Good for plants?

[Old Rocks]

Knight Science Journalism Tracker Blog Archive A climate change tipping point: Plant growth, once boosted by warming and increased CO2, may now be declining

A climate change tipping point: Plant growth, once boosted by warming and increased CO2, may now be declining


Global climate change, as many have observed, is a story that does not break; it oozes. Yet in today’s Science comes a climate change story that does, in a sense, break. To wit: the increased plant productivity caused by warming temperature, increased carbon dioxide and shifting rainfall pattterns has run out and the curve has reversed slope. Whereas plant productivity–the amount of atmospheric carbon taken up by plants–increased by about 6 percent during the 1980s and ’90s, it has since fallen by about 1 percent.

 

[Old Rocks]

Science shocker: Drought drives decade-long decline in plant growth Climate Progress

That’s from a remarkable NASA news release today, “Drought Drives Decade-Long Decline in Plant Growth” (see narrated video below).

On Friday, the journal Science publishes the study itself, ” Drought-Induced Reduction in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 2000 Through 2009” (subs. req’d), which found:


Terrestrial net primary production (NPP) quantifies the amount of atmospheric carbon fixed by plants and accumulated as biomass. Previous studies have shown that climate constraints were relaxing with increasing temperature and solar radiation, allowing an upward trend in NPP from 1982 through 1999. The past decade (2000 to 2009) has been the warmest since instrumental measurements began, which could imply continued increases in NPP; however, our estimates suggest a reduction in the global NPP of 0.55 petagrams of carbon. Large-scale droughts have reduced regional NPP, and a drying trend in the Southern Hemisphere has decreased NPP in that area, counteracting the increased NPP over the Northern Hemisphere. A continued decline in NPP would not only weaken the terrestrial carbon sink, but it would also intensify future competition between food demand and proposed biofuel production.

 

[Old Rocks]

Science shocker: Drought drives decade-long decline in plant growth Climate Progress

That’s from a remarkable NASA news release today, “Drought Drives Decade-Long Decline in Plant Growth” (see narrated video below).

On Friday, the journal Science publishes the study itself, ” Drought-Induced Reduction in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 2000 Through 2009” (subs. req’d), which found:


Terrestrial net primary production (NPP) quantifies the amount of atmospheric carbon fixed by plants and accumulated as biomass. Previous studies have shown that climate constraints were relaxing with increasing temperature and solar radiation, allowing an upward trend in NPP from 1982 through 1999. The past decade (2000 to 2009) has been the warmest since instrumental measurements began, which could imply continued increases in NPP; however, our estimates suggest a reduction in the global NPP of 0.55 petagrams of carbon. Large-scale droughts have reduced regional NPP, and a drying trend in the Southern Hemisphere has decreased NPP in that area, counteracting the increased NPP over the Northern Hemisphere. A continued decline in NPP would not only weaken the terrestrial carbon sink, but it would also intensify future competition between food demand and proposed biofuel production.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Cold empties Bolivian rivers of fish : Nature News

"Cold empties Bolivian rivers of fish

Antarctic cold snap kills millions of aquatic animals in the Amazon."

 

[AllieBaba]

Yeah, most of what I've heard (including from Nasa) has said there's more to worry about from global cooling than global warming, and I think that's where we're headed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Can't be cause man is destroying millions of acres of rain forest. Nope can not be that.

By the way, warming trends were supposed to cause more rain, more hurricanes and more storms. What happened to that?

Further explain why when the planet was even warmer then today it was mostly a verdant Jungle with swamps and such?

 

[westwall]

Knight Science Journalism Tracker Blog Archive A climate change tipping point: Plant growth, once boosted by warming and increased CO2, may now be declining

A climate change tipping point: Plant growth, once boosted by warming and increased CO2, may now be declining


Global climate change, as many have observed, is a story that does not break; it oozes. Yet in today’s Science comes a climate change story that does, in a sense, break. To wit: the increased plant productivity caused by warming temperature, increased carbon dioxide and shifting rainfall pattterns has run out and the curve has reversed slope. Whereas plant productivity–the amount of atmospheric carbon taken up by plants–increased by about 6 percent during the 1980s and ’90s, it has since fallen by about 1 percent.

So what does this make "tipping point" number 7,201! You alarmists have had so many tipping points pass us by that you can't walk straight!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Modern Sensitive CO2, it eats glaciers for breakfast and destroys rain forests for lunch.

What's for dinner?

