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."

So now we have the

[mrbluze (1034940)]

Green Side Effect as a result of the greenhouse effect. So are we all gonna die or not already?

Re:So now we have the

[by Anonymous Coward]

So are we all gonna die or not already?

Certainty? In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.
Benjamin Franklin

The questions that remain are to the manner and time, the costs paid in the meantime and those costs left behind.

Re:So now we have the

[hey! (33014)]

If I disassembled you into your component cells, I could probably select a certain tissue -- let's say skin, and create a cell culture weighing several thousand kilograms.

Does that sound like an attractive proposition?

It's all about information. The quality of your life is not encoded in your biomass -- although your cultured self might disagree, if it had anything to think with.

This reminds me of a course I took in neuroscience in which we learned that after certain kinds of brain trauma, the forms new connections in the affected area. We all felt warm and fuzzy about the Wisdom of Evolution encoded in our DNA, until it was pointed out that the new connections were actually malfunctions. Brain function would be better preserved if the new connections were suppressed, than having it rewired by the local cells, which don't really know what the hell they are doing.

Anthropocentrism has its place. but not in determining what the natural world is up to. You are prefectly free to believe that the highest use of the natural world is the care and feeding of humans, and maximizing their amusements. But the natural world doesn't take any notice of that opinion. All things being equal, we humans prefer an ocean that is richly stocked with finned fish and full of things like coral reefs. However is conditions are bad for fish or reef building organism, Gaia can always fall back on generating algal mats. An ocean choked with algal slime would not be to most of our likings at all, although perhaps to yours because it would probably contain more biomass.

Concepts like "damage" and "disaster" are purely human opinions about matters; brain cells or ocean algae simply do what life does: they adapt. The idea that Nature in Her Wisdom intervenes to protect us from our own actions is rubbish. This is the junk religion part of the Gaia hypothesis, the romantic anthropomorphizing of what is basically a gigantic machine for maximizing entropy. Nature adjusts, and most adjustments are not going to be our liking.

What any single species "likes" is to encounter favorable conditions for growth and reproduction. However, since even the resources of the entire planet are limited, it doesn't get favorable conditions forever. It either overshoots its carrying capacity, or it settles into an equilibrium with other species. Even humans, the most adaptable of species, are no different. The difference is we can understand the consequences of our actions, and therefore we can choose which of these fates we will experience.

A species that can live on everything from African veldt to arctic permafrost, from the Amazonian rain forest to the Tibetan plateau, such a species will never go extinct. At least not so long as the Sun shines, and possibly longer than that. But our species can experience population decline. This is a perfectly normal event in the history of the biosphere, but it will be for us a "disaster".

"Disaster", after all, is just our species' word for something that is perfectly predictable, but only statistically so. Since it is "only statistically probable", we assume it's somebody else's job to deal with it when it happens and put everything back to "normal" afterwards. They can prepare for it if they like, so long as it doesn't cost money or require us to make any effort whatsoever.

If you are conservative, you can choose to be one of two kinds of conservative: one who wants to keep things more or less as they have been, or one who wants to keep doing things more or less the same way we always have. You can't claim that they are both the same thing, not without the intervention of a Benevolent Agency. Things aren't to rosy on that front either, since I seem to recall that Benevolent Agencies are often quite keen on meting out mandatory change on people who aren't so keen on mending their ways.

In a nutshell, Nature doesn't care about us, because it doesn't even know we exist, apart from being an bag of c

Re:So now we have the

[FeepingCreature (1132265)]

My personal take on it is that the Earth is a very complex system with interactions that still aren't nearly fully understood, and since it's kinda the only living room we have, it would be wise to keep our interference as low as we can, until we have attained a much more .. certain understanding.

Re:So now we have the

[Gearoid_Murphy (976819)]

"Because, frankly, the stated aims of environmentalists - improving the forests, saving the fuzzy animals, and so on, is actually served by the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, as plants grow better in richer CO2 atmospheres and that leads to a stronger biosphere all round." Hold up there buddy, that is simply not true, many animals depend on icy habitats (polar bears, penguins) which are going to disappear with increasing temperature. Increased melting will disrupt the north Atlantic drift which will completely change the climate of northern Europe to something like the previous ice age. Increased levels of CO2 interacting with the sea will cause the oceans to become more acidic, this is already happening. Whatever the result, the planet is likely to be going through the most rapid period of change to its internal distribution of gases ever recorded, as a direct result of pollution from burning fossil fuels. As a species, humanity has emerged in a relatively calm period in the earth's climatic history, now, our children and their children, and heaven forbid, maybe even we, will have to deal with the consequences of these actions, which I doubt will "lead to a stronger biosphere all round."

