|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Aug 23, 2010 14:12:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Aug 23, 2010 14:53:54 GMT
some thoughts Is it the water, temperature, sun or plant food sources? Maybe the GISS thermometer adjustments do not match the reality of the plants. Did we include the deforestation in the southern hemisphere in the calculation? Hard to tell from a sensor mounted in a satellite. Accuracy of 1% with 1% change? "Satellite Study: slowing plant growth, 2000-2009" wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/22/satellite-study-slowing-plant-growth-2000-2009/ |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 23, 2010 16:14:51 GMT
Strange that if it is _warming_ causing reduction in vegetation that plant growth in the warm (some are claiming HOT) NH has not been affected. Whereas the plant growth in the SH which has been cooler _has_ been affected. However, of course its an affect of warming.....  It wouldn't perhaps be more to do with the distribution of rainfall rather than 'global' temperatures? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 23, 2010 17:44:26 GMT
some thoughts Is it the water, temperature, sun or plant food sources? Maybe the GISS thermometer adjustments do not match the reality of the plants. Did we include the deforestation in the southern hemisphere in the calculation? Hard to tell from a sensor mounted in a satellite. Accuracy of 1% with 1% change? "Satellite Study: slowing plant growth, 2000-2009" wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/22/satellite-study-slowing-plant-growth-2000-2009/One would think it might occur to them that it didn't warm between 2000 and 2009. They should be answering the question if 2000-2009 was more productive than 1990-1999 for the temperature question. Somebody needs to figure out why drought is occurring. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 23, 2010 18:35:48 GMT
some thoughts Is it the water, temperature, sun or plant food sources? Maybe the GISS thermometer adjustments do not match the reality of the plants. Did we include the deforestation in the southern hemisphere in the calculation? Hard to tell from a sensor mounted in a satellite. Accuracy of 1% with 1% change? "Satellite Study: slowing plant growth, 2000-2009" wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/22/satellite-study-slowing-plant-growth-2000-2009/One would think it might occur to them that it didn't warm between 2000 and 2009. They should be answering the question if 2000-2009 was more productive than 1990-1999 for the temperature question. Somebody needs to figure out why drought is occurring. No not at all - the approach is to hypothesize a 'mechanism' that shows that anthropogenic CO 2 causes droughts. |
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Aug 23, 2010 19:07:35 GMT
Is it that growth has slowed or that the rate of increase has slowed?
Most living systems reach points where incremental growth is marginally smaller.
For instance: if system of ten units in size grows one unit per time period X, that is a 10% increase.
If that sytem grows to 100 units, but is still growing at 1 unit per time X, the rate of growth is still 1 unit, but is now 1%.
If instead the system was growing at 1 unit and is now growing at .5 units, then its rate of growth has actually reduced.
|
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Aug 23, 2010 21:15:14 GMT
Is it that growth has slowed or that the rate of increase has slowed? Most living systems reach points where incremental growth is marginally smaller. For instance: if system of ten units in size grows one unit per time period X, that is a 10% increase. If that sytem grows to 100 units, but is still growing at 1 unit per time X, the rate of growth is still 1 unit, but is now 1%. If instead the system was growing at 1 unit and is now growing at .5 units, then its rate of growth has actually reduced. That what I picked up on as well - its the rate of increase on productivity that has decreased, not the actual productivity. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 23, 2010 23:05:15 GMT
The paper says that droughts reduce plants which reduces the absorbtion. And to think someone probably got money for this study?
Sheeeeeesh. I could have told them that for free.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 23, 2010 23:48:04 GMT
The paper says that droughts reduce plants which reduces the absorbtion. And to think someone probably got money for this study? Sheeeeeesh. I could have told them that for free. You would probably also have told them that planting crops expecting warm wet weather when what you get is cold dry weather is also a problem. The choice of crop to suit the expected climate is part of the skill of being a successful farmer |
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Aug 24, 2010 1:44:13 GMT
As usual, NASA is behind. I have been repeating what my mountain dwelling friends have been telling me for a decade. The tree line is receding, and high altitude arctic plants are "coming down the mountain." If they paid attention to anything but defective computer models they would be better informed.
Stranger
|
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Aug 24, 2010 9:51:37 GMT
As usual, NASA is behind. I have been repeating what my mountain dwelling friends have been telling me for a decade. The tree line is receding, and high altitude arctic plants are "coming down the mountain." If they paid attention to anything but defective computer models they would be better informed. Stranger Where are you located? |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 24, 2010 13:20:03 GMT
That's interesting considering U.S. corn and soy bean will be record crops this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 24, 2010 14:32:31 GMT
magellan:
Just think how big the crop would have been if co2 had been around 100ppmv.
|
|
timb
New Member
Posts: 45 
|
Post by timb on Aug 24, 2010 22:22:38 GMT
Too much weather buried in this. Norther hemisphere dominates plant life so local Northern Hemisphere land weather impacts plant life, AGW. Also, it cooled over the period in question so it's hard to say AGW is responsible.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 24, 2010 22:44:23 GMT
It is interesting that the 'Early Signs of Autumn' thread is full of reports of plants fruiting a lot earlier than normal and of trees starting to look autumnal.
Perhaps there is something that the plants are reacting to that cannot be just a degree or so warmer (according to NASA).
A scientist would wonder what that was and how the plants sense it.
|
|