 

[rdean]

Modern Sensitive CO2, it eats glaciers for breakfast and destroys rain forests for lunch.

What's for dinner?

If we're lucky, Republicans.

 

[westwall]

Modern Sensitive CO2, it eats glaciers for breakfast and destroys rain forests for lunch.

What's for dinner?

If we're lucky, Republicans.

But if it wer'nt for republicans you wouldn't get your welfare check!

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey dumbass Walleyes, all you red staters would be without welfare checks in your single wides if we in the blue states did not support you

Red States vs. Blue States Comparison Summary

 

[westwall]

Hey dumbass Walleyes, all you red staters would be without welfare checks in your single wides if we in the blue states did not support you

Red States vs. Blue States Comparison Summary

As usual you are guilty of premature ignorant ejaculation. You should have noticed that I live in NV which voted blue!

Silly person!

 

[IanC]

Knight Science Journalism Tracker Blog Archive A climate change tipping point: Plant growth, once boosted by warming and increased CO2, may now be declining

A climate change tipping point: Plant growth, once boosted by warming and increased CO2, may now be declining


Global climate change, as many have observed, is a story that does not break; it oozes. Yet in today’s Science comes a climate change story that does, in a sense, break. To wit: the increased plant productivity caused by warming temperature, increased carbon dioxide and shifting rainfall pattterns has run out and the curve has reversed slope. Whereas plant productivity–the amount of atmospheric carbon taken up by plants–increased by about 6 percent during the 1980s and ’90s, it has since fallen by about 1 percent.

Old Rocks- I believe that you are sincere in your beliefs about AGW but that you are too credulous in accepting articles that seem to support your position. To a certain extent I blame the articles and their authors for making it very easy to be convinced that a house of cards is actually a house.

A few days ago I started a thread about a story in Science that was very weak in actual evidence but did not tell the readers about that lack of statistical signifigance. You agreed that it was bad science.

Quote: Originally Posted by IanC
Kevin Drum | Mother Jones
By Kevin Drum
| Tue Aug. 24, 2010 8:47 AM PDT (I am unable to directly link article, scroll down to the 24th)

Quote:
But now comes another climate-related piece of research, this time in the equally respected Science, and this time Stuart's skepticism is on much firmer ground. For the last decade scientists have been collecting information on terrestrial vegetation coverage using the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on board NASA’s Terra satellite. Their conclusion: vegetation coverage is down, which means plants are pulling less carbon out of the air, which means we have yet another positive feedback loop causing an increase in atmospheric carbon levels.

The problem is that there are only ten annual data points so far, and they bounce around like a pogo stick. The trend over the past decade is slightly down, but the variance is so large that it's almost imposssible to tell if this is just normal noise or a real decline. It's still worthwhile information to share, except that the writeup in Science appears to go out of its way to avoid acknowledging the problem:
Quote:
So Stuart emails the authors, and they concede that their results aren't yet robust ("Some research findings are so important that society really cannot afford to wait another 10+yr for 95% or 99% statistical confidence"). Stuart is unhappy:

Ok. So here we have a statistically non-robust result, that the authors are well aware is not statistically robust, being published because it's of "high policy significance". However, and critically, the authors included no discussion whatsoever of the statistical limitations of the evidence. The "-0.55" in the abstract is not "-0.55 +/- 1.1" or something like that to give the reader a heads up that there is a lot of uncertainty here. There is no calculation of the "p-value" of that trend (how likely it was to occur by chance), even though the rest of the paper is littered with p-values of subsidiary results. They know perfectly well how to calculate this, they know it's not statistically significant, but they chose to put their readers in a position where we have to take the data off the graph and do our own statistical analysis to realize what's really going on.

And the refereeing and editorial process at Science allowed the paper to be published like that.

I think that sucks.

Stuart is no climate skeptic, just someone who thinks data ought to be presented clearly and transparently. I agree. Especially in the current post-Climategate atmosphere, the climate community needs to be purer than Caesar's wife about this kind of thing. There's no reason to withhold this satellite information, but it should be clearly labeled as preliminary, non-significant, and with error bars attached.

This attitude is what makes climate science so creepy. Science is science and politics is politics. When politics is paraded around as science, SCIENCE SUFFERS! How is the layman supposed to separate fact from opinion when even superstar journals like Science and Nature are letting propaganda slide?
Haven't seen this before, but your point is taken. Too little depth of research to make a conclusion.

