What Happened To Global Warming, it's NOT!!

[alevin]

There are already laws on the books to deal with these situations. You've said so yourself. Your complaint is that the laws are not enforced. If that is the case, how is creating more laws going to resolve the issue? I work in law enforcement, so I know how politics play a role in how aggressive the law enforcement community is allowed to do their jobs.

This current Congress could pass cap and tax in order to make their base "feel" better, then turn around and not fund it's implementation. It happens all the time.

wel, if we're talking specifically about cap and tax, I've already expressed reservations more than once. My comment was more about completely unregulated free market in general not being a solution either. and agree about passing feelgood legislation with no intent to fund or implement/enforce-completely ineffective and facade-only makes voters mad once they understand the legislators think we're fools.

 

[nnuut]

I think we are all learning something from this exercise, at least I am.

1. We are against polluting the environment.

2. We may be in a Global warming trend.

3. It's up in the air as to whether it's part of a natural cycle or Human Beings in all of their greatness are contributing to the problem.

4. We really don't have much faith in the current scientific explanation of why or if it is happening at all.

5. Crooks were caught red handed cooking the books in order to promote a political agenda.

6. CO2 has nothing to do with Global Warming, in fact we could use more!

7. Our politicians are NOT doing their jobs.

 

[alevin]

I think we are all learning something from this exercise, at least I am.

1. We are against polluting the environment.

2. We may be in a Global warming trend.

3. It's up in the air as to whether it's part of a natural cycle or Human Beings in all of their greatness are contributing to the problem.

4. We really don't have much faith in the current scientific explanation of why or if it is happening at all.

5. Crooks were caught red handed cooking the books in order to promote a political agenda.

6. CO2 has nothing to do with Global Warming, in fact we could use more!

7. Our politicians are NOT doing their jobs.

nnuut, I found ScienceDaily.com a couple days ago, thanks to somebody here posting on something else. Lots of interesting info there. Rising CO2 may not be so great for plants, depending on what else is going on, and depending on where you are on the planet.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060412204831.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070905083617.htm

Not to mention-the second link talks about domino effect-if plants are affected, leads to changes in other equally important systems.

As far as plant hardiness zone map changes go, the most recent do show southern species in the US surviving much farther north now than they did 30-40 years ago.

http://www.arborday.org/media/map_change.cfm

 

[nnuut]

Interesting, Good Post as always. I never read anything about the relationship between increased CO2 and nitrogen. When the Big Old Dinosaurs were here there was an over abundance of CO2 but the plant life at that time has never been greater than it was then. I really don't have a scientific study to back up my claim but I'm sure I could find one. There are many theories out there, but it just makes good walking around sense to me, how about Plankton in the oceans do they need nitrogen, they are probably the biggest plant species in the world?

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001938.html

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...r/Plants-need-more-CO2-not-less-69158857.html

More CO2, More water:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/nitrogen_ozonestress.html

Who to believe?
Chapter 7 - Biological Effects of Carbon Dioxide Enhancement

Chapter 7 examines the biological effects of rising CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures. This is the largely unreported side of the global warming debate, perhaps because it is unequivocally good news. Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests. It is a boon to the world’s forests and prairies, as well as to farmers and ranchers and the growing populations of the developing world.



Chapter 7 Key Findings

• A 300-ppm increase in the air’s CO2 content typically raises the productivity of most herbaceous plants by about one-third; and this positive response occurs in plants that utilize all three of the major biochemical pathways (C3, C4, CAM) of photosynthesis. For woody plants, the response is even greater. The productivity benefits of CO2 enrichment are also experienced by aquatic plants, including freshwater algae and macrophytes, and marine microalgae and macroalgae.

• The amount of carbon plants gain per unit of water lost-or water-use efficiency-typically rises as the CO2 content of the air rises, greatly increasing their ability to withstand drought. In addition, the CO2-induced percentage increase in plant biomass production is often greater under water-stressed conditions than it is when plants are well watered.

• Atmospheric CO2 enrichment helps ameliorate the detrimental effects of several environmental stresses on plant growth and development, including high soil salinity, high air temperature, low light intensity and low levels of soil fertility. Elevated levels of CO2 have additionally been demonstrated to reduce the severity of low temperature stress, oxidative stress, and the stress of herbivory. In fact, the percentage growth enhancement produced by an increase in the air’s CO2 concentration is often even greater under stressful and resource-limited conditions than it is when growing conditions are ideal.

• As the air’s CO2 content continues to rise, plants will likely exhibit enhanced rates of photosynthesis and biomass production that will not be diminished by any global warming that might occur concurrently. In fact, if the ambient air temperature rises, the growth-promoting effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment will likely also rise, becoming more and more robust.

• The ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content likely will not favor the growth of weedy species over that of crops and native plants.

• The growth of plants is generally not only enhanced by CO2-induced increases in net photosynthesis during the light period of the day, it is also enhanced by CO2-induced decreases in respiration during the dark period.

• The ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content, as well as any degree of warming that might possibly accompany it, will not materially alter the rate of decomposition of the world’s soil organic matter and will probably enhance biological carbon sequestration. Continued increases in the air’s CO2 concentration and temperature will not result in massive losses of carbon from earth’s peatlands. To the contrary, these environmental changes-if they persist-would likely work together to enhance carbon capture.

• Other biological effects of CO2 enhancement include enhanced plant nitrogen-use efficiency, longer residence time of carbon in the soil, and increased populations of earthworms and soil nematodes.

• The aerial fertilization effect of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 concentration (which greatly enhances vegetative productivity) and its anti-transpiration effect (which enhances plant water-use efficiency and enables plants to grow in areas that were once too dry for them) are stimulating plant growth across the globe in places that previously were too dry or otherwise unfavorable for plant growth, leading to a significant greening of the Earth.

• Elevated CO2 reduces, and nearly always overrides, the negative effects of ozone pollution on plant photosynthesis, growth and yield. It also reduces atmospheric concentrations of isoprene, a highly reactive non-methane hydrocarbon that is emitted in copious quantities by vegetation and is responsible for the production of vast amounts of tropospheric ozone.
• http://www.nipccreport.org/chapter7.html

 

[PessOptimist]

Some random thoughts on the environment in general:
The rivers in most of New England look and smell a lot better than they did when I was a kid.
The air in many New England towns looks and smells a lot better than it did when I was a kid. Some of that is because the manufacturing/paper industries shut down and moved out. Always political factors, aren't there?
The air in Los Angeles and Phoenix looks and smells a lot better than it did the first time I experienced either in the '70s.
All of the above was acheived through very painful education and legislation/enforcement.
We are still doing a less than perfect job controlling the impact of our byproducts on the earth.
There are many things we do not understand.
There will always be people trying to profit from our environmental guilt.
A 300 mile between charges electric vehicle sounds great. Recharge time will still be long. The majority of our electricity is generated by coal fired plants. It's just moving your "carbon footprint" somewhere else. All solutions need to be investigated. The internal combustion engine will be around for a long time.
I truly enjoy reading this thread.

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Some random thoughts on the environment in general:
The rivers in most of New England look and smell a lot better than they did when I was a kid.
The air in many New England towns looks and smells a lot better than it did when I was a kid. Some of that is because the manufacturing/paper industries shut down and moved out. Always political factors, aren't there?
The air in Los Angeles and Phoenix looks and smells a lot better than it did the first time I experienced either in the '70s.
All of the above was acheived through very painful education and legislation/enforcement.
We are still doing a less than perfect job controlling the impact of our byproducts on the earth.
There are many things we do not understand.
There will always be people trying to profit from our environmental guilt.
A 300 mile between charges electric vehicle sounds great. Recharge time will still be long. The majority of our electricity is generated by coal fired plants. It's just moving your "carbon footprint" somewhere else. All solutions need to be investigated. The internal combustion engine will be around for a long time.
I truly enjoy reading this thread.

