Global cooling as significant as global warming, research shows

Jun 16, 2013
Earth

A "cold snap" 116 million years ago triggered a similar marine ecosystem crisis to those witnessed in the past as a result of global warming, according to research published today in Nature Geoscience.

The international study involving experts from the universities of Newcastle, UK, Cologne, Frankfurt and GEOMAR-Kiel, confirms the link between global cooling and a crash in the marine ecosystem during the mid-Cretaceous greenhouse period.

It also quantifies for the first time the amplitude and duration of the temperature change. Analysing the geochemistry and micropaleontology of a core taken from the , the team show that a global temperature drop of up to 5oC resulted in a major shift in the over a period of 2.5 million years.

Occurring during a time of high tectonic activity that drove the breaking up of the super-continent Pangaea, the research explains how the opening and widening of new around Africa, South America and Europe created additional space where large amounts of atmospheric CO2 was fixed by like . The dead organisms were then buried in the sediments on the sea bed, producing organic, carbon rich shale in these new basins, locking away the carbon that was previously in the atmosphere.

The result of this massive carbon fixing mechanism was a drop in the levels of , reducing the greenhouse effect and lowering global temperature.

This period of global cooling came to an end after about 2 million years following the onset of a period of intense local volcanic activity in the Indian Ocean. Producing huge volumes of volcanic gas, carbon that had been removed from the atmosphere when it was locked away in the shale was replaced with CO2 from the Earth's interior, re-instating a which led to warmer climate and an end to the "".

The research team say this study highlights how global climate is intrinsically linked to processes taking place in the earth's interior at million year time scales and that these processes can modify ecospace for marine life, driving evolution.

Current research efforts tend to concentrate on global warming and the impact that a rise of a few degrees might have on past and present day ecosystems. This study shows that if global temperatures swing the other way by a similar amount, the result can be just as severe, at least for marine life.

However, the research team emphasise that the observed changes of the earth system in the Cretaceous happened over millions of years, rather than decades or centennial, which cannot easily be related to our rapidly changing modern climate conditions.

"As always it's a question of fine balance and scale," explains Thomas Wagner, Professor of Earth Systems Science at Newcastle University, and one of the leaders of this study.

"All earth system processes are operating all the time and at different temporal and spatial scales; but when something upsets the balance – be it a large scale but long term natural phenomenon or a short and massive change to global greenhouse gases due to anthropogenic activity – there are multiple, potential knock-on effects on the whole system.

"The trick is to identify and quantify the initial drivers and consequences, which remains an ongoing challenge in climate research."

Explore further: Synchronization of North Atlantic, North Pacific preceded abrupt warming, end of ice age

More information: 'Atlantic cooling associated with a marine biotic crisis during the mid-Cretaceous period'. A McAnena, S Flogel, P Hofmann, JO Herrle, A Griesand, J Pross, HM Talbot, J Rethemeyer, K Wallmann and T Wagner. Nature Geoscience, DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1850

Related Stories

Climate chief warns of 'urgency' as CO2 levels rise

Apr 29, 2013

The UN's climate chief called for urgency Monday as she opened a new round of global talks amid warnings that Earth-warming carbon dioxide levels were approaching a symbolic threshold never seen in human ...

Another link between CO2 and mass extinctions of species

Mar 22, 2013

(Phys.org) —It's has been know that massive increases in emission of CO2 from volcanoes, associated with the opening of the Atlantic Ocean in the end-Triassic Period, set off a shift in state of the climate ...

Recommended for you

Scientists stalk coastal killer

9 minutes ago

For much of Wednesday, a small group of volunteers and researchers walked in and out of the surf testing a new form of surveillance on the biggest killer of beach swimmers - rip currents.

Fires in Central Africa During July 2014

13 hours ago

Hundreds of fires covered central Africa in mid-July 2014, as the annual fire season continues across the region. Multiple red hotspots, which indicate areas of increased temperatures, are heavily sprinkled ...

