Scientists Surprised to Find Earth's Biosphere Booming

Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by Quazga

 

Edit to add: I really do not appreciate your obvious choice to show me disrespect, it really pisses me off and quite honestly does nothing to add to the conversation. In the future I would really appreciate if you could find more constructive and less insulting ways of sharing your view of my statements.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Animal]

Sure thing! And I expect evidence when making wide generalizations. Doesn't matter if they are true or not, they still need evidence to be anything close to a contribution to a thread.

As a rule, you should expect disrespect unless you back up a claim on this site. That should be the one thing that persuades you to verify your data.

Remember, respect is earned, not given.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Quazga]

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Quazga]

I know there is also "evolution booms" that coincides with the solar cycle we're in right now too which has intrigued many people from different walks of life. Every 26,000 years roughly give or take some change. I'm sure many here won't consider this a coincidence More sun, more energy...hmmm

A quick google search turned up this guy who is talks about it: williamcalvin.com... with his theory.

When looking at good wiki you'll see a "quickening" of sorts in the evolutionary time line: en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by yellowcard
Interesting, it would appear that we humans have actually been living on a rather barren earth and that with a new release of CO2 (by humans or by the earth itself) into the atmosphere the plants (and animals that consume them) are thriving. With the looming "food crisis," it appears that earth is actually moving to sustain more life...funny how things come full circle in nature, isn't it?

news.slashdot.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 9-6-2008 by yellowcard]

Hmmm...sounds like more oil-funded nonsense to me. I wonder when they'll finally realise the games up? Heck, even the White House has finally admited they were wrong - and that in itself is amazing considering all the oil money propping the Bush regime up.

J.

Originally posted by Quazga

Originally posted by Animal
hmmm, all this from satellite data, I suggest you do not hold your breath. Scientists who study this stuff on the ground would have a DIFFERENT opinion. The consensus in the scientific community is that every single biotic community on the planet is currently in decline. More green seen from space does little to reassure me that the earth is currently increasing its biologic stability.

Could you do us all a favor and support your claim of what the "Consensus" is?

Otherwise your just flailing your arms like a muppet. :-)

Consensus is pretty much every qualified scientist alive today. Where have you been for the last 10 years exactly? Scientists have been producing data that completely contradicts the claims of the OP for many years...

J.

Originally posted by Quazga
This was the most insightful post in that article...

Those who've been saying that we might want to do something about the greenhouse effect before it's too late have been characterised as leftist loonies who care more about the planet and other animals than humans and human civilisation. In some cases they're right - there is a liberal dose of the usual extremist greenie suspects in the climate change movement - but I really wonder whether those people actually know what they're fighting for. 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. By and large, 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.

Yes- completely insightful! It goes a very long way to proving it was written by a complete scientific illiterate with an axe to grind. Well, this says everything about this thread that I needed to know. What a crock!!!

J.

Originally posted by Quazga

Originally posted by Trance Optic
I think theres algae is growing inside NASA's heads...... So we study the way life reacts from pictures now? So I can look at the things on TV an consider them real too right. lol

This means that the earth is intaking more Miracle grow ( TM ) lol but i've grown plants too, an specially in a green house, theres a zone where if the conditions are just right plants grow like its a race, But just a millihair on the other side an your plants die or grow bad fungal due to the millihair offset.

Just becuz we tan very easily now doesnt mean we are getting healthier......

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Trance Optic]

So much uneducated and unsubstantiated childish vitriol.

When will it end?

You mean you are going to stop then?

Hey,

thanks - that's very big of you, I gotta say...

J.

Ok Kiddies as promised more support for my claims. All the following quotea are from the article

"How Enriched Carbon Dioxide Environments May Alter Biotic Systems Even in the Absence of Climatic Changes"

By Eric D. Fajer of Harvard University, Printed in Conservation Biology, Vol. 3, No. 3 (september 1989) pp 318-320.

In elevated C02 environments, growth is enhanced for many plant species. However, some plant species respond more positively to these new conditions than other species.

This seems arbitrary to those unfamiliar with the nuances of Biotic Systems and the basic Principles of Ecology. When most people look at a peice of natural landscape they see a big bunch of plants with some animals and insects in it. It really seems pretty straight forward on the surface. However, to those who study natural systems there is an understanding of a finer level of complexity. There is an understanding that there is a hierarchy within that system, that there is a interconnection and interdependence across a wide range of scales that allow that peice of natural landscape to exist.

For example, plants that utilize different photosynthetic machinery to initially fix carbon dioxide will respond differently;y to enhanced C02 conditions.