Re:So now we have the

[erroneus (253617)]

I can't believe any scientists are surprised by the result of increased green in the presence of increased CO2. That's generally how it works. What I don't see is any break-down indicating that increased green is contributing to any increases in oxygen production or otherwise any consumption or reduction of CO2.

It has been observed through various forms of evidence that the earth has indeed cycled in this way many times. This event is significant, however, as evidenced by the melting of ice that hasn't been in liquid form for several cycles. If I understand and have read things correctly, then this is a melting of ice that has been in a frozen state for more than 5 million years. So while it's arguable that the earth naturally goes through these cycles, it's also evident that these cycles are responsible for mass extinction events on the planet.

So who cares?

1. If you care about "the planet" only, then you are pretty comfortable in knowing that the planet will be just fine. It has seen changes like these before and will not suffer or become lifeless as a result of this.

2. If you care about our current planetary ecosystem, then you are right to be concerned as it seems evident that it is being changed irreversibly. There is such a great depth to how inter-twined we are with the environment, that it is hard not to believe that any major change in the environment will not lead to a mass extinction event especially a mass extinction of humans. (If someone were to create a food substance completely out of raw, non-living minerals, then perhaps humans could stand a chance at survival.) (The very notion that only life in areas where the sea level changes is ridiculous and fails to account for other realities surrounding the change in sea level. There is, for example, the change in water temperature which has a direct connection with the patterns and intensity of weather events such as hurricanes. These weather changes are global, not only coastal. These weather changes affect the balance of plant and animal life which will inevitably lead to the rise of some and the fall of others, but consider what it means when the bees die... and they are dying. When the bees die, the stuff we depend on to make food dies with them. We will follow soon after we run out of food.)

3. If the question of cause or blame is important to you, then I believe the circumstantial evidence supports the notion that humans are responsible for what it going on.

Ultimately, I believe humans are responsible for what is going on and could stop this any time we are prepared to value life over profit. At every level, however, we're prepared to kill for money... kill for control over our own destiny. Isn't it ironic that its the human desire and instinct to dominate and control that will likely destroy us?

I love technology. I couldn't know what I know or learn what I may learn without it. I couldn't write this here without it. I'm contributing to our own demise simply by not giving up my own technology, quitting my job, destroying my car and living naked in the woods somewhere. But then, I'm just a drone like the majority of us. We're in no position to make those kinds of changes. It is the other classes of people who are in a position to make a change and their willingness to make changes...more specifically, to give up their existing business models in favor of those that will support the existence of humans. (For example, the airline industry should REALLY consider using their enormous profits to evolve into massive rail projects that can run on power sources other than those that emit greenhouse gasses. And the automotive industry should put currently known technologies to use.) We already know what is possible. We just aren't doing it. The market mentality drives us and even requires us by law to destroy ourselves for profit.

The stock market is not a maintainable model. In theory, it should be a reflection of supply and demand. In reality, it is driven by guesses, fears

Re:So now we have the

[cthulhuology (746986)]

Because, frankly, the stated aims of environmentalists - improving the forests, saving the fuzzy animals, and so on, is actually served by the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, as plants grow better in richer CO2 atmospheres and that leads to a stronger biosphere all round.

My BS detector pegged a 10 here. If you actually read the projections by the US Govt, you'll see that increased CO2 will increase the total amount of biomass, but will also kill off the old growth forests, and reduce much of the country to desert grasslands. Crop production is also hurt by increased CO2 because while the plants in take more CO2 that doesn't translate to increased yields of fruits. Additionally, many of our plants are extremely temperature sensitive. If you ever try to grow a Sycamore or White Oak from seed, you'll be amazed at the conditions for germination. The facts are increase CO2 = increase in weeds and grasslands & lower quantities of forest and fruits; you know those economically valuable plants.

Leftist?

[Moraelin (679338)]

As somewhat of a socialist (the Western European kind, not the Soviet kind), I sometimes find it funny how "left" or "liberal" (which in most of Europe actually means "right") has become a blanket insult in the USA for anyone and anything who's not for giving more money and unchecked power to the corporations and billionaires. Especially how it's supposed to be some kind of monster hell-bent on destroying the industry and humanity.

The "left" is mostly about how you divide the pie, so to speak, not about trying to destroy industry. We're all Keynesians, yes, both Europe and the USA, we all live in a massive overproduction potential, and we all have our governments spend some of that excess to keep it going. Essentially any first world country can produce orders of magnitude more than it needs, and has to find a way to (A) use that surplus for something useful, and/or (B) keep some people busy doing something that doesn't produce anything. Giving corporations more money just results in B. More and more people are hired to engage in nearly zero-sum games, like marketing past a point. Yes, it stimulates consumption a bit too too, but even that (1) only goes so far, and past a point the effects are infinitesimal, and (2) is ultimately a way to waste some production capacity instead of just dumping those resources off a hill.

There's something inherently heartless to argue that someone poor should be denied healthcare, so someone else who's already rich can buy a new barbecue grill. Or that you should dump that excess into having more lawyers and marketers, instead of having a few more doctors.

And no, it hasn't destroyed the industry so far. Germany for example was doing great with a socialist economy, until it had to absorb the obsolete industry of East Germany. Now it's recovering pretty nicely from that again. All the leftist stuff like good welfare, good medical care, unions being officially a part of the corporate management, etc, haven't really resulted in anything bad so far.

But anyway, I digress. That's really what the "left" is about: how you distribute the wealth. The GINI index. The idea that someone below poverty line can use an extra buck on his wage, more than the CEO needs another ten millions on an already ridiculously high wage.

The "Greens" are something else. It's something orthogonal to it all. Yes, they too want some taxes, but then they want to spend it on their own ideas, not on (immediately) improving the lot of the poor. I'm not necessarily saying that it's good or bad, just that it's something orthogonal.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the political spectrum consists of a hell of a lot of variables, not just one axis between left and right. The ecological agenda is just another axis in that multidimensional space, rather than something inherently leftist.

Re:Leftist?

[nbates (1049990)]

Only poor people has hard-earned money. Most middle to upper class people usually have to do some office job, sitting on a comfortable room with air conditioner or heating systems and then driving home in your own car. You may end your day with some headaches, but you don't end your day with actual bruises (like people working on fields, mines or construction sites).

The more money you have, the more pleasant is doing your job. As you get better payed jobs you also get the better office and better non-monetary retributions.

I agree that it is harder to GET better jobs, it is harder to GET to a place where you are payed more. But you don't end up doing HARDER work, you may work hard, but people that's under you is working hard too, only that in worst conditions.

So I think the rule is:

Poor people: hard-earned money
Rich people: hard-earned jobs

But I understand your position, games are always fun when you are winning. I also have one of those hard-to-earn jobs... I work at home, with a laptop, usually from bed or sitting on a nice chair on my garden.... while my cleaning lady has to spend her day going from house to house cleaning other people's shit.

So, when what I'm saying is three things:

1. Don't loose perspective of the place you stand compared to other people.
2. Don't say poor people doesn't work, or works less than you do.
3. Everyone is needed in society, everyone deserves to be recognized.

--
We are all Anonymous Cowards when online.

Re:Leftist?

[electroniceric (468976)]

Your "hard-earned money" was brought you by all the infrastructure that the taxes "taken from you" by "force" provide. Or perhaps you prefer feudal warlordism as your form of government.

The mantra of "I should get to keep every penny I ever see" is beyond dated now, and it was petulant, and shortsighted to begin with. The things that make your life (including working hard to earn money) all come from a massive physical, legal, and social infrastructure. I have tried for a long time to keep away from the conclusion that people who espouse it are fundementally unaware of how much is being provided for them as a baseline, but I am inevitably stunned by the naivete to think that things run themselves.

And this is why righties continuous fail to find that magical pot of government waste that allows them to drown the government in the bathtub. It ain't there, because people like the services they receive: law enforcement, publicly accessible schools, roads, hospitals. Small-fry investors/mutual fund buyers like having their markets policed from rampant cheats and liars. People like military operations that defend them and support the global market infrastructure (provided they're not misconceived Napoleonesque military adventurism). And every last one of those activities costs money. So start talking to me about the sewers you don't want built, or the drug and medical device regulations you don't want (so any old $5.75/hr schmoe can dose you with X-rays) or the fishing permits you shouldn't have to get so anyone can dynamite all the fish out of a stream, or the defense contracts you don't want to pay for (there's a real bargain...), and anything you think you can convince a million of your neighbors that the government should never do. Let me know when you've got that list done.

It's evident that plenty of government spending is larded with graft, patronage, dumb ideas, and political posturing. But frankly, that's at least as true in any corporate setting as in the government, and that's supposed to be a virtue because, you know, the Free Market Fairy loves her some corporations and hates her some government. I actually do believe that public entities have a special obligation to spend money conservatively and wisely, since that money represents trust by the people at large. But that kind of good government with wise investment and stewardship of public resources nearly orthogonal to the vision the so-called Free Marketeers lay out (until, of course, their Bears Stearns collapse is upon them at which point they run mewling to the teat of the government they so despise).