NASA's HS3 mission spotlight: The HIRAD instrument

23 hours ago

The Hurricane Imaging Radiometer, known as HIRAD, will fly aboard one of two unmanned Global Hawk aircraft during NASA's Hurricane Severe Storm Sentinel or HS3 mission from Wallops beginning August 26 through ...

User comments : 57

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Exton
1.9 / 5 (35) Jun 16, 2013
What is left out of all these global warming myths is that mankind contributes about 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Meaning that nature contributes the other 97%, why is it that only mankind's contribution means all the difference? Also no one has shown that CO2 increases would stop even if mankind's contributions dropped to ZERO. Time to call the GW myth BUSTED.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (28) Jun 16, 2013
What is left out of all these global warming myths is that mankind contributes about 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Meaning that nature contributes the other 97%, why is it that only mankind's contribution means all the difference? Also no one has shown that CO2 increases would stop even if mankind's contributions dropped to ZERO. Time to call the GW myth BUSTED.


It's because the 97% natural CO2 is there because the Earth has "deemed" that amount to be the quantity that is a balance. Just as the animals/insects/plants control their populations due their being part of the eco-system. The whole. Why cannot you deniers not appreciate that if you push any part of the Earth system out of balance then rapid changes occur, as feed-backs amplify the effect. Do wake up and get some scientific education instead of parroting the usual ignorant myths.
Irukanji
1.4 / 5 (17) Jun 16, 2013
It's because the 97% natural CO2 is there because the Earth has "deemed" that amount to be the quantity that is a balance. Just as the animals/insects/plants control their populations due their being part of the eco-system.


Incorrect. Animals don't control their populations any more than humans do. And it is painfully obvious that humans can't control their populations. See China, India and many countries in Africa for perfect examples. Not enough food due to the increase of populations at an unsustainable rate. Or do you believe the west helps starve them out?

7.2 billion people all emitting, on average, 95 watts of thermal energy each. Per hour. Every hour. Why blame CO2, and not blame the constant heat source that is humans?(assuming 8.3MJ of energy emitted per day per person is about 96.8W/hr). Now factor in animals. GL.
Howhot
3.9 / 5 (15) Jun 16, 2013
What is left out of all these global cooling myths is that mankind removed about 3% of the CO2 from the atmosphere. Why is it that only mankind's consumption of CO2 means all the difference? A "cold snap" 116 million years ago triggered a marine ecosystem crisis. Wonder if it was a product of mankind's over indulgence of CO2. (sarcasm).

runrig
4.1 / 5 (15) Jun 16, 2013

Incorrect. Animals don't control their populations any more than humans do. And it is painfully obvious that humans can't control their populations. See China, India and many countries in Africa for perfect examples. Not enough food due to the increase of populations at an unsustainable rate. Or do you believe the west helps starve them out?


I was illustrating an ecosystem as an analogy for the Earth's climate system. Look at the way invasive, none native introduced species "run amok". The grey squirrel, Himalayan balsam, Japanese knotweed ( for instance ) in the UK. The rabbit and cane toad ( for instance ) in OZ. Eco-systems evolve to be in balance .... as has the Earths climate system.

What are you asking me about humans for?? that was no way part of my post.
snelson5871
2.5 / 5 (17) Jun 16, 2013
"Not enough food due to the increase of populations at an unsustainable rate."

actually there is more than enough food. world hunger is a money issue not a demand being higher than the supply issue
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (29) Jun 16, 2013
"Not enough food due to the increase of populations at an unsustainable rate."

actually there is more than enough food. world hunger is a money issue not a demand being higher than the supply issue


It's not a money issue it's a socialist, central planning issue. Of course the govts control the value money.
Shootist
2.4 / 5 (29) Jun 16, 2013
It's because the 97% natural CO2 is there because the Earth has "deemed" that amount to be the quantity that is a balance. Just as the animals/insects/plants control their populations due their being part of the eco-system.

ignorant myths.


