Correction: Plants Will Not Flourish as the World Warms

Hm.m.m.m.m....A warmer Earth will NOT lead to more plant growth says a scientist at the University of Hawaii in Manoa. She may be right.

In all the bad news about climate change, one bright spot was the forecast that rising temperatures would help plants grow worldwide, especially in the cold, high latitudes. But a new study rips that idea out by the roots. “There is more to climate change than just temperature,” says Camilo Mora, an assistant professor of geography at the University of Hawaii in Mānoa, who led the work. Drought and limited sunlight will undermine any gain from a warmer atmosphere. By 2100, Mora says, “there could be an 11 percent reduction in the plant growing season worldwide.”

From my limited understanding of science, I gather that a warmer Earth will be bad for plant growth for different reasons. What does ATS think?

www.scientificamerican.com...

a reply to: lostbook

That obviously that scientist is just getting paid to say what is being said, probably by Al Gore, duh.

a reply to: lostbook

History says otherwise.

Source

The facts suggest that much more abundant precipitation as indicated by larger more powerful rivers is characteristic of global warming. If anything, global warming is good news for farmers who depend for their livelihood on rainfall. The geological evidence shows that desertification cannot be produced by global warming.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: lostbook

That obviously that scientist is just getting paid to say what is being said, probably by Al Gore, duh.

Of course! Gore........!

a reply to: lostbook

Camilo Mora is now 97% of the scientists..... or will be soon.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: lostbook

History says otherwise.

Source

The facts suggest that much more abundant precipitation as indicated by larger more powerful rivers is characteristic of global warming. If anything, global warming is good news for farmers who depend for their livelihood on rainfall. The geological evidence shows that desertification cannot be produced by global warming.

Yes, have read much the same as well and Canada would do fairly well indeed.

Bollocks. The issue is bigger than that.. she is using one single construct of cultivation and making sweeping conclusions based on ignorance. These types of articles are nothing more than politics. .a reply to: lostbook

It is not so much the warmer temps . It is a combo of warmer temps and the (supposedly) higher CO2 levels.(it is CO2 and not Co2 which would be an impossible isotope of Cobalt)

Many plants only thrive in certain temperate zones. Look at a seed catalog and the zones they have here in the states. So it's only logical that as the average temps climb higher these plants simply will not be able to handle the heat and will die off.

a reply to: lostbook

It really depends on what types of plants we are talking about.....plants in their current environments have adapted to that climate.....as the weather warms some plants will do better than others,as they adapt to the temp and weather changes the strongest and most suited to that environment will survive and multiply..this cycle has happened many times before..

As far as current farming techniques go there will be a big fail in that department,current techniques work against nature and not with her so a change in climate will only make it more difficult and cause failure...unless of course there is a big change in the way we grow food

You are not correct. I work in the industry and that statement is patently false. Zones move with the precession. ..utterly obtuse to not understand that and make statements that account for a sphere with a moving equatorial region based on the precession. Gee should we all listen to Al Gore? He knows zero

I am appalled by the people who make un informed statements based upon their own ignorance.
eply to: buster2010

You are correcta reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Reading is hard.
So I'll just /algore instead.

I thought in times of Dinosaurs there was around 5x the current CO2, varying warmer temperatures (depending on which period), and much more flora.

a reply to: onequestion

Why does what he has to say out weigh what the source in OP says?

This guys bibliography of what you linked is full of anti-climate change sources...

a reply to: Sremmos80

Its in the fossil record.

originally posted by: lostbook
Hm.m.m.m.m....A warmer Earth will NOT lead to more plant growth says a scientist at the University of Hawaii in Manoa. She may be right.

In all the bad news about climate change, one bright spot was the forecast that rising temperatures would help plants grow worldwide, especially in the cold, high latitudes. But a new study rips that idea out by the roots. “There is more to climate change than just temperature,” says Camilo Mora, an assistant professor of geography at the University of Hawaii in Mānoa, who led the work. Drought and limited sunlight will undermine any gain from a warmer atmosphere. By 2100, Mora says, “there could be an 11 percent reduction in the plant growing season worldwide.”

From my limited understanding of science, I gather that a warmer Earth will be bad for plant growth for different reasons. What does ATS think?

www.scientificamerican.com...

It is true, but we need to focus on "edible plant" life. We can have trees and shrubs, but if them trees aren't bearing fruit, we are doomed. But first, the living life of the ocean will become almost lifeless. I see it happening here , fish catches are almost 80% down and eel, well they go for about $18 US dollars each.

a reply to: lostbook

So as water evaporates more quickly from the surface (oceans, lakes, rivers, ponds, recent rain, etc) it would somehow disappear from the face of the Earth? Ridiculous. The same amount of water will always be here in some form. Even if most of the freshwater is located in the ocean, rain will still fall in places and that water will not be saltwater. Just because it is warm doesn't mean it doesn't rain. It has to do with the gulf and jet streams controling wind.