This is where the simple idea that increased C02 simply ='s increased plant growth begins to break down.

C3 plants, those that fix C02 to ribulose-bisphosphate (RUBP) to form two 3-carbon products and this directly enter the Calvin cyclem are expected to benefit more in enhanced C02 environments than C4 plant, those that fix C02 to phophoenolpyruvate (PEP) to form 4-carbon acids. This is because the fixation efficiency of C3 plants is more enhanced by additional atmospheric C02 (i.e. resulting in less energy loss due to photorespiration) than it is for C4 plants. Hence in plant communities that contain C3 and C4 species, such as those with old-field annual and perennial plants, competitive advantages may shift to C3 species under enriched C02 conditions.

Shifting competitive advantage often has dramatic effects on the health of an ecosystem, or biotic community. As I noted in my previous paragraph biotic communities such systems exist with the aid of a fundamental interconnection and interdependence across a wide range of scales. Allowing this to shift disrupts this equilibrium and negatively impacts the systems health and vitality, even its survivability.

Even within C03 plants, the magnitude of the growth response induced by enriched C02 atmospheres appears to be species-specific. Differential growth responses to enriched C02 atmospheres can result in changes in the competitive hierarchies in both herbaceous and woody plant communities. For example, under enriched C02 atmospheres, different plant species may dominate, while others may become less common. Conceivably, some plant species, and potentially other organism that depend on these species, could become extremely rare in an enriched C02 world.

Translation: like I have already said twice natural systems exist with the aid of a fundamental interconnection and interdependence across a wide range of scales. When this changes the system tends to break down. As different plants become dominant other fade away all those dependent on the natural equilibrium become endangered.

I need to eat an this has to be typed out rather than cut and pasted so, more to come....

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Animal]

I would imagine our world will probably recover it's balance long before we can figure out how. Most likely, it's already too late. Imagine if our winds ceased and the waters warmed and turned to algae like a giant scummy pond. Supposedly, this is where our fossil fuels were created?

Who's turn is it to clean the fish tank?

Originally posted by aleon1018
I would imagine our world will probably recover it's balance long before we can figure out how. Most likely, it's already too late. Imagine if our winds ceased and the waters warmed and turned to algae like a giant scummy pond. Supposedly, this is where our fossil fuels were created?

Who's turn is it to clean the fish tank?

I agree with your consensus that the earth will find a balance...but the entire ocean could never become a field of algae...the moon wouldn't allow it. Oil comes from old wetlands...

Anyhow, this is basic science, more CO2 = more plant life. We are cutting down trees, but we also have new standards on how we replant them...add that with a new energy source for plants and..well...you get a bigger biosphere. The earth is almost like a living being itself, I find it to be quite amazing. Oil companies would not fund such a study, so anyone who says it is, is pretty much full of hot air.

The big problem with global warming, is the change in jet streams (which I think you addressed) but the thing is that with more moisture in the atmosphere (from melted ice caps moving to warmer territory and more wetlands) new jet streams will form. We don't know exactly what is going to happen. I believe I've said this before, but people are calling for doom and gloom when we can't even get a 7 day forecast correctly (30% chance of rain? Why not just tell us we have a 70% chance it won't rain? )...the earth has a mind of it's own, so to speak, and it has been here much longer than our brains can comprehend...so it's not exactly stupid. If this new discovery ruins some sort of social agenda, then I'm sorry, but it is the truth. Mother nature knows best...I suppose if we are indeed creating global warming (as opposed to nature itself [sun?])...nature is trying to find an equilibrium to offset it...and to me that is truly amazing and even "beautiful" if you want to get down to it. We live on an amazing planet, and a stellar universe...and we don't even understand half of if. Sometimes I wonder if the universe itself is conscious, because it seems to come full circle in ways that we could never regenerate.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by yellowcard]

reply to post by yellowcard


You are pretty quick to dismiss the warnings of people who make it their life to study these issues.

While you are absolutly corect that the earth will find an equilibium what you are not seeing is that this new equilibrium does nto need to satisfy the needs for humans to inhabit the planet.

We take it as a given but I assure you it is not.

Why do people find it suprising that a slightly warmer earth with a very slight increase in Atomospheric CO2 would result in more plant life? It's faily obvious that "life" overall on Earth maintains conditions on earth suitable for it's continued existance. It's a kinda form of the Gaia Hypothesis, not meaning any supernatual stuff, just that the life forms of the Earth work to keep the Earth in a realtively stable equilibrium, given no outside forces (Asteroid/Comet strikes). One or more species may die but the overall effect on the Earth is one of seeking to maintain conditions necessary for life.
This is an overly simplified explanation of what I am saying:

Daisyworld
Doesn't natural selection pretty much insure that nature would fill these spots in the biosphere?

