Bad News For Third World: Global Warming Will Cut Rice Yields
EPW_Environmental Press Wire
Bad News For Third World: Warming Will Cut Rice Yields
Temperature increases anticipated as part of global warming appear to
significantly reduce rice yields, a finding that has worrisome
implications for the third of the world's population that relies on
rice as a primary staple.
University of Florida researchers have found above-average temperatures
interfere with the life cycle and pollination process in rice plants.
Modest temperature increases predicted by some climate change scenarios
would reduce rice yields by 20 to 40 percent by 2100, while the most
severe predicted temperature increases could force yields to zero.
The findings are among the latest to come out of the Carbon Dioxide and
Climate Change Project at UF's Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences. Researchers involved in the project, managed in cooperation
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and funded by UF and several
federal agencies, have discovered that warmer temperatures also lead to
declines in yields of peanuts, soybeans and dry beans such as kidney
beans.
"I think we've demonstrated clearly that seed producing plants are much
more at risk from rising temperatures than are vegetative plants such
as forage plants," said Hartwell Allen, a USDA and UF crop and climate
research scientist.
The latest experiment tested a variety of rice commonly grown in the
Philippines, a tropical climate, and a variety grown in California, a
temperate climate.
Researchers planted the rice in chambers that were maintained at
different temperature cycles simulating day and nighttime fluctuations.
They found the plants steadily produced less rice as temperature
diurnal cycles exceeded 73-91 degrees Fahrenheit for the tropical
variety and 68-86 degrees for the temperate one. Those optimum cycles
already fall a bit below current temperatures where the rice is
cultivated, said Kenneth Boote, a UF agronomy professor involved in the
project.
"We're on the downhill side for rice and soybeans now, so if there's
any temperature increase the yield will slide down," Boote said.
Although the plants continued to flourish, they produced nearly no rice
at the highest temperature cycle of 86 to 104 degrees, the study found.
"We were hoping to find some evidence that the tropical cultivar could
sustain reproductive ability at the highest temperature, but it didn't,
which is bad news," said Alison Snyder, a UF graduate student who
worked on the study for her masters thesis.
Indeed, the temperature cycles used in the experiment closely track
scientists' more modest predictions for global warming. An average
global increase of 5.4 degrees by 2100, considered probable by many
scientists, would produce temperatures in the experiment's higher
range, Snyder said. And that prediction is about half the 10 degree
increase viewed as the most dire possibility.
Rice comprises 40 percent of the daily calories of 2 billion people,
many of whom live in Third World tropical regions, Snyder said. If rice
production ceased or moved into more northern regions, it would have a
severe impact on these already poor areas, she said.
"The Third World regions have the potential to be hit hard," she said.
The findings track earlier UF research on soybeans, peanuts and dry
beans, although rice and dry beans appear the most sensitive to
temperature change, Allen said.
The news, however, is not necessarily all bad. Snyder and Allen said
plant scientists likely can develop more heat-tolerant varieties of
rice and other grains. Still, selective breeding has a limit.
"If this happens with so many different species, then I don't see a lot
of potential for selecting genetically within a species for a solution
to it," Boote said.
Another possibility is that other grains will become tomorrow's
staples. UF scientists have recently experimented with a grain called
the pigeon pea, which is more tolerant of hot, dry climates because it
grows slowly and flowers late in the summer, Allen said.
Snyder, Boote and Allen plan to submit a paper about the rice research,
funded by the International Rice Research Institute, to a scientific
journal for publication. Since launching their efforts in 1981,
researchers with the Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change Project have
published about 100 papers in peer-reviewed journals and book chapters,
Allen said. - By Aaron Hoover
[Contact: Hartwell Allen, Kenneth Boote, Aaron Hoover ]
04-Dec-2000
http://unisci.com/stories/20004/1204005.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jim Webster
Who wrote in message <3A2FA8A4...@right.com>...
>Who wrote:
>
>> amused by pain wrote:
>>
>> > It is my understanding that global warming will affect mostly higher
>> > latitudes.
>> > The Tropics will stay about the same.
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > "I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to
>> > give up any hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot
>> > resist forming one on every subject), as soon as facts are
>> > shown to be opposed to it." - Charles Darwin
>>
>> Having lived in the northern climes, I've yet to see a downside to
>> global warming. ever had to shovel 8 ft of snow to find your car?
>
>As a further aside... anybody know about how much the seas would rise if
>the polar icecaps were to melt... so i can start buying soon to be
>"beachfront" property?
Greenland is going to be BIG as the holiday resort in the future. I already
own a concession to build Nanortalik's first seafront hotel with private
nudist beach and beach volleyball courts.
Jim Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
>
>
Don Libby
>
>
> As a further aside... anybody know about how much the seas would rise if
> the polar icecaps were to melt... so i can start buying soon to be
> "beachfront" property?
Sixty meters. But it's a long-term investment. More than 100 years
IIRC.
-dl
--
*********************************************************
* Replace "never.spam" with "dlibby" to reply by e-mail *
*********************************************************
Scott Nudds
: As a further aside... anybody know about how much the seas would rise if
: the polar icecaps were to melt... so i can start buying soon to be
: "beachfront" property?
About 60 meters or so. Invest in dyke futures. Snicker....
amused by pain
Who
Having lived in the northern climes, I've yet to see a downside to
Who
As a further aside... anybody know about how much the seas would rise if
Ed McBride
Who wrote:
> Having lived in the northern climes, I've yet to see a downside to
> global warming. ever had to shovel 8 ft of snow to find your car?
I once asked an eco-Nazi what was the down side, and he responded in a
horrified tone that New York City, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco,
etc. would be under water. I responded "Agreed, but I asked about the
down side."
Ed
Oz
>
>Don Libby wrote in message <3A2FEFC...@tds.net>...
>>Sixty meters. But it's a long-term investment. More than 100 years
>>IIRC.
>
>In Agriculture 100 years is barely medium term :-))
Heck, it's only a single liftime after all.
--
Oz
Who
> Who (ye...@right.com) wrote:
> : As a further aside... anybody know about how much the seas would rise if
> : the polar icecaps were to melt... so i can start buying soon to be
> : "beachfront" property?
>
> About 60 meters or so. Invest in dyke futures. Snicker....
Thats good to know, I'm 100 meters above sea level, so I don't have to worry
about sailing home anytime soon.
amused by pain
Lloyd R. Parker
: If the North pole ice melts, no change in sea level.
:
Except that due to thermal expansion of water.
And why would only that ice melt, and not the Antarctic or glaciers?
: --
:
:
Alastair McDonald
"amused by pain" <nos...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:3A2FA752...@isp.com...
> It is my understanding that global warming will affect mostly higher
> latitudes.
> The Tropics will stay about the same.
>
China is not in the tropics. It is at the same latitudes as the USA!
Cheers, Alastair.
Ed McBride
amused by pain wrote:
>
> If the North pole ice melts, no change in sea level.
I suggest more care is needed here. I agree that if ice is floating in
water, and the ice melts, the water level does not change. However, I
believe the Arctic ice has resulted from zillions of snow flakes and is
therefore fresh-water ice. It is floating, of course, in salt-water.
Let's assume fresh water has a density of 62.4 lbm/ft3 and sea water
has a density of 64.0, a fairly typical value.
Consider a block of fresh-water ice weighing exactly 64.0 lb. It
displaces exactly 1 ft3 of sea water. However, when it melts, it
occupies 1.026 ft3. Which fills the void it had been displacing with
0.026 ft3 leftover, which clearly raises the water level.
Please do not misinterpret this post. I remain unconvinced that there
is such a phenomenon as global warming, and unconvinced that, if there
is, its primary cause is mankind rather than a natural fluctuation.
Ed
Alastair McDonald
> If the North pole ice melts, no change in sea level.
>
But then Greenland will start to melt, and we won't be able to stop it! The
Arctic ice is a bit like Humpty Dumpty.
"all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put Humpty together
again!"
(for King read Bush.)
Cheers, Alastair
amused by pain
tropical country, and California, a temperate climate. (China not
mentioned)
China covers a wide variety of climates, tropical and near tropical in
the south, main staple is rice, to very cold in the north, main staple
is wheat.
One reason chinese food is so popular is the wide variety, due to the
extremes of the climate.
Oz
> I suggest more care is needed here. I agree that if ice is floating in
>water, and the ice melts, the water level does not change. However, I
>believe the Arctic ice has resulted from zillions of snow flakes and is
>therefore fresh-water ice. It is floating, of course, in salt-water.
> Let's assume fresh water has a density of 62.4 lbm/ft3 and sea water
>has a density of 64.0, a fairly typical value.
> Consider a block of fresh-water ice weighing exactly 64.0 lb. It
>displaces exactly 1 ft3 of sea water. However, when it melts, it
>occupies 1.026 ft3. Which fills the void it had been displacing with
>0.026 ft3 leftover, which clearly raises the water level.
Please look up 'archimedes principle'.
When you have understood it you will see your evaluation above is
incorrect.
--
Oz
Phil Hays
> If the North pole ice melts, no change in sea level.
Oh? Greenland has a lot of ice on it, enough to raise sea level by about 5
meters.
--
Phil Hays
Chuck Robinson
Phil Hays <spampos...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:3A31A2E0...@sprynet.com...
the ice on Antartica going to melt too?
CR
>
> --
> Phil Hays
Oz
>Question please is this melting going to be selective or is the S pole and
>the ice on Antartica going to melt too?
Eventually yes. Antarctica has dinosaurs living there despite being in
the antarctic circle at the time. This may, however, take some time.
Perhaps until where we ought (man aside) to be in the next interglacial
rather than heading towards the next glaciation.
--
Oz
wmconnolley
> Ed McBride wrote on Fri, 8 Dec 2000
> > I suggest more care is needed here.
Actually, whats needed is more knowledge. See below.
> >I agree that if ice is floating in
> >water, and the ice melts, the water level does not change. However, I
> >believe the Arctic ice has resulted from zillions of snow flakes and
> >is
> >therefore fresh-water ice. It is floating, of course, in salt-water.
> >Let's assume fresh water has a density of 62.4 lbm/ft3 and sea water
> >has a density of 64.0, a fairly typical value.
No. Seaice results (mostly) from freezing seawater. But
it is , however, mostly fresh, because the salt is rejected into the
water as part of the freezing process (and later).
That means, of course, that the seawater itself becomes more saline and
hence denser. I can't do lbm/ft3, though, so I don't know how
wrong your values are...