This is an engineering site - we work in goals and tradeoffs, not things we don't like and the free lunch we wish was there. So let's talk public policy and real goals and real constraints - that's a debate well worth having.

Re:So now we have the

[Bombula (670389)]

there's very few better things we could have done with our intelligence for the continuance of life on Earth than releasing all of the trapped CO2 back into the atmosphere so that it can be used again ... The only species that are going to really be adversely affected by this sort of change are those who have set up permanent settlements right next to the water and can't easily retreat further inland as the water rises.

Obviously you're not familiar with the apocalyptic danger posed by ocean acidification [wikipedia.org]. 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.

Re:So now we have the

[Xiroth (917768)]

Feel free to read the rest of the post whenever you have time in your clearly busy schedule.

Re:So now we have the

[kisak (524062)]

Environmentalists were around long before global warming. GW is just their latest tactic.

Environmentalism [wikipedia.org] as a modern movement is usually said to start around the industrial revolution, i.e. around 1800.

Global warming [wikipedia.org] was first discussed by Svante Arrhenius before 1900 (Svante considered GW a good thing, being a Swede, but of course he did not know about chaos theory and run away temperatures).

The war on science where all science that don't fit a fundamentalist view is smeared, seems to be a quite new tactic, invented in the USA.

Re:So now we have the

[slim (1652)]

ask any scientist how easy it is to get funding after you publicly doubt global warming.

Surely you just approach an oil company? Or if that fails, there's plenty of right wing newspapers who will happily serialise your book.

Broad brush...

[Slur (61510)]

Personally, I am concerned about the survival of as many life forms as possible, all of whom are being affected by Homo sapiens stomping blindly, willy-nilly all over the place, many spouting selfish bullshit like yours, eating up the world and being smug and self-satisfied with their designer beer. Whatever "favors" we may be doing by releasing carbon into the atmosphere are more than mediated by the fact that we are as a collective quite an ugly phenomenon vis a vis the rest of the biosphere.

Think of everything that life has learned up to now. It's all in the DNA. The DNA is everything life has learned about surviving and prospering and experiencing itself and the universe around. Evolved over billions of years, invaluable, irreplaceable information that interacts to sustain life. We are erasing that information, burning it up. We're not making a backup, and it sounds like you're saying it doesn't matter, it'll all work out in the end so it doesn't matter what we do. That's utter crap, because it does matter. It matters because what we do defines us, and as I look around, it seems that what we humans consider valuable runs quite counter to that which upholds the biosphere that sustains all life.

To me it seems like nothing less than a deep imperative to be concerned about all life and to treat all species as our beloved friends. At any rate, we should not dismiss every other species with banal cartoon characterizations like "fuzzy animals." Sure, you'll find plenty of people who'll pat you on your clever head for that one, but the biosphere is giving you the finger, pal. Life happens to be full, profound, and challenging for all living beings, whether you consider them cute, fuzzy, and ridiculous or not. To dismiss the deep experience of every other species, while exalting our own relatively banal imitation of life is hilarious to behold.

You should endeavor to give the deepest possible respect to all living beings. It may lead you to a deeper appreciation of life, where your concerns aren't bound purely by stylistic considerations: how large, how many fingers and toes, whether the being is fuzzy or "cute" or ugly, whether it can do calculus or get voted off American Idol.

Until you as a person give up your thoughtless species-oriented prejudices, you limit your access to the living world, make everything about "us" and "them," focus on differences, make life a war and a struggle, and closed off in a homo-sapien bubble.

You don't have to make it such an adversarial thing between you and those like me who are trying to love more broadly, but I can understand that some people prefer it that way, because they feel reasonably comfortable that they have the upper hand.

Well, congratulations on your hard-won success!

It just sounds like all you care about is you and yours, and you've got a very limited idea of who fits in that little group. Why would you not try to be an advocate for as many beings as possible? Most higher animals are quite helpless and oblivious in the face of all our madness, and without the intervention of concerned humans, they have no hope. Aren't the helpless, the voiceless, and the downtrodden exactly those who need us to wake up and work harder for them?

I mean, if you feel contempt or indifference towards the helpless.... well it has a fascist kind of spirit, doesn't it?

Re:I agree

[The Master Control P (655590)]

Oh look at this poor tribe that had to move from the coast presumably because of the ocean level rising (it has in fact declined on average).

