The planet is the greenest it's been in decades

[Mule]

Originally Posted by ckissick

The stupid is not strong here. It's a very good point. If the green were to spread into desert regions, would that be considered good? I think not. It would result in the extinction of many species adapted to the dry environment.

Ecologists know all this, of course. I suspect that the GPP and NPP indices to measure greenery refer to the health of areas of natural vegetation that are supposed to be green.

The point here is that global warming is good. Al Goreleone and his ilk think that warming is bad and will kill the planet when, in fact, the opposite is true.

Thank God we have ecologists to keep the Earth in balance. Guess what, if China figures out how to turn the Gobi desert into the world's breadbasket, the will machine gun every ecologist they can find to do it. I hope Africa stays largely desert. We already have too many muslims. In fact, I hope our southwest stays desert too. We have too many Mexicans & liberals too!

Yes, the stupid is strong here!

PS FYI, I would trade the snail darter, the spotted owl and a number of other meaningless species for dollar a gallon gas!

[nostatic]

ecosystems are a little too complicated to have significant meaning rendered by a single statistic.

[jyl]

http://secure.ntsg.umt.edu/publications/2003/NKHJPTMR03/NemaniScienceJune6-03.pdf

http://picea.sel.uaf.edu/manuscripts/kimball07.pdf

Links to the original 2003 article, and a related recent article.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by ckissick

The stupid is not strong here. It's a very good point. If the green were to spread into desert regions, would that be considered good? I think not. It would result in the extinction of many species adapted to the dry environment.

So your stance is that it would be bad for Deserts to become more temperate and therefore more hospitible to more types of plant life becuase some desert species- which are not food- would be negatively affected?

Can't say i agree. If desert regions became more arable, the world's food shortage problems would be lessened.

Edit: Reminds me of the old Sam Kinison skit. "It's a desert! Nothing grows here! Nothing's gonna grow here!"

[carnutzzz]

There is no spot on this planet that "should" be anything, or any sea level that "should" be at any level.

It is what it is today because of forces FAR beyond anything a human can contemplate. The Earth doesn't care if it's liquid magma, or frozen solid- hell it's been both and probably will be again.

There is no thermostat to set where deviation can be measured. Deserts used to be oceans, oceans used to be deserts. Only humans would fret these changes and use that fear to control others.

When you understand this, you will see global whining for what it is.

I would support a global initiative against pollution, but the global warming scam is full of hot air, plain and simple.

[Mule]

But manbearpig lurks! And he wants to get you!

[ckissick]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

So your stance is that it would be bad for Deserts to become more temperate and therefore more hospitible to more types of plant life becuase some desert species- which are not food- would be negatively affected?

Can't say i agree. If desert regions became more arable, the world's food shortage problems would be lessened.

Edit: Reminds me of the old Sam Kinison skit. "It's a desert! Nothing grows here! Nothing's gonna grow here!"

Another good, intelligent point (I'm so diplomatic!). Actually, I don't care if deserts turn into grasslands studded with pretty oak trees. Species are going extinct all the time, and they always have been, as ecosystems change and shift.

But: As humans, we should be careful not to accelerate these changes. Let nature decide who goes and who stays. God, I'm sounding like a liberal. Someone slap me.

[carnutzzz]

Originally Posted by ckissick

But: As humans, we should be careful not to accelerate these changes. Let nature decide who goes and who stays. God, I'm sounding like a liberal. Someone slap me.

We are nature.

[Superman]

I guess what makes science "good science" instead of "bad science" is the presence of a conclusion that undermines the effor to protect the environment. "Science" that suggests we move to protect the Earth......is "bad" science. Science that suggests we pollute as much as possible is of course............"good" science.

[Superman]

I'm sure this next observation is completely unconnected to the Climate Change controversy but do you guys remember the outcry shortly after the start of the Dubya Administration? At that time, a bunch of people offered quite a pile of evidence to support the assertion that the Dubya Administration was actively taking over a certain narrow aspect of scientific repor-writing. The part the Administration usurped was the "conclusion" paragraph of each study. This applied to any and all studies that used government funding. Also, Bush Cronies were vigorously appointed to chair various boards that created definitions and set strategies for various whole industries and research areas. The outcry at that time was that the Dubya Administration was (reportedly) twisting science to fit their economic agenda.

Anybody remember that? Sure, those tactics have had NOTHING to do with all these reports we are now seeing in which we are urged to pollute as much as possible since it helps the environment.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Superman

I guess what makes science "good science" instead of "bad science" is the presence of a conclusion that undermines the effor to protect the environment. "Science" that suggests we move to protect the Earth......is "bad" science. Science that suggests we pollute as much as possible is of course............"good" science.