Now, a few days later, you Old Rocks are proclaiming a TIPPING POINT, based on articles derived from the same Science article that you previously agreed was to weak to make a conclusion. Just because a study gets repeated numerous times that doesn't make the science behind it any better. And you fell for it! Someone who earnestly wants to learn the truth about climate change. Even after you were given a heads-up to be wary. What is the ordinary layman supposed to do? Just believe what he is told? How many of the other studies are just as weak as this one, but continue to grow in stature as they are repeated? Hockey Stick, anyone?

 

[IanC]

Early Warning: Climate Alarmism at Science Magazine?

Here is the link to the blogger who discusses the Science article with the actual authors of the article. Very interesting to see how the scientists rationalize putting out preliminary work because of "high policy significance".

 

[Old Rocks]

Ian, each of the articles that we are seeing on some of the new studies would not of themselves be noteworthy. Except that each one reinforces what the others are seeing.

Now, concerning things that are not preliminary studies, such as the extreme weather events of this year, the continued melt of the Arctic Ice, wind patterns that have not been seen before, one can see a trend that should be alarming. After all, were it here in the US that we had a 38% failure of the grain crop, the whole world would be starving. Since it is just Russia, only countries that were already in trouble will see major starvation.

What I would like to see from you and others here are real studies that show that the climate is not changing in a manner that will impact our agriculture. I will not state that someone should show that increasing CO2 does not increase atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, for the physicists and chemists have already demonstrated that is, indeed, the case.

You and others state, yes, the climate is warming, but it is no big deal, and we have nothing to do with it.

First, as demonstrated in Pakistan and Russia this year, it is a big deal. It impacts our agriculture in a world of nearly 7 billion human beings.

Second, when virtually the whole of the scientific community is stating that we are the cause of the climate change, how can you state you have better knowledge that we are not? And you and others do this without presenting the slightest bit of evidence to support your statements.

I find that the authors of the paper are absolutely up front about the preliminary nature of the study, and are also totally correct in stating that the information needs to be out there for the public and other scientists. Expecially since this is a land plant study, and we find that the phytoplankton in the ocean have experianced a 40% reduction in the past years.


Early Warning: Climate Alarmism at Science Magazine?

Stuart;

Some research findings are so important that society really cannot afford to
wait another 10+yr for 95% or 99% statistical confidence. We (and I suppose
Science) felt this result was one of them. And recognize that we are not
advocating this result, merely reporting what we measured and why we think
it is happening. I actually hope in 10-20yr that some young scientist proves
we are wrong, and that NPP trends have turned back up. Humanity will be much
better off if that occurs.

And yes, if you feel my comments are interesting enough, you can quote them
directly, I speak publicly on these topics all the time. For Maosheng you
need to get his permission.

Steve Running

 

[Old Rocks]

Tipping points are a very interesting subject. Perhaps the most important pooint about them, is that since we have no idea where they are in any of nature's systems at present, we will only be able to identify them in retrospect. After we have passed them, and there is on going back.

Kind of like identifing the edge of the cliff by that falling sensation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What about the tipping point of never entering a lab to test your theory? How long ago did you pass that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Modern Sensitive CO2, it eats glaciers for breakfast and destroys rain forests for lunch.

What's for dinner?

If we're lucky, Republicans.

Rdean, bitter, frustrated, clutching his hockey stick graphs.

 

[westwall]

Ian, each of the articles that we are seeing on some of the new studies would not of themselves be noteworthy. Except that each one reinforces what the others are seeing.

Now, concerning things that are not preliminary studies, such as the extreme weather events of this year, the continued melt of the Arctic Ice, wind patterns that have not been seen before, one can see a trend that should be alarming. After all, were it here in the US that we had a 38% failure of the grain crop, the whole world would be starving. Since it is just Russia, only countries that were already in trouble will see major starvation.

What I would like to see from you and others here are real studies that show that the climate is not changing in a manner that will impact our agriculture. I will not state that someone should show that increasing CO2 does not increase atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, for the physicists and chemists have already demonstrated that is, indeed, the case.

You and others state, yes, the climate is warming, but it is no big deal, and we have nothing to do with it.

First, as demonstrated in Pakistan and Russia this year, it is a big deal. It impacts our agriculture in a world of nearly 7 billion human beings.

Second, when virtually the whole of the scientific community is stating that we are the cause of the climate change, how can you state you have better knowledge that we are not? And you and others do this without presenting the slightest bit of evidence to support your statements.

