Plants may run out of time to grow under ongoing climate change

June 10, 2015, Public Library of Science
Credit: Wikipedia.

The causes and consequences of global warming are still under debate, but what would actually happen to all the plants, essential to many aspects of our lives, if the climate in the planet does get warmer? A new study publishing in the Open Access journal PLOS Biology on June 10th by University of Hawai'i scientists addresses just this question.

A key potential 'benefit' of that has been considered is that plants at northern latitudes will thrive in a warmer world. However, this prevailing assumption ignores the fact that plants in the North will remain limited by , curbing the positive effects of warming and additional CO2 availability. In addition, that same warming could surpass plant temperature tolerances in tropical areas around the world, and further be accompanied by drought.

"Those that think climate change will benefit plants need to see the light, literally and figuratively," says Camilo Mora, professor at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa's College of Social Sciences and lead author of the new study. "A narrow focus on the factors that influence has led to major underestimations of the potential impacts of climate change on plants, not only at but more severely in the tropics, exposing the world to dire consequences," he adds.

The new study shows that ongoing will lead to overall declines in plant growing days by 2100 due to a mixture of warming, drought, and limited solar radiation.

Using satellite-derived data, the study identified the ranges of temperatures, soil moisture (water availability) and light (solar radiation) within which 95% of the world's plant growth occurs today. The researchers then used climate projections to count the number of days in a year that will fall within these suitable climate ranges for plant growth in the future.

Although the study did find that warming trends will increase the number of days above freezing at higher latitudes by 7%, these same locations will remain limited by light, a trend that has been missed by previous studies that focused on temperature alone. "Regions at higher latitudes will likely have less frost and snow on the ground in the future, but many plants will not be able to take advantage of those warmer temperatures because there will not be enough sunlight to sustain their growth," says Iain Caldwell, a co-author of the study.

The same warming that appeared to be a positive influence on plant growth at higher latitudes was found to be detrimental to plants in tropical regions, where conditions will become too warm and dry for most plant growth. Overall, the entire planet could see ~11% reduction in the number of days with suitable climates for plant growth, with some tropical regions facing a reduction of up to 200 days per year by 2100.

"Although plants that have already adapted to live in extreme hot and dry conditions could fare well under a warming planet, the challenge will be for tropical agricultural and forest ecosystems to adapt to conditions that will likely surpass what they can currently tolerate," says Jamie Caldwell, another co-author.

Plants also sustain human societies by providing food, fiber, fuel, jobs and associated revenue. However, they can only deliver those things when climates are suitable for their growth.

The new study goes further to assess where people will be hardest hit by the changes in the number of plant growing days. While some northern regions - predominantly in China, Russia and Canada - will likely experience improved climatic conditions for plant growth, approximately 2.1 billion individuals are highly vulnerable to the projected changes. These 2.1 billion people currently live in countries that depend heavily on plants for food, jobs and revenue, and have minimal capacity to adapt because they are poor, yet they could lose 30% or more of their current plant-growing period.

"Climate change will have disproportional impacts on the poorest in the world," says Micah Fisher, another co-author of the study. "Our analysis showed, for example, dramatic potential human impacts on the Sahel and on certain pacific islands. If subsistence farmers in the Sahel lose half of their growing days for plant crops, it will be hard for them to feed their families".

On a more positive note, changes in suitable plant growing days were negligible under strong and moderate mitigation scenarios, suggesting that even modest reductions in emissions could prevent such drastic changes and their associated consequences for ecosystems and people.

Explore further: Predicting plant responses to drought

More information: Mora C, Caldwell IR, Caldwell JM, Fisher MR, Genco BM, Running SW (2015) Suitable Days for Plant Growth Disappear under Projected Climate Change: Potential Human and Biotic Vulnerability. PLoS Biol 13(6): e1002167. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002167

Related Stories

Predicting plant responses to drought

February 10, 2015

A new U.S. Geological Survey study shows how plants' vulnerability to drought varies across the landscape; factors such as plant structure and soil type where the plant is growing can either make them more vulnerable or protect ...

Greenhouse gas-caused warming felt in just months

June 2, 2015

The heat generated by burning a fossil fuel is surpassed within a few months by the warming caused by the release of its carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, according to new work from Carnegie's Xiaochun Zhang and Ken Caldeira ...

