How Plants Could Impact Global Warming
Biodiversity influences climate at local, regional and global levels, yet most carbon dioxide's direct effects on vegetation contribute to global warming. carbon dioxide from the atmosphere that they use for photosynthesis. Climate change: More carbon dioxide leads to fewer clouds the more water can evaporate: a simple relationship familiar to us from everyday life. assimilate the necessary CO2 for photosynthesis more optimally. .. Of course if they say that they may lose their funding which is counter to the AGW meme. While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has severe SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup # 51 · New (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect. .. "Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, which leads to the.
High levels of sulphur dioxide cause breathing problems. Too much causes acid rain. Sulphur dioxide has a direct effect on health and the environment. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is a naturally occuring gas that existed in the atmosphere long before humans. Plants need it to survive.
Is CO2 a pollutant?
How can CO2 be considered a pollutant? A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem.
Over the past 10, years, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained at relatively stable levels. Calculating NPP changes It is impracticable to measure carbon cycling rates on a global basis accurately.
While the global atmospheric CO2 monitoring network allows us to estimate how much atmospheric CO2 is removed by the terrestrial biosphere annually, that amount only represents the difference between NPP and respiration, and does not show a correlation with atmospheric CO2 cf.
- New argument from climate change deniers: global warming is a good thing
Because there are so many factors affecting annual terrestrial NPP, atmospheric CO2, air temperature, nutrient and water availability, season length, seasonal temperature development, air pollution and other anthropogenic interferences to name a few, it is very complicated to provide a reliable estimate from knowledge of all relevant processes and their dependencies on physical and biological parameters.
Nevertheless, the last decade has shown a flurry of global modeling efforts that combined climate modeling with terrestrial biosphere modeling. The present paper makes an important step forward as it tries to address why past findings have at times identified a larger or smaller fertilization effect, and sometimes even net carbon losses from the biosphere. Similar to ensemble forecasting in weather research, where a base set of input parameters to the forecast is varied within physically reasonable boundaries to create an ensemble of forecasts that most often describes reality more accurately then each single forecast itself, the researchers used a base set of physical variables in their climate model to create a series of globally gridded ensemble equilibrium climate and associated NPP projections, with or without allowing for the physiological effect of CO2 on photosynthesis.
The perturbed physics ensemble, PPE, was used to gauge how robust the NPP results were among the two drivers, climate and CO2 in pre- and post-industrial [CO2] worlds, meaning whether the effect, if any, could have arisen through random uncertainties in the climate model parameters themselves represented by the PPE spread.
Climate Science Glossary
Figure 1 also in original: While warming caused NPP losses throughout the tropics in the model driven by temperature effects on autotrophic respirationthe physiological effect of CO2 dominated the net, Figure 2.
Figure 2 original Fig.100 solutions to reverse global warming - Chad Frischmann
Average changes in NPP red: Less good news in mid- and high latitudes Outside the tropics, in the major food production regions of the northern hemisphere, the model's verdict is less encouraging. Spatial differences between the average NPP changes and the standard deviations of the RadPhys both warming and physiology sub-ensemble.
Climate change: More carbon dioxide leads to fewer clouds
Yellow to light green represent neutral, i. However, stressed at several points in the manuscript, the above scenario is for a situation where the basic composition and structure of the global terrestrial biosphere does not change under doubled [CO2] and where nutrient limitations do not matter.
And it is especially not a platform for ideas that run counter to basic physics and more than a century of hard scientific work by generations of researchers.
This is not to say that I and the other writers and editors here at Discover view science as being infallible. Scientists know this better than anyone, so skepticism is one of their cardinal values.
Journalists are also supposed to be skeptical and self-critical. Maybe I should check because I could be deceived by my preconceived notions. My evidence for my comment, is climate history over million years, during which time, when CO2 increased, global temperature decreased, for several million years, and when CO2 decreased, global temperature increased, also for several millions of years.
Hieb has changed the graph a number of times over the years. And as Schmidt puts it: This kind of heuristic reconstruction comes from the qualitative geological record which gives indications of glaciations and hothouses, but is not really adequate for quantitative reconstructions of global mean temperatures. Over the last few decades, much better geochemical proxy compilations with better dating have appeared. For more on proxy records, see this explainer.
You are deluded by hubris — the idea that by reading one graph of suspect origin you know better than an entire scientific community consisting of literally thousands of researchers, operating over many decades and doing the actual hard work of science — and holding up their findings to rigorous review by expert peers. I went on to say this: