planet last year. They've been seeing increased carbon dioxide for as long as we've been supplying it. And what are they doing to that carbon dioxide level?

Put in another light, this article shows that carbon dioxide levels have been steadily increasing despite the expected increase in plant uptake.


I'm going to repeat this for the posters who came after you who seemed to completely ignore it and even claim that global warming was a self-correcting process.
 
2009-04-05 11:24:14 AM  
Carlin smirks in his grave.
 
2009-04-05 11:25:48 AM  
So global warming can fix global warming?
 
2009-04-05 11:26:25 AM  

nicksteel: so, over the course of 100 plus years, the average temperature has risen less than one degree C. I doubt if the trees noticed the difference.


The treeline in Finland was considerably further north 8000 years ago than it is today. (Also higher in altitude in some cases) Most likely from temperature. It certainly wasn't from higher carbon dioxide levels.
 
2009-04-05 11:29:40 AM  

nicksteel: so, over the course of 100 plus years, the average temperature has risen less than one degree C. I doubt if the trees noticed the difference.


whenever someone brings this up I remind them that 100 years ago we were still pooping outside, and you expect me to believe they took temps accurate to .1 degree consistently?
 
2009-04-05 11:33:32 AM  

Chearl: So global warming can fix global warming?


It's called negative feedback. Pretty much all electrical systems use it for stability. The global warming scare stories ALL involve positive feedback which is like a putting a cheap microphone up to a speaker(it gets louder and louder until it is out of control).

The problem here is that positive feedback systems do not show cycles and they most certainly don't stay stable for billions of years.

So yes, in order for Earth to stay even remotely stable for as long as it has, there must be many negative feedbacks into the warming cycle. Trees very well be one, I have no idea.
 
2009-04-05 11:36:33 AM  

NYRBill: nicksteel: so, over the course of 100 plus years, the average temperature has risen less than one degree C. I doubt if the trees noticed the difference.

whenever someone brings this up I remind them that 100 years ago we were still pooping outside, and you expect me to believe they took temps accurate to .1 degree consistently?


100 years ago the self-cleaning vortex effect was patented into the WC... We sure as hell weren't pooping outside 100 years ago....

You're a creationist aren't you? That'd explain alot of things.
 
2009-04-05 11:39:29 AM  
chimp_ninja

Honestly, if people were truly "worried" about Carbon Dioxide being released into the air they would start with Liquor distilleries.
Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of fermentation and one distillery will syphon off, on average, 80 tons of CO2 daily.
 
2009-04-05 11:40:16 AM  

Mighty Tighty Whitey: NYRBill: nicksteel: so, over the course of 100 plus years, the average temperature has risen less than one degree C. I doubt if the trees noticed the difference.

whenever someone brings this up I remind them that 100 years ago we were still pooping outside, and you expect me to believe they took temps accurate to .1 degree consistently?

100 years ago the self-cleaning vortex effect was patented into the WC... We sure as hell weren't pooping outside 100 years ago....

You're a creationist aren't you? That'd explain alot of things.


I pooped outside five minutes ago, so I'm really getting a kick....

/in my pants
//I'm sure this thread will be replete with PhD-bearing chemists and the like who've published scores of articles on the subject
///prolly no
 
2009-04-05 11:44:27 AM  
Scientist have also noted that plant stomata close up with increase in CO2.
 
2009-04-05 11:55:04 AM  
Every scientist on the planet thinks your wrong. Humans are killing the environment and everyone but you know it subby. Stupid christian!
 
2009-04-05 11:58:51 AM  

MentalMoment: Scientist have also noted that plant stomata close up with increase in CO2.


Yup. Some plants actually will adjust their CO2 intake to be constant, and hence don't just gulp more down. Which is what I came here to say.

I'll also say this: Tropical forests are being deforested at an alarming rate. Even if they weren't, the uptake in CO2 from trees only offsets a small fraction of the emissions from human activity. But, we wouldn't want to actually inject any rational discussion into a global warming thread.
 
2009-04-05 11:58:57 AM  

Milkbeer: Every scientist on the planet thinks your wrong. Humans are killing the environment and everyone but you know it subby. Stupid christian!


