Amplified Greenhouse Effect Shaping North Into South

Messing around on the web as usual and i found this article about how greenhouse gases are causing more growth in the polar regions. They are saying that the winter is warming faster then the summer. The more available heat is apparently causing more plant growth further north than usual, faster then usual. They are claiming that this trend will continue at an alarming rate. Not only will this trend continue but it will amplify the greenhouse affect from a large scale deep thawing.

Source...

An international team of 21 authors from 17 institutions in seven countries has just published a study in the journal Natural Climate Change showing that, as the cover of snow and ice in the northern latitudes has diminished in recent years, the temperature over the northern land mass has increased at different rates during the four seasons, causing a reduction in temperature and vegetation seasonality in this area. In other words, the temperature and vegetation at northern latitudes increasingly resembles those found several degrees of latitude farther south as recently as 30 years ago.

The NASA-funded study, based on newly improved ground and satellite data sets, examines critically the relationship between changes in temperature and vegetation productivity in northern latitudes.

On the amplified greenhouse effect, Prof. Ranga Myneni, Department of Earth and Environment, Boston University and lead co-author says "A greenhouse effect initiated by increased atmospheric concentration of heat-trapping gasses -- such as water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane -- causes the Earth's surface and nearby air to warm. The warming reduces the extent of polar sea ice and snow cover on the large land mass that surrounds the Arctic ocean, thereby increasing the amount of solar energy absorbed by the no longer energy-reflecting surface. This sets in motion a cycle of positive reinforcement between warming and loss of sea ice and snow cover, thus amplifying the base greenhouse effect."

Here is a little excerpt that begged me to ask this question...

"A greenhouse effect initiated by increased atmospheric concentration of heat-trapping gasses -- such as water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane -- causes the Earth's surface and nearby air to warm.

Does this mean we are partly to blame? I didnt really read anything in the article about how they came to this conclusion.

also

Will we see increased rainfall in those areas as well, and what does that mean for people in vegetated areas further south? Could we be looking at more tropical temperatures in the northeast? More hurricanes in NYC?

I for one wouldnt mind living in a more tropical area, maybe even rainforest like. Maybe this is natures response to us cutting down the rainforest, building a new one that is.

Anyway i enjoyed reading this article maybe you will to.

reply to post by onequestion



The polar regions warm faster than the rest of the earth. This is melting the ice sending fresh more fresh water into the ocean and interfering with the oceanic currents. These currents help to define our climate. If they change or stop it could have devastating consequences on our bioshpere. We need the poles to be cold to regulate weather patterns, nutrient cycles and oceanic patterns.

sf

reply to post by purplemer

Have they always been cold? If not what type of climate were we looking at?

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by purplemer

 

Have they always been cold? If not what type of climate were we looking at?

Your just fear mongering, there is no evidence to prove any of this crap will happen, or even if the world does warm it will somehow be catastrophic.

When an ice age ends, it gets warm again, this is what we are seeing now, as the glacial period ends, the world warms.

There is a lot of ecidence that suggests that the warming and higher co2 concentrations will be quite benficial to alllife on the planet.

The dinos enjoyed millions of years of nice tropical weather, their co2 . Concentratio. Was thiusands of times higher than ours, which is why their plants were so large.

Many farmers add co2 to their greenhouses for a reason, at present our concentration is bardly high enough to even allow plants to carry out photosynthesis, at higher levels they do even better.

The longest stable climate period on earth was the dino time periods, this is the standard of earths true climate, notsome last couple hundred years, this global warming nonsense is pathetically stupid.

It is all based on the assumption that the earth is suppossed to be at some 1950s average, which is nonsense, it is one of the rare exceptions, not even close to the norm, the norm is by far either tropics warm, or iceaged cold.

Common use that noodle of yours.

reply to post by onequestion


Interesting article. I'm running a research project on global warming, you may find it interesting to read as well. Linky.

SnF.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


There is a big difference between global warming, and the greenhouse effect. One has a political agenda, and one is a natural process.

The article is talking about an "amplified" greenhouse effect. Such a thing would offset the natural balance, and lead into global warming.

The bigger question would be will it regulate itself?

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by inverslyproportional

 

There is a big difference between global warming, and the greenhouse effect. One has a political agenda, and one is a natural process.

The article is talking about an "amplified" greenhouse effect. Such a thing would offset the natural balance, and lead into global warming.

