Stickiness and Climate Models: Open Climate Models (2)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:04 AM GMT on November 30, 2010

Share this Blog
5
+

Stickiness and Climate Models: Open Climate Models (2)

In the previous entry I motivated the need for communities other than scientists to have access not just to the results from climate models, but to the ability to configure climate models for possible changes to the Earth’s surface and to investigate the impact of those changes. An example I used was the possibility of a project to irrigate the Sahara – a project where it was reasonable to ask how both weather and climate might be modified.

We don’t have to imagine futuristic projects like this to make the argument that more access to configurable, evaluated climate models is needed. Some might recall an entry where I was writing about managing aerosols and greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide to control warming in the near-term. That entry had been motivated by an outstanding presentation by Professor V. Ramanathan from the University of California San Diego. (I recommend specifically this part of Ram’s web page.) He was talking about an experiment where he was going to investigate whether or not changing cook stoves in India could reduce black carbon in the atmosphere, leading to reduced warming of the planet. While Professor Ramanathan has access to climate models and access to experts to design model experiments, he is not the only interested party in the execution and the results of the model experiments. It is easy to see that all of the regional governments would be interested in their own evaluations; many non-governmental organizations would be interested, as well as corporations and citizens.

In order to get buy in from all of these entities, people will want to be able to evaluate the information and its quality. They are likely going to want to pose their own questions. If such an undertaking was to proceed under the auspices of a treaty, then it is easy to imagine a country wanting to, say, develop its own climate modeling capabilities. And, of course, we will want to evaluate whether or not any action has had the predicted effect. Finally, remember that a scientific evaluation would require that independent researchers verify the information from other researchers.

My argument, suggested in a couple of earlier entries, is that community approaches are called for because of the complexity and ultimate scale that is involved (Using Projections, Downscaling). This stands in contrast to other ways to approach this problem, for example, users forming collaborations with scientists at universities and laboratories, or a new breed of climate consultancy with the needed expertise. No doubt, these other forms of developing climate information will occur and grow; it is the way that weather information is obtained. Restating, I don’t think that the simple extension of the way we provide weather services provides what is needed for climate services.

I want to state, explicitly, that I am in no way making the statement that the community of climate scientists and the availability of climate data and climate information are, fundamentally, closed. In fact, I have argued the contrary - that by the standards of any large, complex knowledge base that I can think of - the data, the analysis, and the deliberations of the climate community are free and available (for example Trust, but Verify, Strength in Many Peers). And without exaggeration, historian Paul Edwards has studied both weather and climate science as pioneering examples of the development of data and information sharing communities - A Vast Machine). That the climate community is excessively closed is part of the political argument. If any readers are aware of good studies about openness of research communities, then please send me (directly) references. My argument is that the requirement to extend the use of climate information to uncountable application communities challenges the current notions of community.

The provision of climate models that are configurable by non-scientists, presumably non-expert communities, is difficult and controversial. I recently gave a talk on this subject at Supercomputing 2010, and the slides of my presentation are linked here. In the next few articles in this series I want to explore some of the challenges that need to be overcome if there were to be open innovation and development of climate models, some ideas on how address the challenges, and some strategies on how to think about uncertainty in climate projections.

Developing Climate Models: Some basic problems

A climate model is built from component models that represent the atmosphere, the oceans, the land surface and the Earth’s ice – the cryosphere. Each of these models is composed of sub-component models, for example, cumulus cloud models. If you were to look around at the clouds, sky, the plants, the people, the landscape, the streams, and ask the question – how do I represent these things as numbers? How do I represent how these things will change? How do I represent how these things interact with each other? If you ask these questions, then you start to appreciate what needs to be included in a climate model. The answers to these questions get written up as narratives and computer codes that in some approximate way represents both the observed behavior and how that behavior changes. This leads to hundreds of thousands lines of computer code, which represent the knowledge of hundreds of types of researchers. To bring all of this together is a big management problem. To make sure that all the pieces work together is not straightforward; there is no single prescription; it is, sometimes, arcane and artistic.


Figure 1. Components of a model of the Earth’s Climate.

Add on top of this inherent tangle of ideas and codes our history, and it only makes the problem harder. We build on existing models, which requires us to use what exists. In some cases it is safe to say that there is computer code 30 years old, written in languages that are no longer taught. It’s a little like trying to keep ancient stone buildings from falling down. This heritage code provides a stubborn inertia that inhibits change and modernization.

Then to this heritage code add to the mix the nature of the computational problem. For as long as I have been a scientist, say 30 years, weather and climate models require the largest computers available, and these supercomputers are not programmed like your Apple or your PC. I know people Putman at NASA today who are trying to scale climate models to run on more than 100,000 processors. To be clear, that is a single model requiring 100,000 processors to run in concert with each other, which is far different than having 100,000 little models running independently. (Weather fans should remember L. F. Richardson). And we cannot stop the weather forecasts and the climate assessments to build something fundamentally new; our mission requires us to keep working along with what we have.

The take away message from this little exposé is that we have a highly specialized problem, with potentially overwhelming complexity, and a long history of how we have managed to get things done. “Managed to get things done” is at the core. All of the scientists and the codes are spread all over. They are not in any formal sense, managed, and we have had to develop management strategies to help control the complexity. We have this tension between management and community and creativity.

I have managed large weather and climate modeling activities when I was at NASA. On a good day, I maintain that I managed this successfully. When I was a manager I sought control, and I grimaced at some naïve ideas of community. My experience tells me that we need to investigate new ways of model development and model use. This need arises because the complexity is too large to control, and this is especially true as we extend the need to use climate models to investigate energy policy decisions and, especially, adaptation to climate change.

In the past decade we have seen the emergence of community approaches to complex problem solving. Within these communities we see the convergence of creativity and the emergence of solution paths. We see self-organizing and self-correcting processes evolve. Counter intuitively, perhaps, we see not anarchy, but the emergence of governance in these open communities. The next entry in the series will focus more on describing open communities.

r


Pakistani Flood Relief Links

Doctors Without Borders

The International Red Cross

MERLIN medical relief charity

U.S. State Department Recommended Charities

The mobile giving service mGive allows one to text the word "SWAT" to 50555. The text will result in a $10 donation to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) Pakistan Flood Relief Effort.

Portlight Disaster Relief at Wunderground.com

An impressive list of organizations


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 169 - 119

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

Quoting iceagecoming:
It gets even better, we have now a record cold that goes back 450 years.
How could that be when we burned all
that oil in the gulf this summer.
Tell you what it is not, Hot.
Time to get a clue. Enjoy.


Link

It's been one of the coldest starts to winter ever recorded (based on Central England Temperature (CET) records which started in 1659), with numerous local records broken.

Such has been the intensity of the cold, rivers across Yorkshire have begun to freeze over, a rare phenomenon in itself, but virtually unheard of so early in the winter season.

After that there is an unusual level of agreement for so far ahead, between most models, that a very cold and potentially snowy pattern will become established.

North or Northeast winds will dominate the UK by the end of next week and into next weekend, with atmospheric weather patterns well blocked across higher latitudes.

Blocking patterns are very difficult to break down, suggesting a wintry scenario in the lead up to christmas.

If this is the case, then December could challenge 1981 for its severity, itself the coldest and snowiest December of the last century.


Regional not global!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
It gets even better, we have now a record cold that goes back 450 years.
How could that be when we burned all
that oil in the gulf this summer.
Tell you what it is not, Hot.
Time to get a clue. Enjoy.


Link

It's been one of the coldest starts to winter ever recorded (based on Central England Temperature (CET) records which started in 1659), with numerous local records broken.

Such has been the intensity of the cold, rivers across Yorkshire have begun to freeze over, a rare phenomenon in itself, but virtually unheard of so early in the winter season.

After that there is an unusual level of agreement for so far ahead, between most models, that a very cold and potentially snowy pattern will become established.

North or Northeast winds will dominate the UK by the end of next week and into next weekend, with atmospheric weather patterns well blocked across higher latitudes.

Blocking patterns are very difficult to break down, suggesting a wintry scenario in the lead up to christmas.