Recommended for you

Palm oil: The carbon cost of deforestation

June 19, 2018

A recent study by EPFL and the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL) shows that intensive farming of palm oil has a major impact on the environment. Both short- and long-term solutions exist, ...

Coral reef 'oases' offer glimmer of hope

June 18, 2018

The identification of small 'oases' in the world's oceans, where corals appear to be thriving, could offer vital insights in the race to save one of the world's most threatened ecosystems.

Checking China's pollution by satellite

June 18, 2018

Air pollution has smothered China's cities in recent decades. In response, the Chinese government has implemented measures to clean up its skies. But are those policies effective? Now an innovative study co-authored by an ...

41 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

denglish
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 10, 2015
The causes and consequences of global warming are still under debate

Wait! What!?

what would actually happen to all the plants, essential to many aspects of our lives, if the climate in the planet does get warmer?

The same thing that everyone else will do. Adapt, or die.

The new study shows that ongoing climate change will lead to overall declines in plant growing days by 2100

I hope this study is better than the hockey stick temperature predictions, the polar ice disappearing, or the cooked "No Warming Pause" stuff.

"Climate change will have disproportional impacts on the poorest in the world,"

More news: Nothing is fair.
nevermark
4.1 / 5 (17) Jun 10, 2015
The same thing that everyone else will do. Adapt, or die.


Preparing for or mitigating changes requires a better understanding than that.

I hope this study is better than the hockey stick temperature predictions, the polar ice disappearing, or the cooked "No Warming Pause" stuff.


The hockey stick has been confirmed over and over, even by some of the original skeptics. Wiki "List of large-scale temperature reconstructions" for a list of sources.

Arctic, Antarctic and glacier ice volume are all decreasing despite some Antarctic area expansion.

There has been no warming pause, there was a warming acceleration pause. Global temperatures have continued to be above recent and long term means and set new records.

These same tired sound-bite non-arguments keep popping up because the anti-science crowd doesn't have anything more credible to site.
nevermark
3.9 / 5 (14) Jun 10, 2015
The same thing that everyone else will do. Adapt, or die.


Preparing for or mitigating changes requires a better understanding than that.

I hope this study is better than the hockey stick temperature predictions, the polar ice disappearing, or the cooked "No Warming Pause" stuff.


The hockey stick has been confirmed over and over, even by some of the original skeptics. Wiki "List of large-scale temperature reconstructions" for a list of sources.

Arctic, Antarctic and glacier ice volume are all decreasing despite some Antarctic area expansion.

There has been no warming pause, there was a warming acceleration pause. Global temperatures have continued to be above recent and long term means and set new records.

The same sound-bite non-arguments pop up because the anti-science crowd doesn't have anything more credible to site.
nevermark
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 10, 2015
Sorry, don't know how that posted twice.
samohta
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 10, 2015
The plants will do fine. After all, they will enjoy the extra CO2 (plant food) and the daily effluence of bilge (fertilizer) from scaremonger AGW propagandists.
howhot2
3.9 / 5 (14) Jun 10, 2015
Sorry, don't know how that posted twice.

Don't worry, I gave you 5 on both!

So from the article;
These 2.1 billion people currently live in countries that depend heavily on plants for food, jobs and revenue, and have minimal capacity to adapt because they are poor, yet they could lose 30% or more of their current plant-growing period.

Wow! Loosing 30% of your food in a single planting season is not something to look forward to. It presents a scary situation even to the economic powerhouses because these 2.1 billion poor will need to be fed and/or helped out in someway. Add 3 more years, 3 more planting seasons and we could see 2.1 billion people on the move in a mass exodus to richer farming areas. The Anthropogenic Global Warming Refugees (AGWRs (tm)).

Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (15) Jun 10, 2015
samohta claims
The plants will do fine. After all, they will enjoy the extra CO2 (plant food) and the daily effluence of bilge (fertilizer) from scaremonger AGW propagandists
Learn Physics re AGW then you won't appear as a complete flake, a paid flunky, a liar or a cheat - can you do that - FFS !

Higher CO2 affects some food plants, so far Eg Cassava & Clover shift equilibrium; they start producing cyanogens (ie Cyanide) ie a poison, *Reducing* food supply & would you want to eat meat from cattle that eat Clover when CO2 is STILL rsing ?

