Scientists Surprised to Find Earth's Biosphere Booming

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]

It is almost like our, space ship home, was purposely designed! Designed to continuously repair and balance it's dynamic nature. Including the life that lives on it. Which can adapt some what, to the changing conditions.
It is much nicer to live in a home, that gets occasional redecorations and remodeling. Much less boring. Thank You, God!

Originally posted by jimbo999

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.

Where did the White House say they were wrong, about global warming?
They never denied that the climate was changing. They only argued about the cause of that change. Hmmm, sounds like more, "why we need
the NWO, rhetoric to me."

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.

You're take on this reminds me of the saying. "Can't see the forest, because of the trees!" Funny how those who champion, global warming,
use salellite images, to show the shrinking ice on the poles. But want to deny the same; that shows an increase of vegetation!?

reply to post by Howie47


Howie, Howie, Howie....Try reading my subsequent posts, they reply to your comment to me and the two comments you made prior to addressing me...

Here and here

Read these and THEN talk to me about what you think of my point and of God's giving us a endlessly self repairing space-ship-Earth....

[edit on 10-6-2008 by Animal]

Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by Howie47

 

Howie, Howie, Howie....Try reading my subsequent posts, they reply to your comment to me and the two comments you made prior to addressing me...

Here and here

Read these and THEN talk to me about what you think of my point and of God's giving us a endlessly self repairing space-ship-Earth....

[edit on 10-6-2008 by Animal]

I skimmed them Animal. They reeked of, "there is no God, we must maintain the status quo, the sky is falling oh no, oh no!" Maybe that should be your anthem..
Your science is warped by your obsessive compulsive world view.
Nothing personal Animal. I'm sure I would enjoy your company, at Sat. night poker.

Originally posted by Howie47

Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by Howie47

 

Howie, Howie, Howie....Try reading my subsequent posts, they reply to your comment to me and the two comments you made prior to addressing me...

Here and here

Read these and THEN talk to me about what you think of my point and of God's giving us a endlessly self repairing space-ship-Earth....

[edit on 10-6-2008 by Animal]

I skimmed them Animal. They reeked of, "there is no God, we must maintain the status quo, the sky is falling oh no, oh no!" Maybe that should be your anthem..
Your science is warped by your obsessive compulsive world view.
Nothing personal Animal. I'm sure I would enjoy your company, at Sat. night poker.

Excuse me Howie can you please explain your critique? To me it make NO SENSE. Let me get something straight, did God Create this world for you and did God NOT give you free will as well? Is the belief in God a Fatalist belief where you can do nothing to change our destiny?

See what I am thinking is that if God did make this world and if God did give us free will, than there is the HUGE possibility that he would allow us to destroy the Earth as that is a CHOICE we have. To deny the reality of the world around you is, stupid.

Warped by my obsessive compulsive world view? You who dismiss everything you can SEE and TOUCH for the belief that some big white dude with a beard flying around on clouds would not let the DESTRUCTION of his CREATION come to pass?

Please man, we are here to DENY ignorance, not bask in it...

Originally posted by AnimalExcuse me Howie can you please explain your critique? To me it make NO SENSE. Let me get something straight, did God Create this world for you and did God NOT give you free will as well? Is the belief in God a Fatalist belief where you can do nothing to change our destiny?

See what I am thinking is that if God did make this world and if God did give us free will, than there is the HUGE possibility that he would allow us to destroy the Earth as that is a CHOICE we have. To deny the reality of the world around you is, stupid.

Warped by my obsessive compulsive world view? You who dismiss everything you can SEE and TOUCH for the belief that some big white dude with a beard flying around on clouds would not let the DESTRUCTION of his CREATION come to pass?

Please man, we are here to DENY ignorance, not bask in it...