-W.
--
W. M. Connolley | http://www.wmc.care4free.net
No, I haven't lost my job: NERC's newserver has become intolerable....
Posting, as ever, in a personal capacity.
Alastair McDonald
"Chuck Robinson" <ch...@corridor.net> wrote in message
news:ThjY5.506$FM2....@news-east.usenetserver.com...
Greenland is further from the North Pole than Antartica is from the South
Pole so Greenland is likely to melt first.
Cheers, Alastair.
Jim Webster
Chuck Robinson wrote in message ...
didn't they tell you Chuck, we're going to keep it tilted so that the South
pole is always in the shade (1) . They are planning to use nuddsies sense
of self importance as a sunshade while they are at it.
Jim Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes
(1) Oh yes, our apologies to the NZers who will find its always night but
that's just the way the cookie crumbles .
Chuck Robinson
Jim Webster <j...@websterpagebank.spam.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:90t38u$ol8$4...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> didn't they tell you Chuck, we're going to keep it tilted so that the
South
> pole is always in the shade (1) . They are planning to use nuddsies sense
> of self importance as a sunshade while they are at it.
Whoa Whoa there, we have mental heavyweights like nuddsie. morgan, walter
epp and ant counteracting the natural balance of things. There is a strong
possibility the earth may end up on its edge and all the ice will fall off
and the whole topside will end up in the shade. Except for Florida, of
course.
Scott Nudds
: Whoa Whoa there, we have mental heavyweights like nuddsie. morgan, walter
: epp and ant counteracting the natural balance of things.
Please Mr. Robinson... My modesty is being explotied here. Please stop
kissing my ass. It will get you nowhere.
Alastair McDonald
> It is my understanding that global warming will affect mostly higher
> latitudes.
> The Tropics will stay about the same.
>
Well then, you have misunderstood what is going to happen. The average
increase of up to 6 degsC by 2099 will affect the tropics. The polar zones
will see double or quadruple that increase. The reason the greater increase
in the polar regions does not need the tropics to show a smaller than
average to compensate, is that the polar regions cover a much smaller area
than the tropics. Looking at Mercator projected maps one gets a false sense
of the size of the polar regions. In fact Alaska is only about the same
size as the Phillipines.
It is only now that scientists are adding models of the biosphere to the
models of the atmosphere and oceans when projecting the effects of global
warming. They are showing that, as the temperatures increase, the tropical
regions will become CO2 sources instead of sinks. The famine that will
result in an overpopulated world is too awful to contemplate. Perhaps that
is why no one discusses it!
Cheers, Alastair.
David Ball
If you have 8 ft of snow, you don't live in northern climes. I
doubt very much you have to watch out for polar bears while digging to
find your car. You live in temperate climes. There is a huge
difference.
Here's a downside for the north - the real north: one of the
most important elements of the food chain in the arctic is lichen.
Yep, lichen. Why? Because it is the major food source for the caribou,
which then feeds other species such as the wolf, humans, .... With
strong warming in the arctic, lichen may disappear to be replaced by
other vegetation. This will impact the caribou which will then impact
anything that feeds off the caribou. And so on, and so on, and so on,
...
When looking at the impacts of global warming, it helps if one
is able to look beyond the human part of the equation (the forest) and
actually see some of the trees in the forest.
--
Dave.
Chuck Robinson
Alastair McDonald <abb...@abbemac.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9100ji$qgp$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Looking at it with the mercator projections aren't the sub-tropical and mild
temperate zones actually much larger. They then would become a larger CO2
sink? And do you account the oceans. Aren't they very flexible CO2 moving
sinks too, even with an increase in their mean Temperature?
More CO2 also means more available for plant growth.
CR
>
> Cheers, Alastair.
>
>
>
>
Alastair McDonald
>
Snip...
>
> Looking at it with the mercator projections aren't the sub-tropical and
mild
> temperate zones actually much larger. They then would become a larger CO2
> sink? And do you account the oceans. Aren't they very flexible CO2
moving
> sinks too, even with an increase in their mean Temperature?
>
I was arguing that equatorial temperatures would rise almost as fast as
the average world temperatures, even with polar temperatures rising much
faster.
At present they are many biological CO2 sinks in all regions of the world,
but as the planet warms, they will become sources as the soils warm up
and the humus and leaf litter decompose more efficiently.
The oceans are a sink for about half of the additional CO2 we are producing.
As they warm they will no longer be able to absorb as much and could well
also become a source.
> More CO2 also means more available for plant growth.
>
That was what was hoped, but experiments have shown that soils give off
more CO2 than the vegetation absorbs.
Cheers, Alastair.
Harvey Taylor
wra...@mb.sympatico.ca (David Ball) wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 09:08:54 -0600, Who <ye...@right.com> wrote:
>>amused by pain wrote:
>>
>>> It is my understanding that global warming will affect mostly higher
>>> latitudes.
>>> The Tropics will stay about the same.
>>>
>>
>>global warming. ever had to shovel 8 ft of snow to find your car?
>>
> most important elements of the food chain in the arctic is lichen.
> Yep, lichen. Why? Because it is the major food source for the caribou,
> which then feeds other species such as the wolf, humans, .... With
> strong warming in the arctic, lichen may disappear to be replaced by
> other vegetation. This will impact the caribou which will then impact
> anything that feeds off the caribou. And so on, and so on, and so on,
> ...
>
Here's one that may be more relevant to the skeptics.
As the temperate zones become warmer and more moist,
the range of mosquitoe borne diseases will increase.
See for example: http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/2000/0800issue/0800epstein.html
<cordially>
-het
--
"The more one is aware of political bias, the more one can be
made independent of it, and the more one claims to be
impartial, the more one is biased." -George Orwell
Harvey Taylor mailto:h...@despam.pangea.ca http://www.pangea.ca/~het
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Chive Mynde
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>
> Harvey Taylor wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Here's one that may be more relevant to the skeptics.
> > As the temperate zones become warmer and more moist,
> > the range of mosquitoe borne diseases will increase.
> > See for example: http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/
> >
http://www.scientificamerican.com/2000/0800issue/0800epstein.html
>
> computer models supporting Left-wing political agendas. Luddite
> whining will not deter civilization from its inevitable apotheosis.
> Screw the poor, screw the stupid, screw the deviant, and screw the
> whiners and their smelly unwashed armpits demanding a return to the
> halcyon purity of the 14th century..\
>
> --
> Uncle Al
Thanks for letting us know where you stand, Uncle Al.
It's ironic that your perspective is that of a 14th century aristocrat
and not one of a modern, 21st century citizen of the world.
Isn't it funny how people like Uncle Al are always best summarized and
characterized by their words against others?
Psychology has bested you, Uncle Al. YHL. HTH.
- Chive
--
"Out of the quarrel with others we make rhetoric,
out of the quarrel with ourselves we make poetry..."
- W.B Yeats
Scott Nudds
: Looking at it with the mercator projections aren't the sub-tropical and mild
: temperate zones actually much larger. They then would become a larger CO2
: sink?
Twice nothing is still nothing. In this case twice nothing until the
sink has saturated is even less than nothing.
Robinson wrote:
: And do you account the oceans. Aren't they very flexible CO2 moving
: sinks too, even with an increase in their mean Temperature?
Higher ocean temperature results in <lower> Co2 solubility, not <higher>
Mr. Robinson.
Robinson wrote:
: More CO2 also means more available for plant growth.
If plant growth can't keep up with the rate at which CO2 is being
introduced into the atmosphere today, what biological affect are you
postulating that will make it so when the rate of emission doubles in the
next few decades?
Divine intervention perhaps?
Jim Webster
Alastair McDonald wrote in message <9100ji$qgp$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>"amused by pain" <nos...@isp.com> wrote in message
>news:3A2FA752...@isp.com...
>> It is my understanding that global warming will affect mostly higher
>> latitudes.
>> The Tropics will stay about the same.
>>
>
>Well then, you have misunderstood what is going to happen. The average
>increase of up to 6 degsC by 2099 will affect the tropics. The polar zones
>will see double or quadruple that increase. The reason the greater
increase
>in the polar regions does not need the tropics to show a smaller than
>average to compensate, is that the polar regions cover a much smaller area
>than the tropics. Looking at Mercator projected maps one gets a false
sense
>of the size of the polar regions. In fact Alaska is only about the same
>size as the Phillipines.
one thing we always do forget, Mercator is merely a projection and not
necessarily the best.
>
>It is only now that scientists are adding models of the biosphere to the
>models of the atmosphere and oceans when projecting the effects of global
>warming. They are showing that, as the temperatures increase, the tropical
>regions will become CO2 sources instead of sinks. The famine that will
>result in an overpopulated world is too awful to contemplate. Perhaps that
>is why no one discusses it!
>
not bickering for the sheer hell of it here, but some work I've seen has
predicted that we will get higher yields from crop plants as CO2 increases.
Certainly if you look at virtually every other period when the planet had
higher temperatures than now (a majority of its history) it was considerably
lusher.
Jim Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
>Cheers, Alastair.
>
>
>
>
Alastair McDonald
>
> Alastair McDonald wrote in message <9100ji$qgp$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >
> >"amused by pain" <nos...@isp.com> wrote in message
> >news:3A2FA752...@isp.com...
> >> It is my understanding that global warming will affect mostly higher
> >> latitudes.
> >> The Tropics will stay about the same.
> >>
> >
> >Well then, you have misunderstood what is going to happen. The average
> >increase of up to 6 degsC by 2099 will affect the tropics. The polar
zones
> >will see double or quadruple that increase. The reason the greater
> increase
> >in the polar regions does not need the tropics to show a smaller than
> >average to compensate, is that the polar regions cover a much smaller
area
> >than the tropics. Looking at Mercator projected maps one gets a false
> sense
> >of the size of the polar regions. In fact Alaska is only about the same
>
> one thing we always do forget, Mercator is merely a projection and not
> necessarily the best.
>
> >
> >It is only now that scientists are adding models of the biosphere to the
> >models of the atmosphere and oceans when projecting the effects of global
> >warming. They are showing that, as the temperatures increase, the
tropical
> >regions will become CO2 sources instead of sinks. The famine that will
> >result in an overpopulated world is too awful to contemplate. Perhaps
that
> >is why no one discusses it!
> >
>
> not bickering for the sheer hell of it here, but some work I've seen has
> predicted that we will get higher yields from crop plants as CO2
increases.