You spouting Ignorant myth is dead right. God 'am but you are a tool.

There is no GAIA. Mankind and his output are as "natural" as whale farts, volcanoes, mid-ocean ridges, methane from termites and meteor impacts.
JohnGee
3.5 / 5 (22) Jun 16, 2013
There is no GAIA. Mankind and his output are as "natural" as whale farts, volcanoes, mid-ocean ridges, methane from termites and meteor impacts.
These are not mutually exclusive. I don't care if something is "natural" or not, but to ignore the fact that the Earth is a finely balanced system is foolish.
gregor1
2.1 / 5 (26) Jun 16, 2013
Runrig are you spouting religion again? The good old pristine earth fallacy. There was no Garden of Eden. Constructing an End of Days climate catastrophe as punishment for mankind's sins is an interesting trick considering the number of people willing to believe such nonsense but it isn't science. There is no evidence that the Earth is intelligent and can 'deem' anything.
Neinsense99
3.3 / 5 (21) Jun 16, 2013
Runrig are you spouting religion again? The good old pristine earth fallacy. There was no Garden of Eden. Constructing an End of Days climate catastrophe as punishment for mankind's sins is an interesting trick considering the number of people willing to believe such nonsense but it isn't science. There is no evidence that the Earth is intelligent and can 'deem' anything.

A brilliant rebuttal of what you want readers to think runig wrote, but didn't.
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (31) Jun 16, 2013
Runrig are you spouting religion again?.

Theirs is not a religion. In religion you at least find some who practice what they preach.
Theirs is an AGW cult of hypocrites, who honor and praise their Vicar Gore while he enjoys the luxuries of his mansion, burning more power than most third world villages.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (26) Jun 16, 2013
What is left out of all these global warming myths is that mankind contributes about 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Meaning that nature contributes the other 97%, why is it that only mankind's contribution means all the difference? Also no one has shown that CO2 increases would stop even if mankind's contributions dropped to ZERO. Time to call the GW myth BUSTED.

But, the lake was already at 97 degrees C. Why blame the 3 degree C rise that man caused for the fact that the lake is now boiling?

What's actually busted big time here is your reasoning.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (26) Jun 16, 2013
Runrig are you spouting religion again?.

Theirs is not a religion. In religion you at least find some who practice what they preach.
Theirs is an AGW cult of hypocrites, who honor and praise their Vicar Gore while he enjoys the luxuries of his mansion, burning more power than most third world villages.

One wearies of your constant pecking at one aspect of a subject like an insane woodpecker looking for a grub in a block of concrete.
Neinsense99
3.4 / 5 (20) Jun 16, 2013
Runrig are you spouting religion again?.

Theirs is not a religion. In religion you at least find some who practice what they preach.
Theirs is an AGW cult of hypocrites, who honor and praise their Vicar Gore while he enjoys the luxuries of his mansion, burning more power than most third world villages.

One wearies of your constant pecking at one aspect of a subject like an insane woodpecker looking for a grub in a block of concrete.

That's a bit harsh. On the wood peckers.
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (18) Jun 17, 2013
What is left out of these global warming myths is that mankind contributes abou 0.00000000000003 percent of the CO2 in the universe.

"What is left out of all these global warming myths is that mankind contributes about 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere" - Mindless Moron
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (18) Jun 17, 2013
It is very true that Animals do not eat each other and hence there are no predator/prey relationships that limit their numbers.

This is why I have an infinite number of Wombats living in my basement right now.

"Incorrect. Animals don't control their populations any more than humans do." - Mindless Moron 2

VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (18) Jun 17, 2013
"is a money issue not a demand being higher than the supply issue" - sneison

Exactly.

Capitalists hold the opinion that those who can not pay for food should starve to death.

How many deaths due to starvation are a direct result of Capitalsm?

Virtually all of them.
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (17) Jun 17, 2013
Murder is completely natural as well. So is genocide.

Everything that happens is part of nature and hence natural.