You are completely ignoring anything that conflicts your views, which isn't how science works, and is quite ignorant in and of itself. Yes, global warming is real, but you are completely ignoring most all scientific view points of human survival as it relates to the topic. Our planet is 3 degrees away from an ice age, ALL credible scientists agree that we are nearing an ice age. This article merely points out that plant life is currently thriving from the new release of carbon. Have you ever wondered why they changed the mantra from "global warming" to "climate change." With this new information and new technologies that cut back on human carbon emissions the globe will likely begin to cool and reach equilibrium. No one is arguing that global warming, or climate change isn't occurring. I am merely stating that you are blowing the prospects of human extinction due to global warming way out of proportion and are buying into PR that has been pushed by the media and governments while ignoring new facts that point out that we are not actually at a tipping point in human history. Yes, global warming is real, yes, we need to cut back on our carbon emissions and get off of oil dependence...but this article merely states that nature isn't so stupid after all. I pointed out that humans can't even get a 7 day forecast correctly and yet many are already calling for the demise of all that is right in the world because they are ignoring certain facts...such as what this article points out. The Biosphere is booming...that's a good thing; and though I don't agree with your assumption that we are at a tipping point, you could at least conclude that such a boom in the Earth's biosphere could at least "buy us more time." Deny ignorance? You can't deny ignorance if you ignore newly presented facts and call anything conflicting with your views as a study lined in the pockets of oil companies. That, is ignorance, and anyone with an ounce of respect for science would agree with that point. I have presented new scientific information...not some mystical proposition...the evidence is quite credible (and from a very credible source) and must be examined in the scientific field.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by yellowcard]

Originally posted by yellowcard

You are completely ignoring anything that conflicts your views, which isn't how science works, and is quite ignorant in and of itself. Yes, global warming is real, but you are completely ignoring most all scientific view points of human survival as it relates to the topic. Our planet is 3 degrees away from an ice age, ALL credible scientists agree that we are nearing an ice age. This article merely points out that plant life is currently thriving from the new release of carbon. Have you ever wondered why they changed the mantra from "global warming" to "climate change."
[edit on 10-6-2008 by yellowcard]

You obviously have NOT read ANYTHING I have posted as I have said NOTHING about this being about Global Warming or Climate Change. I have ONLY been talking about he issue of increased C02.

In fact the name of the article I have posted is:

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

Please notice the BOLD print.

My assumption is that you are raging against me for the exact accusation you made against me.

You are completely ignoring anything that conflicts your views, which isn't how science works, and is quite ignorant in and of itself.

The Biosphere is booming...that's a good thing; and though I don't agree with your assumption that we are at a tipping point, you could at least conclude that such a boom in the Earth's biosphere could at least "buy us more time."

What is the biosphere? Do you even understand the concept? I have shown you that the blanket assumption that C02 causing more growth is a GOOD thing is tragically false. Can you disprove the EVIDENCE I provided? No, instead you attack me as some sort of mindless fool who can not think critically on any issue, an accusation I am getting close to leveling at you.

You can't deny ignorance if you ignore newly presented facts and call anything conflicting with your views as a study lined in the pockets of oil companies. That, is ignorance, and anyone with an ounce of respect for science would agree with that point.

I said nothing about oil companies in this tread, if I did please point it out...

I have presented new scientific information...not some mystical proposition...the evidence is quite credible (and from a very credible source) and must be examined in the scientific field.

And if you had read what I posted you would see that I AGREED with the FAST that there is increased GROWTH on the planet and even conceded that it could very well be the result of increased C02. YOU have refused to listen to the FINER DETAILS of the issue. YOU have refused to listen to the logic of science, not me. I provided a sound and credible report on scientific inquiry into the impacts of increased C02 on a micro level which directly effects the macro, and you dismissed it based on nothing but your spite.

You might want to take a good look in the mirror before you begin pointing your finger at me.

Excuse me Howie can you please explain your critique? To me it make NO SENSE. Let me get something straight, did God Create this world for you and did God NOT give you free will as well? Is the belief in God a Fatalist belief where you can do nothing to change our destiny?

See what I am thinking is that if God did make this world and if God did give us free will, than there is the HUGE possibility that he would allow us to destroy the Earth as that is a CHOICE we have. To deny the reality of the world around you is, stupid.

Warped by my obsessive compulsive world view? You who dismiss everything you can SEE and TOUCH for the belief that some big white dude with a beard flying around on clouds would not let the DESTRUCTION of his CREATION come to pass?