> Certainly if you look at virtually every other period when the planet had
> higher temperatures than now (a majority of its history) it was
considerably
> lusher.
>
If you are not going to bicker I can say; you get higher yields at first,
but
then as temperature rises the plants die. That causes more CO2 and higher
temperatures. During the Cretaceous, it was the polar regions that were
lush, hence the coal and oil in the Arctic. The polar regions are much
smaller than the tropics (as I tried to explain with my confusing reference
to Mercator.) With less lush areas, food production goes down and we
starve :-(
Boo hoos, Alastair.
Chive Mynde
Webster demonstrates his all-abiding ignorance in such matters, again
and again.
As global warming increases, wether patterns change. This could lead
to increased drought, frost, and severe weather patterns brought on by
global warming. Refer to the thread regarding global warming in the
third world.
You're living in a fantasy, Webster. Crops will be devastated by
global warming regardless of the initial benefits of CO2 increases.
You're a small-minded thinker who hasn't taken the big picture into
account. I don't suspect you ever will due to your inherent dishonesty.
Phil Hays
Uncle Al trimmed the sci.chem group when he replied. I think sci.chem needs to
read Uncle Al.
Harvey Taylor wrote:
>
> In article <3A33E7B0...@hate.spam.net>,
> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Harvey Taylor wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> Here's one that may be more relevant to the skeptics.
> >> As the temperate zones become warmer and more moist,
> >> the range of mosquitoe borne diseases will increase.
> >> See for example: http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/
> >> http://www.scientificamerican.com/2000/0800issue/0800epstein.html
> >
> > You know nothing. All you have is second-hand drool of corrupt
> > computer models supporting Left-wing political agendas. Luddite
> > whining will not deter civilization from its inevitable apotheosis.
> > Screw the poor, screw the stupid, screw the deviant, and screw the
> > whiners and their smelly unwashed armpits demanding a return to the
> > halcyon purity of the 14th century..\
> >
>
> You're pretty funny Al. Thanks for the larf.
>
> <kachung>
> -het
>
> --
> "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and
> catastrophe." -H.G. Wells
>
> Harvey Taylor mailto:h...@despam.pangea.ca http://www.pangea.ca/~het
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
Phil Hays
Chuck Robinson
Scott Nudds <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
news:910rp3$lai$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org...
> Chuck Robinson (ch...@corridor.net) wrote:
> : Looking at it with the mercator projections aren't the sub-tropical and
mild
> : temperate zones actually much larger. They then would become a larger
CO2
> : sink?
>
> Twice nothing is still nothing. In this case twice nothing until the
> sink has saturated is even less than nothing.
>
> Robinson wrote:
> : And do you account the oceans. Aren't they very flexible CO2 moving
> : sinks too, even with an increase in their mean Temperature?
>
> Higher ocean temperature results in <lower> Co2 solubility, not <higher>
> Mr. Robinson.
>
It depends on the mean starting point you are measuring from. It is
somewhat alike a bell shaped curve. Right?
> Robinson wrote:
> : More CO2 also means more available for plant growth.
>
> If plant growth can't keep up with the rate at which CO2 is being
> introduced into the atmosphere today, what biological affect are you
> postulating that will make it so when the rate of emission doubles in the
> next few decades?
>
Again, theories and postulates are only the first part of the answer
equation.
> Divine intervention perhaps?
>
I'm not the least bit worried Nuddsie. I know that with your superior
knowledge and skill you will save all of us from ourselves. We eagerly
await your guidance.
CR.
>
Ian St. John
>
> Uncle Al trimmed the sci.chem group when he replied. I think sci.chem
needs to
> read Uncle Al.
Uncle Al always trims sci.chem from any post not looking for a specific
chemical application or reaction chain. He defends sci.chem with religious
zeal against any 'wider world'. Given his limited mental scope, it is
probably better if we leave him to his ivory tower.
Unfortunately many posters such as Scott and Chive deliverately and
maliciously add sci.chem to their posts just to bait him. I wouldn't mind
him blasting the poster or getting them to trim sci.chem. Unfortunately, he
blames our NG for the posters. I've tried to explain the simple truth that
he is spamming OUR ng, not defending his own, but there is no chemical
formula, so he is unable to process such complicated logic....
I'm tempted to fight back again, but the group is so polluted with Dave
Gossman, Scott Nudds, David Kendra, Chuck Robinson, amused by pain, Chive in
various forms, Langrr, George Baxter, MV, Tracey Aquilla, JIm Webster,
SPQRzilla, etc that is just doesn't seem worth the effort.. Finding a
rational post on science or the environment is getting really difficult.
OTOH, Uncle Al does give us a rare glimpse into a diseased mind.... A
glimpse at what exposure to too many toxic chemicals can do to the sloppy
chemist... That's somewhat interesting..
SNUMBER6
>Unfortunately, he
>blames our NG for the posters. I've tried to explain the simple truth that
>he is spamming OUR ng, not defending his own, but there is no chemical
>formula, so he is unable to process such complicated logic....
I agree with the first part of your statement ... The Sci.environmental
newsgroup, though inundated with nonsense and personal attacks from many of
those you mention, also have quite a number of thinkers whose views (through no
fault of their own are opposite my own and as such are unfortunately wrong) are
still put forward with logic and clarity and as such I value greatly ... Dr.
Evens from Northwestern (too lazy to check - I hope I got that right) is a case
in point ...as you suggest we need more like him ...
>OTOH, Uncle Al does give us a rare glimpse into a diseased mind....
I have to back up Uncle Al on this ... He believes that resources are limited
and from a practical matter should be used more for improving excellence than
for bringing the below average up to average ...
Now that is a viewpoint that may or may not be shared ... but it is not from a
"diseased" mind ...
Now parsing the diatribes he uses in backing up his viewpoint is another matter
... Personally, I find them funny in their sarcasm and demagoguery ...
Sometimes even I don't think even Al agrees with what he posted ... but just
figures it sounded good ...
>A
>glimpse at what exposure to too many toxic chemicals can do to the sloppy
>chemist... That's somewhat interesting..
Blaming toxic chemicals ...tsk tsk ... heredity, education, etc. are much more
responsible for people's actions ... although the "twinkie" defense was indeed
proposed once ... are "twinkies" a toxic chemical ???
BTW ... thanx for the crosspost ...
In the Village ....
I am not a number ... I am a free man !!!!
gcouger
"Chuck Robinson" <ch...@corridor.net> wrote in message
news:KJPY5.7462$FM2.6...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
: Alastair McDonald <abb...@abbemac.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
What happens if the oceans start puking up their methane now tied up in
hydrides? They are temperature and pressure sensitive.
--
Gordon W5RED
G. C. Couger gco...@provlue.net Stillwater, OK
Oz
>:
>What happens if the oceans start puking up their methane now tied up in
>hydrides? They are temperature and pressure sensitive.
I think we can honestly say: serious trouble.
Big time.
--
Oz
Jim Webster
Chive Mynde wrote in message
Martin Brown
Oz wrote:
> Ed McBride wrote on Fri, 8 Dec 2000
>
> > I suggest more care is needed here. I agree that if ice is floating in
> >water, and the ice melts, the water level does not change. However, I
> >believe the Arctic ice has resulted from zillions of snow flakes and is
> >therefore fresh-water ice. It is floating, of course, in salt-water.
Freezing preferentially makes nearly pure water ice - the salts mostly stay in the
sea.
Seawater being denser means that water ice needs less displacement to float in the
ocean than it does in a fresh water lake.
> > Let's assume fresh water has a density of 62.4 lbm/ft3 and sea water
> >has a density of 64.0, a fairly typical value.
> > Consider a block of fresh-water ice weighing exactly 64.0 lb. It
> >displaces exactly 1 ft3 of sea water. However, when it melts, it
> >occupies 1.026 ft3. Which fills the void it had been displacing with
> >0.026 ft3 leftover, which clearly raises the water level.
>
> Please look up 'archimedes principle'.
The last time I looked it said that a floating body displaces it's own *weight* of
liquid.
> When you have understood it you will see your evaluation above is incorrect.
Although he used arcane units the reasoning looks basically to be sound (but
ignoring mixing).
Sea ice is essentially pure water ice (not quite but good enough as an
approximation) and the sea water becomes a more concentrated solution as the salts
stay in the liquid phase.
A 1 tonne block of water ice has volume ~ 1.0905 m^3 and floating it displaces 1
tonne of cold seawater which occupies roughly 0.97 m^3. When the ice melts it
becomes 1.0001 m^3 of fresh water at 0C which is more than the displacement 0.97m^3
the iceberg needed when afloat.
Roughly 3% more volume when in liquid phase than when it was floating as a solid
iceberg.
Where do you suppose the excess goes?
It would be much easier to demonstrate if you floated an ice cube on a petri dish
of mercury. The much larger difference in their densities makes it blindingly
obvious that the melting ice cannot possibly fit into the displaced volume of
mercury needed to float it.
Regards,
Martin Brown
gcouger
"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3a33c39e...@news.escape.ca...
Weather is a chaotic system. extrapolating beyond the set of you know data
is very very risky business. What happens when the weather jumps to a new
pattern is not obvious to any of smoking regular cigarettes.
Chuck Robinson
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:emCSUbAP...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
A much bigger problem than bovine burps and belches.
A real question remains. Is earth in a more "natural" state with glaciation
or without. Or is the cycling between them essential for its good health.
CR
>
> --
> Oz
David Ball
Wow, that's really profound! What the hell does it mean?
Believe me, I know far better than you how chaotic weather is. I know
far better than you what the weather in the arctic is like. I forecast
the weather for the arctic for three years and have been forecasting
the weather for areas from the Rocky Mountains to the boreal forest
for more than 10 more.
--
Dave.
Oz
>Although he used arcane units the reasoning looks basically to be sound (but
>ignoring mixing).
I was NOT ignoring mixing. Unless you assume a near instantaneous melt
mixing is inevitable.
>Sea ice is essentially pure water ice (not quite but good enough as an
>approximation) and the sea water becomes a more concentrated solution as the
>salts
>stay in the liquid phase.
It becomes more DILUTE as the ice melts (not much, admittedly).
>A 1 tonne block of water ice has volume ~ 1.0905 m^3 and floating it displaces 1
>tonne of cold seawater which occupies roughly 0.97 m^3. When the ice melts it
>becomes 1.0001 m^3 of fresh water at 0C which is more than the displacement
>0.97m^3
>the iceberg needed when afloat.
Correct. However it DOES mix.
