Impacts of CO2 rise and global warming?

The Coffee Shop
1

For anyone with allergies to pollen or even poison ivy…

“In the case of plants, it’s not just that they grow faster and shed pollen earlier as the world warms. The carbon-enriched air also alters their physiology. In a six-year study at a pine forest managed by Duke University, where pipes and fans adjust the CO2concentration of the air, scientists found that elevated CO2increases the growth rate of poison ivy. More surprising, by increasing the air’s ratio of carbon to nitrogen, elevated CO2also increases the toxicity of urushiol, the rash-causing oil. “Poison ivy will become not just more abundant in the future,” says Ziska. “It will also be more toxic.””

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881800/site/newsweek/

But don’t worry folks. The Bush appointee at the head of NASA says it is arrogant for us to think we know what climate is good for us.

2

Fatmouse, does increasing CO2 also increase the growth rate of other plants?

3

**But don’t worry folks. The Bush appointee at the head of NASA says it is arrogant for us to think we know what climate is good for us. **

Why should we care what the head of NASA thinks about the climate? He’s a space guy right? I’m not going to go to the NOAA to talk about the make up of black holes and supernovas so why would I go to NASA to talk about climate?

4

Interesting stuff. In a previous life, I did quite a bit of aquatic gardening. I used to inject CO2 into the water using a homebrew CO2 generator (basically, a 2 liter soda bottle, cork, sugar, yeast, and water). It’s amazing how much faster the plants would grow when CO2 was injected.

5

“Fatmouse, does increasing CO2 also increase the growth rate of other plants?”

From studies I’ve read, and mentioned in the linked articles, most plants will experience increased growth rates. For example, the loblolly pines referenced in the Duke study grow about 5% faster. The poison ivy in the undergrowth grows about 30% faster.

I remember one study was going to check on yield for crops, but I don’t remember what the results were. I’ll check and see if I can find that. First glance would say that you would get some type of increased yield if all other factors are controlled and you increase CO2. Of course, that’s one of the points of climate change/global warming, that CO2 levels aren’t the only variable.

Hope that helps.

6

That discussion came out of an interview where the reporter asked about putting more funding into satellite and space-based study of climate. So, yes, NASA does play a role in climate research in that they are responsible for satellites and such.

7

Any idea what the increase in CO2 was in the study in comparison to real world? Just asking because whether from climate or simple coincidence poison ivy is growing insanely around me. I literally have a 3 acre area that is nearly covered in the shit and I have no idea what to do about it. It’s popping up in our flower beds, yard, anywhere and everywhere.

My neighbors actually fenced in and bought goats. I’m thinking of doing the same.

~Matt

8

Oh, so what you seem to be saying is that plant growth increases in the presence of higher CO2, thus creating a negative feedback system as that increasing plant growth sequesters increasing CO2.

Hmm. Doesn’t do much for the tipping point argument.

9

Which would be true if the number of plants weren’t declining through human activity. It doesn’t matter that they can multiply faster if we are still cutting or burning them down faster than they can grow.

Is it just me or do I sound like a treehugger?

10

It’s also seasonal. During the growing season the plant will take up CO2 and sequester it. When the plan dies or loses leaves in the fall the CO2 will return as the foliage breaks down. So, CO2 levels in the air tend to decline during the growing season then spike back up in winter.

11

So, yes, NASA does play a role in climate research in that they are responsible for satellites and such.

NASA pays for weather satellites? Or are they just the ones that launch them?

The NOAA site says that they have their own satellites. Wouldn’t the NOAA be the ones to talk to about studying climate?

http://www.noaa.gov/satellites.html

These are actually serious questions as I don’t see the relevance of asking NASA about studying the climate. Given that the climate isn’t NASA’s bag I would fully expect them to poo-poo the idea. If they talk about how good this study would be then the finite gov’t dollars would move to the NOAA and away from NASA resulting in dreaded budge cuts for NASA.

12

In the recent past, NASA has done major work on climate studies. One of the core initiatives used to be studying the Earth itself. These days, the Administration has shifted priorities mostly to space exploration, getting back to the moon, and eventually to Mars.

13

So, yes, NASA does play a role in climate research in that they are responsible for satellites and such.

NASA pays for weather satellites? Or are they just the ones that launch them?

The NOAA site says that they have their own satellites. Wouldn’t the NOAA be the ones to talk to about studying climate?

http://www.noaa.gov/satellites.html

These are actually serious questions as I don’t see the relevance of asking NASA about studying the climate. Given that the climate isn’t NASA’s bag I would fully expect them to poo-poo the idea. If they talk about how good this study would be then the finite gov’t dollars would move to the NOAA and away from NASA resulting in dreaded budge cuts for NASA.