[edit on 9-6-2008 by pavil]

There were reports last year of tremendous Poison Ivy growths in Manhattan. Everything green was growing significantly larger. This is not the same thing as diversity. Plants breath in CO2 and breath out Oxygen.
This is good, they act as a regulation mechanism in balance with animal life. It is not a revelation at all.

What we need is a way to reduce methane in the air and use it as fuel. Methane is 20 to 25 times more effective a greenhouse gas than CO2. All this CO2 offset nonsense is a way to scam more dollars out of our pockets.

Efficient methane recovery would be a self rewarding fuel source. It seems that extracting it from air is no where near efficient enough to pay itself back. But If you simply harvested the dieing foliage of the planet, and put it in bioreactors, you could cool the methane down under pressure and form a solid fuel out of the methane which would remain solid at room temperature and turn to gas at about 210 degrees at sea level, methane hydrate. All those lawn clippings and leaves could become solid fuel.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Cyberbian]

Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by yellowcard

 

You are pretty quick to dismiss the warnings of people who make it their life to study these issues.

While you are absolutly corect that the earth will find an equilibium what you are not seeing is that this new equilibrium does nto need to satisfy the needs for humans to inhabit the planet.

We take it as a given but I assure you it is not.

I'm not dismissing anything, I'm stating the truth. There is no mainstream scientist that agrees that human survival is at stake. Some may die, but it would occur in third world countries that have a poor amount of infrastructure. I believe you have read into the scientific reports incorrectly, you can't believe what is marketed, you have to read the facts...and it would appear you are not.

On the contrary, I tend not to believe the experts. They have a vested interest in not loosing their grants.

The solar system is warming. There is only correlation to suggest that CO2 is responsible for global warming. A silly chart with two lines diverging. Here is a little science for you my friend. Correlation does not indicate causality!


There is a direct correlation between the number of cases of typhoid in Bombay and the number of ice-cream cones sold in Manhattan. This is a known and measured fact.
Would you suggest that eating ice-cream in Manhattan causes typhoid? Would you suggest that typhoid in Bombay causes people to eat Ice-Cream in NY? Correlation without causality.

The jetstream effects the temperature in both locations.

You bought the "science" not me.

Some people are very ignorant. The earth has never been hotter. Once upon a time United States was once covered by ice.

Plus, the weather is causing more pest and insects will thrieve and therefore, will distroy the remaining plants and trees. As if we are not chopping down enough trees already.

Originally posted by jimbo999
Scientists have been producing data that completely contradicts the claims of the OP for many years...

J.

I couldn't have said it anywhere near as eloquently as you did.


Producing data is indeed what they have been doing.

Animal I have to thank you for your posts.

I can see that you have studied ecology and biology at a high level, as have I.

Its a very frustrating topic when you have to explain to people that only look at little portions of the picture, or don't consider cumulative effects of these factors.

I would encourage everyone to research animal's arguments, and also those of thousands of professional, respected yet little known scientists from all over the globe.

Somehow everyone is convinced that the scientists are lying..... I don't know how this happened but I have seen the slow shift over the last five or so years in the general public. I can tell you right now that these scientists are some of the few people who actually care about what is happening and have dedicated their studies to understanding these equilibriums.

I would recommend that you also read "The diversity of life", by E.O. Wilson if I recall correctly.

Do you know enough about the topics at hand to make accurate judgements, or are you simply in denial?

While you are absolutly corect that the earth will find an equilibium what you are not seeing is that this new equilibrium does nto need to satisfy the needs for humans to inhabit the planet.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by seenitall]

reply to post by seenitall


Thanks you for reading what I have written, I appreciate it. Also, not to correct you, but the book you are referring to is "The Future of Life" By E. O. Wilson, and I completely agree, if you are even mildly interested in this Topic this book, or rather the man behind it, will blow your mind, seriously.

I also would like to chide those who criticized me for not offering supporting evidence for my claims and then ignore me when I provide it. I must say it seems to me that those of you who chose this path have very little to say and it must just be easier for you to hide behind your critiques of others ideas. I provided what you asked and now you have NOTHING to say? No big surprise, it seems you have had little to say all along, you were just using a lot of words to do it.