>Roughly 3% more volume when in liquid phase than when it was floating as a solid
>iceberg.
>Where do you suppose the excess goes?
It minutely dilutes the seawater so as it mixes this difference largely
vanishes.
>It would be much easier to demonstrate if you floated an ice cube on a petri
>dish
>of mercury. The much larger difference in their densities makes it blindingly
>obvious that the melting ice cannot possibly fit into the displaced volume of
>mercury needed to float it.
I wouldn't dispute the general theory but something under 3% of the
floating ice isn't likely to result in sealevels rising by tens of
meters quite unlike the antarctic and greenland ice masses.
--
Oz
Oz
>I forecast
>the weather for the arctic for three years and have been forecasting
>the weather for areas from the Rocky Mountains to the boreal forest
>for more than 10 more.
Perhaps you would like to forecast it for the UK (in a few regions),
since nobody else has ever been successful.
Post it here and we will see.
--
Oz
Oz
>
>A real question remains. Is earth in a more "natural" state with glaciation
>or without. Or is the cycling between them essential for its good health.
Easy one.
They are both natural states and 'the earth' doesn't have health.
Next question?
--
Oz
Chuck Robinson
CR
> --
> Oz
Lloyd R. Parker
:
: Alastair McDonald wrote in message <9100ji$qgp$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Not necessarily. CO2 is often not the limiting factor in plant growth.
Plus, an altered climate could change rainfall patterns, increase severity
of storms, etc.
: Certainly if you look at virtually every other period when the planet had
: higher temperatures than now (a majority of its history) it was considerably
: lusher.
We don't really know that, since humans weren't around when temperatures
were as much higher as will happen in a century.
Ed McBride
Oz wrote:
>
> Ed McBride wrote on Fri, 8 Dec 2000
>
> > I suggest more care is needed here. I agree that if ice is floating in
> >water, and the ice melts, the water level does not change. However, I
> >believe the Arctic ice has resulted from zillions of snow flakes and is
> >therefore fresh-water ice. It is floating, of course, in salt-water.
> > Let's assume fresh water has a density of 62.4 lbm/ft3 and sea water
> >has a density of 64.0, a fairly typical value.
> > Consider a block of fresh-water ice weighing exactly 64.0 lb. It
> >displaces exactly 1 ft3 of sea water. However, when it melts, it
> >occupies 1.026 ft3. Which fills the void it had been displacing with
> >0.026 ft3 leftover, which clearly raises the water level.
>
> Please look up 'archimedes principle'.
>
> When you have understood it you will see your evaluation above is
> incorrect.
Sorry, but it is precisely correct, given the numbers I assumed. A
floating object displaces its weight in fluid. Since my hypothetical
chunk of ice weighed 64.0 lbs and the density of sea-water is 64.0
lbm/ft3, this corresponds to exactly one ft3 of water displaced (Which
is obviously why I "happened" to choose this weight). Then, when it
melts into fresh water, it occupies slightly more than 1 ft3, in this
case 1.026 ft3.
Ed
Oz
>
>Not necessarily. CO2 is often not the limiting factor in plant growth.
Often it is, the other major factor is shortage of water.
However note:
1) The reduction in plant photosynthesis due to shortage of water is
primarily due to shortage of CO2 because the stoma are very nearly
closed (due to reduced turgidity) preventing ingress of CO2 to the
chloroblasts.
2) Global warming seems to increase rainfall (although some are net
loosers) and thus (perhaps with water storage) increase the availability
of water in general.
>Plus, an altered climate could change rainfall patterns,
Hah! Now he tells me!
>increase severity
>of storms, etc.
Very likely, but this affects harvestable yields rather than overall
biomass production.
>: Jim:
>: Certainly if you look at virtually every other period when the planet had
>: higher temperatures than now (a majority of its history) it was considerably
>: lusher.
>
>We don't really know that, since humans weren't around when temperatures
>were as much higher as will happen in a century.
Hmm, that's pretty unconvincing to say the least. One might equally well
say that we don't know dinosaurs existed because humans were not around.
Since I very much doubt that we will be able to significantly reduce CO2
emissions worldwide (the first world may reduce but this will be wildly
offset by the second and third world increases), the best thing we can
do with this potential knowledge is to make use of it. That means
relocation of low elevation cities and the banning of low elevation
building combined with measures to mitigate higher temperatures, higher
rainfall and a more unstable climate.
Somehow I can't see this happening just yet.
--
Oz
Lloyd R. Parker
: Lloyd R. Parker wrote on Mon, 11 Dec 2000
: >
: >Not necessarily. CO2 is often not the limiting factor in plant growth.
:
: Often it is, the other major factor is shortage of water.
Weeds will also grow faster. Some studies show crops fertilized with
excess CO2 are more vulnerable to pests and disease. Further, Schlesinger
at Duke says when he looks at the tree ring record over the past 100
years, there's been NO increase in growth from the 30% increase in CO2
we've experienced.
:
: However note:
:
: 1) The reduction in plant photosynthesis due to shortage of water is
: primarily due to shortage of CO2 because the stoma are very nearly
: closed (due to reduced turgidity) preventing ingress of CO2 to the
: chloroblasts.
:
: 2) Global warming seems to increase rainfall (although some are net
: loosers) and thus (perhaps with water storage) increase the availability
: of water in general.
That's simply false. There's no way to make such a generalization.
:
: >Plus, an altered climate could change rainfall patterns,
:
: Hah! Now he tells me!
:
: >increase severity
: >of storms, etc.
:
: Very likely, but this affects harvestable yields rather than overall
: biomass production.
:
: >: Jim:
: >: Certainly if you look at virtually every other period when the planet had
: >: higher temperatures than now (a majority of its history) it was considerably
: >: lusher.
: >
: >We don't really know that, since humans weren't around when temperatures
: >were as much higher as will happen in a century.
:
: Hmm, that's pretty unconvincing to say the least. One might equally well
: say that we don't know dinosaurs existed because humans were not around.
:
: Since I very much doubt that we will be able to significantly reduce CO2
: emissions worldwide (the first world may reduce but this will be wildly
: offset by the second and third world increases), the best thing we can
: do with this potential knowledge is to make use of it. That means
: relocation of low elevation cities and the banning of low elevation
: building combined with measures to mitigate higher temperatures, higher
: rainfall and a more unstable climate.
Are you going to take in a few million people from Bangla Desh?
:
: Somehow I can't see this happening just yet.
:
: --
: Oz
Mark
experience - have you noticed it getting significantly warmer?
Oz
>Oz (O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: Lloyd R. Parker wrote on Mon, 11 Dec 2000
>: >
>: >Not necessarily. CO2 is often not the limiting factor in plant growth.
>:
>: Often it is, the other major factor is shortage of water.
>
>Weeds will also grow faster.
Of course, they are plants too.
>Some studies show crops fertilized with
>excess CO2 are more vulnerable to pests and disease.
Maybe, I haven't come across any reliable evidence either way. The only
place where CO2 augmentation is used that I know of is in greenhouses
and these are hotbeds of pests and diseases for obvious reasons although
climate control can be helpful. AFAIK this was the case even before CO2
augmentation.
Higher rainfall and higher temperatures are generally more conducive to
the spread and severity of plant diseases though. I would expect to see
more problems here, particularly if the efficacity of current fungicides
is compromised by the usual evolution in resistance.
>Further, Schlesinger
>at Duke says when he looks at the tree ring record over the past 100
>years, there's been NO increase in growth from the 30% increase in CO2
>we've experienced.
Too early to call, most of the increase has been rather recent, and
location will be important. In any case many trees are heavily
controlled by predation rather than net biomass production.
>: However note:
>:
>: 1) The reduction in plant photosynthesis due to shortage of water is
>: primarily due to shortage of CO2 because the stoma are very nearly
>: closed (due to reduced turgidity) preventing ingress of CO2 to the
>: chloroblasts.
>:
>: 2) Global warming seems to increase rainfall (although some are net
>: loosers) and thus (perhaps with water storage) increase the availability
>: of water in general.
>
>That's simply false. There's no way to make such a generalization.
Right, so how do you know it is false then if (as you claim) there is no
way to make such a generalisation?
You don't. So please engage brain before opening mouth.
There is quite a lot of evidence that given adequate insolation CO2
diffusion into the leaf is a major limiting factor. There is also quite
a lot of evidence (unless moisture stress is so high as to cause
necrosis) that it's the closed stoma reducing CO2 absorbtion that
reduces photosynthetic rates in water starved plants. Many cacti and
succulents have devised biochemical pathways to avoid this.
Most current estimates for the effect of global warming suggest
significantly higher average rainfall due to the increased water vapour
pressure in warmer air. This suggests a greater supply of water on
average. As you have pointed out in very many regions water is the
limiting factor.
>: Since I very much doubt that we will be able to significantly reduce CO2
>: emissions worldwide (the first world may reduce but this will be wildly
>: offset by the second and third world increases), the best thing we can
>: do with this potential knowledge is to make use of it. That means
>: relocation of low elevation cities and the banning of low elevation
>: building combined with measures to mitigate higher temperatures, higher
>: rainfall and a more unstable climate.
>
>Are you going to take in a few million people from Bangla Desh?
Probably not, being realistic. We will likely have several millions
(more likely 10's of millions) of displaced people ourselves.
My point was that the most important thing to do was to plan for what
may happen. I see little signs of this happening anywhere in the world.
--
Oz
Lloyd R. Parker
Your generalization is what is false, as there is no evidence upon which
to make such a sweeping statement.
:
: You don't. So please engage brain before opening mouth.
Please acquire data before stating conclusion.
Oz
>: >:
>: >: 1) The reduction in plant photosynthesis due to shortage of water is
>: >: primarily due to shortage of CO2 because the stoma are very nearly
>: >: closed (due to reduced turgidity) preventing ingress of CO2 to the
>: >: chloroblasts.
>: >:
>: >: 2) Global warming seems to increase rainfall (although some are net
>: >: loosers) and thus (perhaps with water storage) increase the availability
>: >: of water in general.
>: >
>: >That's simply false. There's no way to make such a generalization.
>:
>: Right, so how do you know it is false then if (as you claim) there is no
>: way to make such a generalisation?
>
>Your generalization is what is false, as there is no evidence upon which
>to make such a sweeping statement.
You dispute that there is evidence to suggest, possibly strongly, that
plant biomass production is not increased by increased CO2 levels?