If this is the case, then December could challenge 1981 for its severity, itself the coldest and snowiest December of the last century.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
@165

Few of the climate science dis informers have been as wrong dead wrong as Spencer for as long. He famously made a bunch of analytical blunders and spent years pushing the now long-overturned notion that the satellite data didn't show significant warming (see Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?). As RealClimate explained: So after that history, we%u2019re supposed to savor all Roy%u2019s new cookery?

So I think the working assumption should be that when Spencer pushes some convoluted new analysis to justify his views, it's more cookery an assumption that has so far stood the test of time as Spencers claims have grown more absurd over time [see The Great Global Warming Blunder: Roy Spencer asserts (and Morano parrots), I predict that the proposed cure for global warming reducing greenhouse gas emissions will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses. Uhh, guys, doctors still use medicinal leeches!]
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
<>img src="">
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Especially now, when the denier's favorite dataset still shows November being warmer than most months prior to this year (and strangely doesn't reflect the big drop in the unadjusted satellite data; I was sure that November would be much cooler, even by comparing it to last year, which should offset any base period and seasonal cycle differences and most of any extraneous trend; compare the difference in January 2008 to November or the the latter part of 2008/early 2009)!



Note also that the unadjusted satellite data appears to show cooling from 2002 to 2007, but the adjusted data shows warming! And this is from a global warming denier!


That month line should be in years. It is just all screwy to see it that way! Harder pin point the years also since they are not using factors of 12.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Quoting MichaelSTL:


Why not ignore him and his lies?

Like the nonsense about global cooling, which the deniers have hyped since the 1970s (and claim that scientists predicted it back then) - and have failed to come close to being right!

Or that climate action would destroy the economy:

Introduction to climate economics: Why even strong climate action has such a low total cost
A cost of one tenth of a penny on the dollar -- not counting co-benefits


Surely you could afford that with no changes at all in your spending and lifestyle (e.g. the average person wouldn't know the difference if their electricity came from wind or coal); that is just $1 out of $1,000; e.g. instead of paying $10.00 for something, you might pay $10.01 for it. I would also know about this because most electronic components are now made to conform to the EU's RoHS regulations (even those bought in the U.S. because of the global nature of the market), meaning no toxic substances like lead*, yet the compliant parts don't cost more (reliability concerns are also unfounded).

*Of course, CFLs aren't banned in the EU despite having mercury (but the amount is limited), nor are lead-acid batteries (I suppose the same could apply to fossil fuels in some situations, or for use in non-fuel processes like plastic).


They ain't gonna do it Michael. They gonna get that oil out of the ground even if it kills us all!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Quoting iceagecoming:
Should airline passengers pay a small tax to help out? How about global money dealers? Or perhaps governments should take what they spend subsidizing gasoline prices and put it toward the climate cause.
Delegates to the U.N. climate conference hope to agree in its final days on setting up a new "green fund" to help poorer countries grapple with global warming. Then the real arguments will begin - over where the cash will come from.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stepped into the middle of the debate this year by enlisting a high-level group of international political and financial leaders to offer advice. On Wednesday, the U.N. chief presented their ideas to the conference, including airline and foreign-exchange levies, as he led a discussion with key figures on the panel.
It will be "challenging but feasible and doable even in the context of the ongoing economic crisis" to raise $100 billion a year by 2020, as promised by richer nations at last year's climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, Ban said.
Adequate financial support would build trust between the developing and developed world, needed to forge an eventual umbrella agreement among all nations to fight climate change, he said.
Besides the green fund, the annual two-week meeting of parties to the 193-nation U.N. climate treaty may also agree on ways to make it easier for poorer nations to obtain patented green technology, and may pin down further elements of a plan to compensate developing nations for protecting their climate-friendly forests.
But once more, as at the Copenhagen summit, negotiators won't produce a sweeping deal to succeed the relatively modest Kyoto Protocol after 2012, one that would slash greenhouse gases to curb climate change.
The United States has long refused to join Kyoto, which requires limited emissions reductions by richer nations, and whose commitments expire in 2012. The United States complained the accord would hurt its economy and should have mandated actions as well by such emerging economies as China and India.
Washington's climate envoy, Todd Stern, repeated that position in Cancun on Wednesday, saying the United States won't sign up to any legally binding climate pact unless it applies to "all the major countries," including China and India.