The bigger question would be will it regulate itself?

OIC!

Quite right you are, I am not entirely convinced on that aspect, as it gets way to little attention, amidst all the political crap. I am at present, still seeking the truth of this.

On the one hand, the world regulated itself very well for millions of yearz back in the dino days, but the continents were much different as were ocean currents solar activity, atmospheric composition etc...


None of this ever actually gets addressed, because to admit that any of this plays a part to a flobal warming believer, means that it is all true and the sky is falling.

On the inverse, if you deny any of it to a nonbeliever, means that none of it is true, etc..

Much is the mindset of those that only think in blaxk and white, right and left, dem and repub.

It is next to impossible to have a meaningful discussion about anything important with this type, as they can only ever see one side.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by purplemer

 

Have they always been cold? If not what type of climate were we looking at?

Your just fear mongering, there is no evidence to prove any of this crap will happen, or even if the world does warm it will somehow be catastrophic.

When an ice age ends, it gets warm again, this is what we are seeing now, as the glacial period ends, the world warms.

Indeed. In past meltings from ice ages, however, there was nothing digging up fossilized coal---which had remained geologically locked for dozens of ice age/interglacial cycles. This time there is.

There is a lot of ecidence that suggests that the warming and higher co2 concentrations will be quite benficial to alllife on the planet.

The dinos enjoyed millions of years of nice tropical weather, their co2 . Concentratio. Was thiusands of times higher than ours, which is why their plants were so large.

There were no humans then. There weren't even primates. And plants and animals had millions of years to adapt to slow changes in climate. The changes we are inducing are unprecedented in magnitude and especially velocity.

Many farmers add co2 to their greenhouses for a reason, at present our concentration is bardly high enough to even allow plants to carry out photosynthesis, at higher levels they do even better.

The limiting factor for agriculture is not CO2, but H20. The change in climate results in large changes to hydrology. Also, increasing the minimum night time temperature is bad for agricultural productivity.

Nearly all agriculture is done outside greenhouses and that experience is what matters.

The longest stable climate period on earth was the dino time periods, this is the standard of earths true climate, notsome last couple hundred years, this global warming nonsense is pathetically stupid.

It is all based on the assumption that the earth is suppossed to be at some 1950s average, which is nonsense, it is one of the rare exceptions, not even close to the norm, the norm is by far either tropics warm, or iceaged cold.

It is on the assumption that messing around with the the climate in which all of our civilization has evolved and we have made all of our agricultural investments and experience is an extremely risky thing to do when you don't have security that what will come will be superior, and when the best scientific analysis based on physical and biological data show the opposite.

Hoping that scientists are wrong because you don't like the answer is not a successful plan for civilization.

Common use that noodle of yours.

One example of using one's noodle as well as one's cerebral cortex would be to recognize that what was "good" or "natural" for dinosaurs 75 million years ago is much less of a useful guide than what was successful in developing the first technological civilization on the planet.

One of the things I think they also take into consideration is the amount of methane locked in the polar regions as well. And with tundra melting more and more each year the methane in the permafrost is going to escape and I feel add even further to an already ongoing situation.

SaneThinking

Originally posted by inverslyproportional


There is a lot of ecidence that suggests that the warming and higher co2 concentrations will be quite benficial to alllife on the planet.

Many farmers add co2 to their greenhouses for a reason, at present our concentration is bardly high enough to even allow plants to carry out photosynthesis, at higher levels they do even better.

This is how poor your reasoning really is. You think that because plants grow better at higher co2, it's better for the species. There is another idiot on this site that claims that the additional vegetation due to higher CO2 will negate the potential consequences. It's so idiotic that it makes me want to hurl!

Buddy, life will find a way. No doubt about that. The thing is that civilization may not be maintained throughout the extreme climate fluctuations which we're already starting to witness.

If the plants could absorb all the CO2 without issue, then the atmospheric CO2 wouldn't be increasing, yet it is. That means that the rate of industry dumping it out exceeds the earths ability to properly manage it with a relatively stable climate all along the way.

That's not happening. This isn't fearmongering, it's a little something called SCIENCE. While the ignorant population is split down the center on the issue of AGW, the climatologists overwhelmingly agree with the theory.

Go figure.

I think the caveat to this is that they are talking about high latitudes. It's not like Cleveland now has the same climate as 1983 Atlanta or something.