You say that the (rather a lot) of predictions that global warming does
not increase the water carrying capacity of the atmosphere and thus
increases rainfall (some may say the evidence is already here) is 'no
evidence'?
Interesting point of view.
>: You don't. So please engage brain before opening mouth.
>
>Please acquire data before stating conclusion.
I would think what I posted is perfectly logical.
What is your proposal then?
--
Oz
Bill Nelson
: >size as the Phillipines.
Where did you come up with this silly factoid? The Philappines cover about
116,000 square miles, about the same area as Nevada. On the other hand,
Alaska covers over 590,000 square miles.
With you posting such erroneous information, why should we believe anything
else that you post?
By the way, Antarctica covers about 5,400,000 square miles - almost 10
times the size of Alaska. How do you think the ocean levels could rise
close to 100 meters if all the Antarctic ice melted?
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
David Ball
It isn't something you notice on a day-to-day basis. There are
still very cold days - even record cold days - but at high latitudes
what appears to be happening is that the daily temperature range is
slowly shrinking. It isn't because daytime highs are getting higher.
Instead, it isn't getting as cold at night. That doesn't help make the
changes any more apparent in an anecdotal way as most people sleep at
night.
What is becoming apparent is that there are gross changes
taking place. The time for fall freeze up is being delayed in many
areas and the spring thaw is occurring earlier. Coupled with changes
in multi-year ice cover in the high arctic, changes in the Greenland
icecap, decreasing salinity in the surface layer of the arctic ocean
and it is clear that something is happening and it is happening
rapidly.
Whether all of this is directly attributable to
human-generated greenhouse gas emissions is the real issue here. Are
we contributing to the problem? I dunno, but it's certainly something
to investigate.
--
Dave.
Frank Martin
If not why not?
Are coral reefs still forming from the oceans' CO2?
Do coral reefs lock up more CO2 than trees...?
Are the Globalwarmingeers just climbing on to the latest bandwagon..??
Guess what I think...!
"Lloyd R. Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:913gl7$f3k$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu...
gcouger
"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message : >Weather is a
chaotic system. extrapolating beyond the set of you know data
: >is very very risky business. What happens when the weather jumps to a
new
: >pattern is not obvious to any of smoking regular cigarettes.
: >--
:
: Wow, that's really profound! What the hell does it mean?
: Believe me, I know far better than you how chaotic weather is. I know
: far better than you what the weather in the arctic is like. I forecast
: the weather for the arctic for three years and have been forecasting
: the weather for areas from the Rocky Mountains to the boreal forest
: for more than 10 more.
Dave,
It means that if the earth gets 5 degrees warmer it does not just mean
that the permafrost line will move north. It means we don't really have a
clue what it will do because it well beyond the end point of our know
data. Much he energy could be absorbed in increased growth of plant, alga
and plantain or it could manifest it's self in violent thunder storms,
more and bigger hurricanes and much higher winds. It does not have to
manifest its self as a linear increase in temperature around the world.
We are just pumping more energy in the system where it blows out is an
educated guess at best.
gcouger
"Ed McBride" <emcb...@wybron.com> wrote in message
news:3A3508EC...@wybron.com...
:
:
Only if the ice is at 0 C. It starts to contract again as it gets colder.
Not much but some and we do seem to be picking nits here.
I argued this in physic class once and won. Overnight I changed my mind
and argued it the other way then next day and won. He wasn't the greatest
physics prof. I ever met.
Scott Nudds
: Are coral reefs still forming from the oceans' CO2?
Report: More Than a Quarter of Coral Reefs Are Gone - Dec 11, 2000
---------------------------------------------------
- By Maggie Fox - Health and Science Correspondent - Reuters -
WASHINGTON - More than one-quarter of the world's coral reefs have been
lost to global warming, pollution, fishing activity and other sources of
stress, and 70 percent could be dead within 50 years, the U.S.
government and an international conservation study group said on Monday.
A report from the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network found that 27
percent of the world's coral reefs were gone and predicted that 70
percent would be gone by 2050.
"It is shocking that two-thirds of the world's reefs may be dying, and
that 30 percent of the world's reefs are already gone," Commerce
Secretary Norman Mineta told a news conference.
"In Florida, some reefs have lost over 95 percent of their coral since
1975," Mineta said. "Even under ideal conditions, it would take more
than a human lifetime for these reefs to recover."
...
In his report, Clive Wilkinson, coordinator of the Global Coral Reef
Monitoring Network (GCRMN), found that in 1998 alone, bleaching
destroyed about 16 percent of the world's reefs. In some parts of the
western Pacific, 90 percent of shallow-water corals died.
...
Martin Brown
Oz wrote:
> Martin Brown wrote on Mon, 11 Dec 2000
> >Although he used arcane units the reasoning looks basically to be sound (but
> >ignoring mixing).
>
> I was NOT ignoring mixing.
You were and are bluffing and blustering.
> Unless you assume a near instantaneous melt mixing is inevitable.
Actually it isn't so simple - the lighter fresh meltwater tends to sit on top of the
cold denser concentrated salt seawater. It will mix eventually but that is another
matter.
> >A 1 tonne block of water ice has volume ~ 1.0905 m^3 and floating it displaces 1
> >tonne of cold seawater which occupies roughly 0.97 m^3. When the ice melts it
> >becomes 1.0001 m^3 of fresh water at 0C which is more than the displacement
> >0.97m^3
> >the iceberg needed when afloat.
>
> Correct. However it DOES mix.
Which makes very little difference to the conclusion above.
> >Roughly 3% more volume when in liquid phase than when it was floating as a solid
> >iceberg.
> >Where do you suppose the excess goes?
>
> It minutely dilutes the seawater so as it mixes this difference largely vanishes.
Mass is conserved. You cannot spirit away the net change in volume by wishing it
wasn't there and waving your hands about.
Seawater density at 0C taken from Encyclopedia Brittanica
1 tonne of 20% brine (density 1.01607) vol 0.98418
1 tonne of pure water (density 0.99988) vol 1.00012
Kept separate the volume at 0C Total vol 1.98430
Mixed to
2 tonnes of 10% brine (density 1.00801) vol 1.98411
Change in volume on mixing is a distinctly second order effect. 0.00019 << 0.02
> >It would be much easier to demonstrate if you floated an ice cube on a petri dish
> >of mercury. The much larger difference in their densities makes it blindingly
> >obvious that the melting ice cannot possibly fit into the displaced volume of
> >mercury needed to float it.
>
> I wouldn't dispute the general theory but something under 3% of the
> floating ice isn't likely to result in sealevels rising by tens of
> meters quite unlike the antarctic and greenland ice masses.
Indeed the effect is small being just 2-3% of the volume of floating ice, but it is
definitely *not* zero as you had previously asserted. The change in level on melting
pure water ice floating in brine can be easily verified in a high school science lab
with minimal equipment.
Regards,
Martin Brown
David Ball
<gco...@NoXSPAM.mercury.rfdata.net> wrote:
>
>"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message : >Weather is a
>chaotic system. extrapolating beyond the set of you know data
>: >is very very risky business. What happens when the weather jumps to a
>new
>: >pattern is not obvious to any of smoking regular cigarettes.
>: >--
>:
>: Wow, that's really profound! What the hell does it mean?
>: Believe me, I know far better than you how chaotic weather is. I know
>: far better than you what the weather in the arctic is like. I forecast
>: the weather for the arctic for three years and have been forecasting
>: the weather for areas from the Rocky Mountains to the boreal forest
>: for more than 10 more.
>
>Dave,
>
>It means that if the earth gets 5 degrees warmer it does not just mean
>that the permafrost line will move north. It means we don't really have a
>clue what it will do because it well beyond the end point of our know
>data. Much he energy could be absorbed in increased growth of plant, alga
>and plantain or it could manifest it's self in violent thunder storms,
>more and bigger hurricanes and much higher winds. It does not have to
>manifest its self as a linear increase in temperature around the world.
But there's already evidence that the permafrost line is
moving north! To a certain extent you are right: trying to peer
decades into the future and see what "will" happen is next to
impossible. In that sense your comment about guesswork. However - you
just knew there was a "but" coming - the guesswork involved is not the
run-of-the-mill flip a coin you may think it is. Instead we are
looking at extremely well considered predictions about the future
state of the atmosphere/ocean system, some of which are already
happening.
You are right in one thing though, increased temperatures will
not manifest themselves in a linear fashion. They're increasing at a
far greater rate than linear.
>
>We are just pumping more energy in the system where it blows out is an
>educated guess at best.
>--
When you add more energy to a complex system that is for all
intents and purposes a closed system, you are right, it is an educated
guess at best, but it is a highly educated guess. The difference here
is between knowing what "will" happen and bracketing that final
outcome with what "might" happen. Knowing the latter is nowhere near
as hard as the former and we are well on our way to having an idea of
what "possible" outcomes there may be. Unfortunately, people what
ultimate answers. They want to know that 2+6=8, not that 2+6 lies
somewhere between 5 and 10.
--
Dave.
goldfish
Martin Brown wrote:
> Oz wrote:
>
>
> Mass is conserved. You cannot spirit away the net change in volume by wishing it
> wasn't there and waving your hands about.
>
> Seawater density at 0C taken from Encyclopedia Brittanica
>
> 1 tonne of 20% brine (density 1.01607) vol 0.98418
> 1 tonne of pure water (density 0.99988) vol 1.00012
> Kept separate the volume at 0C Total vol 1.98430
>
> Mixed to
> 2 tonnes of 10% brine (density 1.00801) vol 1.98411
"20% brine (density 1.01607)" does not reflect the composition
of arctic seawater. Seawater has considerably more salt,
and hence is more dense.
From W H Harvey, "Chemistry and Fertility of Seawater"
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 1966).
Salinity of Arctic seawater: 32 g salt/kg seawater
(graph on p. 11)
Chloride concentration at 3.2% salinity: 17.6 g/kg
(interpolated from list of major constitutents, 3.6% salinity,
p. 4)
Therefore, density of arctic seawater: 1.0251
(graph of density vs. chlorinity, 0 C, p. 128)
Regards,
Peter Mott
Lloyd R. Parker
: Are the oceans saturated with CO2....?
: If not why not?
: Are coral reefs still forming from the oceans' CO2?
: Do coral reefs lock up more CO2 than trees...?
: Are the Globalwarmingeers just climbing on to the latest bandwagon..??
: Guess what I think...!
Santa Claus is coming to town?