Maybe Obama should lead by example,
I'm sure his core support will remain true
under the additional error load


Meanwhile, carbon dioxide and other global warming emissions from industry, vehicles and agriculture continue to accumulate in the atmosphere.

That's why it is so cold!

The green fund would be considered a key success for Cancun, but many details would remain to be worked out later.
The financing would help developing nations buy advanced clean-energy technology to reduce their own emissions, and to adapt to climate change, such as building seawalls against rising seas and upgrading farming practices to compensate for shifting rain patterns.


Why not tap the Kinetic Energy in the Gulf Stream and bypass all that dung!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Should airline passengers pay a small tax to help out? How about global money dealers? Or perhaps governments should take what they spend subsidizing gasoline prices and put it toward the climate cause.
Delegates to the U.N. climate conference hope to agree in its final days on setting up a new "green fund" to help poorer countries grapple with global warming. Then the real arguments will begin - over where the cash will come from.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stepped into the middle of the debate this year by enlisting a high-level group of international political and financial leaders to offer advice. On Wednesday, the U.N. chief presented their ideas to the conference, including airline and foreign-exchange levies, as he led a discussion with key figures on the panel.
It will be "challenging but feasible and doable even in the context of the ongoing economic crisis" to raise $100 billion a year by 2020, as promised by richer nations at last year's climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, Ban said.
Adequate financial support would build trust between the developing and developed world, needed to forge an eventual umbrella agreement among all nations to fight climate change, he said.
Besides the green fund, the annual two-week meeting of parties to the 193-nation U.N. climate treaty may also agree on ways to make it easier for poorer nations to obtain patented green technology, and may pin down further elements of a plan to compensate developing nations for protecting their climate-friendly forests.
But once more, as at the Copenhagen summit, negotiators won't produce a sweeping deal to succeed the relatively modest Kyoto Protocol after 2012, one that would slash greenhouse gases to curb climate change.
The United States has long refused to join Kyoto, which requires limited emissions reductions by richer nations, and whose commitments expire in 2012. The United States complained the accord would hurt its economy and should have mandated actions as well by such emerging economies as China and India.
Washington's climate envoy, Todd Stern, repeated that position in Cancun on Wednesday, saying the United States won't sign up to any legally binding climate pact unless it applies to "all the major countries," including China and India.


Maybe Obama should lead by example,
I'm sure his core support will remain true
under the additional error load


Meanwhile, carbon dioxide and other global warming emissions from industry, vehicles and agriculture continue to accumulate in the atmosphere.

That's why it is so cold!

The green fund would be considered a key success for Cancun, but many details would remain to be worked out later.
The financing would help developing nations buy advanced clean-energy technology to reduce their own emissions, and to adapt to climate change, such as building seawalls against rising seas and upgrading farming practices to compensate for shifting rain patterns.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


Figure 4. Older, thicker multiyear ice cover has decreased since 1992. The solid red line shows the annual multiyear ice loss in the Beaufort Sea. Dashed red shows the cumulative multiyear ice loss in the Beaufort Sea. Black indicates multiyear ice loss through Fram Strait.
Credit: NSIDC courtesy Geophysical Research Letters


Link




Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
updated Thu Dec 9, 2010 8:11am AEDT
Cars come to a standstill at Saint-Arnoult-en-Yvelines toll near Paris.

Cars come to a standstill at Saint-Arnoult-en-Yvelines toll near Paris. (Reuters: Mal Langsdon)

Related Story: Europe cold snap continues to kill
Related Story: 13 die as cold grips Europe
Related Story: Frustration and laughs as Britain gets snowed in
Related Story: Pub-goers snowed in for eight days

Heavy snow blanketed Paris on Wednesday, forcing the closure of the Eiffel Tower and briefly shutting its main airport as sub-zero temperatures turned Scottish roads into deadly ice sheets and Spain and Portugal cleared up after flooding and tornado-like winds.

Road, rail and air travellers faced fresh disruption following last week's transport shutdown, with Paris's Charles de Gaulle-Roissy airport closed for an hour-and-a-half and the mercury plummeting as low as minus 18.3 degrees Celsius at Tyndrum in the Scottish Highlands.