Who are these "scientists" anyway? I know dozens of Engineers, Chemists, Geologists, and Physicists, but I know of not one individual who speaks of them self as a scientist.
 
2009-04-05 12:00:07 PM  

Milkbeer: Every scientist on the planet thinks your wrong. Humans are killing the environment and everyone but you know it subby. Stupid christian!


Might wanna read up on that one....
 
2009-04-05 12:01:29 PM  

darthaegis: Honestly, if people were truly "worried" about Carbon Dioxide being released into the air they would start with Liquor distilleries.
Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of fermentation and one distillery will syphon off, on average, 80 tons of CO2 daily.


That said, they're feeding their stock with plant material, so it's a carbon-neutral process. Consider the (simplified) biofuels argument here.

If I had confidence that carbon-capture technology was remotely mature, that would be a possible application (reasonably high internal concentration of carbon dioxide, etc.)-- making distilleries into carbon sinks. But right now they aren't a fundamental problem beyond their electrical needs.
 
2009-04-05 12:05:51 PM  
Subby needs to RTFA....
 
2009-04-05 12:09:41 PM  
Shame about all of the deforestation and tree burning that goes with it and the climate change droughts that will kill a lot of forests. We can't count on the trees to cover this for us.

To address the inevitable other anti-global warming arguments:
It's not happening but if it is we're not responsible but if we are nature will take care of it but if it can't we can't do anything about it anyway but if we can it would be too expensive but (and this is the important one) if it's much, much more expensive later that's someone else's problem.
 
2009-04-05 12:10:28 PM  

mynameist: Who are these "scientists" anyway? I know dozens of Engineers, Chemists, Geologists, and Physicists, but I know of not one individual who speaks of them self as a scientist.


Huh? It's an interdisciplinary field, so a collective noun is appropriate. That's like saying 'People? I mean, I know a Bob, and a Jane... but I don't know anyone who calls themselves "Person."' Feel free to draw a Venn diagram or something.

mynameist: So yes, in order for Earth to stay even remotely stable for as long as it has, there must be many negative feedbacks into the warming cycle. Trees very well be one, I have no idea.


There are negative feedbacks (ocean sediment uptake, etc.), and they're very good at stabilizing things like orbital fluctuations. The problem is, the identified ones operate on time scales of centuries or millenia. If you're able to suggest evidence of feedbacks that kick in on a decadal time scale, I'm all ears. If you're just stating that it's theoretically possible that one exists, I'd say that's true, but the available evidence is that they don't exist. It's entirely likely that carbon releases on present scale are unprecedented in geologically recent history.

Again, there's a simple test that there isn't a negative feedback operating on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels-- they keep increasing, as do the levels in the oceans (thus acidifying them, which is a related problem).
 
2009-04-05 12:10:35 PM  
mynameist
Who are these "scientists" anyway? I know dozens of Engineers, Chemists, Geologists, and Physicists, but I know of not one individual who speaks of them self as a scientist.


www.herloyalsons.com

this man would like you to back off
 
2009-04-05 12:13:58 PM  
If this is going to solve our problem, why are CO2 levels still increasing?

Seriously. It seems like a simple question.

I think the trees are just slackers. You never see them out there working hard, driving to work early, nothin'. We're doing all the work here.

Why do the trees hate America?
 
2009-04-05 12:17:07 PM  

mynameist: I'm sick of hearing this crap. And to you Obamatards, the mere fact that he will let Yellowstone and the rest of Niagra falls continue to turn a good portion of our energy needs into pretty little splashes proves 100% that he doesn't give a shait either.

It's that or it proves the whole thing is fake or that the environment is less important than splashes.


A double whammy.

people.virginia.edu
img225.imageshack.us

Or, you know, that hydro has its own set of drawbacks and installing a major plant needs to be done with costs and benefits in mind.

It might be the case that an incorrect policy decision is being made there-- it's a complex issue. However, that has zero bearing on whether the recently observed climate change is real, significant, and primarily driven by human activities.
 
2009-04-05 12:19:07 PM  

chimp_ninja: Again, there's a simple test that there isn't a negative feedback operating on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels-- they keep increasing, as do the levels in the oceans (thus acidifying them, which is a related problem).