:
: "Lloyd R. Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
:
:
Lloyd R. Parker
: >: >:
: >: >: 1) The reduction in plant photosynthesis due to shortage of water is
: >: >: primarily due to shortage of CO2 because the stoma are very nearly
: >: >: closed (due to reduced turgidity) preventing ingress of CO2 to the
: >: >: chloroblasts.
: >: >:
: >: >: 2) Global warming seems to increase rainfall (although some are net
: >: >: loosers) and thus (perhaps with water storage) increase the availability
: >: >: of water in general.
: >: >
: >: >That's simply false. There's no way to make such a generalization.
: >:
: >: Right, so how do you know it is false then if (as you claim) there is no
: >: way to make such a generalisation?
: >
: >Your generalization is what is false, as there is no evidence upon which
: >to make such a sweeping statement.
:
: plant biomass production is not increased by increased CO2 levels?
Exacttly. I posted one such reference.
:
: You say that the (rather a lot) of predictions that global warming does
: not increase the water carrying capacity of the atmosphere and thus
: increases rainfall (some may say the evidence is already here) is 'no
: evidence'?
A lot depends on wind patterns, ocean currents, etc.
:
: Interesting point of view.
:
: >: You don't. So please engage brain before opening mouth.
: >
: >Please acquire data before stating conclusion.
:
: I would think what I posted is perfectly logical.
Sahara. One of the warmest places on earth.
:
: --
: Oz
Oz
NB The attributes have been mixed up by a whole bunch of people.
goldfish wrote on Tue, 12 Dec 2000
>
>
>Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> Oz wrote:
>>
Given the figures it's clear that:
1) the melting of floating ice will cause a rise in sea level of about
2.7% of the total volume of the ice.
2) the effect of mixing is insignificant being about 1% of the 2.7%
Now, as I asked before, what is the expected rise in average sea level
due to the melting of:
a) All the arctic floating ice.
b) All the arctic land ice (pretty well just the greenland icecap.
I would also be interested in the effect of raising the temperature of
ALL the oceans by 2C.
>"20% brine (density 1.01607)" does not reflect the composition
>of arctic seawater. Seawater has considerably more salt,
>and hence is more dense.
Hmmmm. I always thought seawater was about 3.5% salt (35g/l). Anyway
perhaps you could put actual figures on the salinity of arctic vs mid-
ocean average salinity? You imply 3.6% vs average seawater at 3.5% or
about 3% different to give only a second order effect.
However it is in equilibrium with seawater elsewhere and so the surface
will be slightly 'lower'. This will result in it's surface rising if it
mixes thus lowering seawater levels elsewhere (minutely).
It will be interesting to see what gives the greatest sealevel rise,
heating of the oceans, melting of the landlocked icecaps or melting of
the floating ice. I await your various estimates with interest.
--
Oz
Oz
>: You dispute that there is evidence to suggest, possibly strongly, that
>: plant biomass production is not increased by increased CO2 levels?
>
>Exacttly. I posted one such reference.
So to be clear your position is that increasing CO2 levels will give no
increase in the efficiency that plants convert photons into biomass on
average? This despite the evidence of all commercial greenhouses and the
trial referenced early in this thread.
>: You say that the (rather a lot) of predictions that global warming does
>: not increase the water carrying capacity of the atmosphere and thus
>: increases rainfall (some may say the evidence is already here) is 'no
>: evidence'?
>
>A lot depends on wind patterns, ocean currents, etc.
Indeed.
However to be clear is your position that there will be no net increase
in rainfall due to global warming?
--
Oz
goldfish
Oz wrote:
> NB The attributes have been mixed up by a whole bunch of people.
>
> goldfish wrote on Tue, 12 Dec 2000
> >
> >
> >Martin Brown wrote:
> >
> >> Oz wrote:
> >>
>
> Given the figures it's clear that:
>
> 1) the melting of floating ice will cause a rise in sea level of about
> 2.7% of the total volume of the ice.
>
> 2) the effect of mixing is insignificant being about 1% of the 2.7%
>
> Now, as I asked before, what is the expected rise in average sea level
> due to the melting of:
>
> a) All the arctic floating ice.
> b) All the arctic land ice (pretty well just the greenland icecap.
>
> I would also be interested in the effect of raising the temperature of
> ALL the oceans by 2C.
>
> >"20% brine (density 1.01607)" does not reflect the composition
> >of arctic seawater. Seawater has considerably more salt,
> >and hence is more dense.
>
> Hmmmm. I always thought seawater was about 3.5% salt (35g/l). Anyway
> perhaps you could put actual figures on the salinity of arctic vs mid-
> ocean average salinity? You imply 3.6% vs average seawater at 3.5% or
> about 3% different to give only a second order effect.
According to H W Harvey, "Chemistry and Fertility of Seawater"
(a source that I have quoted here many times) ...
Yes a typical value of the salinity of seawater is 3.6%.
However, it does vary: surface values for the Mediterranian,
3.8%, equator of the Atlantic is 3.7%, and near the poles it
is 3.2 to 3.4%.
Salinity also decreases with depth: it varies from 3.6% at
the surface, to 3.48% at 4000 m, at 0 deg latitude 30 W longitude.
The reason I posted was to provide a better estimate
of the density. Dr Brown's value of 1.01607 was quite
far off.
> However it is in equilibrium with seawater elsewhere and so the surface
> will be slightly 'lower'. This will result in it's surface rising if it
> mixes thus lowering seawater levels elsewhere (minutely).
The salinity of the surface tends to be higher, apparently
because of evaporation. The density driven mixing is due
to temperature -- greater depth, lower temperature.
(I have no estimate of the sea level rise, other than
what is provided by the IPCC.)
Regards,
Scott Nudds
: But there's already evidence that the permafrost line is
: moving north!
_________________________________________________________________
This article is provided as a public service by the Geophysical
Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, in cooperation with the UAF
research community. Ned Rozell is a science writer at the
institute.
Thawing Permafrost Threatens Alaska's Foundation - Article #1321
_________________________________________________________________
- Ned Rozell -
Is Kipnuk sinking?
Eskimo elders in the coastal Alaska village think it might be. Tom
Osterkamp thinks he might know one of the reasons why--Alaska's
permafrost is warming.
Osterkamp, a Geophysical Institute professor of physics who has
studied Alaska's permafrost for 25 years, recently received an e-mail
message from a colleague who told him of the Kipnuk elders' concerns.
Kipnuk, located about 100 miles west of Bethel, is a treeless village
where about 500 people live. The topographic map for the Kipnuk area
looks like Swiss cheese because the village sits amid hundreds of
lakes. Kipnuk's elevation is only about five feet above the level of
the Bering Sea.
Ian Parks, the principal of Chief Paul Memorial School at Kipnuk, said
buildings in the village show signs of an unstable ground
surface--walls develop cracks, doors stick, and floors rise and fall.
"If you put a marble on the floor, in one year it'll roll in one
direction; in the next year it'll go the other direction," Parks said.
The symptoms Parks described are consistent with those of an area that
sits on top of thawing permafrost, Osterkamp said. Permafrost occurs
under about 85 percent of Alaska's surface area; patches of permafrost
can be found as far south as Anchorage.
If thawing permafrost is Kipnuk's problem, the villagers aren't alone.
Osterkamp's recent measurements show that all permafrost south of the
Yukon River is warming, and in most cases there isn't one degree left
between ice and water.
Osterkamp monitors the temperature of permafrost with a network of
one-inch holes drilled in permafrost throughout the state. The holes,
located near Fairbanks, Anchorage, Bethel, Glennallen, Eagle, and
other towns and villages, have all been telling the same story. Since
1989, each time Osterkamp has checked the temperatures of permafrost
at depths from 10 to 25 meters, the permafrost has crept closer to the
melting point.
A test site off Stampede Trail in Healy provides an example of what's
happening to permafrost south of the Yukon River. In 1989, the
permafrost temperature 10 meters under the surface was about -1.27
degrees Celsius.
In 1990, the Stampede Trail permafrost warmed to -1.07 degrees. The
permafrost has warmed steadily since. When Osterkamp checked in July,
1996, the permafrost 10 meters deep was about -0.7 degrees Celsius.
These tenths of a degree might not seem significant, but Osterkamp
pointed out there's not much more warming that can occur before the
Stampede Trail permafrost is no longer frozen.
There are two possible reasons why the permafrost has warmed south of
the Yukon River, Osterkamp said. Permafrost may be responding to a
warmer climate, or it may reflect the amount of snow that insulates
the ground. Whatever the cause, permafrost or a sudden lack thereof
may catch the attention of many Alaskans in the near future.
"If this (widespread permafrost thaw) comes about, it will change the
face of southern Alaska," Osterkamp said. In addition to creating
roller coaster roads and tilting buildings, thawing permafrost often
causes large sections of forest to collapse, killing trees and other
vegetation that live on a foundation of permafrost.
The future of permafrost south of the Yukon River isn't promising,
Osterkamp said. He cited computer models that predict a 3- to 5-degree
Celsius warming in the next 50 years.
"If that really occurs, it will thaw all of the permafrost south of
the Yukon and most of it south of the Brooks Range," he said.
That's a chilling thought.
[ASJ logo]
Arctic Science Journeys
radio script
Robert Grumbine
that I did just repost the sea level change FAQ to sci.environment
(among others).
The faq does discuss the effect of melting sea ice, vs. the
different land reservoirs, vs the thermal expansion effect.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Scott Nudds
: So to be clear your position is that increasing CO2 levels will give no
: increase in the efficiency that plants convert photons into biomass on
: average? This despite the evidence of all commercial greenhouses and the
: trial referenced early in this thread.
You need not use greenhouses as evidence. Open field tests of forested
areas show this to be the case.
However, the increased rate of growth does not and can not negate the
increase that caused it.
Plants are constantly adjusting their growth rate based on the amount of
CO2 available to them, the adjustment is essentially immediate. This does
not alter the fact that man is introducing about 6 gigatons of new carbon
into the atmosphere each year. A rate which is well on it's way to a
doubling of the concentration of CO2 in one human lifespan.
Oz
> Not that it will change much in this thread, but I'll note
>that I did just repost the sea level change FAQ to sci.environment
>(among others).
Great, however this thread is x-posted.
Perhaps you could post the salient points as they are a short list.
--
Oz
Lloyd R. Parker
: Lloyd R. Parker wrote on Tue, 12 Dec 2000
:
: >: You dispute that there is evidence to suggest, possibly strongly, that
: >: plant biomass production is not increased by increased CO2 levels?
