|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 22, 2009 23:40:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gahooduk on Nov 23, 2009 0:41:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 23, 2009 1:00:26 GMT
From the difference in plant size, it would appear that there would be an increase in tonnage of dry matter. The question I would have is what is the difference in the yield of protien between the two co2 levels. There was not enough info in the paper to make a quantative analysis.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 23, 2009 2:30:58 GMT
From David Archibald Around page 53 good graph. David has been very interested in this arena as he has predicted that the earth will will cool due to the current minimum. I went to a lecture at USC where Dr. W Soon had very similar thoughts. I will note that Leif does not publicly agree as he has been searching for the mechanism for this cooling, but note he is still looking and as such I believe that he thinks there may be a link. www.davidarchibald.info/papers/The%20Past%20and%20Future%20of%20Climate%202009.pdf
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 23, 2009 3:06:02 GMT
Looking at his slide show I see a lot of correlation, but no causeation. With that said, in the back of my mind I know there is causation, I just don't know what it is. There is too much historical evidence to pooh pah this. My biggest fear for my family and country is a severe cooling. I can see signs all around me that it started around 5 years ago. And the funny thing is .....it isn't always temperature related. 2 years ago the temp was at 30 year averages, the heat units were there but the crop did not respond as it did 30 years ago. I have not a clue what is going on.....I just know something is going on, and it is something that I am not going to like. This is only a farmers perspective, but I really do pay attention to plant growth, weather, temps, rain etc. Only been doing this for 45 years, but the last 5 have been strange years.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 23, 2009 3:49:55 GMT
I feel much as you do. I too have concerns for my family and feel that we are in the middle of a significant solar event, that we do not understand. Why I have been so anti AGW is that I feel AGW is the absolute wrong conversation to have at the absolutely wrong time. Being a science guy I look for the whys. Being a software guru I rely heavily on my intuition (always backed by significant effort). With software and computer systems one can spend a lifetime barking up the wrong tree. My specialty is real time systems and as I am sure you know computer events happen in very short periods of time but our brains seem to take forever. I actually wish for AGW as it seems that a warm world is much easier to adapt to than a cold one. I believe that all of the stories about tipping points and the earth burning to a crisp are not supported by the physics. Unfortunately the lack of serious science as we have seen in the recent CRU emails leaves me appalled that so much money is being wasted on a politically motivated path.
|
|
|
Post by dwerth on Nov 23, 2009 3:55:34 GMT
Sigurdur wrote:
I am just a stripeling compared to you, but I also am seeing a massive lack of causeation. We just do not understand enough at the moment to make bold claims that CO2, cosmic rays, or the price of tea in China is the prime climate forcer, or for that matter, what proportion of the total forcing each segment makes up.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 23, 2009 4:12:08 GMT
trbixler wrote: "With software and computer systems one can spend a lifetime barking up the wrong tree." Have we met?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 23, 2009 5:19:50 GMT
Sigurdur wrote: I am just a stripeling compared to you, but I also am seeing a massive lack of causeation. We just do not understand enough at the moment to make bold claims that CO2, cosmic rays, or the price of tea in China is the prime climate forcer, or for that matter, what proportion of the total forcing each segment makes up. Hey....you know as much as I do. I am just an old man with a bit of school of hard knocks education. What I thought I knew has mostly been now thrown in the bin of garbage with the revelations that I am reading the past few days. I do feel tho.....without causation, that the sun does more than we know at this time. I am seeing things in nature that just don't make sense to me. Another example that I just recalled is how the geese have been dlying. Normally, (I live in a flight path) the V is about perfect. For the past few years once in a while one would watch the geese break the v and fly randomly.....then slowly try and reform the V. This year, it is common to see a "flock" of geese rather than the V. That is very strange, as if they have lost their direction. And they will fly in random circles as a flock then start forming the V and head south again. All I know is that there are funny things happening in nature.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 23, 2009 9:59:40 GMT
I've done a quick investigation of historic stomata counts. There are several papers in this area. Various research centers have old trees, with leaf samples taken from the late 1800's or so. Museums have dated leaf samples.
The papers report that Stomata counts do NOT correlate as expected with CO2 level. That is, with the "accepted" levels of CO2. They come up with various ideas as to why not. The obvious answer is that CO2 levels were as high or higher back then.