"There is no GAIA. Mankind and his output are as "natural" as whale farts, volcanoes, mid-ocean ridges, methane from termites and meteor impacts".-pShooTard

The future public beheading of Global Warming denialists will also be perfectly natural acts.

Isn't nature grand?
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (16) Jun 17, 2013
"Of course the govts control the value money." - RyggTard

My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank; in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." - Lincoln

VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (19) Jun 17, 2013
Al Gore is vastly more intelligent and vastly more moral, and vastly more successful than the Anti-Gore-Tard.

"Theirs is an AGW cult of hypocrites, who honor and praise their Vicar Gore" - Anti-Gore-Tard

Just as it takes money to make money, it takes energy to save energy.

The Anti-Gore-Tard just can't manage to figure out how that works.

He has the intellect of a 6 year old.

VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (15) Jun 17, 2013
C=(1.03**y plus sin(y/(2*pi))*K Plus B

C = 1.03*y*K Plus B Plus sin(y/2*pi)*K

For integral years

C = 1.03*Y*K Plus B

Proposition shown.

"Also no one has shown that CO2 increases would stop even if mankind's contributions dropped to ZERO." - Mindless Moron

Do you intend to remain a moron for the rest of your life?
mosahlah
2 / 5 (20) Jun 17, 2013
C=(1.03**y plus sin(y/(2*pi))*K Plus B

C = 1.03*y*K Plus B Plus sin(y/2*pi)*K

For integral years

C = 1.03*Y*K Plus B

Proposition shown.

"Also no one has shown that CO2 increases would stop even if mankind's contributions dropped to ZERO." - Mindless Moron

Do you intend to remain a moron for the rest of your life?


Someone should study the prevalence of personal attacks on the Internet. It probably has something to do with physical weakness or intellectual insecurity. Did someone publicly ridicule your essay in junior high? Or did a jock give you a wedgie during lunch? Get over it VD. If you want to influence people, throwing random insults just makes your side look frustrated and pathetic. If you cannot say it to a persons face, you can't make a point worth saying.

Howhot
3.9 / 5 (15) Jun 17, 2013
"A "cold snap" 116 million years ago triggered a similar marine ecosystem crisis to those witnessed in the past as a result of global warming". People must have been sequestering CO2 like mad men. Oh wait, does the human race even date back 116 million years? If it did, isn't that in violation of Texas creationism law (it's over the 6000 year limit), so I guess it can't be true either. But was it the 116 million year old trigger (which had to be some sort of aerosol/dust/global winter event from volcanic activity) or was it counter proof to the the AGW theory of man made greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels. Gee... its so confuse-en.

So, let's get this thin straight; 116 million years ago, there was global coolen an it was natural. Then it warmed up and was steady at 280 parts per million (give plus or minus 10) for the next 116 million years past the 6000 year mark and all the way up-to America invented the car? An suddenly BAMB! 400ppm from people!
(sarcasm).
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (21) Jun 17, 2013
So, let's get this thin straight; 116 million years ago, there was global coolen an it was natural. Then it warmed up and was steady at 280 parts per million (give plus or minus 10) for the next 116 million years past the 6000 year mark and all the way up-to America invented the car? An suddenly BAMB! 400ppm from people!

Okay, I'll give it to you straight. Hey...hey...keep your pants on.
America did not invent the car.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (22) Jun 17, 2013
Only the AGW Alarmists would buy this, since it casts CO2 exactly where the cult wants it.
Never mind that the breakup of Pangea would have led to changing oceanic flow and thus climate. In fact it was the separation of Antarctica from Australia that led to what was once lush forest becoming the frozen wasteland it is today and it was entirely due to the change in oceanic flow around it.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (15) Jun 17, 2013
It's because the 97% natural CO2 is there because the Earth has "deemed" that amount to be the quantity that is a balance. Just as the animals/insects/plants control their populations due their being part of the eco-system.

ignorant myths.