The inhabitants of low-lying atolls and islands all around the Pacific would like to have a word with you.

Re:I agree

[Ihlosi (895663)]

The inhabitants of low-lying atolls and islands all around the Pacific would like to have a word with you.

... the millions of people living in large coastal cities would, too.

Re:I agree

[The Master Control P (655590)]

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.

Re:So now we have the

[thermian (1267986)]

How do you go from biomass regeneration to WWIII?

Anyway, Earth, in its aspect as a living system, can survive the impact of a gigantic Asteroid and destruction of almost all Plant and Animal life, repopulating back to previous levels within a few tens of millions of years.

That the biomass is booming is simply an example of the very same mechanisms at work.

All species go extinct, all of them, that includes us. The greatest likelihood is that the Voyager probe will outlast the species that created it.

There is some small chance that we will make it to the stars and survive, but this will spark a new round of evolution. Result? Extinction of the current form of Homo Sapiens.

My only consolation is that this includes the french :)

Re:So now we have the

[SQLGuru (980662)]

Whether right or wrong, his point was made in answering the question "Are we going to die?" (with the assumption being because of how poorly we've treated the planet on which we live). The GP's point was that, barring war, most of us will make it to at least 70.....and very likely that our children will as well. Or, in short, his answer was "no, not any time soon".

My take: it's called the greenhouse effect for a reason. Plants thrive in a greenhouse because of the trapped moisture, the tropical conditions, etc. We've increased CO2 which plants "breath". The temperature is rising which actually helps most plants. etc. etc. etc. More plants means more CO2 converted to 02. Humans have become more aware of the problem and will make a few better choices. I think the planet will make some swings back and forth, but we'll adapt and move on.

Layne

Re:So now we have the

[d3ac0n (715594)]

I think many alarmists forget that Earth was once significantly warmer than it is now, and had significantly higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than it has now. Was the Earth a desert? Hardly. The Earth was an even greater oasis of life than it is now. The warm Earth gave us the dinosaurs, and all the massive vegetation required to support such enormous animals.

After the death of the Dinosaurs and the rise of Mammals we have gone through several Ice and Warm ages, as our planet naturally swings back and forth from one temperature extreme to the other. We are still living within these natural trends, which we puny humans are powerless to stop or alter in any way. Indeed, we are as helpless as the Dinosaurs before the Natural forces at work on our world.

We shouldn't fear the changes, merely work to ensure that our societies and economies are as strong as possible so that we can weather the changes, adapt, and come out stronger than before. This is why I oppose ALL of the proposed "solutions" to the "anthropogenic climate change" hoax. EVERY ONE of them, without exception, leaves us in a weaker position to weather change than if we did not follow them. They all propose some sort of socialistic or communistic top-down managed approach, FORCING people to alter their lifestyles in some vain attempt to "live green". What a farce.

Re:So now we have the

[GeffDE (712146)]

The reason that informed people are worried about global warming is not a fear that all life on Earth will die if it gets too hot. It is really freaking hard [livescience.com] to destroy Earth. What gets informed people (i.e. people not being spoon-fed tripe from cable news and alarmist media outlets) scared is that the global warming induces climate change and that climate change and associated events can have a severe impact on human civilization.

An obvious example is that melting ice caps will raise ocean levels; a large portion of human civilization is centered on coastal cities that will be flooded by raised ocean levels, and thus global warming can have a huge impact on society and humans in general. A more non-obvious effect is that climates with large "breadbaskets" may change, thereby significantly reducing the amount of food that can be produced there; considering that many people are already starving in the world, any reduction in food production will lead to many deaths. Also consider that increased temperatures lead to a wider variability in weather, leading to more damaging hurricanes or blizzards.

Those are changes that should be feared because there is no way that human civilization can weather those changes in a graceful manner. Any of those changes will bring about massive need for change (especially if coastal cities get flooded; the huge increase in refugees would overload the infrastructure of any region they relocate too); adapting to avoid these calamities is not currently feasible or would take too long before the effects are projected to be felt. Solutions to anthropogenic climate change (ACC) are predicated on the belief that 1) human output of CO2 is having an effect on the global CO2 levels and thus the global climate in a way that is adverse to human civilization and 2) that reducing the anthropogenic component of climate change will make it easier to deal with any climate change that happens naturally.

