Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Surprised to Find Earth's Biosphere Booming
radioweather writes "An article from the Financial Post
says that recent studies of
biosphere imaging from the NASA SEAWIFS satellite indicate that the
Earth's
biomass is booming: 'The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and
Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA satellite
data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole
became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth's vegetated
landmass — almost 110 million square kilometers — enjoyed significant
increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms
in, it finds that each square meter of land, on average, now produces almost 500
grams of greenery per year.' Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the
planet and the presence of CO2, fertilizing the biota and resulting in the
increased green side effect."
>More CO2 => increased temperatures => more greenery => more CO2 absorption => decreased temperatures?
Exactly. Amazing how it all balances out. Its not the first time in earth's history that this cycle has played out.
Al Gore... Clean up on Isle 7.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
like the US government, nature seems to have a neat system of checks and balances in place to prevent someone from coming in and ruining everything.
Antarctica is currently so cold, it cannot snow. But it is currently melting. Along with this melting, Antarctica is heating up, and soon, it WILL be able to snow, and this snow will cause the glaciers to grow. Balance.
More CO2 in the air means plants will grow bigger and faster, and begin pumping O2 into the air. Balance.
Unfortunately, humans seem to be a lot like the Bush administration. we barge in and start screwing around with things so much, these checks and balances disappear. this is what we call a tipping point, and I believe we are nearing the point where it will be socially acceptable to crack each other's heads open and feast on the delicious goo inside.
-I only code in BASIC.-
In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, "this isn't right. It isn't even wrong."
First of all, an ice age is only a time when average temperatures are signficantly below present levels. Most of history for almost a million years has been an ice age; The current interglacial has lasted remarkably long.
Second of all, we are not coming out of an ice age. Earth's global temperature and sea levels began a rapid rise approximately 20Kya and both leveled off near their current values around 10 to 12Kya.
Third, the extent to which industrialization has changed the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere in the last 250 years is unprecedented in the last 600 thousand years, and if you think it's not having an effect you're either delusional or willfully ignorant.
In addition to losing oxygen, the water becomes more turbid,and the proportions of species in the community is damaged.
Some of these algal/cyanobacteria blooms are actually toxic to plants & animals. Why don't the smaller, rapidly-reproducing zooplankton take up the gauntlet? Because they suffocate near the alleged food source. That of course assumes the food source firstly isn't toxic to them.
Ever seen a dead mouse in a mouse-trap? Food surrounded by lethal conditions is hardly food. Why don't the smaller, rapidly-reproducing zooplankton take up the gauntlet?
Virtually all of the articles I've read on hypoxic waters and dead zones fail to address this paradox. I've only read one paper that
mentioned even an _hypothesis_ of how algae grazers fail to flourish -- referring to algae species that protect themselves with toxins.
But this doesn't ring true: Why would the most pioneering of algae species be the most protective of themselves when there is so much
opportunity to evolve optimizations for growth rather than defense against grazers? The evolution of life doesn't care about optimizations for growth. Evolution does not seek to form a more perfect creature. Either the environment kills it before it reproduces or it doesn't. Their goal is survival, not being efficient at it. An organism's life can be amazingly cruel and miserable, yet still perfectly succeed in this function. Optimizations and perfections aren't on the agenda unless the consequence of not adopting such things is extinction.
It's very simple, unthinking, and without any sort of goal orientation save for existing. If the algae can exist successfully without such optimizations, they will continue to do so. Kinda like how massive numbers of people will continue to buy large inefficient vehicles until gas gets expensive. They could have used optimized & efficient vehicles, but they don't unless they perceive it to be absolutely necessary to get by.
First of all, note that the auhtor here does have an agenda. From the end of the article:
"Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers"The book he wrote does make a clear statement about how he feels about the current debate.
In any event, none can say that this development is linear. Beyond a certain point, maybe the balance between heating caused by CO2 and the increased plant consumption looks very different, and turns around. The complexity of these systems are not to be underestimated, and reading this article as "Some more CO2 might be good for us!", or at least reading it as a excuse not to do anything (like all those SUV owner might), would be bad.
This is ./. That means that TFA is an empty placeholder or, at best, pointing to a vapid bit of text between ads.
In this case however, a few levels down it appears that the science behind the journalism is decent enough, for instance:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5625/1560
and
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1645290
Yes. It's one of many self-regulating systems you'll find in nature. It's negative feedbacks like this that keep the climate stable-ish. If a volcano belches out a vast cloud of carbon, the trees will devour it, and not much will change overall. Read up Lovelock's 'Gaia' theory: modelling the Earth's whole biosphere as a distributed organism, and its interconnected feedbacks as homeostatic mechanisms that stabilise internal conditions.
Trouble is that we're putting out far more carbon than any volcano ever dreamed of. And, er... we're cutting down the trees at the same time. That's really not a good idea.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
As soon as a living dies all the trapped CO2 is released during the deceasing of the corpse. To actually trap it forever you have to close it off from any oxygene, then it might turn into coal or oil again.
Stating objectively verifiable facts is not trolling, fucktard mod. Sea levels are confirmed as haven risen some inches between 1900 and 2000, and are likely to rise half a foot to a foot this coming century (assuming no catastrophes like the collapse of the Ross ice shelf), which would endanger numerous low-lying islands in the Pacific.
Good points.