Also some trees may not manufacture the best forms of structural lignin thus affecting mechanical integrity, will you feel comfortable in forests walking around and climbing just hoping the weakened growth won't fall on you ?

samohta AGW based on experimentally PROVEN
https://en.wikipe...transfer

http://en.wikiped..._forcing

Physics samohta !
fidh
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2015
Luckily we can rely on them not accounting for enough variables and once someone does, the results will be drastically different again.
I wonder why they cant just put in more effort and release something significant in 5 years from now instead of insignificant pebbles every day.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 11, 2015
The plants will do fine. After all, they will enjoy the extra CO2 (plant food) and the daily effluence of bilge (fertilizer) from scaremonger AGW propagandists.

Did you even bother to read the article? And just posting polemic statements is not exactly a good strategy to bolster your cause (to put it mildly)
OdinsAcolyte
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2015
OMG!
The Earth has been MUCH warmer in the past and much greener.
I am certain things will be fine.
Chicken-Little,.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2015
ALL plants?
Corn grows so fast in hot humid weather one can almost see it grow.
With BS headlines "Plants may run out of time..." why waste time reading the article?
denglish
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2015
These same tired sound-bite non-arguments keep popping up because the anti-science crowd doesn't have anything more credible to site.

I think you mean cite.

How about we cite this article?

The causes and consequences of global warming are still under debate


Preparing for or mitigating changes requires a better understanding than that.

Not when those changes are not realized.

No one argues that the climate isn't changing. its obvious. Its also something the earth does as a result of being a living thing.

No one argues against a clean earth, and better fuel sources.

What is being argued is that there isn't near enough proof of AGW to justify the chaos that the AGW bureaucrats are creating.

antigoracle
2 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2015
What an absolute joke. Just more fodder for the ignorant hungry AGW Chicken Littles.
AGW Cult, where to sustain their dogma, they create their own "reality" of doom and gloom.

http://news.natio...ara.html
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2015
...cite this article?
@d
how about the STUDY instead
While there have been considerable advances in understanding the physical aspects of climate change
this would be the studies that demonstrate the CO2/WV feedback cycle
comprehensive analyses integrating climate, biological, and social sciences are less common
there is the "debate" you are looking so hard for - it is NOT about CO2, it is about other issues
Ongoing greenhouse gas emissions can alter climate suitability for plant growth, in turn affecting biological and social systems. Using the latest generation of available climate projections we show that there will be fewer days with suitable climates for plant growth, despite an increase in days above freezing. This decline in suitable plant growing days is due to interactions among unsuitable temperatures, light, and water availability
AND
an article is NOT equivalent to a study
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2015
What is being argued is that there isn't near enough proof of AGW
@d cont'd
and again, not only are you WRONG, but you have no evidence to support your conjectures

the debate you are speaking of (as you cited above) is NOT about AGW and GHG's... it is about other input's
comprehensive analyses integrating climate, biological, and social sciences
this doesn't mean you have evidence that AGW isn't real... it means you failed to read the study and you don't understand what the above article/study are saying... and so you cherry pick out a single comment designed to inflame the issue and cling to it regardless of the EVIDENCE in the article and study

there isn't ANYTHING in that study that challenges or refutes the AGW data proving the CO2 GHG feedback cycle

in fact, it is USING it to model and predict
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2015
@d cont'd
more from the STUDY
Our study adds to the understanding of projected changes in climate suitability for plant growth, highlighting where ecosystems and human populations could be more vulnerable to such changes. Although our study confirms a benefit of ongoing climate change on plant growing conditions at higher latitudes because of fewer freezing days, this considerably underestimates the full extent of consequences of projected climate changes, particularly under business-as-usual projections.
so again, the study is not ignoring AGW

but using it to make predictions
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2015
another point @d
Interactions among CO2 and climatic variables could also broaden or narrow modern thresholds. For instance, elevated CO2 is known to increase resistance to drought by plants closing their stoma [48,49]. However, under warming conditions the closing of the stoma may induce overheating (by preventing transpiration) and/or if sustained could decrease carbon fixation [50,51]. Likewise, the temperature ranges over which elevated CO2 enhances plant growth are strongly mediated by water availability [49].
this DIRECTLY refutes your claims above regarding AGW and the lack of proof ...
or that this article and study somehow refute AGW or support your claims about there being debate about the causes

the consequences ARE still under debate... some of them are more extreme than others, true

but that doesn't mean we don't have a firm grasp on the major CAUSES
(as noted in this study and the rest i've linked to you)

denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2015
@d cont'd
and again, not only are you WRONG, but you have no evidence to support your conjectures


Interesting assertion.