You spouting Ignorant myth is dead right. God 'am but you are a tool.

There is no GAIA. Mankind and his output are as "natural" as whale farts, volcanoes, mid-ocean ridges, methane from termites and meteor impacts.


Where does bloody GAIA come into it?

It is simply science. CO2 is in balance in the atmosphere. It has to be as does H2O. As both are GHG's they drive temperature ( and before you pile in - they also follow ).

If CO2 were not in balance then neither would the global temperature.

............which is exactly where we are.

And why it is that the 3% mankind contributes is VERY significant.
geokstr
1.7 / 5 (20) Jun 17, 2013
How many deaths due to starvation are a direct result of Capitalsm?

Virtually all of them.
.
Absolutely. Specifically at the urging of those damn capitalists pigs, and probably evil ReThuglitards like Cheney and Palin, those tens of millions of their own citizens were starved to death by your BFFs Uncle Joe, the Chairman, Mr Pol, and the various Kims, for the despicable crime of disagreeing with The Collective, along with another 60 million or so that were shot or worked to death in the Gulags.

geokstr
2 / 5 (21) Jun 17, 2013
If you cannot say it to a persons face, you can't make a point worth saying.

mosalah:
You're new here, obviously. This commenter is the most vicious and reprehensible on this site. He calls everybody he disagrees with retards, morons, liars, insane and often calls for the mass extermination (literally) of conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, capitalists, and anyone else who disagrees with him. He poisons every post even tangentially related to politics, economics, climate, culture and all other subjects he claims to be infallible about.

I recommend you use the "report" function (lower right on his posts) for every post in which he is extremely uncivil (most of them.) Once you've been here awhile and get fed up, use the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the page.

We've gotten physorg to ban him a number of times, but all he does is change part of his nic and starts right up again.
Czcibor
1.7 / 5 (17) Jun 22, 2013
So far we survived:
-population bomb;
-silent spring; (DDT)
-acid rains;
-man made global cooling;
-limits to growth; (running out of fossil fuels and ores)
-hole in the ozone layer.

Because our destiny is to get killed by global warming.

(Did I forget about any main, seriously considered man made disaster that was about to eliminate us within last half century?)
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 22, 2013
Its about time the fossil fuel industry pay for their waste!

mosalah:

Never mind the rightwing nutties, they are bused into free public libraries and told to use the talking points list that was xeroxed and handed to them. Like the laughable denials of global warming, sea level rise, melting arctic/antarctic ice, melting glaciers, ocean acidification and reef die off, reduced ocean food stocks, drought conditions, excessive summer heat conditions, unusual flooding, increasingly more violent storms, and let us not forget the polar bears.
It's amazing what to kooks and nuts will come up with to deny what are just simply observations and measurements.

Czcibor
1.8 / 5 (16) Jun 22, 2013
"global warming, sea level rise, melting arctic/antarctic ice, melting glaciers, ocean acidification" - OK, true

"reduced ocean food stocks" - are studies blaming GW and not simple overfishing?

"drought conditions, excessive summer heat conditions, unusual flooding, increasingly more violent storms" - I'd challenge that part. May you show evidence for excessive weather condition in comparison to any good past data series? (I mean NOT pasting many well recorded recent weather extremes with silent assumptions that there were none such in the past.)
Czcibor
2.1 / 5 (17) Jun 22, 2013
By occasion, I think that we have here an ideological war in which science is merely used as tool. (I mean both denying global warming and overblowing the problem)
savroD
1.2 / 5 (9) Jun 22, 2013
Hmmmm....
What about this link below to a paper titled,"Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age" from the journal of Geology and Geosciences. The good news is that this guys data will be pretty obvious in about 30 years! I think anthropogenic climate change is a factor in the complicated equation of eco-balance. The bottom line though is to keep doing the science and not sit arond spouting beliefs!

http://www.google...60,d.aWc

ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (19) Jun 22, 2013
There was an article in Der Spiegel stating that it was German scientists that chose to hype global warming to promote nuclear power in 1986.
But scientists don't have agendas, we are told.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 22, 2013
Only the AGW Alarmists would buy this, since it casts CO2 exactly where the cult wants it.
Never mind that the breakup of Pangea would have led to changing oceanic flow and thus climate. In fact it was the separation of Antarctica from Australia that led to what was once lush forest becoming the frozen wasteland it is today and it was entirely due to the change in oceanic flow around it.