Sounds like the Defense Department is in on this. Or was, as the case may be:

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Bush administration is drastically scaling back efforts to measure global warming from space, just as the president tries to convince the world the U.S. is ready to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gases.

A confidential report to the White House, obtained by The Associated Press, warns that U.S. scientists will soon lose much of their ability to monitor warming from space using a costly and problem-plagued satellite initiative begun more than a decade ago.

Because of technology glitches and a near-doubling in the original $6.5 billion cost, the Defense Department has decided to downsize and launch four satellites paired into two orbits, instead of six satellites and three orbits.

The satellites were intended to gather weather and climate data, replacing existing satellites as they come to the end of their useful lifetimes beginning in the next couple of years.

The reduced system of four satellites will now focus on weather forecasting. Most of the climate instruments needed to collect more precise data over long periods are being eliminated.

Instead, the Pentagon and two partners – the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA – will rely on European satellites for most of the climate data.

‘‘Unfortunately, the recent loss of climate sensors … places the overall climate program in serious jeopardy,’’ NOAA and NASA scientists told the White House in the Dec. 11 report obtained by the AP.

Whole article: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Global-Warming-Satellites.html

Kinda funny how the Bush Administration chooses to cut back a costly and problem-plagued satellite system, as compared to “surging” other costly and problem-plagued programs of theirs…

14

"Oh, so what you seem to be saying is that plant growth increases in the presence of higher CO2, thus creating a negative feedback system as that increasing plant growth sequesters increasing CO2.

Hmm. Doesn’t do much for the tipping point argument."

Didn’t vitus teach you to use a different color when putting words into other people’s mouths?

Increased plant growth does indeed involve increased uptake of CO2. Of course, any honest person who has taken even a cursory look at CO2 composition levels can easily see that our emissions of CO2 greatly exceed the ability - even the expanded ability - of plants to take up that CO2.

Further, plants were not designed by God to be carbon sinks. They take up carbon during growth and release it during decay. It is part of that circle of life thing. (and yes, we’ve already had the discussion about the folly of trying to sequester carbon in trees. It helps, but it is not really a permanent solution.)

It would appear that the only way we could create a system to take up as much carbon as we emit is to turn our seas and oceans into great algae fields. When the algae dies, it sinks to the bottom and gets covered by other matter, taking the carbon with it. With time, pressure, heat, and a lucky shift of geology, some of those algae seas might produce oil for someone in a few million years. Of course, in the short term that may not be too popular as the oxygen uptake of the algae ends up killing virtually all oxygen using aquatic life.

15

I’ll ask before Ty, why would the DoD be involved in climate study?

Sounds like a black ops program to me, having the defense department launch “weather” satellites.

16

why would the DoD be involved in climate study?

Sounds like a black ops program to me, having the defense department launch “weather” satellites.

Good question. And people wonder why our gov’t is woefully inefficient. We have NASA, the Defense Department and the NOAA all studying the same thing with their own sattelites? Seems pretty silly to me.

17

I’m no gardener but I can grasp that much, just trying to point out what looked like a gaping flaw in the anti-tipping point argument.

Thanks though, very informative:-)

18

*Given that the climate isn’t NASA’s bag I would fully expect them to poo-poo the idea. *

Here’s just a little related poo-poo for you.

Not quite NASA related, but this is some eye opening stuff:
US Military Wants to Own the Weather

Weather as a Force Multiplier:
Owning the Weather in 2025

PDF Download of above report

Tie this in to HAARP and “chemtrails” (aerosol spraying) and a lot is going on. What gets into the public realm is likely just a tiny portion of what is being done.

19

I think Griffin’s point was merely that a cooler climate would benefit people in some of the countries on the globe, while a warm climate would benefit other countries, so that it would be arrogant to dictate whose interests are to be sacrificed for the good of whom–particularly since global temperatures have been up and down in the past, so that there is no clear historical basis for determining which is the “right” temperature range for the planet. You may disagree with him, but you have to admit that there’s a significant trade-off of human interests involved.

20

Oh, so what you seem to be saying is that plant growth increases in the presence of higher CO2, thus creating a negative feedback system as that increasing plant growth sequesters increasing CO2.

Hmm. Doesn’t do much for the tipping point argument.

Overwhelmingly plants are limited by soil nitrogen, not CO2.