Let's start with this article:

http://phys.org/n...ate.html

The causes and consequences of global warming are still under debate,


A NASA scientist and Climatologist Phd:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

A compilation of a great deal of data, records of lunatic argument, and other things that are certainly cause for concern:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Another excellent source of compiled data:

https://climatism...ess.com/
gkam
2.5 / 5 (13) Jun 11, 2015
Once again, whuuuut(?).com is not a valid reference
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2015
Once again, whuuuut(?).com is not a valid reference

Once again. Look at the data gathered.

What is being argued is that there isn't near enough proof of AGW to justify the chaos that the AGW bureaucrats are creating.

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2015
Let's start with this article
@d
if you are going to make an argument, use the STUDY, not the article
the article is simply a possible interpretation of the study

if you will notice the STUDY in the article you linked (which is simply above you - is it too hard to click and read?) then you will see that, in the STUDY linked above, you can find the QUOTES i posted above

this is not rocket surgery, d... just read the STUDY
the STUDY that this article linked completely REFUTES your argument... !!!!
A compilation of
Dr roy didn't publish his work as a STUDY... want to know why?
the same reasons that WUWT is not publishing their "findings" as studies...
THEY HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS

but i don't expect you to actually read the STUDY linked in the article above... that would be too hard, especially when you can simply re-quote the fallacious claim above

thanks for showing us your reading ability and that you don't CARE about facts!

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2015
Once again. Look at the data gathered.
@d
if you can't link the STUDY, then you are simply being a TROLL

What is being argued is that there isn't near enough proof of AGW
and again?
i proved this wrong with the ABOVE study!

you used IT to justify your comment above... so now we have to go to a known pseudoscience site with political leanings and NO SCIENCE to get the actual data?

WHY?

you already proven that you don't care about the facts...
about proof...
about validated scientific claims (unless it is astrophysics)...

so why read your WUWT link?
it's already debunked on SkepticalScience... but i didn't link THAT point (even though there are STUDIES supporting the Skepti site)

your complete argument is political and conspiratorial with NO empirical evidence!

epic failure,man...
fidh
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2015
Captain Stumpy,
If youre going to quote, then quote the whole sentence.
He was clearly saying, there isnt enough proof of agw for X reaction. He wasnt saying there isnt enough proof of agw.

The attention agw is getting is not proportionate to it's severity no matter how you look at it. Cancer is getting less publicity on this site yet it will end the lives of at least 1.2 million this year.
The 2.1bn in this study and article cannot be considered as anything but a wild estimation because they very likely didnt consider enough variables just like their predecessors didnt.
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2015
@fidh

The study is open source. You should have no problem refuting it. Right?

http://journals.p....1002167
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2015
@fidh
1- there was no need to quote further: this is an old tired argument between us, and he hasn't proven anything

2- there is no way for science to control the idiocy of political leaders... it doesn't matter how good the science is, they will always make choices that will entice a group of people to hate them

If you want to follow the rest of his diatribes and political arguments sans evidence or scientific credibility, then simply read WUWT or any anti-science site
The attention agw is getting is not proportionate to it's severity no matter how you look at it
ok, this is called personal conjecture

1- not EVERYONE will be affected by cancer, whereas EVERYONE is being affected by AGW

2- we might just have a chance of making a positive change in the climate that will affect us and potentially prevent worst case scenario's from happening

3- cancer vs AGW is like comparing apples and knives

to be cont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2015
@fidh cont'd
Cancer is getting less publicity on this site yet it will end the lives of at least 1.2 million this year
And i don't dictate to the site admin who can and can't post here
for articles OR trolls
Also, see above: AGW is a worldwide problem with potential to affect a large part of the living organisms on this planet - a completely different perspective than 1.2 million deaths in a world of more than 4 billion people
The 2.1bn in this study and article cannot be considered as anything but a wild estimation because they very likely didnt consider enough variables just like their predecessors didnt
Ah, the argument of ignorance, right?

well, by all means, demonstrate this in your own study and have it published and refute the above study

that is how science works

you don't like it, talk to the authors
get information and/or publish a valid study to a reputable peer reviewed journal refuting this one
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2015
The 2.1bn in this study and article cannot be considered as anything but a wild estimation because they very likely didnt consider enough variables just like their predecessors didn't.