Originally posted by yellowcard

Originally posted by Trance Optic
I think theres algae is growing inside NASA's heads...... So we study the way life reacts from pictures now? So I can look at the things on TV an consider them real too right. lol

This means that the earth is intaking more Miracle grow ( TM ) lol but i've grown plants too, an specially in a green house, theres a zone where if the conditions are just right plants grow like its a race, But just a millihair on the other side an your plants die or grow bad fungal due to the millihair offset.

Just becuz we tan very easily now doesnt mean we are getting healthier......

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Trance Optic]

Miracle Grow is mostly nitrogen...anyhow your analysis is quite wrong. What is on your TV has actually occurred, just because you can't touch it doesn't mean it never occurred...it's like saying I took a picture of a tree, but unless you can touch the tree it doesn't exist? What? That makes no sense. We can measure biomass with various tools, from outer space, and likely get an even better picture than one could on the ground because you can see the vastness and the depth of the new plant life. Usually deaths in a greenhouse are due to the lack of knowledge in how a specific plant grows. For instance, you wouldn't plant just one row of corn, otherwise it won't grow...because it can't cross pollinate correctly....

[edit on 9-6-2008 by yellowcard]

I don't understand your example? Knowing what a tree feels like (being in its presence), gives it one's witnessed credibility (for themselves) for it's existence & negates the need to see the picture to believe it exists. The picture that you took could look very real, or could be real, but either way, experience and first hand knowledge will tell you that it does exist because you can give it witness, thus giving you the experience required to make sound judgment. Peace

I guess regardless of the fact I have now been ignored I will finish the article I began...

In elevated C02 environments, many plants also change quantitatively in terms of the proportions of carbon and nitrogen resources allocated to different plant parts. Plants grown under enriched C02 conditions have reduced foliar nitrogen concentrations; this, in turn has a substantial impact on the insect herbivore feeding behavior and fitness.

Once again we see that the effects of increased C02 will cause change within a biotic system that slowly but inevitably spreads across the scale of said systems interdependence and interconnection leading to failure.

For example, studies using the buckeye butterfly, Junonia coenia, and plantain Plantago lanceolata, one of its primary host plants in the southeast United States and California, have demonstrated a reduction in fitness of individuals fed enriched C02 grown rather than ambient C02 grown plants. During the early vulnerable instars, buckeye mortality increased and larval development was retarded for individuals reared on enriched C02 grown leaves, which are low in nitrogen compared to leaves grown under ambient C02 conditions. Reduced larval growth may further reduce herbivore fitness in natural ecosystems because slower growth rates may lead to increased exposure to predictors and parasitoids.

The impacts of increase C02 are plaint o see. While it is true that this increase in atmospheric C02 can and will increase the growth of some plants this change, like all changes in nature, trigger a host of changes in the biotic community in question. In the case of the buckeye butterfly we see another important factor and that is the impacts of plants that actually do grow more vigorously in an enriched C02 environment are negativity impacting those dependent on said plant for their survival.

Thus the argument that increased C02 is a boon to the planet is willful ignorance when it comes right down to it. Biology and ecology are both ripe with warnings and supporting evidence to argue against such changes in natural systems. Many here on ATS, though intelligent people, do not have the education to properly evaluate some of the information and opinions they bring to the table. I guess that is what makes this site great. That information such as that presented in the OP can be presented and then other members such as myself can offer deeper insight into the issue.

If this one study is not enough to convince members here that the point I am trying to make is valid I would suggest you do some research on your own. Finding these articles and reading them is not a difficult task and there is a vast amount of knowledge out there just waiting to be discovered by you.

In closing I would just like to reiterate my point. The premise that increased C02 simply equals increased plant growth and it therefore a good thing is overly simplistic, and quite honestly dangerous and disingenuous. The planet Earth is comprised of a long list of ecozones and / or biotic communities. Each of these is in itself a system that functions because of the presence and function of each individual part. As I have mentioned the concept of scale linking and the interdependence and interconnection of each piece of a natural system. Well this is true on the micro as well as on the macro. Each system is the sum result of each of its parts and this truth moves upward across the scale as well leading to the entire Earth being the result of each of the biotic communities / ecozone being interdependent and interconnected pieces of the whole.

Some have said we will simply reach equilibrium but that too is willfully ignorant of the truth of the matter. Yes eventually equilibrium will be achieved but there is NO good reason for that to be a reassurance to humans. Our interventions in the natural world are quickly leading to catastrophic failure of our planetary system. Failure that will make this planet uninhabitable, by far more than just humans, for a long long time.

To quote Frank Zappa, "It won't blow up, or disappear, it will just look ugly for 1000 years".