Scientists Surprised to Find Earth's Biosphere Booming

Maybe someone should start a thread titled. "Is the earth's biosphere out of balance, or has it always been dynamic?"

All the historical evidence points to a ever changing earth. Sometimes the changes can be rather quick...

The view that the world remains the same as it has for millions of years.
Has been proved wrong, many times over. It is time to lay it to rest.
Uniformitarianism

[edit on 10-6-2008 by Howie47]

[edit on 10-6-2008 by Howie47]

Originally posted by Quazga
reply to post by Animal

 

Whatever...

You are the next contestant on THE IGGY LIST!

For standing by my point which is quite valid and supported by the evidence you requested and then ignored? Go ahead.

You have now made a lot of claims yourself, how about you try providing evidence to support them?

Seems to me that you are running from the truth.

In all honesty I feel like being put on your ignore list would be an honor.

You have spent so much time trying to debunk the data in this post that you have pretty much ruined the thread.

I actually SUPPORTED the scientific evidence of the OP (see following quote from me). I also think that by providing the summary of the scientific research as I did contributed to the thread, not damaged it. You see we are all here under the pretext of DENYING IGNORANCE. Providing alternative / supporting evidence is part of the game. It seems to me that because my view is the the same as yours you classify it as crap.

"How Enriched Carbon Dioxide Environments May Alter Biotic Systems Even in the Absence of Climatic Changes"

By Eric D. Fajer of Harvard University, Printed in Conservation Biology, Vol. 3, No. 3 (september 1989) pp 318-320.

In elevated C02 environments, growth is enhanced for many plant species. However, some plant species respond more positively to these new conditions than other species.

Please not the bold print.

Because of that, I've got to make sure not to get drawn into any kind of discussion with someone as emotionally erratic as yourself.

What exactly do you mean? My insistence that your assertion, which is your opinion only and supported by no evidence is wrong? You have now called me idiotic, emotionally unbalanced, and I am sure a few of your jabs went unnoticed by me. Still if putting me on your ignore list will help you insulated your beliefs from dissenting opinions and evidence suit yourself. Please note, you asked me to provide the evidence for my point and I have. You have presented none to support your theory, except your insistence that the article in the OP is your evidence however there is nothing there to support your claim.





[edit on 10-6-2008 by Animal]

reply to post by Howie47


Absolutely. My dad worked on 3 or 4 of the Landsat satellites...there is pretty much nothing they cannot see that they want to see about eco system trends.

Earth needs to fully industrialize all of it's nations. They could burn fossil fuels to help with our situation - that being Earth is Carbon starved, and had C02 levels tens times as high as they are currently.

Industrializing Africa would dramatically lower the Birth rate as it has in the Western World.

The increased Carbon emissions would contribute to a massive growth of Biomass in both flora and fauna.

Grazing animals would grow larger as the plants they feed on produce more food. In turn the animals who feed on those grazers would have a larger food supply to support a larger, healthier population...

The newly industrialized nations would soon develop effective health care systems reducing the need to have 6 children in the hopes that one or two survives to adulthood... These children would then grow up in a modern society and have 1.4 children and an accordant drop in birth rate would
ensue.
Barring massive immigration, Nations that have done this have experienced Negative Population Growth and must rely on immigrants to maintain it's current population levels...
Canada is a perfect Example of this. Look up their policies on immigration.

When the issue is population and climate, we should listen to the Majority opinion of climatologists/scientists .... not the Social Darwinists.

reply to post by Animal


Are you for a Carbon Tax? Do You believe ALL of the propaganda?

reply to post by Shadowflux


Sadly, ocean algae is on the decline as well.

Undercover for scientists finding life inside and outside planet earth, just read between the lines people.

Dont be surpised if EXxon is behind this

People here I think need to learn some reading comprehension skills.

Animal is saying YES the increase of co2 in the atmosphere is beneficial to many plants as is stated in the article he/she provided and would certainly promote population growth amongst those plants. The article in the op also suggests this by saying that plant growth has increased. Animal then chooses to enlighten you with the fact that not all plants are so comfortable in co2 increased atmospheres. And by saying this (I am guessing) implying that some of the plants that may be endangered by this may well be feeding us as well as other species.

I think you all are trying to suggest that by adding that little bit of extra truth in there is refuting this article? I hardly think so.


[edit on 11-6-2008 by AnOldFriend]

reply to post by doctormcauley


In addition we should require nations to destroy the ozone layer as we all know that UV light helps plants to grow. Therefore more plants will add more oxygen and everyone will lead healthier lives.

Ecological imbalance and proliferation of invasive species can be disasterous to entire ecosystems, which in turn will affect the entire biosphere in its own way.