Well said. Current environmental laws have helped to clean up a lot of the problems with air and water pollution. Enforcement of current law is a bit lacking in some areas, but I personally am not convinced that there is a need to enact new environmental legislation.

As for the coal fired plants, in San Diego we have a nuclear power plant and a few natural gas power generating plants. Although I don't have solar power right now, I am looking at having a solar system installed this year. San Diego is one of the best places in the country to have solar power. That should help my carbon footprint!

 

[nnuut]

I think it's worth a try to filter out the BAD emissions from internal combustion engines and Coal fired electric plants and manufacturing, leave the CO2 alone!
http://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/MNL/PAGES/MNL11466M.htm

 

[nnuut]

Interesting, Good Post as always. I never read anything about the relationship between increased CO2 and nitrogen. When the Big Old Dinosaurs were here there was an over abundance of CO2 but the plant life at that time has never been greater than it was then. I really don't have a scientific study to back up my claim but I'm sure I could find one. There are many theories out there, but it just makes good walking around sense to me, how about Plankton in the oceans do they need nitrogen, they are probably the biggest plant species in the world?

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001938.html

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...r/Plants-need-more-CO2-not-less-69158857.html

More CO2, More water:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/nitrogen_ozonestress.html

Who to believe?
Chapter 7 - Biological Effects of Carbon Dioxide Enhancement

Chapter 7 examines the biological effects of rising CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures. This is the largely unreported side of the global warming debate, perhaps because it is unequivocally good news. Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests. It is a boon to the world’s forests and prairies, as well as to farmers and ranchers and the growing populations of the developing world.




Chapter 7 Key Findings

• A 300-ppm increase in the air’s CO2 content typically raises the productivity of most herbaceous plants by about one-third; and this positive response occurs in plants that utilize all three of the major biochemical pathways (C3, C4, CAM) of photosynthesis. For woody plants, the response is even greater. The productivity benefits of CO2 enrichment are also experienced by aquatic plants, including freshwater algae and macrophytes, and marine microalgae and macroalgae.

• The amount of carbon plants gain per unit of water lost-or water-use efficiency-typically rises as the CO2 content of the air rises, greatly increasing their ability to withstand drought. In addition, the CO2-induced percentage increase in plant biomass production is often greater under water-stressed conditions than it is when plants are well watered.

• Atmospheric CO2 enrichment helps ameliorate the detrimental effects of several environmental stresses on plant growth and development, including high soil salinity, high air temperature, low light intensity and low levels of soil fertility. Elevated levels of CO2 have additionally been demonstrated to reduce the severity of low temperature stress, oxidative stress, and the stress of herbivory. In fact, the percentage growth enhancement produced by an increase in the air’s CO2 concentration is often even greater under stressful and resource-limited conditions than it is when growing conditions are ideal.

• As the air’s CO2 content continues to rise, plants will likely exhibit enhanced rates of photosynthesis and biomass production that will not be diminished by any global warming that might occur concurrently. In fact, if the ambient air temperature rises, the growth-promoting effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment will likely also rise, becoming more and more robust.

• The ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content likely will not favor the growth of weedy species over that of crops and native plants.

• The growth of plants is generally not only enhanced by CO2-induced increases in net photosynthesis during the light period of the day, it is also enhanced by CO2-induced decreases in respiration during the dark period.

• The ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content, as well as any degree of warming that might possibly accompany it, will not materially alter the rate of decomposition of the world’s soil organic matter and will probably enhance biological carbon sequestration. Continued increases in the air’s CO2 concentration and temperature will not result in massive losses of carbon from earth’s peatlands. To the contrary, these environmental changes-if they persist-would likely work together to enhance carbon capture.

• Other biological effects of CO2 enhancement include enhanced plant nitrogen-use efficiency, longer residence time of carbon in the soil, and increased populations of earthworms and soil nematodes.

• The aerial fertilization effect of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 concentration (which greatly enhances vegetative productivity) and its anti-transpiration effect (which enhances plant water-use efficiency and enables plants to grow in areas that were once too dry for them) are stimulating plant growth across the globe in places that previously were too dry or otherwise unfavorable for plant growth, leading to a significant greening of the Earth.