Methane only has 22 times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide though (averaged over 100 years)
is actually at the lowest end for plant survival
This is wrong. See for example here. CO2 concentration in the past were maybe half the current values, and this lead to specific adaptations in some plant species. For example, the carbon concentrating mechanism in C4 plants. Interestingly, this also explains why such plants (C4) do not benefit much from increases in atmospheric CO2.
I'm not saying CO2 is not limiting growth, but the effect is very much dependent on the species. Actually, google for Bunce for a nice correlation between growth rate at normal conditions and the stimulation by high CO2. To me, that seems like fast growing species (weeds) can benefit the most from the CO2. In any case, it will change the status quo.
To people in the know, this is a story, because it is very difficult to predict exactly what the outcome will be on a global scale.
Nope, not Israel, nope not the Palestinians, nope not Iran....it was
Britian and France.
Look it up.
My blog
Salmon do not spawn in the ocean.
pollution is not defined as killing life, it is defined as wacking the natural balance out of balance
eutrophication for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication
eutrophication is when the soil is fertilized for agriculture, and the run off causes a massive boom in algae in rivers and streams and bays, which suck out all of the oxygen, reducing a previously complex ecosystem into a slime pit
so what we have here is eutrophication of our entire planet, its atmosphere
the idea of being good stewards of our planet is not a monopolar concept. it is about keeping things in balance
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Ummmmmm .... yeah. Hint its called "Greenhouse" effect for a reason. A greenhouse (or hothouse) traps heat/engergy and makes nice warm places that PLANTS thrive in (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse). Now here's the trick, how do we open the windows to vent it so we can live here too?
"The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century."
The scientist responsible for the study is not so quoted. The egregious Oregon petition is so quoted.
The fact that you are left believing that this manipulative restatement of what was originally a manipulative and cynical statement in the first place shows the FP's appproach to the problem. A report attached to a political petition does not constitute a scientific result.
I would be very surprised if biodiversity were increasing. That said, the news here is about satellite data, and satellite data cannot detect diversity. So the conclusion cannot be drawn from the data one way or the other. The FP article is misleading and inappropriate.
mt
Collapse and destruction of ocean (floating) glaciers will have zero impact on rising sea levels, because they consume more volume as ice than the water they contain (hence why they float).
The risk to rising sea levels is the shrinking glaciers in Alaska, Siberia, Greenland, and the risk that if the Ross Ice Shelf disappears, Antarctica will begin a catastrophic defrosting dumping all the surface ice (up to 2m thick) into the oceans.
That's the risk.
HAND.
Obviously you're not familiar with the apocalyptic danger posed by ocean acidification. Here are the highlights: the bulk of CO2 we release into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels does NOT go into the atmospheric and create climate change; rather, is absorbed by the ocean, which creates carbonic acid, which lowers the ocean's pH. Among other nasty side effects, this reduces the available calcium carbonate in seawater, which both makes it harder for animals to grow and maintain shells and skeletons. This is a problem from microscopic (think planktonic diatoms) to the macroscopic (think blue whales).
Ocean acidification is a vastly larger problem that changes in weather, because it affects the entire marine ecosystem worldwide from top to bottom. Slightly warmer or colder continental weather is no big deal, and even adjusting to rising sea levels is probably managable not only for people but for wildlife. But a collapse of ocean ecosystems is going to be a seriously bad day for everyone.
I'm a moderate rightist, and I approve this message.
This is why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
A-Bomb
In my town, any property abandoned for 5 years reverts to the community. It wasn't abandoned. We made numerous attempts to reclaim it, all of which were brutally put down. It's not "abandonment" if the latest two-bit empire decides to slaughter any Jews making for the Holy Land.
The War of Israeli Independence in 1948 wasn't the first time we tried to regain the Land of Israel, it was the first one that worked.
Besides, it's not as if you didn't have Jews living there all those 2000 years.
Interesting tidbit you missed about the times where CO2 was present in much higher concentrations than now: humans weren't around.
The problem with higher CO2 isn't for the planet. The problem is strictly limited to humans having adapted to live, work and feed in this particular configuration.
As for your rant about change, adaptation and strength.... adaptation means that you're temporarily not as efficient as before. The idea is that you trade immediate comfort for long-term improvements. Your approach is akin to spending your money on building additional buildings in an earthquake area instead of retrofitting existing buildings. You gain short-term growth, but when the earthquake hits, all your investment is gone, and your worse off than if you would have done the retrofitting.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
It works a bit differently. Do you remember how bad the Little Ice Age was? Europe *was* almost wiped out by it. The problem with it was a sudden change in temperatures that Europe couldn't adapt to. In essence, people tried to go about their business the way they were used to, but it wasn't working. Luckily for them, it didn't last too long - but those were some very tough times.
As for the exact numbers, it isn't significantly colder than it was before the Little Ice Age. It's actually warmer. I'll just point you to the wikipedia article, which uses a graph generated from data published in several journals.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
>> REALLY!!??! You're joking, right? How many millions of people have died due to the banning of DDT?
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/29/rachel_carson/
>> Where are the food shortages and mass starvation I read about so long ago?
Safely contained in the third world, where folks like yourself don't need to worry about them.
>> Why are we all not dying from skin cancer due to the depleted Ozone layer?
Mostly because the world got together and greatly reduced the amount of CFCs getting into the atmosphere. The ozone layer has been slowly recovering since.
>> Aren't we supposed to be in an ice age now?
Simple answer: no. Climate scientists predicted no such thing.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
Methinks you need to find better examples.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!