Animal is saying MUCH more than you would imagine.

A (very) rough analogy.

Imagine someone told you that the world food supply was almost gone and there was a crisis. Life continued on and in 10 years time there was good news, that being the food supply was increasing again. The catch is that this food was all the product of cereal crops. Imagine that growing the cereals meant that you could not have any other types of food. Over time you're stuffing your face with bread and rice every day, wishing that you could bite into an apple or eat some vegetables. Realising that these no longer exist, you continue to eat your plain rice.

Coming back to the OPs post, I think that the main issue here is that the growing biomass doesn't account for species variation and that the species benefiting from current conditions are able to prevail over those that do not, leading to a decrease in diversity over the long term.

Changing an organisms environment often requires certain traits for survival. You can quite easily breed heat tolerant flies over the course of a month or so.





[edit on 12-6-2008 by seenitall]

Just playing devils advocate here.

How many people on this thread would support the data if it indicated that the "biosphere" was in decline?

It's like all those people who constantly used the GISS data from nasa to prove that the earth was warming, only to find there had been multiple errors in the data, and that things like the urban heat island effect had not been taken into consideration.

After that came to light, there was a sudden embarressed silence....

reply to post by Animal


You are confusing the output of C02 gas with the horrendous effects of chemical pollution.

PCBs, CFCs and Dioxins etc are banned for a reason. They are bad and cause Ozone depletion. They just don't cause as much damage as the three Nuclear Bombs the United States Detonated in the Atmosphere over Antarctica in 1953 as part of operation Isabella.... No, that had absolutely nothing to do with the Gigantic Hole over Antarctica.

But let us not forget that Global Warming didn't really start until the Rainforests of South America were wiped out in the 70s and 80 via clear-cutting...

...This Clear-cutting was initially supported by those people who were claiming that the earth was going into an Ice Age and Something Drastic just had to be done - sound Familiar?

Those same personalities who promoted the End of the World with the coming of the new Ice Age are now promoting Global Warming.

They have been Making money both coming and going.

These same Eco-charlatans also promoted the switch to plastic bags and petroleum based products as a effective substitute to help stop the Destruction of the Rainforests - not taking into account the massive increase in industrial waste output that would be resultant from this profoundly hypocritical plan.

Now the Eco-Charlatans want to Ban plastic bags and Bottles and have already succeed in taxing the waste output of the plants they helped to Lobby into existence. They also take C02 output under Kyoto protocols - but only in the Western world, which cause our economies to tank as all the Jobs move to Asia and Latin America.

Now they want to tax you and me. These very same Charlatans want to tax the very Gas that allows life to thrive on this planet.

Soon, they will be taxing your lawn, trees and plants as vegetation only creates Oxygen and food, which helps sustain the lives of Humans... Who are Considered a Virus by the Likes of Al Gore, Ted Turner, Henry Kissinger et al



[edit on 12-6-2008 by doctormcauley]

A quick thanks to those of you who chose to rad my posts!

What I am trying to say has been very articulated by nicely a few above me.

I completely agree that increased C02 will trigger increased plant growth.

What I disagree with is making the blanket assumption that this in entirely a good thing.

As I mention several times in my posts is the impacts of making changes to the composition of ecological systems.

You see every system on the planet is a working machine that is made up of an interconnection and interdependence of all its parts (the organisms). Each of these separate 'machines' then work as a larger machine comprised of all the smaller machines. It is a wildly complex system of interconnection and interdependence.

The principle of keystone species is an extreme example of what can happen to a ecological system when you remove just one all important species...that is habitat collapse.

I am not arguing that these changes WILL without a doubt cause cataclysmic effects, but I am warning that the actual results do not necessarily point to 'beneficial'.

Working on a daily basis with natural systems I am too familiar with the impacts of making changes, it tends to lead to decline.

My intent was to call this very informationless article for what it was, merely a statement that there is increased "growth". The article was in no was an assessment of improving planetary conditions.

Someone said something about a family member working with satellite data, and said we can tell everything from space. That is not true. Working as a conservation biologist (my past) I know for a fact you can get a lot of GENERAL data from satellite images and aerial photos, but it is GENERAL. We always had to do research "on the ground" to develop and conclusive data.
To say that a satellite was able to tell us what was happening in the images we see, other than the general idea, is disingenuous.

reply to post by yellowcard


well...it did take me almost a full minute to figure out that although this is true, it is not necessarily good for the health of the human race. you are seeing a growth in vegetation, almost exclusively from iced and snowy regions melting and vegetation filling in. this does not mean that this metamorphis is beneficial to human life, unless your desire is to reduce the human population by a few billion.