They aren't called greenhouse gases for nothing... and what happens in a greenhouse?
Plant life flourishes.

Of course; climate change means more than just carbon emissions... climate deniers as they get called, stand on the natural process our planet goes through as the singular cause instead of what we do to help speed up the process. We've had two holes in the ozone layer, one from fluorocarbons that appeared above Australia in the 80's, and a very massive one above the arctic that according to satellite imagery is starting to close up... it's appearance was mostly from methane being released, as our planet has generally heated up in base temperatures.

That's the gases side... what happens if such a thing continues helps lead to climate change; ie. ice melting creates higher sea levels, higher sea levels means changing ocean currents, ocean current changes means weather pattern changes, more water evaporating in the atmosphere means more clouds... more clouds means more rain, more rain means more storms, more storms means more flooding and erosion...

It seems to have stalled a bit... but in my opinion it's a lot like a glass of drink. You fill a glass 2/3rds full of soda... pretty hot right? So you add 4 ice cubes, things still seems stable and warm but as the ice melts, it seems to just get colder and colder... but obviously more watery as the ice starts blending with the soda. Eventually there will be no ice left in the glass and it becomes hot again.

It's in my opinion, all of the ice melt has cooled the ocean temperatures down creating the weather we have now... making it appear as if it has indeed stalled... but once the water reaches warmer temps again? The ice will start melting with fervor again... there is a lot of trapped methane that is released during ice melts that naturally helps the warm up along.

Of course deserts will still exist it takes 1000's of years for soil to be transformed by encroaching fauna into what we call fertile soil... the trees on the edge of the desert have to constantly drop matter to decay and blend in to transform it away from sand, then stretch out across transforming a desert. Where I live; there's about 8-14 inches of this fertile soil before hitting beach like sand, about 3 feet of the beach like sand, to hit a clay type of soil, then in about 18-20 foot there's solid rock less than 2 feet of solid rock into the water table. Where you live? it's likely different... but we live on layer upon layer, some of this layer material comes from space, but most of it comes from decaying plant and animal life.

Part of the issue; is how many times this has changed politically... it has gone from hole in the ozone talk, to greenhouse gases and global warming... to a rather large blanket simply called climate change.

Bottom line? Selling carbon emissions in the form of credits to other countries; does not solve the worlds carbon emission problems that lead to global warming. Climate change is something that does occur whether or not we are here... eventually Mars' atmosphere will strengthen and return from all the processes going on beneath the soil... the ice caps will grow create weather patterns of dry and wet... low places will fill with water eventually forming oceans, the bacteria and materials beneath the soil will have an evolutionary bloom due to the water presence, the sun will heat up this water causing even more reactions... til eventually it looks a lot like the Earth did billions of years ago.

Of course... we want to cause climate change on Mars to speed up that process for our own purposes... that would naturally happen on it's own given the time. I could see how we would start making the jump to Mars, and those left behind simply keep mining out the resources here, leaving this place to look a lot like the greenhouse gas filled Venus on our other side in orbit.

But yeah, climate change is real of both kinds... human and natural. Some may argue humans are natural so any change from us IS by natural causes... but splitting hairs aside, there's not much we can do about natural climate change. Switching to completely green could usher in an ice age over time, keeping full steam ahead? I may have beach front property in 40 years. In either case, I'll likely be dead from old age and future generations possibly smarter than building houses on sand and expecting them to remain there permanently, or not taxing everything under the sun to make a solid foundation, where none should ever be lain with a expectation of permanence to begin with.

I sincerely hope; all the carbon taxes etc. is being put into a relocation fund for those being displaced from rising sea levels(currently happening in some parts of the US). In all likely hood, it's spent on explaining to people why we need the taxes and the rest into the pockets of those capitalizing on the phenomena of climate change instead.

originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: lostbook

So as water evaporates more quickly from the surface (oceans, lakes, rivers, ponds, recent rain, etc) it would somehow disappear from the face of the Earth? Ridiculous. The same amount of water will always be here in some form. Even if most of the freshwater is located in the ocean, rain will still fall in places and that water will not be saltwater. Just because it is warm doesn't mean it doesn't rain. It has to do with the gulf and jet streams controling wind.

I thought that a warmer world is a wetter world. The ice melts and there is more water in the system, heat causes more water to evaporate and so there is more precipitation. This is a complete layperson's impression so it could be completely off the mark though. I do think that some areas would see desertification while others would be more conducive to growing plants. There would be a redistribution but I was always under the impression that the balance would fall in favor of more environments that were more plant friendly.