Users who Dugg This
Darth Sand
7330 Followers
Darth Sand
7330 Followers
dumbcommentguyAug 20, 2010
"..."this paper does a nice job" of highlighting areas of the planet where plant growth is limited by the availability of water, rather than by temperature."
Another useless study, I'm sure, at taxpayers' expense... Plants need water and sunlight to grow.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Aug 20, 2010
the point is to know how much water, how much sunlight, how much warmth how much CO2, and how much each of those effects the growth of those plants.
and ofcourse we need another 10 to 20 years of study, this is a new field with completely new datasets. they need to be fleshed out first.
this is anything but useless, its only just early days.
screwy1138Aug 20, 2010
Without this study (and others), in 10 years, we'd still need 10-20 years of more data. As much as our instant-gratification society would like to believe it so, some things that are good need long term planning.
trent1492Aug 20, 2010
Did you read the article?
"The results show that carbon uptake by plants did increase in some areas — primarily in the Northern Hemisphere — including parts of North America, western Europe, India and China. But in areas where carbon uptake decreased, the drop was sharp. In the Southern Hemisphere, 70% of plant-covered land, including regions of South America, Africa and Australia, showed a decrease in NPP."
Sigh.
skeloothAug 20, 2010
I'd say it was anything but useless.
rmxzAug 20, 2010
Perhaps because we cut down the forests on one of the continents?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oldgrowth3.jpg
dumbcommentguyAug 20, 2010
Exactly... worldwide deforestation has not even been mentioned by the study.
brapallgoodAug 20, 2010
They ignore it in a lot of studies. Some of us are old enough to remember the outcry in the 70s...and the 80s...and how the din quieted in the 90s and beyond, though those forests have never been replaced.
s**t science is s**t science. True science looks all details.
slvrbullet87Aug 20, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
poitsplaceAug 21, 2010
While I'd like for there to be more old growth forests (just to mix things up a bit), in the context of this article an old growth forest would actually be a BAD thing. Old growth forests are at equilibrium...trees die just as fast as they grow...and they're usually a lot less diverse than you'd think. Also, the US wasn't some solid mass of old growth trees on the east coast as the map seems to imply. Quite a lot of that was grassland or other biomes.
The really odd thing is that in the US there may actually be MORE trees than there used to be...due largely to the 24 million acres of tree farms in the American Tree Farm System. I'm sure you'd want to criticize tree "farms" but you should really check out their site before you do http://www.treefarmsystem.org." rel="nofollow">http://www.treefarmsystem.org"/>http://www ...</a> And ironically this sort of activity is almost pure sequestering. We harvest the trees and use them in permanent structures or toss the paper in a landfill (although incinerators make biomass one of (if not the) largest renewable energy source after hydroelectric.
superkendallAug 20, 2010
"Why the Northern and Southern Hemispheres have responded differently to warmer climates and increased drought is unclear. "
And that tells you all you need to know. They really have no idea, but why not blame it all on Global Warming, because hey they ened something and they lost credibility with the "science" they had.
I'm not sure if carbon absorption is really on the decline (since it's not in the northern hemisphere), but I sure am glad the cult of Global Warming is.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
xtx7xAug 20, 2010
I'm really confused as to how you can manage to call every single professional scientific institution in the world to make a statement on climate change part of a "cult".
These include:
NAS
AAAS
NSF
NASA
NOAA
AGS
The national science academies of:of Australia,
of Belgium,
of Brazil,
of Cameroon,
Royal Society of Canada,
of the Caribbean,
of China,
Institut de France,
of Ghana,
Leopoldina of Germany,
of Indonesia,
of Ireland,
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
of India,
of Japan,
of Kenya,
of Madagascar,
of Malaysia,
of Mexico,
of Nigeria,
Royal Society of New Zealand,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
of Senegal,
of South Africa,
of Sudan,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
of Tanzania,
of Turkey,
of Uganda,
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
of the United States,
of Zambia,
and of Zimbabwe.
The EASA, National Research Council, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American, Austrailian and the European Physical Societies, and many more at the wiki link.