In the early Cretaceous the Earth's continents looked very much as they do now. Pangea began breaking up in the middle to late Triassic, fully 125-140 million years BEFORE the time discussed in this article.
AS usual, you make up garbage as you go, and as usual, you get caught.
deepsand
3 / 5 (16) Jun 23, 2013
Only the AGW Alarmists would buy this, since it casts CO2 exactly where the cult wants it.
Never mind that the breakup of Pangea would have led to changing oceanic flow and thus climate. In fact it was the separation of Antarctica from Australia that led to what was once lush forest becoming the frozen wasteland it is today and it was entirely due to the change in oceanic flow around it.

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.
Howhot
4.8 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2013
@Czciborl, Your right. "reduced ocean food stocks" - are studies blaming GW and not simple overfishing? There haven't been enough studies to say for certain, but ocean acidification certainly could bring that effect about. That and the depletion of ocean oxygen levels.

"drought conditions, excessive summer heat conditions, unusual flooding, increasingly more violent storms" - There is not enough weather *history* to demonstrate this with absolute certainty. However the strengths of storms seems to be trending towards stronger systems. A very simple principle is behind that trend too. The more solar input energy that is trapped by green house gasses, the more energy goes into evaporation of water. With more water in the atmosphere, the larger the volume of water the condenses out as rain on cold front boundaries. The results is more violent storms, harder rains, and flooding compared to previous years.
Czcibor
1.4 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2013
@Czciborl, Your right. "reduced ocean food stocks" - are studies blaming GW and not simple overfishing? There haven't been enough studies to say for certain, but ocean acidification certainly could bring that effect about. That and the depletion of ocean oxygen levels.
So it means that your previous post, where you used GW as main factor was let's say terribly simplifying the subject?

Czcibor
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2013
There is not enough weather *history* to demonstrate this with absolute certainty. However the strengths of storms seems to be trending towards stronger systems. A very simple principle is behind that trend too. The more solar input energy that is trapped by green house gasses, the more energy goes into evaporation of water. With more water in the atmosphere, the larger the volume of water the condenses out as rain on cold front boundaries. The results is more violent storms, harder rains, and flooding compared to previous years.
But again, you behaved as if that was also a part of scientific consensus.

What about climate actually milder because of global warming? I mean the excess heat would not be spread out equally but would mean longer retention of heat - hotter polar regions, nights and winters. (does not sound well on alarmists newspaper headline?) What about studies showing that a bit hotter, wetter and with higher CO2 conditions actually might boost agriculture?
Czcibor
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
To all people who give 1s to my posts which stay within scientific mainstream:

Your point is to confirm that's all an ideological war, and you support science only when some finding luckily serves your believes, while disregard any finding which may cause cognitive dissonance?
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Jun 23, 2013
What about climate actually milder because of global warming? I mean the excess heat would not be spread out equally but would mean longer retention of heat - hotter polar regions, nights and winters. (does not sound well on alarmists newspaper headline?) What about studies showing that a bit hotter, wetter and with higher CO2 conditions actually might boost agriculture?


Wow managed to include quite a pile of myths all in one paragraph! Do you know that heat is more dangerous than freezing to humans, and most other species on the globe? CO2 doesn't just affect the surface, it has worse effects in the oceans. Higher CO2 does not help plants, and higher temperatures hurt them. The wetter conditions are not like a light rain, they are extreme events leading to flooding, followed by extreme heating. Look at Alberta in Canada or N. India for an example of the "wetter" conditions we can look forward too.
How about you try learning on your own before spouting more zombie arguments.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Jun 23, 2013
To all people who give 1s to my posts which stay within scientific mainstream:

Your point is to confirm that's all an ideological war, and you support science only when some finding luckily serves your believes, while disregard any finding which may cause cognitive dissonance?