Exactly

Thus, what is being argued is that there isn't near enough proof of AGW to justify the chaos that the AGW bureaucrats are creating.

if you can't link the STUDY, then you are simply being a TROLL

You are very emotional. Why is that?

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015
what is being argued is that there isn't near enough proof of AGW to justify the chaos that the AGW bureaucrats are creating
@d
repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true
You are very emotional. Why is that?
you are very political, conspiratorial and anti-science: why is that?

Тhis planet will be devastated not because of ecology, which is just one of the consequences, but because of lawlessness and sin. For this we are warned two millennia ago
@renTROLL
this is a science site, not a religious forum
take your preaching and pontification back to your church... you've not been able to jsutify a single comment with any evidence to date (kinda like deng, above)

all you have is opinion, your religion, your fear and lies (wow... kinda like deng above)

quit trolling
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2015
ALL plants?
Corn grows so fast in hot humid weather one can almost see it grow.
With BS headlines "Plants may run out of time..." why waste time reading the article?


This is true. A couple years ago, one of our corn plots got hit by not one, but two Quarter-sized hail storms in the same week after it was about a foot high of growth. We expected it to not do too well because the hail stones had literally cut straight through the corn. Instead, we ended up with that plot producing quite a lot of corn and were shocked that it did just as well as ever. This is Louisiana, home of 99 degree summer temperatures and 105 to 110 or more heat indices in the shade.

Most of our food comes from grasses, and grasses do very well in hot temperatures, as long as you have appropriate moisture too, and guess what? The U.S. has among the highest levels of coastline per unit area, with on-shore flows bringing rains. Increased temperatures will be mitigated by more rainfall in many places.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2015
Anyway, a rudimentary knowledge of the fossil record would show that Plants and alga have geologically flourished under warmer climates with about 4 times the CO2 of present day Earth, to the point that CO2 levels were 4 times higher simultaneous with free Oxygen levels being nearly twice their present levels, and many of the types of plants that exist today are descended from the same plants. Here's another lesson, plants are polyploid and keep multiple backup copies of their genomes. If the climate reverts to the Jurrasic or Triassic climate for whatever reason, many of these plants may just activate their atrophied phenotypes again, and it will be just like any other day to them. Not saying that's the case for all plants, because it won't be. If they've mutated too much since then they may not be able to activate atrophied genes as easily, but then again, the climate isn't changing as fast as an asteroid strike or volcano; This is a very gradual climate shift.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2015
Anyway, since they already have a backup copy of an entire genome that's been through this before on more than one occasion, even if it's missing some of the genes, it will be much easier for it to adapt compared to the situation where no such genome existed in the first place, and it will be much easier to adapt compared to the situation of an asteroid or super-eruption initiated disaster. Adapting over a period of years, decades, centuries is much easier than adapting over a period of just a few months to a year or two.

Not only did plants flourish under those 4 times hgher CO2 levels, but they provided both the oxygen and the food to fuel the largest land animals to ever live, and many aquatic reptiles which were two or three times bigger than today's reptiles, and salt water crocodillians which were bigger than any land animal today.

Evidence?

The record shows that 4 times higher CO2 levels, and 10f higher temp is more conducive to live than present levels.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2015
The fossil record shows that under high CO2 levels powering higher Oxygen production by plants, the insects, including beneficial insect species such as Dragonfly family, can grow to sizes larger than modern flight birds. It is chemically impossible to support an insect of that size under present climate levels and and CO2/Oxygen levels.

So, contrary to alarmists, the actual fossil record on this planet shows that life in general does best under CO2 levels between 2 and 4 times present levels. The same Families, Genus, species, and sub-species existed under those conditions, depending on which group you look at, over periods of literally 100 to 250 million years or more, and seemed to just grow larger and larger until some mega-disaster wiped them out, which was usually an abruptly started and prolonged ice-age, or a prolonged period of a million year super-eruption of a super-plume larger than yellowstone.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2015
What causes the miniaturization of the modern dragonfly?