Looking at this objectively, it is true that we as a civilization are fucked if the climate changes dramatically. Individuals will most likely survive, and probably in good number considering the wide variety of climates humans already successfully live in. However, the infrastructure that everyone takes for granted could be obliterated by severe change. It obviously needs to be fortified and I couldn't agree more with you about that. However, those changes cannot be enacted and implementing in a short timescale because they are radical changes (our infrastructure is pretty damn rickety). The idea of mitigating the effect of ACC is by doing so, we are buying ourselves more time to implement the changes necessary to ensure that our infrastructure survives. Decentralizing power generation (which "going green" with windmills or other non-fossil fuel burning power generation techniques) both reduces the impact of ACC and fortifies the infrastructure.

So really, I don't buy that reducing ACC is a bad thing, and I don't think that it's a farce to hold people responsible for their actions when their actions impact the lives of other people. I mean, good, exemplar democracies like the US of A have been FORCING people to alter their lifestyles for over 100 years: polygamy is outlawed, as are various psychotropic drugs; the Eisenhower Interstate system realized a radical change in lifestyle (the rise of the exurbs, the fall of trains, etc. Every decision from a governing body has the effect of radically altering lifestyles; that doesn't make all governing bodies communistic or socialistic.

Re:So now we have the

[baboo_jackal (1021741)]

unless the Israelis start WWIII

Is there some corollary to Godwin's law that I don't know about? "As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability that someone will randomly blame Jews for some imaginary travesty approaches one," or something like that?

Get a grip.

Re:So now we have the

[c6gunner (950153)]

Maybe you're a little too sensitive, especially as the GP was probably referring to the recent direct threats to sovereign nations that Israeli leadership was making in the last few days. Threats of military action.

lol

In case you haven't noticed, those "soverign nations" have been making threats against Israel for about six decades now...

I guess you just don't take Arabs seriously, huh?

Is biodiversity also booming?

[sweet_petunias_full_ (1091547)]

Biodiversity is declining and that's a bad thing even if more weeds are growing in Oshkosh.

The arctic ice pack is melting and that will ultimately change the earth's albedo in a bad way. I don't see much optimism in that, even if some plants in some places grow better due to changing climate conditions.

Return of the slime

[Ihlosi (895663)]

Biodiversity is declining and that's a bad thing even if more weeds are growing in Oshkosh.

That's a good point. I read an article a while ago stating that some parts of the oceans are experiencing a "return of the slime" - the higher life forms are disappearing, while simpler life forms are booming.

Probably not something we want to have. I'd rather have fish and seafood than algae slime, thank you very much.

Re:Return of the slime

[sweet_petunias_full_ (1091547)]

"I'd rather have fish and seafood than algae slime"

If sea levels continue to rise due to global warming, the spawning grounds for many fish will be flushed with excessive salinity which will wipe out those special ecosystems and drop fish stocks worldwide (...already in sharp decline). So as you say, the fish and seafood will be replaced with slime, and there will be more mosquitoes due to the lack of fish hatchlings to eat the mosquito larvae.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise [wikipedia.org]

Biosphere booming indeed.

Re:Return of the slime

[arotenbe (1203922)]

I'd rather have fish and seafood than algae slime, thank you very much.

Please, won't someone think of the sushi!

Re:Is biodiversity also booming?

[by Anonymous Coward]

An "ice age" is defined as a period where ice sheets cover land in both hemispheres. In the south, we have Antarctica; in the north, we have Greenland. Guess what that means? We're in an ice age. Guess what it means that the ice sheets are melting? We're coming out of one. Guess what happens to temperatures when you come out of an ice age? They rise. I shit you not. We've been coming out of an ice age for 11,000 years. If the warming trend that began after the peak of the last ice age were a day, the industrial revolution happend at thirty minutes to midnight. CO2 is good. That's what TFA says. The mean surface temperature of Mars is rising also--that's not the industiral revolution and that's not some gas-leak on our little rovers.

Thank you, that is all.

Re:Is biodiversity also booming?

[The Master Control P (655590)]

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.

I smell bullshit

[by Anonymous Coward]

Quote from article "massive programs in an effort to remove as much as 80% of the carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere.

If these governments are right, they will have done us all a service. If they are wrong, the service could be all ill, with food production dropping world wide, and the countless ecological niches on which living creatures depend stressed."

Bollocks, governments are not removing emissions, they are reducing emissions. Thus we will still keep all the CO2 in the atmosphere, we will just pump less new CO2 into the atmosphere.