Please man, we are here to DENY ignorance, not bask in it...

Animal, Animal, Animal. Why do you make assumptions of things that
haven't been stated?
Yes we have free will, to a point. Yes, without God's intervention, we
could destroy the Earth. I never said these things weren't true.
The question the OP raises, is, is the Earth going through natural phases. Is it healing or balancing itself, in reaction to changing forces?
Is it designed to resurrect itself in response to mans abuse? Is the biosphere balancing itself in reaction to man's CO2 output?
The OP has provided evidence that it does and is. Some here don't seem to like that scenario. Makes me wonder why?

Originally posted by Howie47

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.

You're take on this reminds me of the saying. "Can't see the forest, because of the trees!" Funny how those who champion, global warming,
use salellite images, to show the shrinking ice on the poles. But want to deny the same; that shows an increase of vegetation!?

Uhm...
Not so funny, because I'm all about using ALL THE DATA. Including the life boom which is shown on the sat images.

Yes the climate is changing, is it responding to us? I think so. Will we all die because of it? No I don't think so. Should we do something about it? I think if we are saying we should stop polluting our environment, I'm all for that.

Stop dumping mercury into streams

Stop polluting the atmosphere with poison

Stop killing off all the life in the areas where Man lives.

Why should we do this? Because it makes good sense.

The Earth is going to be fine, and it will bear out an equilibrium, which is why we see the crazy storms occurring, the world is just cooling itself down.


What I am against is policy which assumes we can go on poisoning the environment without any consequences. Many primitive cultures were wiped out by large scale "slash and burn". All we are saying, is let's try not to repeat these histories, as difficult as it might be.

Originally posted by AnimalYou might want to take a good look in the mirror before you begin pointing your finger at me.

I'm not pointing the finger at you, per se. I quoted you to address a variety of things, some of your inquiries were included in this realm thus I quoted you. Most of the statements were general statements intended to be read by everyone who has criticized the new findings. Furthermore, I'm not refusing to look at anything, you (and others) are ignoring basic scientific evidence and facts that point to a different conclusion that the general consensus you hold in your heads. The biosphere is the portions of earth that can and are supporting life, but it appears that you (and others) are ignoring that definition as well. You (and you alone it would seem) are making scientific arguments with little authority, and based on your grammatical errors and incorrect scientific assumptions I can draw my own conclusion on your scientific background(s.)

Originally posted by Howie47
The question the OP raises, is, is the Earth going through natural phases. Is it healing or balancing itself, in reaction to changing forces?
Is it designed to resurrect itself in response to mans abuse? Is the biosphere balancing itself in reaction to man's CO2 output?
The OP has provided evidence that it does and is. Some here don't seem to like that scenario. Makes me wonder why?

The OP is making the claim the the increased growth due to enhanced C02 means the Earth is trying to evolve to support more life. An assumption based on an uneducated understanding of what he read in an article.

This is the entirety of the source he quotes from:

"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."

Where in there does it say ANYTHING about the Earth trying to make accommodation's for increasing human populations? Where does it say anything about (to quote you)

[The Earth] Is it healing or balancing itself, in reaction to changing forces? Is it designed to resurrect itself in response to mans abuse? Is the biosphere balancing itself in reaction to man's CO2 output?

It does not.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by Animal]

reply to post by yellowcard


Thank you Yellow Card!


You have really brought the points into clarity.

Let's look at this data as something good. An indication that the world will heal itself. It doesn't mean we should continue poisoning our environment, it doesn't mean that climate change isn't occurring. It doesn't mean anything conclusively other than that the world will heal itself, and that life is booming in areas where Mankind isn't living.

We should ask questions of this data, like "Why don't we see life booming in areas where humans live en masse?" Instead of trying to lift it up or deny it just to assuage our political feelings.

Basically if you can't look at this data without anger or distrust, then you are not capable of joining a reasonable discussion on the topic.


Regarding Animal: All you have to do is look at his avatar, and you will notice that he is squarely in the belief that humans will destroy our earth. He is using a spoofed scene from Planet of the Apes. I think that pretty much sums up his beliefs, and I don't think any of us will be able to persuade him that there are other outcomes.