In Portugal, high winds carried off cars, uprooted trees, tore off roofs and blew over electricity poles on Tuesday, leaving around 30 people injured. A second body was recovered in Spain on Wednesday following flooding.

France's meteorological service, France Meteo, said 11 centimetres of snow fell in central Paris, the heaviest snowfall since 1987.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101208/wl_afp/franceweathertransport


http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Record+snowfall+forces+closure+Eiffel+Tower/3950052/story.html


http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,668570,00.html

Records are records, exceeding the norm as per unit of time.

Link

Pole shift is an established fact,
what effect it has is unclear.
Sometimes the field completely flips. The north and the south poles swap places. Such reversals, recorded in the magnetism of ancient rocks, are unpredictable. They come at irregular intervals averaging about 300,000 years; the last one was 780,000 years ago. Are we overdue for another? No one knows.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MichaelSTL:


Umm, no.

Just think about it - only ice loss from Greenland or Antarctica could have any such effect because sea ice is already in the water. Same reason why it doesn't affect sea level rise (aside from thermal expansion as the ice-free water warms but this isn't directly due to ice loss).

Not sure what all of this "axis flipping/pole shift" stuff is about anyway (I assume the 2012 nonsense since that is one of the unscientific theories they tout?); only something like a Moon-size asteroid could have a significant effect.


Land masses also lock it in place or it should.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Quoting DoverWxwatchter:
Has anyone done a study on what effects higher CO2 levels have on nitrogen-fixing bacteria atmoaggie?
Like you guys, that's far enough out of my expertise that I am limited to what can be found...very, very little.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Of course, that can also include CO2 and water, not just soil nutrients, but it is often the latter two that limit current crop productivity, unless you grow plants in a controlled environment, like a greenhouse, then more CO2 is beneficial; but note that some plants become more toxic (cassava, already able to cause cyanide poisoning yet widely eaten in tropical regions) or less nutritious (many others, unless you want to eat soybeans).
You guys seem stuck on crops.

A number of studies have actually emitted CO2 in part of fields, sections of forests, etc. and found CO2 being THE limiting factor.

I hadn't shown any links, as my (little bit) of knowledge on the matter was from presentations at a conference...I might have to spend a little time finding those. (Not brand new, that conference was 6 years ago).

I think they were DOE researchers.....maybe.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
There sure is one heck of a mass imbalance now on the North Arctic Ice cap. Can that cause more of a tilt or wobble on the axis?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
DEATH SPIRAL CONTINUES!

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
OUCH!


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Check out my Geenpeace blog!


Underwater Suspension Tunnels And Climate Control
Posted by: cyclonebuster | 07 Dec 10 | Leave a comment | Edit
| More

If Greenpeace wants to stop global warming they must build my Tunnels. That way it will solve all the problems they have deemed caused by global warming by restoring our planets temperature to pre-industrial revolution temperatures.



I know what they can do for climate control and every aspect of how the planet can benefit from them just from regulation of sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the enormous amount of electrical power they can produce from the kinetic energy in the gulf stream current. I understand how and why they work physically in the real world but I really can't figure out the math behind them. Is there a mathematical formula that can prove how and why they work? I built a test scale model (1/650) out of PVC pipe and used red food coloring to show how water is forced uphill from the kinetic energy and made videos of it on youtube.

In its simple form F1>F2 but I will explain where F1 and F2 come from and try to piece it together.

If the whole tunnel structure is submerged and anchored to the sea floor and the Tunnel inlet at depth is faced into the 6mph gulf stream current opposing its flow a certain amount of pressure at the tunnel inlet will exist depending on the depth it is. That pressure at the tunnel inlet I call force 1. The Tunnel outlet near the surface also has a certain amount of pressure depending on how deep it is. This force I call force 2.