Thus the plants can keep growing all they like, we won't be removing their food anytime soon. All we are doing is slowing down the pace at which we are overfeeding them.

corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, are biomass

[0WaitState (231806)]

So how much of this increased biomass is due to higher yielding farming techniques over the past 20 years? And how much of the higher farm yield is due to fertilizers from crude oil? (hint, in 1st world countries, you cannot profitably farm bulk crops without oil originated fertilzer)

It depends

[Moraelin (679338)]

Well, yes, but at the same time those plants absorb some CO2 out of the atmosphere to grow. And then you eat them, shit it, and it's not going back into the atmosphere. Or they get turned to clothes, paper (quick-growing trees are used as crops to produce paper), etc, which end up in a landfill and again it's not quite going back into the atmosphere.

So while some CO2 _is_ produced in raising those crops, yes, including in creating their fertilizer, they also remove some CO2 from the air. So the balance isn't as doom-and-gloom as you seem to assume.

Second, we're talking fertilizers, not plastics. Most of what those plants need is nitrogen, which actually comes from the air. (Fossil fuels don't contain much nitrogen.) E.g., ammonium nitrate is nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen. There is no carbon in it at all. (And even if there were, it would go into the plant, not back into the air.)

Technically, some carbon is used there, but at least for the Haber process that's methane gas from natural gas fields. There's buggerall need to start from oil to produce it. And it's recycled back into methane by the end of the process, so it's basically used more as a catalyst than "OMG, dumping CO2 into the atmosphere." The Odda Process is even more fun, in that at least one variant of it can actually use CO2 and fix it to CaCO3.

So all that remains as a source of pollution there is that, like any factory, it needs some energy. It doesn't necessarily mean oil, though. I'm sure you can use nuclear power instead, which, for whatever other sins it may have, has exactly zero CO2 emissions.

Consider the source

[JakartaDean (834076)]

Well, this would certainly be great if true -- the impact of increased global temperatures and higher availability of CO2 means that plant life booms, sequestering CO2. But...

Consider the source. The summary links to two rather untrustworthy sources of global warming information. Why are there no links to the actual study? Maybe the lack of appropriate links is, in it's own way, part of the story. Colour me sceptical.

Re:Consider the source

[MrMr (219533)]

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 [sciencemag.org]
and
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1645290 [ieee.org]

Twisted Conclusion

[estitabarnak (654060)]

An excellent example of taking raw data and jumping to a conclusion. Certainly, if the numbers show that plant biomass is up, then biomass could very well be up, but is that a good thing?

This does not take in to account bioDIVERSITY. While we may be increasing crop density, causing giant algol blooms, is monoculture something that we really want?

You can introduce an exotic species of grass to populations in the Moaje desert which are extremely prone to burning, but will grow back from the ground. All of the native plants, which are not accustomed to fires die off. What you're left with is an exotic grass that any number of animal species may need be able to utilize. Destroy biodiversity at the bottom and everything above it falls apart.

Same goes for giant algae blooms in the Gulf of Mexico due to high nitrogen runoff from agriculture. Sure there's a metric fuck-ton of algae growing there, but at what cost? If the death of every other living thing (or nigh on) in the surrounding area is good, then... great!

Furthurmore, last time I checked, Carbon was not exactly a limiting factor in plant growth. I've seen plants die from pH, salt poisoning, incorrect water levels, heat, cold, you name it. However, I don't think I've ever seen a plant suffer from lack of CO2.

In short: To say that plant biomass alone accounts for a healthy ecosystem and that increased carbon levels confers from magical "nutrients" to plants is far-fetched at best.

Re:Twisted Conclusion

[by Anonymous Coward]

"Furthurmore, last time I checked, Carbon was not exactly a limiting factor in plant growth. I've seen plants die from pH, salt poisoning, incorrect water levels, heat, cold, you name it. However, I don't think I've ever seen a plant suffer from lack of CO2..."

CO2 IS a limiting factor in plant growth. The current concentration, around 350 ppm, is actually at the lowest end for plant survival. Dendrochronologists have to factor in extra growth caused by the recent CO2 blip into their calculations. Why do you think polytunnel farmers inject extra CO2 into their tunnels?

To people who know about these things, this is a non-story.

If you don't know what you're talking about, please don't post on slashdot as if you do.....

! "Scientists"

[0WaitState (231806)]

The posting headline is misleading: the article author has written a book attempting to debunk global warming. This is not a scientific consensus, but one man pushing a contrary position. Check it out, and make your own evaluation:

The Deniers [nationalreview.com]

Lawrence Solomon is author of a new book from the new Richard Vigilante Books. The book is The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud *And those who are too fearful to do so. And that about tells you everything you need to know. In The Deniers, Solomon focuses on profiling the scientists Al Gore conveniently doesn't engage. In the run-up to the hottest holiday of the year, Earth Day, he took questions from National Review Online editor Kathryn Lopez.