[edit on 10-6-2008 by Quazga]

reply to post by Quazga


You fail. You know nothing about me. My motivations for saying what I do is to save the planet not destroy it by allowing people to bask in ignorance. There is no point in sharing knowledge with the likes of you as you simply pointless. Sure believe that increase biomass equals a healing planet, that is your right. Ignore anything that contradicts your bubble gum and rainbow reality, that is also your right.

Do not attack me to try to prop up your beliefs though. If what you believe is so tenuous that you must attack any that disagree with you, that is in all honestly a problem for you not me.

What I find most entertaining about you is that you insult me for not providing support for my claims and then when I do, you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and chant NO NO NO as if ignoring me the reality I share will go away. Have fun.

This effect was predicted and tested in the biosphere a while ago. It sorta makes sense, yes? If plants eat CO2 then increases in CO2 ought to increase plant growth.

The fascinating bit is it only hold true in the short term. I am not sure of the timings, but the big surprise is that the plants (poplar tress in the experiment) seemed to re-calibrate at the higher CO2 level. Pretty bleak in terms of sequestration theory, no?

Originally posted by yellowcard
You (and you alone it would seem) are making scientific arguments with little authority, and based on your grammatical errors and incorrect scientific assumptions I can draw my own conclusion on your scientific background(s.)

Please Share. You are beginning to piss me off mate. Grammatical errors aside, where, please show me, where have i presented "incorrect scientific assumptions"?

I was asked to support my claims now I ask the same of you. You can talk all the # you want, but back it up man. Your ad hominem attacks betray your ignorance.

Originally posted by Shadowflux
Now, I'm willing to be wrong about this but I once heard that we receive more oxygen from ocean born algae than we do from the whole of the Amazon rain forest. I think what a lot of these Doom and Gloomers are not considering is the amount of aquatic plant life. It's obviously more than just an increase in ambient CO2 it's also an increase in temperature that leads to better growing conditions. Just think about it, plants grow beautifully in a greenhouse but if you were to try to live inside one you'd probably die.

Which is not to say that algae can provide all the oxygen we need.

You are also assuming that what is good for a plant is a good outcome for us. I think that is hardly a safe bet:

Dead zones are bodies of water with insufficient oxygen to sustain marine life. Scientists call this process eutrophication. The term usually means the introduction of chemical nutrients -- usually nitrogen or phosphorus -- into an ecosystem that creates large algae blooms. Bacteria consume the dead and dying algae using up the oxygen in the water. Marine life that depends on oxygen cannot survive.

Right now off the coast of Oregon they've lost millions of crabs and other sea life that are too slow to escape when the de-oxygenated water comes in. The number and intensity of these dead zones is still increasing for various reasons.

The point being, from space, algae looks green!

The point being, from space, algae looks green!

reply to post by wytworm


Does it? Most I've heard of is brown. Some even red! Any way, do you think they can tell the difference from growth in the water and growth
that is on the land?

reply to post by Animal



Whatever...

You are the next contestant on THE IGGY LIST!


You have spent so much time trying to debunk the data in this post that you have pretty much ruined the thread. Because of that, I've got to make sure not to get drawn into any kind of discussion with someone as emotionally erratic as yourself.




[edit on 10-6-2008 by Quazga]

Originally posted by Shadowflux
I'm not terribly surprised, I don't really buy into the whole man made global warming thing. The Earth has been much hotter and more tropical before and when it was like that there were epic rainforests and colossal vegetation almost everywhere. Just because we humans need a certain comfortable climate doesn't mean the rest of the world can't thrive in a more tropical environment. I mean just look at South America, hot, tropical and home to the freakin Amazon jungle which is so thick we still haven't contacted all the tribes living therein.

This really sums up my thoughts exactly. I do agree that what we do is deff not helping, but I do believe that the earth is just going through a cycle, and soon (if we are still alive), there will be another Ice age, and it will happen again, until major meteor/WWIII/sun blows up, and ends this world.