: >
: >Exacttly. I posted one such reference.
: increase in the efficiency that plants convert photons into biomass on
: average? This despite the evidence of all commercial greenhouses and the
: trial referenced early in this thread.
Greenhouses are an artificial environment, and don't have increased CO2
present anyway.
:
: >: You say that the (rather a lot) of predictions that global warming does
: >: not increase the water carrying capacity of the atmosphere and thus
: >: increases rainfall (some may say the evidence is already here) is 'no
: >: evidence'?
: >
: >A lot depends on wind patterns, ocean currents, etc.
:
: Indeed.
:
: However to be clear is your position that there will be no net increase
: in rainfall due to global warming?
As the Sahara shows, it depends on too many variables.
:
: --
: Oz
Oz
>Oz (O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: Lloyd R. Parker wrote on Tue, 12 Dec 2000
>:
>: >: You dispute that there is evidence to suggest, possibly strongly, that
>: >: plant biomass production is not increased by increased CO2 levels?
>: >
>: >Exacttly. I posted one such reference.
>:
>: So to be clear your position is that increasing CO2 levels will give no
>: increase in the efficiency that plants convert photons into biomass on
>: average? This despite the evidence of all commercial greenhouses and the
>: trial referenced early in this thread.
Why are you avoiding answering this very reasonable question?
What is your view?
Is it, or is it not, that increased CO2 levels will result in an
increase in photosynthesis, all other things taken as constant?
>
>Greenhouses are an artificial environment, and don't have increased CO2
>present anyway.
Most commercial tomato growers use augmented CO2 levels because it gets
them increased yields. The wheat trial quoted earlier found the same
yield increases.
They are environments no doubt about that. They are in point of fact the
only way we can test this proposal before the world gets there. Would
you prefer no tests and evaluations or would you just prefer only those
that supports your belief (whatever that is).
>: >: You say that the (rather a lot) of predictions that global warming does
>: >: not increase the water carrying capacity of the atmosphere and thus
>: >: increases rainfall (some may say the evidence is already here) is 'no
>: >: evidence'?
>: >
>: >A lot depends on wind patterns, ocean currents, etc.
>:
>: Indeed.
>:
>: However to be clear is your position that there will be no net increase
>: in rainfall due to global warming?
>
>As the Sahara shows, it depends on too many variables.
Maybe, but you still haven't said what your position is.
Is your position that global warming will not result in a net increase
in rainfall?
Can you please give it so we can proceed.
--
Oz
Martin Brown
goldfish wrote:
> Martin Brown wrote:
>
> > Mass is conserved. You cannot spirit away the net change in volume by wishing it
> > wasn't there and waving your hands about.
> >
> > Seawater density at 0C taken from Encyclopedia Brittanica
> >
> > 1 tonne of 20% brine (density 1.01607) vol 0.98418
> > 1 tonne of pure water (density 0.99988) vol 1.00012
> > Kept separate the volume at 0C Total vol 1.98430
> >
> > Mixed to
> > 2 tonnes of 10% brine (density 1.00801) vol 1.98411
>
> "20% brine (density 1.01607)" does not reflect the composition
> of arctic seawater. Seawater has considerably more salt, and hence is more dense.
I agree. I only picked those values because they happen to make the arithmetic simple
with data that is freely available online for anyone to check. (table 5 from)
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/2/0,5716,115012+10+108518,00.html
3% brine (density 1.02410) would be a lot nearer the mark, but the basic point I was
trying to make remains the same. The decrease in volume due to mixing pure melt water
with the strong brine is about two orders of magnitude less than the net increase in
volume due to the melting of floating ice. My typo of % for "per mil" seems to have
gone uncommented on. Oops!
It is easy to check that mixing 3% or 3.5% brine in various proportions with pure
water at 0C will reproduce the tabulated density values to 4 or 5 sig fig.
> Therefore, density of arctic seawater: 1.0251 (graph of density vs. chlorinity, 0
> C, p. 128)
Agreed. I had not intended to mislead about the density of Artic seawater. But to
point out that sea water density at 0C increases almost exactly linearly with
dissolved salt concentration.
Oz was trying to pretend that mixing fresh water with seawater somehow enabled him to
lose the extra volume after his initial Archimedes principle claim was blown out of
the water.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Thomas Palm
> >Greenhouses are an artificial environment, and don't have increased CO2
> >present anyway.
>
> Most commercial tomato growers use augmented CO2 levels because it gets
> them increased yields. The wheat trial quoted earlier found the same
> yield increases.
I have read that plants living growing in CO2-rich environments contain
less nourishments, i.e. that the extra growth is mostly cellulose and
other indigestible stuff. This could have negative consequences for
herbivores which would have to eat more to stay alive.
Considering the lack of taste of some modern vegetables I wonder if
the lower nutrient value isn't true for greenhouse farmed vegetables
too.
> They are environments no doubt about that. They are in point of fact the
> only way we can test this proposal before the world gets there. Would
> you prefer no tests and evaluations or would you just prefer only those
> that supports your belief (whatever that is).
Actually there are full scale experiments where CO2 is added to an
otherwise untouched area. Likewise you can find areas close to volcanos
where the CO2-levels are increased. As far as I know these show limited
effects of CO2-fertilization. You get a boost in growth early on but
growth soon returns to normal levels.
Chuck Robinson
Thomas Palm <thoma...@nospan.chello.se> wrote in message
news:3A36A2F6...@nospan.chello.se...
> Oz wrote:
> > >Greenhouses are an artificial environment, and don't have increased CO2
> > >present anyway.
> >
> > Most commercial tomato growers use augmented CO2 levels because it gets
> > them increased yields. The wheat trial quoted earlier found the same
> > yield increases.
>
> I have read that plants living growing in CO2-rich environments contain
> less nourishments, i.e. that the extra growth is mostly cellulose and
> other indigestible stuff. This could have negative consequences for
> herbivores which would have to eat more to stay alive.
Looking at your statement using Leibigs law of the Minimum or with Beaufis
DRIS this appears to be somewhat true. Here, growth, productivity, and
quality are related directly to the nutrient in least supply. Supplying an
excess of one nutrient will enhance growth until it is restricted by a
shortage of one of the other essential nutrients. A common observed
phenomonem occurs when N is applied to corn just as it is entering the grand
period of growth. First the foliage becomes dark green then shortly
thereafter chlorotic streaks appear usually on one side of the leaves
mid-rib. This is a temporary, N induced Zn shortage. Top growth is
occurring so rapidly the plants slower growing root system is unable to
supply sufficient Zn.
However, viewing it directly as you stated, as a dilution effect, then it is
necessary to have sufficient amounts of ALL nutrients to maximize growth.
The most prolific growth occurs when all nutrients are available in
sufficient quantities at all times. Viewing it in a plant tissue sample
analysis would show all of the nutrients at or very near their critical
insufficiency value. That is they have diluted out. However they still
contain sufficient nutrition to satisfy tthe herbivoirs need.
>
> Considering the lack of taste of some modern vegetables I wonder if
> the lower nutrient value isn't true for greenhouse farmed vegetables
> too.
>
Many taste and texture problems occur because the vegetable is picked green
and artificially ripened using an ethylene therapy. However, In greenhouse
tomatoes it is usually related to B shortage. The best tomatoes I have ever
eaten were grown in a greenhouse using a dairy manure enriched growing
medium. They also added some borax at flowering
CR
Josh Halpern
> David Ball wrote on Mon, 11 Dec 2000
> >I forecast
> >the weather for the arctic for three years and have been forecasting
> >the weather for areas from the Rocky Mountains to the boreal forest
> >for more than 10 more.
>
> Perhaps you would like to forecast it for the UK (in a few regions),
> since nobody else has ever been successful.
>
> Post it here and we will see.
It will rain. Send the money to charity.
josh halpern
Oz
I was thinking of something a tad more useful than this.
Average rainfall for eastern england for the first half and last half of
each month until next october would be good, perhaps combined with
average temperature.
There have been a few people prepared to give next months prediction and
after the odd success they all fall over.
Oh, and you were right ..... it's still raining ....
--
Oz
Oz
>Oz wrote:
>> >Greenhouses are an artificial environment, and don't have increased CO2
>> >present anyway.
>>
>> Most commercial tomato growers use augmented CO2 levels because it gets
>> them increased yields. The wheat trial quoted earlier found the same
>> yield increases.
>
>I have read that plants living growing in CO2-rich environments contain
>less nourishments, i.e. that the extra growth is mostly cellulose and
>other indigestible stuff. This could have negative consequences for
>herbivores which would have to eat more to stay alive.
1) Ruminants digest cellulose.
2) The yield increases in cereals quoted at the start of the thread were
for grains which are mostly starch.
>Considering the lack of taste of some modern vegetables I wonder if
>the lower nutrient value isn't true for greenhouse farmed vegetables
>too.
That's because supermarket shoopers buy on visual clues, so the
supermarket buyers buy on visual clues too, so the farmers need good
looking veg so they choose good looking varieties so plant breeders
breed even better looking varietes.
To change this you need consumers to buy, and be prepared to pay a
premium for, taste.
Furthermore many veg are picked well before they are ripe so that the
supermarkets have a long shelf time which is not at all conducive to
good taste characteristics.
>Actually there are full scale experiments where CO2 is added to an
>otherwise untouched area. Likewise you can find areas close to volcanos
>where the CO2-levels are increased.
! I doubt these levels are either consistent nor uniquely determined by
CO2.
>As far as I know these show limited
>effects of CO2-fertilization. You get a boost in growth early on but
>growth soon returns to normal levels.
Not well enough controlled to be useful.
--
Oz
gcouger
"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message : >--
: When you add more energy to a complex system that is for all
: intents and purposes a closed system, you are right, it is an educated
: guess at best, but it is a highly educated guess. The difference here
: is between knowing what "will" happen and bracketing that final
: outcome with what "might" happen. Knowing the latter is nowhere near
: as hard as the former and we are well on our way to having an idea of
: what "possible" outcomes there may be. Unfortunately, people what
: ultimate answers. They want to know that 2+6=8, not that 2+6 lies
: somewhere between 5 and 10.
Being a chaotic system the weather seems to randomly stay between two end
points. If you keep cramming energy into a closed system it can suddenly
jump to radically new end points. I am not sure that weather is
bifurcating system but it does appear to have made relatively large jumps
over a short time.