Well, it certainly isn't the CO2 or the temperature. As pointed out, they are descended from a group which thrived under much higher levels and higher temperatures. There weren't autombiles driving 70mph and splatting them all over the windshield before they reach full size in the past, that much has change, and it would still be the case even if we all drove electtric vehicles or hydrogen vehicles. So...from that perspective, CO2 is actually not the primary cause of the decline in number and sizes of beneficial insects; the concept of the automobile itself is causing that problem, not the pollution. The other problem is obviously that humans use insecticide to kill mosquitos and other pest insects, including in our food, and this is no-doubt killing the honeybee directly, and killing dragonflies indirectly. Dragonflies eat some harmful wasps as well as other pest insects, but they also have an aquatic larval stage.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2015
Soo, that truck drives by spraying for mosquitoes in the ditch? Just killed dragonflies, which...eat mosquitoes and other harmful insects.

You think warming the planet by a degree or two is going to wipe out insects when their highest historical success was under much higher temperatures? Hardly.

Reptillians? Nope. They'll live longer and grow faster. Alligator farmers actually artificially heat their ponds with OPEN FLAMES from a natural gas torch because the increased temperatures causes reptillians to grow faster, larger, and while consuming less food.

Maybe fish, arthropods and shellfish? Nope. They were largest under higher CO2 levels and higher temperatures, fossil record says so.

The only reason larger mammals aren't still around today is because human beings hunted the larger species and sub-species to death, not because of man-made pollution, which that problem is still on-going with idjit poachers killing rhinos and elephants for superstition..
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2015
A dragonfly with a 3ft wing span would actually become problematic though, as it would be capable of killing domesticated dogs, poultry animals, and cats, just like hawks and eagles can do. Not saying they'd just jump to their maximum fossil record size, because they won't, but just thinking about an insect that size is a little bit creepy. It may also kill small reptiles and rats and other pest mammals too though, so there's a potential good side to that, if it were ever to happen.

Anyway, the point is every piece of text-book evidence from the fossil record shows that life does absurdly well on this planet when the CO2 levels are between 800ppm and 1600ppm, so there is absolutely no fear in my mind of a mega-extinction, and even if there were, it would be more about a few minor gene pool shifts rather than anything cataclysmic. Don't go expecting an entire new order of life to emerge or something like that, because that only happens in abrupt changes.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2015
Summary:

1, fast-moving automobile kills far more insects and mammals than CO2, pollutants, or warming it produces.

2, Insecticides and herbicides kill far more insects, mammals and reptiles than other pollutants or climate caused by them.

3, Poachers kill far more large species than pollution or even accidents.

4, Viruses and bacteria kill far more species than pollution. Most bird kills and sea lion kills, etc, are caused by viruses or bacteria, not pollution.

5, Most mass extinctions are caused by global cooling events, NOT global warming events. There is one possible exception of what may be a methane bomb in the historical record, but that was far larger and far more abrupt than even the maximum potential of any man-made climate change.

6, Life on this planet has historically done best when the climate was warmer and had far more CO2 than today, and most animal groups grow faster, to larger sizes under warmer climates.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2015
Get mad guy, probably Gkam anyway.

I didn't write the fossil record. It's a scientific fact that life forms grew larger, faster under hotter temperatures with higher CO2 levels.

As for an I.Q. test written by someone of a different culture, guess what? I come from a family that raised farm animals and always has at least an acre or two of crops planted. It's been a while since I personal killed and cleaned an animal, but I do actually know how to prepare my own food. Give me a test written by them. So what? I'll score higher than the person who writes it.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2015
Ren82 states
Maybe this, maybe that. Probably this, probably that. Serious science!
Yes because all is based on the Scientific Method that is hypothesis & EVIDENCE Ren82

Something you CANNOT yet understand Ren82 !

Ren82 tell us HOW your claimed god communicates, anything better than an idea in an old book ?

Anything better than mere claims Ren82

Why are you here FFS Ren82 - not allowed to proselytize on a Science site, where is Evidence ?

Ren82 claims
Тhis planet will be devastated not because of ecology, which is just one of the consequences, but because of lawlessness and sin. For this we are warned two millennia ago.
The ONLY idea we have of your god is from 2000+ years ago.

Ren82 why is your god silent ?

Ren82 Why did it do nothing about the lawlessness of Fascism during WW 2

Ren82 why are you soi feebly emotionally attached to an old idea ?

Ren82 put your god and all the others in the dustbin of bad ideas !
bluehigh
5 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2015
Phys.org is ... a science, research and technology NEWS service.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2015
"Get mad guy, probably Gkam anyway."
---------------------------------

Probably not, otto.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2015
I would like to see more civility in the comments section and absolutely no name-calling.

Invective happens when people lose the argument.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.