Today, there is not a single professional scientific organization opposing the idea of anthropogenic climate change.
So tell me -- if all of these scientific institutions are *wrong*, and you know the scientific process better than they do, then why do we continue to fund them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
slvrbullet87Aug 20, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
xtx7xAug 20, 2010
I really think that a reply is in order if one intends on burying me.
brapallgoodAug 20, 2010
You are right. It's really more of a 'fanatical movement' than a 'cult'.
xtx7xAug 20, 2010
Your belief is non-falsifiable. What would it take for you to see that you could be wrong?
I know it's hard to understand, but there are hundreds of thousands of very competent people out there (that I just mentioned) that are in a greater agreement than they ever have been in on any other scientific issue. Your resistance to the idea of climate change stems from the belief that "they just can't be right" -- no matter what!
You need to ask yourself -- what would it take to prove that you're wrong? Would it take every professional scientific institution to make a statement in the world to be in agreement? You've got that. Would it take NASA? You've got that. How about BP and Exxon calling for more regulation on their own industries? You've got *that* too (see USCAP). Would it take more than 97% of actively publishing climate scientists to claim that climate change is a real threat for you to believe it? There's *that* too.
But if it would take every single scientist on the face of the planet to be in perfect agreement, then you are asking for something that science can NEVER give on any issue (even Gravity, for crying out loud) - certainty. Your belief, at that point, is non-falsifiable and has fallen into the realm of a conspiracy theory.
angryredplanetAug 20, 2010
"why not blame it all on Global Warming"
As this is what is happening and is the primary cause of a lot of environmental issues we are now seeing and will continue to see, why not indeed? One would need to be quite ignorant to deny Earth's climate is warming.
"ill-behaved researchers"
Climategate was a farce and all of the researchers involved were exonerated of any wrong doing. You need to get over it and let it go.
"they need proof, NOW."
Climate scientists (if this is who you're referring to by "cultists") already have proof in the form of peer-reviewed attribution studies. Are you saying the gathered evidence is ambiguous or inconclusive? What evidence specifically, and how so?
"the cult of Global Warming"
Ha, it's certainly one of the most scientifically supported cults ever. Perhaps you should adjust your anti-science viewpoint before deriding what is one of the most scientifically agreed upon and accepted theories?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jollyspaniardAug 21, 2010
Hey they haven't found the Higgs Boson yet, that tells you all they need to do. All these stuff you hear about Atoms is rubbish. They don't really know anything do they?
ousthouseAug 20, 2010
Has a report ever concluded with "Everything is probably fine, and it's not imperative that you keep funding my work"
countess666Aug 20, 2010
the first part only if your a scientist working for the oil industry but then the last part needs to be changed into "and if you want me to keep saying that it is imperative that you continue to fund my work"
otherwise rarely but you need to consider that things are rarely fine on our planet at the moment, and that a report usually gets started because observations have been made that indicate something might be amiss.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
How can I be expected to lower my carbon footprint when the trees wont!
Oh well, we need more pirates
http://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png
danj484Aug 20, 2010
Unless that paper was literally a theory (and proof of that theory) of everything, there's always something else to do.
ousthouseAug 20, 2010
But it's not always imperative for your tax dollars to fund it (I'm not saying that's the case with all climate research though).
xtx7xAug 20, 2010
Yes, many do. Try googling for some technical papers on, say, 2012 hypotheses.
The fact that these are *not* ending in that way makes them more alarming. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vbullingerAug 20, 2010
Another thing to do - and I'm not joking, this is done all the time and it works like a charm - is, if you want a grant for a study on something like squirrel mating habits and no one will give it to you, just resubmit the request for grants and title it "The Effect of Squirrel Mating Habits on Global Warming/Climate Change." You will get many more grants.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
greenfyreAug 21, 2010
Have you ever even seen a University? like on TV or something? Obviously you've never done any actual research
Want to tell us about the hook hand guy? or the corvet with the smell?