It may well be that 2 + 6 lies between 3 and 30.
gcouger
"Chuck Robinson" <ch...@corridor.net> wrote in message news:CYyZ5.3986$
: Many taste and texture problems occur because the vegetable is picked
green
: and artificially ripened using an ethylene therapy. However, In
greenhouse
: tomatoes it is usually related to B shortage. The best tomatoes I have
ever
: eaten were grown in a greenhouse using a dairy manure enriched growing
: medium. They also added some borax at flowering
I think a great deal of the taste problems are lack of testing for taste
in all phases of testing and breeding. I worked in a Ag engineering lab
and the food processing lab never taste tested anything they worked on. It
was to much trouble and expense to get a tase pannel togeather. Physical
measurements behaved much better and one grad student would work longer
hours and not have to go to class or work.
Oz
>
>Being a chaotic system the weather seems to randomly stay between two end
>points.
Indeed that seems to be a characteristic of most well known weather
patterns. The Nino and north atlantic oscillation being the best known.
>If you keep cramming energy into a closed system it can suddenly
>jump to radically new end points.
Yes, but I don't know of any examples of three or four way bifurcations.
>I am not sure that weather is
>bifurcating system but it does appear to have made relatively large jumps
>over a short time.
This is a characteristic of chaotic systems. Variation at all scale
levels. However for a planet it's clear that it *cannot* be totally
chaotic as their is an upper scale determined by the size of the planet
where further scale increases are not possible.
So it's not perhaps surprising that weather systems that approach the
size of the planet's surface (to an order of magnitude or so) have
simpler structure. The two oscillations above, the tropical and desert
zone system, the arctic/antarctic ones and jupiter's great red spot
being obvious examples.
Which is not to say that a completely different pattern isn't possible,
we may likely find out in the next century or so.
>It may well be that 2 + 6 lies between 3 and 30.
Hmmmm
--
Oz
Scott Nudds
: >effects of CO2-fertilization. You get a boost in growth early on but
: >growth soon returns to normal levels.
Oz (O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Not well enough controlled to be useful.
Translation - Oz doesn't like the result of the research.
He will continue to be upset, as the results reported above, are shown
to be correct from a variety of alternate directions. Theoretical,
computer modeling and direct observation.
Jim Webster
Oz wrote in message ...
Haven't the Met. office pointed out that in the UK, if you merely repeat the
previous days forcast you will have better than 50% accuracy?
If all else fails fall back on "unsettled" or the more traditional "sunny
intervals and scattered showers"
Jim Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
>--
>Oz
Lloyd R. Parker
: Lloyd R. Parker wrote on Tue, 12 Dec 2000
: >Oz (O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >: Lloyd R. Parker wrote on Tue, 12 Dec 2000
: >:
: >: >: plant biomass production is not increased by increased CO2 levels?
: >: >
: >: >Exacttly. I posted one such reference.
: >:
: >: So to be clear your position is that increasing CO2 levels will give no
: >: increase in the efficiency that plants convert photons into biomass on
: >: average? This despite the evidence of all commercial greenhouses and the
: >: trial referenced early in this thread.
:
: Why are you avoiding answering this very reasonable question?
: What is your view?
:
: Is it, or is it not, that increased CO2 levels will result in an
: increase in photosynthesis, all other things taken as constant?
: >
: >Greenhouses are an artificial environment, and don't have increased CO2
: >present anyway.
:
: Most commercial tomato growers use augmented CO2 levels because it gets
: them increased yields. The wheat trial quoted earlier found the same
: yield increases.
: They are environments no doubt about that. They are in point of fact the
: only way we can test this proposal before the world gets there. Would
: you prefer no tests and evaluations or would you just prefer only those
: that supports your belief (whatever that is).
: >: >: You say that the (rather a lot) of predictions that global warming does
: >: >: not increase the water carrying capacity of the atmosphere and thus
: >: >: increases rainfall (some may say the evidence is already here) is 'no
: >: >: evidence'?
: >: >
: >: >A lot depends on wind patterns, ocean currents, etc.
: >:
: >: Indeed.
: >:
: >: However to be clear is your position that there will be no net increase
: >: in rainfall due to global warming?
: >
: >As the Sahara shows, it depends on too many variables.
:
: Maybe, but you still haven't said what your position is.
:
: Is your position that global warming will not result in a net increase
: in rainfall?
:
: Can you please give it so we can proceed.
:
: --
: Oz
It is my position that you cannot answer that with a yes or no, that there
are too many variables.
Oz
>
>It is my position that you cannot answer that with a yes or no, that there
>are too many variables.
This is a euphemism for "I haven't a clue".
So why argue?
--
Oz
David Ball
wrote:
>David Ball wrote on Mon, 11 Dec 2000
>
>>I forecast
>>the weather for the arctic for three years and have been forecasting
>>the weather for areas from the Rocky Mountains to the boreal forest
>>for more than 10 more.
>
>Perhaps you would like to forecast it for the UK (in a few regions),
>since nobody else has ever been successful.
>
Whenever I hear someone say something like this, I know that
I'm dealing with someone who knows absolutely nothing about weather
and climate.
--
Dave.
Josh Halpern
> Josh Halpern wrote on Wed, 13 Dec 2000
> >Oz wrote:
> >
> >> David Ball wrote on Mon, 11 Dec 2000
> >> >I forecast
> >> >the weather for the arctic for three years and have been forecasting
> >> >the weather for areas from the Rocky Mountains to the boreal forest
> >> >for more than 10 more.
> >> Perhaps you would like to forecast it for the UK (in a few regions),
> >> since nobody else has ever been successful.
> >> Post it here and we will see.
> >
> >It will rain. Send the money to charity.
>
> I was thinking of something a tad more useful than this.
Gee, answered the question and THEN we have the qualifiers.
Be careful what you ask for. Averages of climate variables even
for restricted geographic regions tend to be quite stable. Then
again, if you are serious, you have to better define eastern
england, etc...
> Average rainfall for eastern england for the first half and last half of
> each month until next october would be good, perhaps combined with
> average temperature.
>
> There have been a few people prepared to give next months prediction and
> after the odd success they all fall over.
>
> Oh, and you were right ..... it's still raining ....
Tomorrow also according to the Met office. I once spent a year
in England and there were about five days when it did not rain..
josh halpern
Josh Halpern
> Are the oceans saturated with CO2....?
Well, first of all, all of the water in the oceans are not at the
same temperature, and then if you increase the temperature
locally and globally, the saturation concentration goes up
FAST, exponentially even Now, if, as seems highly probable,
the temperature at high latitudes will increase much more and
much more quickly than in the tropics, the absolute amount
of CO2 in the ocean could decrease relatively quickly. This
is because most of the CO2 dissolved in the ocean is held
in the colder waters of the high latitudes.
> If not why not?
Define instantaneous. For climate it can be decades and
centuries. How fast would it take to mix the CO2 emitted
now into the deep ocean.
> Are coral reefs still forming from the oceans' CO2?
Much more slowly than they have in the immediate past. Loss
of coral reefs due to many causes including warming of the
oceans is a cause for real concern. I'd wager a WAGNER
that there is a net loss of coral reef in the last decade.
> Do coral reefs lock up more CO2 than trees...?
Do they? Are you sure?
josh halpernjosh halpern
>
Oz
>Oz wrote:
>
>> Josh Halpern wrote on Wed, 13 Dec 2000
>> >Oz wrote:
>> >
>> >> David Ball wrote on Mon, 11 Dec 2000
>> >> >I forecast
>> >> >the weather for the arctic for three years and have been forecasting
>> >> >the weather for areas from the Rocky Mountains to the boreal forest
>> >> >for more than 10 more.
>> >> Perhaps you would like to forecast it for the UK (in a few regions),
>> >> since nobody else has ever been successful.
>> >> Post it here and we will see.
>> >
>> >It will rain. Send the money to charity.
>>
>> I was thinking of something a tad more useful than this.
>
>Gee, answered the question and THEN we have the qualifiers.
>Be careful what you ask for. Averages of climate variables even
>for restricted geographic regions tend to be quite stable. Then
>again, if you are serious, you have to better define eastern
>england, etc...
>
>> Average rainfall for eastern england for the first half and last half of
>> each month until next october would be good, perhaps combined with
>> average temperature.
Eastern england is roughly east of a line from London to the wash.
If it's easier you can pick the southern half of this area.
Your predictions in by say Jan 1st? :-)
>Tomorrow also according to the Met office. I once spent a year
>in England and there were about five days when it did not rain..
Oh, we do have our droughts as well.
I have had winter barley dead of drought in may for example.
--
Oz
Oz
>
>centuries. How fast would it take to mix the CO2 emitted
>now into the deep ocean.
Hmmm. I seem to remember discoveries of very large and fast deep ocean
currents that were unexpected a year or two ago. This is bad news really
as you pointed out in your post. Leads to faster than expected changes.
--
Oz
Oz
>>since nobody else has ever been successful.
>
> Whenever I hear someone say something like this, I know that
>I'm dealing with someone who knows absolutely nothing about weather
>and climate.
So you, too, think such a prediction could be done successfully?
Interesting.
--
Oz
goldfish
Oz wrote:
This is interesting.
Got any more information? Reference?
Regards,
Peter Mott
Oz
>
>
>Oz wrote:
>
>> Josh Halpern wrote on Thu, 14 Dec 2000
>> >
>> >Define instantaneous. For climate it can be decades and
>> >centuries. How fast would it take to mix the CO2 emitted
>> >now into the deep ocean.
>>
>> Hmmm. I seem to remember discoveries of very large and fast deep ocean
>> currents that were unexpected a year or two ago. This is bad news really
>> as you pointed out in your post. Leads to faster than expected changes.
>
>This is interesting.
Blimey! How good do you think my memory is?
Chances are it was scientific american (ie old but reliable science) but
it could have been new scientist (newer and less reliable). I understand
both sites have good websearchers that should at least get you to the
issue.
My recollection was that this was unexpected in deep oceans but the
amount transported was staggering.
--
Oz
Lloyd R. Parker
: Lloyd R. Parker wrote on Wed, 13 Dec 2000
: >
: >It is my position that you cannot answer that with a yes or no, that there
: >are too many variables.
:
: This is a euphemism for "I haven't a clue".
:
: So why argue?
:
: --
: Oz
My argument is with arrogant anti-environmentalists who think they know
everything that could happen if we continue destroying the environment,
that fervently believe humans can do no lasting damage to the planet, that
have an almost religious belief that the environment is ours to rape and
pillage.