Author with an Agenda

[Knutsi (959723)]

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 [amazon.com] 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.

Re:The cycle....

[mrbluze (1034940)]

More CO2 => increased temperatures => more greenery => more CO2 absorption => decreased temperatures?

Yeah, seriously, I think I'm gonna go back to believing in horoscopes.

Re:The cycle....

[Yetihehe (971185)]

Looks like just this will happen. But before CO2 levels decrease, there may be mass extinctions.

Re:The cycle....

[MrMr (219533)]

And after CO2 levels have decreased, there may be mass extinctions.
Perhaps mass extinction is the preferred process to upgrade the biopshere to cope with new conditions?

Re:The cycle....

[Hognoxious (631665)]

Have you noticed how mass extinctions often happen at the boundary between one geological period and another? I don't think it's a coincidence.

My advice is to be extra specially careful around those times.

Re:The cycle....

[MrMr (219533)]

You think the universe would be even remotely interesting without at least one really evil species?
We could be the Vogons of the galaxy. I'd like the shouting part.

Re:The cycle....

[Yetihehe (971185)]

I will write poetry, I'm really bad at this :D "Ode to extinctions: O thy, which is extinct, Don't ever come back, Because for you the race is over, Use burma shave".

White house brainstorm session:

[mrbluze (1034940)]

Moderator: How are we going to turn this into something that will scare the masses - we have a few more anti-privacy bills to pass..

Jeff: We'll be attacked any minute by a muslim man-eating creeper and..

Jill: What about we are all going to starve because.. uhh..

Tony: We're gonna be taken over by weeds..

Jill: Weed!

Jeff: Man eating weed..

All together: Muslim-man-eating-weed!

Moderator: Great, let's write that one down.

Re:great

[myowntrueself (607117)]

Pre-historic ecosystems, such as the massive hadrosaur herds, required far more abundant plant growth than is possible in any modern ecosystem.

Animals such as hadrosaurs would grow extremely rapidly from hatchlings to full grown. That took a LOT of plant material for them to eat. And their population density was fairly high. In order for hadrosaur herds to thrive as they did the vegetation had to be extremely fast growing and abundant.

Modern ecosystems are, by comparison to pre-historic ecosystems, virtually deserts.

There is just nothing like the hadrosaur in the modern world, there just isn't the carbon in circulation to sustain the plant life required to support them.

Re:Yeah and then there are "dead zones"

[The Master Control P (655590)]

The situation you describe looks like a new equilibrium that's seperated from the existing ones by a kinetic barrier; Before algae grazers can move in, the bloom peaks, dies, and creates a dead zone phenomenon.

Re:Yeah and then there are "dead zones"

[Entropy2016 (751922)]

Yes I know the story: nutrients create algae blooms which then die and decay thereby robbing the ocean of oxygen.

No, you don't know the story. That's only part of it.
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.

Re:The pertinent question...

[The Master Control P (655590)]

Warmer temperatures induce melting of arctic and greenland icesheets. If this continues far enough, it may reduce the salinity of the north Atlantic to the point that the oceanic conveyor shuts down; If this happens, Europe freezes. There is evidence that this is already in progress; Measurements have indicated that the columns of cold, dense saltwater from the surface that need to sink to the ocean floor are not getting as far down as they should.

Increasing temperatures over equatorial oceans drive increased humidity and increased storm formation, resulting in an increased number of more powerful hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones. Rising humidity in tropical regions is also extending the range of tropical disease-carrying insects northwards.

The addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is altering the equilibrium acidity of the oceans, as more of it dissolves into top layers of the ocean and forms carbonic acid. This makes it more difficult for diatoms to grow their carbonate-based bodies. If the acidity increases sufficiently, it could cause diatom populations to crash as their bodies dissovle and effectively nuke the entire oceanic ecosystem from the bottom floor.

Underneath the permafrost in much of the north are unimaginably massive deposits of methane calthrates, consisting of a crystal of methane and water molecules that is only thermodynamically stable at low temperatures and high pressures. If rising temperatures induce a massive decomposition (blowout) of calthrates, the result would be catastrophic beyond measure; Methane has thousands of times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, and there are billions of tons of it locked up in calthrates.

There is a now famous picture, showing an image of a Himalayan ice pack taken circa 1910 alongside an image taken today; The ice has all but disappeared. If reduced snow accumulation and increased melting takes place, many borderline parts of the world will be tipped into being outright deserts due to reduced river flow. Guess what feeds the world's rivers?

So... would you like to know more?