DoctorMcauley:

Your reply to my post doesn't relate to what I have said. Wrong person perhaps?


[edit on 12-6-2008 by seenitall]

reply to post by Animal

Someone said something about a family member working with satellite data, and said we can tell everything from space. That is not true. Working as a conservation biologist (my past) I know for a fact you can get a lot of GENERAL data from satellite images and aerial photos, but it is GENERAL. We always had to do research "on the ground" to develop and conclusive data.
To say that a satellite was able to tell us what was happening in the images we see, other than the general idea, is disingenuous.

The reply I posted was to Howie47's doubt that 'they' can tell the difference between plant growth in water or plant growth on land.

My reply said there is pretty much nothing they cannot see that they want to see about eco system trends.

As a conservation biologist you of course are very familiar with the frequent application of remote sensing data to your work and the fact that there are general and specific applications and benefits.

I am sure as it is our stated field of expertise, that you are also aware of this type of application:

Abstract: We assembled a time series of 20 Landsat thematic mapper images from 1982 to 1996 for Key Largo, Florida, to ascertain whether satellite imagery can detect temporal changes in coral reef communities. Selected reef and control areas were examined for changes in brightness, spectral reflectance, band ratios, spatial texture, and temporal texture ( pixel-to-pixel change over time). We compared the data to known changes in the reef ecosystem of Carysfort Reef and terrestrial sample sites. Changes in image brightness and spectral-band ratios were suggestive of shifts from coral- to algal-dominated community structure, but the trends were not statistically significant. The spatial heterogeneity of the reef community decreased in the early 1980s at scales consistent with known ecological changes to the coral community on Carysfort Reef. An analysis of pixel-scale variation through time, termed temporal texture, revealed that the shallow reef areas are the most variable in regions of the reef that have experienced significant ecological decline. Thus, the process of reef degradation, which alters both the spatial patterning and variability of pixel brightness, can be identified in unclassified thematic mapper images.

I am sure I don't have to argue that this is obviously telling them something very specific about 'what is happening'.

You are correct that the satellite does not 'tell you' what is happening in the images. You would have to be intelligent enough to know the application of remote sensing data and the very detailed specific information it can tell you about eco system trends.

As you are.

Because you are a conservation biologist.

Which brings us to your conclusion that I was stating something which i did not in fact state and in so doing i was being disingenuous. In falsifying what I said, you displayed intent that was:

1. Not noble; unbecoming true honor or dignity; mean; unworthy; fake or deceptive.
2. Not ingenuous; not frank or open; uncandid; unworthily or meanly artful.
3. Assuming a pose of naivete to make a point or for deception.

Which somewhat ironically is the definition of 'disingenuous'.

reply to post by wytworm


I see your point but would argue the definition of "specific" int eh case of the coral reefs, perhaps if i read more of the study I would change my mind. I would also argue the comparison of a study of coral reefs and of Earth Biosphere in general.

Basically I stick by my claim that saying the information is largely general. AS you your self say:

You are correct that the satellite does not 'tell you' what is happening in the images. You would have to be intelligent enough to know the application of remote sensing data and the very detailed specific information it can tell you about eco system trends.

Your absolutely right, you have to KNOW what is actually transpiring. Without data collected on the ground there is no way to interpret the information gathered by remote sensing.

I have not worked by the ocean so I can't talk about that, but the applications I have seen it used in, here in the mountainous south west is studying forest density with a concern for fire management.

Though we could see trends from areal images we still spent a lot of time counting tress along transects, aging trees and stands, standing dead, down dead, litter depth, moisture levels, canopy cover, etc.

Even in the study you present what I am talking about is evident, though it is only the abstract.

Selected reef and control areas were examined for changes in brightness, spectral reflectance, band ratios, spatial texture, and temporal texture (pixel-to-pixel change over time). We compared the data to known changes in the reef ecosystem of Carysfort Reef and terrestrial sample sites.

The emphasis is mine. What it shows, IMO, is that the satellite data was compared to actual studies of the systems themselves. With out those studies you could say anything you wanted about the changes seen from above for those reefs.

Maybe you genuinely believed what you said, in fact I have no reason to believe you did not. For that I appologize for calling you disingenuous. Still I think you are wrong. But I don't hold it against you.

Edit to add: so in a technical way you are absolutely correct, you can discern very specific information about a system as seen from above. However, in order to be able to do this you need to have information gathered on the ground that revels the finer details of the systems you are looking at for it to be readable.

So in the case of the article in the Op I think presenting that information as a some sort of conformation of the earth 'healing' and somehow proactively evolving is a leap in faith.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by Animal]

[edit on 12-6-2008 by Animal]