Global climate models have underplayed amount of CO2 being absorbed by plants, says research bbc.in/1v5MRWm
Bit of slightly good news. I’ve been planting plants and trees all along for the past 25 years – not just to beautify our yard, but to help mitigate CC. I am also hoping to get involved in moringa tree use for biochar. I hadn’t thought these were very effective measures, but went ahead with them bec every little bit helps. It’s good it helps a bit more than I had thought.
However, on the other side, the models to my knowledge don’t really have anything in them that has to do with how AGW will be harming plants thru droughts, floods, intense heat waves in mid-summer, insect infestation, and wildfires. At this point the harm is perhaps not too much and not as much as the help from CO2 fertilization and longer growing seasons, but eventually the harms may outweigh those helps.
The situation is very complex and models by nature simplify complexities and don’t often included positive feedbacks that lead to greater harms than projected by more simple linear models. Modelers are getting better and super-computing power is increasing to handle more variables and complexities, but we also need to keep our eyes on the real world and minds attentive to complexities and a holistic view that go beyond models.
And also keep our minds on the fact that every single model they have produced has been wrong
At least they spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars making those inaccurate models look impressive!
I wouldn’t worry about what the vegetation absorbs or not. Let’s just look at what stays in the air and what gets into the oceans!
Evidently not enough to cause warming
Of course, if the plants are absorbing more CO2 than previously thought, maybe the droughts, floods, heatwaves, insect infestations, and wildfires won’t happen. OTOH, they happened long before the Industrial Revolution, too, so maybe the plants will just adjust as they always have.
The situation is very complex and models by nature simplify complexities and don’t often included positive feedbacks that lead to greater harms than projected by more simple linear models.
So you are admitting the models are inaccurate? That not everything we know is included? That there are things we don’t know which are also not included?
Modelers are getting better and super-computing power is increasing to handle more variables and complexities, but we also need to keep our eyes on the real world and minds attentive to complexities and a holistic view that go beyond models.
I am all for keeping our eyes on the real world… which hasn’t warmed in 17 years!
Actually it’s 18 years
Are we back to that one again.
On other threads you were repeatedly told that you need to look at longer time spans to tease out the data from the noise. Are you wilfully ignoring this piece of information or do you not understand it?
I attach the famous Escalator graph. At least other readers will get the message.
A little condescending, don’t you think?
A call to civility: The standard liberal/progressive/leftist tactic is to marginalize the opposition by ad hominem when their own argument is lacking.
Of course no one was saying this 18 years ago. I will have to admit that being a climate scientist is a great occupation-even when you are wrong it proves you are right…
The famous escalator graph that only works because it starts in 1970. How about we take a more long-range look at things. Say, 10,000 years instead of 40:
At that scale, looks more like we’re still recovering from the Little Ice Age more than anything else.
This argument of a 17 or 18-year pause in atmospheric temperature rise has been addressed so many times on different threads. It has been answered and rebutted by numerous posters and it is still wilfully spread and repeated.
You can just as well accuse the scientific community of ignoring this obvious evidence that global warming doesn’t happen.
As a scientist I see this repeated ridiculing of my responses as an ad hominem attack.
Yes it has been addressed. But it hasn’t been rebutted-its the truth. We have a seen multitude of excuses as to why every single model produced in the last 20 years has been falsified. But excuses are not rebuttal. We were told unequivocally that increases in co2 HAD to lead to increase in temperature. That has proven not to be true.
This Don Easterbrook study has been rebutted so many times. He takes proxy samples and extrapolated globally. Even the proxy samples have been proven wrong.
Here is a short article readable to the layperson: skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm
If you are master of the universe, then you have just cause to be insulted. But, civility is conducive to good discussion, is it not? Would you feel called to civil discussion if you were referred to as a shill for the green industry? Probably not. If you are a scientist, then present your science, by all means. Just know that equally accredited scientists also honestly disagree with you.
As with the scriptures, the big picture must be examined, as it provides context.
And the big picture is that for AGW to be true one would think some warming would have to be taking place.
Coming back to the original thread - for the life of me I can’t see anything exciting or positive in plants absorbing more CO2.
Of course, they will eat more CO2 if there is more around. That’s their food. Currently the CO2 in our atmosphere goes up by between 2 and 3 ppm per year. Does anybody suggest that the plants will stop this rise?
Perhaps it will take us a few more years than anticipated to hit 560 ppm CO2, which will be a doubling of the pre-industrial CO2 level of 280 ppm.
Is this going to be a comfort for the people living in 50 or 100 year’s time?
Where on that graph does it state that those are global temperatures? Or that proxies were used? And who mentioned Don Easterbrook? It’s pretty specific, if one actually looks at it: Those are temperature measurements from glacial ice in central Greenland, and it is using data from R.B. Alley.