I find that the authors of the paper are absolutely up front about the preliminary nature of the study, and are also totally correct in stating that the information needs to be out there for the public and other scientists. Expecially since this is a land plant study, and we find that the phytoplankton in the ocean have experianced a 40% reduction in the past years.


Early Warning: Climate Alarmism at Science Magazine?

Stuart;

Some research findings are so important that society really cannot afford to
wait another 10+yr for 95% or 99% statistical confidence. We (and I suppose
Science) felt this result was one of them. And recognize that we are not
advocating this result, merely reporting what we measured and why we think
it is happening. I actually hope in 10-20yr that some young scientist proves
we are wrong, and that NPP trends have turned back up. Humanity will be much
better off if that occurs.

And yes, if you feel my comments are interesting enough, you can quote them
directly, I speak publicly on these topics all the time. For Maosheng you
need to get his permission.

Steve Running

And yet the experts all agree that the Russian, Pakistani, and everybody else you wish to name experience was not GW related.

Climate 'CSI' Team Takes on Russian Heat - NYTimes.com

 

[IanC]

Ian, each of the articles that we are seeing on some of the new studies would not of themselves be noteworthy. Except that each one reinforces what the others are seeing.

Now, concerning things that are not preliminary studies, such as the extreme weather events of this year, the continued melt of the Arctic Ice, wind patterns that have not been seen before, one can see a trend that should be alarming. After all, were it here in the US that we had a 38% failure of the grain crop, the whole world would be starving. Since it is just Russia, only countries that were already in trouble will see major starvation.

What I would like to see from you and others here are real studies that show that the climate is not changing in a manner that will impact our agriculture. I will not state that someone should show that increasing CO2 does not increase atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, for the physicists and chemists have already demonstrated that is, indeed, the case.

You and others state, yes, the climate is warming, but it is no big deal, and we have nothing to do with it.

First, as demonstrated in Pakistan and Russia this year, it is a big deal. It impacts our agriculture in a world of nearly 7 billion human beings.

Second, when virtually the whole of the scientific community is stating that we are the cause of the climate change, how can you state you have better knowledge that we are not? And you and others do this without presenting the slightest bit of evidence to support your statements.

I find that the authors of the paper are absolutely up front about the preliminary nature of the study, and are also totally correct in stating that the information needs to be out there for the public and other scientists. Expecially since this is a land plant study, and we find that the phytoplankton in the ocean have experianced a 40% reduction in the past years.


Early Warning: Climate Alarmism at Science Magazine?

Stuart;

Some research findings are so important that society really cannot afford to
wait another 10+yr for 95% or 99% statistical confidence. We (and I suppose
Science) felt this result was one of them. And recognize that we are not
advocating this result, merely reporting what we measured and why we think
it is happening. I actually hope in 10-20yr that some young scientist proves
we are wrong, and that NPP trends have turned back up. Humanity will be much
better off if that occurs.

And yes, if you feel my comments are interesting enough, you can quote them
directly, I speak publicly on these topics all the time. For Maosheng you
need to get his permission.

Steve Running

I must say that I find it disappointing that you are willing to ignore the weaknesses of the 'science' that you are promoting in order to be on the 'right' side of the debate. You acknowledged the weakness at first but after the story spawned several offshoot articles that bolstered your belief in acopolypse you couldn't resist. No matter that if the data set started one year later then it would show an increase in vegetation! How can you honestly put out those links to the people on this message board when you know that it is a coin flip whether it is even true, let alone statistically significant?

The more I read about AGW, the more concerned I become about how the data is being twisted to say something that is misleading. Every step along the way apples are compared to oranges, data sets are cherry picked, raw data is 'corrected' until it is unrecognizable, and always in the direction that the AGW alarmists need to further their claims.

How many other studies out there are as feeble as the global vegetation article? We don't know because typically we don't have access to the data or methodologies involved. But they are accepted because they follow the trend. They continue to be accepted even when large flaws are found. On the other hand, data that confound warmism are heavily scrutinized and lightly published until 'corrections' or explanations can be found.

Climategate and the continuing embargo on FOI requests leave a huge stink and a lot of important questions to be answered.

Old Rocks- I can understand your reasoning in wanting these stories to be true but I cannot condone the politics that proclaim "the ends justify the means". Science is about open and unbiased search for the truth, not the petty secretcy and high school politics of the High Shamans of Warming.