You got 1's from me because you are parroting the same tired, debunked arguments (they call them zombie arguments, look up the term) as have been made here ad infinitum. There is no "science" in your posts, there is a pile of half cognizant semi-arguments made by someone who does not seem to have the ability to undertake a review of the "actual" science.

You appear to be yet another "oh I'm just here asking questions" when your agenda is to espouse your Belief that human caused global warming is not happening. You appear to be a denialist wrapped in a cloak of self righteousness.

I can be convinced otherwise. Show your hand laddie, lets see what you got!
Czcibor
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
Higher CO2 does not help plants, and higher temperatures hurt them.
You've just "debunked" photosynthesis. Good job.

"Under elevated CO2 most plant species show higher rates of photosynthesis, increased growth, decreased water use and lowered tissue concentrations of nitrogen and protein."

http://www.nature...13254108

Or "Nature" is a conspiracy theorist site?
Czcibor
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
You appear to be yet another "oh I'm just here asking questions" when your agenda is to espouse your Belief that human caused global warming is not happening.


"global warming, sea level rise, melting arctic/antarctic ice, melting glaciers, ocean acidification" - OK, true


Denialist???

I'm not sure it's either my low language skills [I'm not a native speaker] or your.
Czcibor
1 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2013
Maggnus:
If I'm describe you from your behaviour:

You use BOTH arguments:
-which are supported by mainstream science (man made global warming);
-which are not supported (violent weather) or even contradicts mainstream science (increased CO2 does not boost photosynthesis).

When anyone dares to challenged those poorly selected ones is treated with arrogant name calling.

You also don't bother to read my post, but assume a generic enemy views. How would you react if I assumed that your views are identical with let's say VendicarE? Would it be silly?
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2013
You've just "debunked" photosynthesis. Good job.

*snip*
Or "Nature" is a conspiracy theorist site?


That's the problem with looking so shallowly at such an issue, you end up making obvious mistakes. Here's just one example:

http://www.epa.go...ug04.pdf

And there are many more. At the beginning, higher CO2 levels may help. Beyond a certain point, however, they do not. Trying doing some learning instead of just parroting stuff you've read somewhere.

Same tired, old, previously discussed propaganda used by the denialists that love to pollute this site.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2013
You use BOTH arguments:
-which are supported by mainstream science (man made global warming);
-which are not supported (violent weather) or even contradicts mainstream science (increased CO2 does not boost photosynthesis).

No, I use science and scientifically supported studies. Violent ( "extreme" is a more apt description) weather is showing a higher propensity over the whole planet. Science, not opinion.
n anyone dares to challenged those poorly selected ones is treated with arrogant name calling.

No, I save that for the returning morons. I give everyone a chance, but I have little patience for bs practices and lies.
also don't bother to read my post, but assume a generic enemy views. How would you react if I assumed that your views are identical with let's say VendicarE? Would it be silly?

Yes I did & I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I couldn't care less what you assume. Silly is coming to a science site to argue for something you don't understand.
Czcibor
1 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2013
"Nutrient limitations in unmanagedforests are likely to constrain tree response to rising CO2, while increased soil respiration seems to be balancing the"

I don't think that you even bothered to read that article.

Except of course argument, that for full use of increased CO2 plants need fertilization with nitrogen, which so far was the most effectively done on wild plants with acid rains.

The article deals with SEQUESTRATION BY FORESTS, where the problem is that you can soon face next limiting factor - lack of nitrogen.

How about crops which are fertilized?
Czcibor
1 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2013
No, I use science and scientifically supported studies. Violent ( "extreme" is a more apt description) weather is showing a higher propensity over the whole planet. Science, not opinion.
Show empirical data. The climate already warmed up. (you know, there are already a few decades of data... the problem is that huge game changer should be already visible.)