Two very important people discovered long ago what will happen at both ends of the tunnel. One was Pascal and the other Was Bernoulli. What I did was combine these principles to do work. At tunnel inlet at depth Force 1 exists as the gulf stream flow impinges against the mouth of the tunnel inlet. That force is transferred to the inside walls of the tunnel and the pressure decreases with altitude. Pascal discovered the theory of hydraulics where if you apply a force to a cylinder that force is transferred everywhere within that cylinder including the walls of the cylinder. So tunnel inlet where force 1 exist I credit Pascal.
Now for the other end of the submerged tunnel near the surface where force two exists at the outlet. As the 6mph gulf stream flows past the tunnel exit a more negative pressure is created like on a airplanes wing where lift is created as the air flows over the wing or like in perfume bottle when you squeeze the bulb creating a more negative pressure in the mixing chamber drawing the fluid upwards. I credit this application to Bernoulli.

So if you combine both forces Pascal at the opening at depth and Bernoulli at the opening near the surface you can see there is a pressure differential set up across the whole tunnel structure throughout its height. Pascal states where ever there is a differential of pressure flow will occur.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fh_RXiEinU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6O6UHpKT_E

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16890

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Quoting DoverWxwatchter:
We know that because when plants grow in higher CO2 levels they develop fewer stoma, openings in the leaves to exchange CO2 and oxygen with the air.  Plants lose most of their water through the stoma in their leaves.  So fewer stoma means less water loss. 

Stoma in wikipedia




I already know all that see post 128 where it talks about that!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
It going to look pretty weird when great the national forests become the great national deserts.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
@ 134

"High CO2 levels might have one benefit for plant growth in an indirect way. Plants will need fewer openings in their leaves to exchange gases (stomata). Stomata let water vapor out from leaves. So if leaves develop fewer stomata to get the CO2 they need, plants will lose less water and be more drought-tolerant."

Drought tolerant? How do you know that or will they wilt and die and now more deserts arrive.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Quoting DoverWxwatchter:
CO2 in the past several hundred thousand years has varied between 180 ppm and 300 ppm until the industrial revolution.  Which means plant life is adapted for those levels---I don't believe CO2 is a restraint on plant growth at current levels.  After all, forests and grasslands were doing just fine 18,000 years ago in places where the climate was warm enough to support them--even though CO2 was 180 ppm.

High CO2 levels might have one benefit for plant growth in an indirect way.  Plants will need fewer openings in their leaves to exchange gases (stomata).  Stomata let water vapor out from leaves.  So if leaves develop fewer stomata to get the CO2 they need, plants will lose less water and be more drought-tolerant. 

But with CO2 already so much higher than plants have evolved to need, and rising far beyond today's levels as the century goes on, I think that CO2 is no longer a constraint on plant growth, if it ever was.  Nutrients from the ground---minerals that plants need and nitrogen in the soil will be the constraints on plant growth, not CO2.

It would be very interesting to see what effects higher CO2 levels have on nitrogen-fixing bacteria.  I don't know if studies have been done on that.
Ummm, a number of studies have compared plant growth with a control group and a higher CO2 group, all else being equal, and have measured growth rates showing that CO2 is the limiting factor.

In pre-historical times of less CO2 ppm, yeah, they survived. Did they grow as fast? Of course not.

And, the discussion of extremes is a little silly. *Some* plant matter will survive anything and after a major event, then available resources just help the surviving plants come back quickly. After a forest fire, flood, drought, plants come back, and fast. Down here, in Katrina's flood zone, everyone can tell you that a lot of plant matter initially died from flood and saltwater, but a year later, lots of overgrown areas where the plants came back faster than the humans. Only the bad erosion areas lost in any permanent way.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
Quoting misanthrope:


Hey Aggie - wondering if you've ever posted anything here that you didn't find on Watts Up With That?

Just saying, you know.

Hmmm, I think everyone is still missing the point. *sigh*

Is it there? I subscribe to a EurekAlert list and is in my.yahoo.

Let's go see if Watts has anything substantive to say about it...
...
...
Nope. Just the press release. Exactly the same thing as everywhere else, but tainted, somehow, because of the URL, I guess. Whatever.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
BTW is it Gulfstream or is it Gulf Stream?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Quoting misanthrope:


Hey Aggie - wondering if you've ever posted anything here that you didn't find on Watts Up With That?

Just saying, you know.



They sound like two peas in the same pod don't they?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Check out Ocean Hydro and what they want to do with the Gulf stream.


Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Quoting atmoaggie:
I see responses concerning "planting" or geoengineering or only 0.3 C...