Since they use inaccurate measures of CO2, it is no wonder! Accurate Chemical assays from the 1800's show CO2 levels of over 400ppm! But those measures are rejected.
I'd like to see a reconstruction of past CO2 from leaf stomata - but they work they other way round - and index stomata against "known" low CO2, instead of letting the stomata speak.
I'd love to see the real data.
This is another case where the researcher's minds are not open to the obvious possibility that the answer to their problem is that CO2 was much higher in the early stages of the Industrial revolution.
A good area for research for someone with access to the raw data.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 23, 2009 11:03:55 GMT
There are a number of stomata research papers & theses here (some in full) www3.bio.uu.nl/palaeo/publications/index.htmlThese clearly show that CO2 has risen and dropped by 20ppm several times in the past millennium. I repeat the criticism that the Stomata series are calibrated to the dubious current CO2 reconstruction from pre-industrial to present, where it should be the other way around - calibrate the leaves by growing them in different [CO2]. - but relative movements are clear enough.
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Nov 23, 2009 15:02:48 GMT
Kiwi,
Wouldn't it be pretty easy to perform such an experiment? Perhaps even a "High School Experiment"? CO2 cylinders are pretty cheap and there are simple chemicals, eg. NaOH that can be used to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere inside a plastic bag. Could leaf stomata counts be measured by microscope under a series of different CO2 (and perhaps temperature) conditions?
Ian
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 23, 2009 20:23:41 GMT
I've done a quick investigation of historic stomata counts. There are several papers in this area. Various research centers have old trees, with leaf samples taken from the late 1800's or so. Museums have dated leaf samples. The papers report that Stomata counts do NOT correlate as expected with CO2 level. That is, with the "accepted" levels of CO2. They come up with various ideas as to why not. The obvious answer is that CO2 levels were as high or higher back then. Since they use inaccurate measures of CO2, it is no wonder! Accurate Chemical assays from the 1800's show CO2 levels of over 400ppm! But those measures are rejected. I'd like to see a reconstruction of past CO2 from leaf stomata - but they work they other way round - and index stomata against "known" low CO2, instead of letting the stomata speak. I'd love to see the real data. This is another case where the researcher's minds are not open to the obvious possibility that the answer to their problem is that CO2 was much higher in the early stages of the Industrial revolution. A good area for research for someone with access to the raw data. An alternative possibility is that co2 is not well mixed at the surface. co2 levels at the near surface differ a lot from place to place and from over time. Even nearby locations could see measurements differ by 100ppm. When scientists in the 1800s and early 1900s were measuring co2 levels in cities or parks or whatever, they were measuring the local concentration. It didn't matter how accurate their measuring methods were, they weren't sampling the well mixed concentration in the atmosphere. So if we take those early measurements literally, all we are doing is something like plotting the local co2 level in london in 1920 followed by the local co2 level in berlin in 1921. It doesn't represent the well mixed change in the atmosphere. Someone obviously twigged onto the problem somehow that some areas were worse than others. The choice of mauna loa as a site to measure atmospheric co2 came about because the area was recognized (I don't know the details, probably because of it's remoteness) to allow sampling of the actual atmospheric co2 level far more accurately. As a result it was even possible to see the annual cycle in the co2 measurements, something which hadn't been seen before. One notable thing in the mauna loa record, apart from the upwards curve in co2, is that co2 doesn't jump up and down erratically between decades and years. Either co2 is sentient and started behaving itself once mauna loa came online, or the previous co2 measurements cannot be taken literally as a record of the well-mixed concentration of the atmosphere. Since mauna loa there are now additional stations, one in alaska I believe. There are also measurements from aircraft and from tall towers. I also recall recent measurements from satellite somehow, but I might be wrong on that. As for further back, we have stomata, I am not very familiar with them other than they are a proxy for co2 and not one which has caught on, perhaps justifiably so. Ice cores are better because they are not a proxy, they actually capture the old air in ice, providing a sample of past air which can be measured as long as it can be dated sufficiently.
|
|
|
Post by oloflind on Nov 23, 2009 20:44:23 GMT
Socold wrote: "Ice cores are better because they are not a proxy, they actually capture the old air in ice, providing a sample of past air which can be measured as long as it can be dated sufficiently." How can you be so sure about the ice core sample reliability? Please have a look at the flwg most interesting paper: www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-11/pdf/38_711_science.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 23, 2009 23:41:52 GMT
|
|