• Elevated CO2 reduces, and nearly always overrides, the negative effects of ozone pollution on plant photosynthesis, growth and yield. It also reduces atmospheric concentrations of isoprene, a highly reactive non-methane hydrocarbon that is emitted in copious quantities by vegetation and is responsible for the production of vast amounts of tropospheric ozone.
• http://www.nipccreport.org/chapter7.html

Thinking about nitrogen:
Nitrogen Sources and Transformations

by K.A. Barbarick 1 (1/06)
Quick Facts...

• Nitrogen in the air is the ultimate source of all soil nitrogen.
• Nitrogen may enter the soil through rainfall, plant residues, nitrogen fixation by soil organisms, animal manures and commercial fertilizers.
• There is no difference between the nitrogen that enters the plant from commercial fertilizers and that from organic products.
• Nitrogen may be lost from the soil by plant removal, volatilization, leaching or erosion.
• Leaching of nitrate is a pollution hazard; control nitrogen losses with proper management practices.

To get the maximum benefit from nitrogen fertilization with a minimum pollution hazard you must understand nitrogen properties and transformations.
Nitrogen Sources

The earth's atmosphere consists of 78 percent nitrogen and is the ultimate source of nitrogen. In most areas of the world, the nitrogen found in soil minerals is negligible. Nitrogen may be added to or lost from soil by a number of processes (see Figure 1). In the soil, nitrogen can undergo a number of transformations.
Rainfall adds about 10 pounds of nitrogen to the soil per acre per year. The nitrogen oxides and ammonium that are washed to earth are formed during electrical storms, by internal combustion engines and through oxidation by sunlight. Some scientists also believe that some of the gaseous products that result from the transformation of nitrogen fertilizers may cause a depletion of the ozone (O3) layer around the earth. The extent of this possible damage has not been substantiated.
Crop residues decompose in the soil to form soil organic matter. This organic matter contains about 5 percent nitrogen. An acre-foot of soil having 2 percent organic matter would contain about 3,500 pounds of nitrogen. Generally, about 1 to 3 percent of this organic nitrogen is converted per year by microorganisms to a form of nitrogen that plants can use.
Legumes fix atmospheric nitrogen through their symbiotic association with Rhizobium bacteria. If plant roots are well nodulated, the legume plant does not benefit from the addition of fertilizer nitrogen. Perennial legumes, such as alfalfa, can fix several hundred pounds of nitrogen per acre per year.
Manure contains an appreciable amount of nitrogen. Most of this nitrogen is in organic forms: protein and related compounds. Cattle manure contains about 10 to 40 pounds of nitrogen per ton. About half of this nitrogen is converted to forms available to plants during the first growing season. Lesser amounts are converted during succeeding seasons. Each ton of applied manure is equal to about 5 to 20 pounds of commercial fertilizer nitrogen.
Commercial fertilizer nitrogen comes in three basic forms: gas, liquid and dry. All forms are equally effective when properly applied. Once applied, fertilizer nitrogen is subject to the same transformations as other sources of nitrogen. There is no difference between the ammonium (NH4+) or nitrate (NO3-) that enters the plant from commercial fertilizer and that produced from natural products such as manure, crop residues or organic fertilizers.
Nitrogen Transformations [more]

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00550.html

 

[grandma]

well, I guess what i have to say at this moment is: It's a damn good thing God threw Adam & Eve out of The Garden - it would be shot to pot now too !!!!

 

[Buster]

well, I guess what i have to say at this moment is: It's a damn good thing God threw Adam & Eve out of The Garden - it would be shot to pot now too !!!!

So what's wrong with Pot?:toung:

I know you are being humorous Grandma..

But the the Garden of Eden is already a wasteland...Supposedly IIRC, the Garden of Eden lies somewhere between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia, the South of what is now Iraq....See what Global warming did?..it turned it into a damn desert.

 

[Show-me]

So what's wrong with Pot?:toung:

I know you are being humorous Grandma..

But the the Garden of Eden is already a wasteland...Supposedly IIRC, the Garden of Eden lies somewhere between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia, the South of what is now Iraq....See what Global warming did?..it turned it into a damn desert.

Ah, but according to geologist it could have been a lush grassland or forest during a 20,000 year cycle that the earths wobble changes climate.

One thing to always remember, all that oil under all that sand in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, etc, was once lush with vegetation to make that much oil.

 

[nnuut]

Hey Buster, I think that was the Hanging Garden of Babylon!!:laugh:

Important facts about the Gardens

• It is the second oldest of the Wonders, having been built 500 years before the others (King 14). The Garden was built around 600 BCE by King Nebuchadnezzar for his wife, Queen Amyitis, the daughter of the king of the Medes, who was homesick for the mountains of her homeland in Media, which is in Persia (Ashmawy, King 14, Silverberg 34). Its ruins lies in the long-since-gone ancient city of Babylon, which is near the modern city of Baghdad in Iraq (Ashmawy)
  
  http://www.richeast.org/htwm/Greeks/wonders/gardens.html

 

[nnuut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z685n4RMx6Y&feature=player_embedded#

 

[nnuut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPNiBVU2QIA&feature=player_embedded

 

[nnuut]

http://www.co2science.org/

 

[fabijo]

How's this one?

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

 

[coolhand]

Yep. AGs house of cards is falling apart.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

 

[nnuut]

It seems that this conspiracy just keeps getting deeper and deeper, one of these days the real truth will come out and the world will know just how high it does go.:nuts:

 

[fabijo]

Yep. AGs house of cards is falling apart.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

Great article. This paragraph cracks me up:

Some researchers have argued that it is unfair to attack the IPCC too strongly, pointing out that some errors are inevitable in a report as long and technical as the IPCC's round-up of climate science. "Part of the problem could simply be that expectations are too high," said one researcher. "We have been seen as a scientific gold standard and that's hard to live up to."

It just so happens that those little errors are key points that have been used to hype up everything. Those "some errors" just happen to cost the world billions of dollars of legislation based on politically motivated "scientists."

 

[nnuut]

He's at it again!! I haven't read the whole thing, what do you guys think about this?:worried:

Obama's climate change police

By Steve Hargreaves, staff writerFebruary 2, 2010: 6:55 AM ET




NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Copenhagen climate talks went nowhere. The Senate's attempt to pass a global warming bill appears stuck. But that's doesn't mean greenhouse gas laws aren't coming.
The Environmental Protection Agency, spurred by a Supreme Court ruling, is racing to fill the void. As early as March, the EPA could be required to cap greenhouse gases from things like power plants and large factories, essentially doing what Senate Democrats want, without a messy vote.

​

Some say it's a great idea. It could put a serious dent in greenhouse gas emissions and go a long way to cleaning up the environment. Others say it could jeopardize investment in industry and hurt job creation.
A tight spot
The EPA didn't really ask for this new power, and most lawmakers pushing to restrict greenhouse gases, in Congress and the administration, would prefer Congress to pass a new global warming law.
But EPA is being forced to act thanks to a challenge from the state of Massachusetts and others back in 2007. Massachusetts said global warming was eroding its coastline, and pushed the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases from vehicles.
The Supreme Court more or less sided with Massachusetts, saying EPA must either classify carbon dioxide - the main gas behind global warming - as an endangerment to public health and regulate it, or say it's not.
The Obama administration, like most scientists, believes it could be a danger.
So come March, EPA will begin regulating carbon dioxide from vehicles - largely through tighter fuel economy standards that have already been announced. Once that happens, the next step, legally, is to regulate it from everything else.
"They are compelled to move forward," said Max Williamson, head of the climate program at Andrews Kurth, a law firm that represents both renewable and fossil fuel energy companies.
0:00 /4:51Climate fatigue at Davos?
Williamson is among those who believe using EPA, and specifically the Clean Air Act, to combat global warming is a bad idea. [more]
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/economy/epa_global_warming/index.htm