No, I save that for the returning morons. I give everyone a chance, but I have little patience for bs practices and lies.
Sorry, I was unaware that you can be even more rude. That what you have shown was disgusting enough.

Yes I did & I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I couldn't care less what you assume.
So did I in relation to you. So far you prove my point - you fight here an ideological war, where science is used by you instrumental at best. (unless of course disregarded if it contradicts you simple, unscientific vision of the world)
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2013
"Nutrient limitations in unmanagedforests are likely to constrain tree response to rising CO2, while increased soil respiration seems to be balancing the"

I don't think that you even bothered to read that article.

Except of course argument, that for full use of increased CO2 plants need fertilization with nitrogen, which so far was the most effectively done on wild plants with acid rains.

The article deals with SEQUESTRATION BY FORESTS, where the problem is that you can soon face next limiting factor - lack of nitrogen.

How about crops which are fertilized?

Still not getting it I see. Go learn about it using some research that you do yourself. Your bias is showing.
Crops don't do well in a desert, nitrogen or no nitrogen. Its the heat.
Czcibor
1 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
"Its the heat."

You mean that heat that would cause sea level rise by especially affecting polar regions?

Or maybe you mean increased rainfall or plants loosing less water because of more effective respiration with increased CO2 content?

You are still fighting your crusade... Maybe one day you would become less childish and learn a bit more nuanced and scientific view...
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2013
Show empirical data. The climate already warmed up. (you know, there are already a few decades of data... the problem is that huge game changer should be already visible.)

On this site? You do understand there is a character limit right?
Sorry, I was unaware that you can be even more rude. That what you have shown was disgusting enough.

You confuse blunt with rude, but whatever. You can always ignore me.

So did I in relation to you. So far you prove my point - you fight here an ideological war, where science is used by you instrumental at best. (unless of course disregarded if it contradicts you simple, unscientific vision of the world)

Laughable and moronic. There is no war except in the minds of a few lonesome denialists and there never was a war. Science is, your belief or disbelief in it is irrelevant.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2013
"Its the heat."

You mean that heat that would cause sea level rise by especially affecting polar regions?

Or maybe you mean increased rainfall or plants loosing less water because of more effective respiration with increased CO2 content?

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about.

fighting your crusade... Maybe one day you would become less childish and learn a bit more nuanced and scientific view...

Like yours? Half truths, pretend knowledge and cherry picking? No thanks, I'll stick to the science. Your opinions on it are meaningless.
Czcibor
1 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
On this site? You do understand there is a character limit right?

There is such a thing called a link, I bet that you know how that works. Last time you succeed in using it.

Laughable and moronic. There is no war except in the minds of a few lonesome denialists and there never was a war.
In their mind there is war too. And in tiny part you are responsible for that because you mix up science with your biases and pretend that all what you post here is related to science.

To give you a credit you are clearly one category better than AGW denialist. (I mean the amount of nonsenses that they say is on average much, much higher)
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2013
There is such a thing called a link, I bet that you know how that works. Last time you succeed in using it.

A blind link is useless without an explanation of its import. I could link to reports all day long, and so what. You think there is an ideological war, I think it doesn't make a difference if there is or not. The science is the science; except for those who insist scientists lie, the matter is settled, war or no war. Get it?

In their mind there is war too. And in tiny part you are responsible for that because you mix up science with your biases and pretend that all what you post here is related to science.

Oh sorry I wasn't aware I somehow blundered onto a philosophy site. Oh, wait, nope it's still a science site.
To give you a credit you are clearly one category better than AGW denialist. (I mean the amount of nonsenses that they say is on average much, much higher)

Just one? I think these conspiracist denialists are dangerous lunatics. Period.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2013
To all people who give 1s to my posts which stay within scientific mainstream

Counsel that you would be well advised to heed.