Protect the earth?

Protect it from what? The Earth will be around a loooooong time after we're long gone.

[Mule]

Prayer of Gore
Al is my Shepherd

He is only aware of what he wants
He makes me lie down on park benches outside his mansion

He leads me beside the polluted water of his strip mine
He restores my doubt in brain dead liberals

He leads me in the path of Kyoto for his legacy sake
His lies give children sleepless nights

Though i walk dark in my house
his 4 are lit like Vegas

Surely his lust for power will follow me all the days of my life
And I will see votes held to the light on thanksgiving forever

[idontknow]

Originally Posted by Superman

I'm sure this next observation is completely unconnected to the Climate Change controversy but do you guys remember the outcry shortly after the start of the Dubya Administration? At that time, a bunch of people offered quite a pile of evidence to support the assertion that the Dubya Administration was actively taking over a certain narrow aspect of scientific repor-writing. The part the Administration usurped was the "conclusion" paragraph of each study. This applied to any and all studies that used government funding. Also, Bush Cronies were vigorously appointed to chair various boards that created definitions and set strategies for various whole industries and research areas. The outcry at that time was that the Dubya Administration was (reportedly) twisting science to fit their economic agenda.

On the flip side of that, you could argue that "Global Warming/Climate Crisis" was developed by the Dubya Administration to set strategies, fund needed environmental research, and build "green industries" that the US could be a leader in.

So we could say the Government twisted science to fit an economic agenda.

[CRH911S]

The real fun has already started. The warming trend up here is producing methane. Nough said, plan to purchase beach front property in Glendale is all I can say. Pelican needs to move to higher ground...say El Monte?

[Hugh R]

I saw a BBC show on the planet and one of the biggest sources of CO2 is volcanos. And the interaction of the dead algae, plankton, fish, etc. that sink to the oceans floors and eventually get sucked into the subduction zones of the techtonic plates and the carbon in that source eventually gets spewed back out into the atmosphere. The big point of the show was that there is pretty good evidence that early life on earth could not have existed without global warming, mainly because of volcanic CO2.

Not saying one way or another about anthropogenic (man made) CO2, just saying it's way more complicated than a simple answer.

I'll bet a lot of people in Canada, Siberia, etc would be OK with a little global warming.

BUT, I can guarantee you that the NAPA Valley will lose crop land a long time before Siberia is able to become a serious AG grower for the world.

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by nostatic

ecosystems are a little too complicated to have significant meaning rendered by a single statistic.

actually, there is one statistic :



something's gotta give,and here's a tip, it won't be "nature"
'nough said

[RWebb]

John L. is correct.

More plant biomass is not necessarily either good or bad (for humans or for whatever species you want to pick).

A simple example is a polluted lake - biomass increases hugely, trout die, and jumans think the odor of the lake stinks. The algae are "happy" I guess.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by Superman

I guess what makes science "good science" instead of "bad science" is the presence of a conclusion that undermines the effor to protect the environment. "Science" that suggests we move to protect the Earth......is "bad" science. Science that suggests we pollute as much as possible is of course............"good" science.

Science that is methodologically correct and reported properly is good science.

Science often tells us things we would rather not know. That doesn't make it bad.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by jyl

I was serious in my question. Why is more vegetation mass an indicator of a welcome climate change?

Suppose, for instance, a given climate change resulted in avg global temps up 10F, avg sea level up 3m - but global vegetation mass up +20%.

Would the above be a welcome result, simply because there's more vegetation?

Or, to use an example more accessible to stupid - I take your tidy yard with grass, fruits and vegetables, and replace it with a tangled mass of yard-high weeds. Why are you upset? Total vegetation mass has increased.

Your first example would be bad for humans living in coastal areas, indeed. The second example would also be bad for the person with the "wild" yard. But both examples maybe not so bad for the planet; this point is arguable, IMO.

If the human goal is to try to keep the Planet's climate as it is today, us humans will probably have a big problem with this task. If past is prologue, things are gonna change, humans or no.

If we currently lived in a period of extreme biomass and no ice caps, we might be freaking out if we started observing ice forming at the poles. It's relative.

FWIW.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by RWebb

John L. is correct.

More plant biomass is not necessarily either good or bad (for humans or for whatever species you want to pick).

A simple example is a polluted lake - biomass increases hugely, trout die, and jumans think the odor of the lake stinks. The algae are "happy" I guess.

Another human-centric view. It's the view we should take, of course, but what's good for us may not be best for Earth . . . and algae is good stuff.