Like you said, it may take decades or centuries, and will likely overreact, but history shows us that it's there.

For me I know nothing about the atmosphere, but I am well versed in feedback control systems which seems to be a huge weakness in those who do study the Earth as the study is for the most part only EEs and MEs must encounter and the mathematics behind common feedback systems used today are incredibly complex (big turn off).
 
2009-04-05 12:20:45 PM  
Too bad we have cut much of the trees down so it's not going to help much.

Dear subby: read about the rain forest.
 
2009-04-05 12:21:17 PM  

darthaegis: Honestly, if people were truly "worried" about Carbon Dioxide being released into the air they would start with Liquor distilleries.
Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of fermentation...


Except fermentation is a carbon-neutral process: The plants get their carbon from the CO2 in the atmosphere.
 
2009-04-05 12:23:15 PM  

wejash: If this is going to solve our problem, why are CO2 levels still increasing? Seriously. It seems like a simple question.


It is a simple question, and the article answers it, and yet watch how many people will repeat the "Nuh uh." level of thinking seen above.
 
2009-04-05 12:23:39 PM  
Trees are growing faster and could buy time to halt global warming

Headline FTA.

Effective troll is effective. Well done subby.
 
2009-04-05 12:24:38 PM  

mynameist: For me I know nothing about the atmosphere, but I am well versed in feedback control systems which seems to be a huge weakness in those who do study the Earth as the study is for the most part only EEs and MEs must encounter and the mathematics behind common feedback systems used today are incredibly complex (big turn off).


No, they do understand there is a feedback loop. It is seems to be a positive feedback loop.

You sound like you really haven't read any scientific paper about global warming and are just pretending the reports say what you want.

They run millions of different models on using different models for things they are not sure of. That's why there is a range of results that they report that can occur. and so far the worst case results are matching the best.

you make it sound like your are familiar with the subject but by what you say it is obvious that you are just pretending to be familiar with it.
 
2009-04-05 12:26:16 PM  

chimp_ninja: Or, you know, that hydro has its own set of drawbacks and installing a major plant needs to be done with costs and benefits in mind.

It might be the case that an incorrect policy decision is being made there-- it's a complex issue. However, that has zero bearing on whether the recently observed climate change is real, significant, and primarily driven by human activities.


Oh come on, it wasn't that bad. I admit it was a bit of a troll, but the choices hold true:
1. Obama doesn't give a shait.
2. AGW if totally crap and our government knows it.
3. The environment is less important than pretty splashes.

I strongly believe one of these must hold true.
 
2009-04-05 12:28:49 PM  

chimp_ninja: It is a simple question, and the article answers it, and yet watch how many people will repeat the "Nuh uh." level of thinking seen above.


But cutting down trees has cause 1/3 of the global warming. Does the article say that the faster grow will make a large difference against this. In fact it says it won't make a large difference.

You know we are still cutting down trees at a very fast rate.

Even the article says this is not helping much.
 
2009-04-05 12:30:25 PM  
Cutting trees gives the trees more room to grow, hence bigger trees doing more work. ^_^
 
2009-04-05 12:33:45 PM  

mynameist: For me I know nothing about the atmosphere, but I am well versed in feedback control systems which seems to be a huge weakness in those who do study the Earth as the study is for the most part only EEs and MEs must encounter and the mathematics behind common feedback systems used today are incredibly complex (big turn off).


Frankly, expertise in electrical engineering is irrelevant. I wouldn't tell you how to design an amplifier, but you're on a topic that's on my turf here.

You're asusming a priori that a feedback control system exists that can handle geologically sudden massive carbon releases, in the face of empirical evidence that it simply doesn't.

mynameist: Like you said, it may take decades or centuries, and will likely overreact, but history shows us that it's there.


It won't take decades-- we've been ramping up carbon emissions for over a century and the rate of atmospheric increase is very steady.

You're also assuming that the solution will be desirable. One immediate consequence of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is on a system that has been uptaking increasing amounts of carbon-- the oceans. Guess what the primary impact of that is? (PDF)
 
2009-04-05 12:33:54 PM  

Corvus: you make it sound like your are familiar with the subject but by what you say it is obvious that you are just pretending to be familiar with it.


I said i was familiar with feedback systems. I am an EE, not a geopolitical scientist. I couldn't care less about CO2 or H20 or any of the other shait. I do happen to know quite a bit about the characterizations of positive and negative feedback systems, and to say any system represents a positive system after cycling for better than a billion years is slightly off-the-wall.
 
2009-04-05 12:34:46 PM  

mynameist: For me I know nothing about the atmosphere, but I am well versed in feedback control systems which seems to be a huge weakness in those who do study the Earth as the study is for the most part only EEs and MEs must encounter and the mathematics behind common feedback systems used today are incredibly complex (big turn off).


Try opening a graduate level textbook on chemical kinetics. Chemists have been dealing with reaction rates and complex feedback systems for quite some time --I'm pretty sure they can handle the math.
 
2009-04-05 12:37:32 PM  

nicksteel: Scrophulous Barking Duck: I would expect most people who believe in global warming to be happy to hear this. Of course, we would need some warming in order for this to occur, but it might at least slow things down.

Most people who believe in global warming will not be happy about this. Those idiots want to dismantle the industrial world so we can all live in tents.


ah yes, ascribe wildly inaccurate views to those you disagree with to make them look like ridiculous idiots. what a good debate tactic.

most people who believe in global warming would love nothing more than to wake up tomorrow and read a front page, above the fold story in their newspaper of choice full of scientific evidence confirming that human industrial activity will have no long term effects on climate due to natural factors.

but unlike you, we understand science well enough that we know it won't happen, and that it's probably not true.
 
2009-04-05 12:38:26 PM  

mynameist: Oh come on, it wasn't that bad. I admit it was a bit of a troll, but the choices hold true:
1. Obama doesn't give a shait.
2. AGW if totally crap and our government knows it.
3. The environment is less important than pretty splashes.

I strongly believe one of these must hold true.


It's obviously a troll. A shallow, transparent, easily-dismantled straw man of a troll, but a troll.

And all you've done here is replace a two-pronged false dilemma with a three-pronged false dilemma which is just as childishly oversimplified. You're leaving out the distinct possibility that the specific hydro plants you're discussing would do more harm than good in the bigger picture. Or that their impact is sufficiently uncertain that further investigation is prudent.

Finally, a policy decision made by the government continues to have zero bearing on the ground truth of anthropogenic climate change.
 
2009-04-05 12:40:02 PM  

mynameist: I do happen to know quite a bit about the characterizations of positive and negative feedback systems, and to say any system represents a positive system after cycling for better than a billion years is slightly off-the-wall.


If you did a Fourier Transform on the cyclic behavior you're discussing, what would be the primary components in the frequency domain? What does that tell you about the feedbacks you're imagining will fix this problem?
 
2009-04-05 12:42:27 PM  
global warming has been happening for 4.5 billion years
and will continue to happen until the earth is nicely baked like it's at a cypress hill show
 
2009-04-05 12:47:14 PM  

chimp_ninja: Huh? It's an interdisciplinary field, so a collective noun is appropriate. That's like saying 'People? I mean, I know a Bob, and a Jane... but I don't know anyone who calls themselves "Person."' Feel free to draw a Venn diagram or something.


I'm a scientist person.

But that's only easier to relate to non-scientists than what I actually do.

/Why yes, I do know red-necks.
//No, I wouldn't describe myself as that to another intelligent human.
 
2009-04-05 12:48:49 PM  

Sgt. Pepper: Try opening a graduate level textbook on chemical kinetics. Chemists have been dealing with reaction rates and complex feedback systems for quite some time --I'm pretty sure they can handle the math.


That, and most climate research groups have a blend of talents-- there's a large number of physicists, mathematicians, computer scientists, etc. working on these issues. Last I checked, they also had to get through all the differential equations, linear algebra, and other work need to understand feedback systems.

I think mynameist is merely under the mistaken impression that his field somehow outranks all other expertise on any problem, including problems that are nowhere near his own field.
 
Displayed 50 of 138 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report