This isn't about planting, it is about a response from all plants.

And, I didn't post it concerning a number. My point is that we know so very little and are constantly coming up with new and different model results, not to mention actual measurement.

But no one had any comment about that part. They must know all there is to know about climate already and I bored them with the notion otherwise.


Hey Aggie - wondering if you've ever posted anything here that you didn't find on Watts Up With That?

Just saying, you know.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Carbon Dioxide's Effects on Plants Increase Global Warming, Study Finds

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."

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Teens Get More Ear Infections When Someone Smokes at Home

ScienceDaily (Dec. 7, 2010) — Family members who smoke are more apt to feel it is OK to smoke indoors as their children get older. But in households with secondhand smoke, children between 12 and 17 are 1.67 times more prone to have recurrent ear infections compared to adolescents who live in a smoke-free environment, a large new study reveals.

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427

Pacific Sperm Whales Exposed to PAHs, Pesticides, Other Pollutants

The biomarker does not prove the animals came in contact with manmade contamination or industrial waste, she said. It reveals exposure to a compound whether it's manmade, such as industrial combustion, or naturally produced, such as a volcano or forest fire. However, the enzyme does show the animals are coming in contact with compounds known to induce molecular changes.

Additional studies are needed to further characterize the relationship between CYP1A1 expression and pollutant burden in sperm whales and other cetaceans, as well as exposures to industrial and natural sources of PAHs, she said.

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Quoting atmoaggie:
I see responses concerning "planting" or geoengineering or only 0.3 C...

This isn't about planting, it is about a response from all plants.

And, I didn't post it concerning a number. My point is that we know so very little and are constantly coming up with new and different model results, not to mention actual measurement.

But no one had any comment about that part. They must know all there is to know about climate already and I bored them with the notion otherwise.


You don't get it. There may not be any plants/forests when fossil fuel runs out due to the population explosion they will need to build houses and use bio fuel to replace the fossil fuel.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Quoting atmoaggie:
Interesting...and, clearly, we are still learning how it works. (Who knows. One day, maybe, we'll actually have a coherent understanding.)

'Greener' climate prediction shows plants slow warming

GREENBELT, Md. -- A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback – a cooling effect – in the Earth's climate system that could work to reduce future global warming.

The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua, of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Bounoua is lead author on a paper detailing the results that will be published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-12/nsfc-cp120710.php
I see responses concerning "planting" or geoengineering or only 0.3 C...

This isn't about planting, it is about a response from all plants.

And, I didn't post it concerning a number. My point is that we know so very little and are constantly coming up with new and different model results, not to mention actual measurement.

But no one had any comment about that part. They must know all there is to know about climate already and I bored them with the notion otherwise.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
Quoting MichaelSTL:


Not to mention, 0.3°C is a drop in the bucket compared to the likely 6 degrees of warming at our current path. So much for negative feedbacks saving us (never mind all of the likely undiscovered positive feedbacks, given that we seem to find more every day)... and what happens when most of the globe is a huge dust bowl, with rains being infrequent but on a massive scale (see Australia, or South America)?

And so much for phytoplankton fertilization by CO2, which has instead DECLINED by 40% over the past 60 years - and that represents about HALF of global photosynthesis (surprised also that nobody seems concerned about atmospheric oxygen depletion, although that would be very slow and long-term)!


So much for the negative 0.3 degree F feedback drop in temperature. In fact you add it to the 6.0 degree F projected increase in temperature making it 6.3 degrees F making it another positive feedback. But is that really another positive feedback? It sure sounds negative to me how about you?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427

We are doomed!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Quoting atmoaggie:
Interesting...and, clearly, we are still learning how it works. (Who knows. One day, maybe, we'll actually have a coherent understanding.)

'Greener' climate prediction shows plants slow warming

GREENBELT, Md. -- A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback – a cooling effect – in the Earth's climate system that could work to reduce future global warming.

The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua, of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Bounoua is lead author on a paper detailing the results that will be published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-12/nsfc-cp120710.php


They will never be able to it because as we run out of fossil fuel and population explodes we will need more bio fuel to take it's place and so you can say goodbye to planting.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427

Viewing: 169 - 119

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.