OBVIOUS ALERT ... if you had a clue you'd cite facts rather than make up stories.
greenfyreAug 21, 2010
Yes, all the climate studies that say "climate change is unequivocal, there is a consensus"
ninhAug 21, 2010
They don't. What you mean is a rigged poll.
greenfyreAug 21, 2010
Try reading for context Ninh ... oh wait, that requires literacy and thought. Sorry, carry on as you were.
jollyspaniardAug 21, 2010
Well people do get paid to write press releases along those lines which may be why they write them in the first place.
On the other hand scientists with tenure aren't in the position of singing for their supper. Their funding is guaranteed as long as they publish something.
How do you think scientists paid the rent before they invented the Global Warming conspiracy?
Beep111Aug 20, 2010
Well, that's hardly surprising. We've pretty much cut down all the carbon sinks in developed countries and are working on cutting the rest of them down in developed nations.
More importantly though, we're trashing the ocean and acidifying it, breaking down the chain of life that lives there. That's where most of our oxygen comes from, and it's really going to f**k us over if the ocean becomes anoxic. We really underestimate the role the ocean plays in the global cycles.
trigonometronAug 20, 2010
Every play sim earth? I always ended up with a f**king dead ocean. ALWAYS.
screwy1138Aug 20, 2010
"really going to f**k us over "
Understatement.
danwgreAug 20, 2010
DOOM!!!!! DOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
themachine1Aug 20, 2010
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes...again
Can you picture what will be
So limitless and free
Desperately in need...of some...stranger's hand
In a...desperate land
Lost in a Roman...wilderness of pain
And all the children are insane
All the children are insane
Waiting for the summer rain, yeahComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
catalysisAug 20, 2010
I can't accept these findings until it has passed rigorous peer review by the conservative armchair scientists who never graduated highschool and think a scientific journal is a book where scientists record who they have a crush on.
ecoreAug 20, 2010
Makes sense that they store less when co2 is more abundant.
trent1492Aug 20, 2010
NASA has more with an accompanying video:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/plant-decline.html
hasslinthehoffAug 21, 2010
Less forests = Less carbon sequestration
I know... I know... can't wrap my brain around it, either.
/s
trent1492Aug 21, 2010
One day... One day you will the article. I have hope that it will happen... one day.
jollyspaniardAug 21, 2010
Look on the brightside, we don't need to send expensive Predator drones to bomb people in the SWAT valley just revving up our SUVs should do the trick much more effectively.
mattheardAug 21, 2010
There probably has, but you'll never hear about it outside of the scientific community. Only stories of disaster and conspiracy actually make it all the way to the ears of the non-scientist public.
hereticoftruthAug 22, 2010
Why don't any politically correct scientists check out why less plants leads to more excess global warming? Because it goes against the political program of blaming global warming on CO2. Let's not look too closely at the truth and we can continue to believe a lie in comfort. Planting more perennial trees and grasslands will make the problem go away and rich folk would have no reason to impose carbon taxes to remain rich.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
trent1492Aug 23, 2010
Did you read the article?
hereticoftruthAug 23, 2010
Yes, I did. What a silly notion that plants are using up their carbon sink. There are less perennial land plants fixing CO2. Therefore less CO2 is being fixed long term. Restore the perennial land plants and the excess CO2 in the air will reverse. But what is far more important than that is more solar energy would be turned into chemical energy instead of heat. Rocks and soil suck at turning solar energy into chemical energy but but significantly outperform plants at turning solar energy into heat energy.
trent1492Aug 23, 2010
"There are less perennial land plants fixing CO2. Therefore less CO2 is being fixed long term.
So how would that account for the INCREASE of carbon storage between 1982 an 1999? Am I shortly going to here you exclaim that during those years the number of perennials were INCREASING. Do tell, and please provide peer reviewed information.
hereticoftruthAug 24, 2010
YOU should read the article. There were more plants growing between 1982 and 1999. The areas that lost plant cover lost their ability to fix CO2. It is not the plants losing their ability to fix CO2. It is that there are LESS plants to fix CO2.