I love a good speculative article that doesn't actually demonstrate anything.

World's Forests Show Decrease in Photosynthetic Activity

An international collaboration of scientists argues in a new study that the world's forests have been undergoing a browning process for more than 20 years, and say that this process leads to a significant decrease in overall photosynthetic activity.

Photosynthesis is one of the most important natural processes occurring anywhere on Earth. Through it, plants convert carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into oxygen, in the presence of light, water and nutrients from the ground. Without it, we would not be able to breath our planet's air.

In the new paper, published in a recent issue of the journal Global Change Biology, experts reveal that high-elevation tropical forests across five continents are loosing more and more foliage each year, in response to global warming and climate change.

This conclusion is based on a formula called Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), which calculates how green or brown a certain area is. Data for these comparisons are collected by satellites that measure how much light is reflected form particular regions on the ground.

As seen from orbit, a certain sector of forests can have either lush foliage – which makes it appear greener – or less foliage, which makes it appear browner. As a trend, since the 1990s, tropical forests are turning browner every year, suggesting an extreme reaction of changing temperature patterns.

For this study, researchers analyzed NDVI data on tropical forests at altitudes between 1,000 and 6,000 meters (3,000 to 20,000 feet), collected between 1982 to 2006, Mongabay reports. A total of 47 regions in Africa, the Americas, South Asia and Southeast Asia were covered by the research.

Overall, some 50,000 square kilometers (20,000 square miles) of forests were included in this study. Throughout these areas, a greening trend was replaced by a browning trend around the mid-1990s. The shift occurred simultaneously worldwide.

“The browning was with respect to the maximum greenness attained in each year – so it was a decline in the maximum photosynthetically active leaf biomass attained in the entire year,” explains researcher Jagdish Krishnaswamy, from the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment.

“Something was affecting the ability of tropical mountain vegetation to sustain the same canopy biomass in the early 1990s. We think it was temperature related moisture stress, or loss of moisture regimes such as mist due to warming,” concludes the expert, who was also the lead author of the new study.


http://news.softpedia.com/news/World-s-Forests-Show-Decrease-in-Photosynthetic-Activity-403038.shtml

Religion requires 'faith' - the belief in something that has no proof is in fact the truth.

Because thupercoach doesn't believe the evidence, clearly there is no evidence for us to accept as fact. So we're believing something without evidence, therefore from his perspective it's a faith. Technically.

However, this assertion is so flawed and foolhardy it makes ozboy look rational.

So you harp on again about my language instead of the points delivered. Makes your argument look mighty shaky.

Gee you turn rude when you don't get your way.

Quite the prima donna.

Enjoy.

Nice rebuttal. I love how you silenced by argument by addressing nothing. Well done.

Dipshit eh?

So now you insult as well as make up posts I never made.

You're a class act Afro.

Exactly =d>

Nobody's saying that the earth is doomed, dipshit.

What they're saying is that mankind is responsibility for the health of the environment around it. And therefore something must be done to ensure the longevity of the species with regard to Anthropgenic climate change.

Especially in a country like Australia, which is the world's highest polluter per capita.

You'll join one of the many "End of the world is nigh" prophesy doomsday cults first. Just don't go in for the mass suicide thing, it isn't worth it.

Chicken Little.

The earth may not have warmed in 15 years but Co2 emissions have decreased over that time. Correlation.

And despite the fact that the earth's temperature hasn't increased significantly in 15 years it's till higher than it was 25 years ago and ice caps are still melting. Correlation.

Tim Flannery - one scientist who you keep citing - was wrong. So ALL global warming science should be disregarded.

Seriously, join the flat earth society and be gone with ye.

Well you explain to me why the Earth effectively hasn't warmed in 15 years despite predictions to the contrary.

If you like, you can also explain why the water reservoirs are almost full despite predictions 10 years ago from Tim Flannery that they would be empty by 2013.

The fact is that a lot of the computer modelling used in this "science" has been proved wrong by time. Things that were being predicted simply have not occurred.

In the early days I was on the fence with this. I can now see that so much of the predicted doom simply hasn't happened.

But like any other faith, I respect your right to believe as long as you don't force it down my throat.

"Climate science" and other religions should be practiced behind closed bedroom doors between consenting adults.

It's all a conspiracy to sell more biodegradable toilet paper, clearly :roll:

Sinking to making up posts I didn't make and presenting them as quotes?

Come on Afro, it's the scone time you've done that.

Does you no credit.

Edited by afromanGT: 1/10/2013 12:17:29 AM

[-x [-x These are the same morons as Flannery who were predicting we'd have no water in the reservoirs by 2013. Please take these alarmists with a pinch of salt and ask what their agenda is.

Edited by thupercoach: 1/10/2013 12:14:47 AM

Edited by thupercoach: 1/10/2013 12:15:54 AM

lol


http://www.amazon.ca/Groundswell-Case-Fracking-Ezra-Levant/dp/0771046448/ref=sr_1_3/187-9920127-4693319?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380549586&sr=1-3

http://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Oil-Case-Canadas-Sands/dp/077104643X

Five years tops.

Hi there, thupercoach. There are Some people who would like to recruit your intellect.

Don't believe the hype. Earth hasn't warmed in 15 years and computer-modelked climate patterns just haven't eventuated.

I give this thing another 5 years tops and the climate alarmism will go tits up.

As the sham begins to fall apart...

LEVANT
Down Under blunder: David Suzuki unmasked as a know-nothing huckster on Australian TV

BY EZRA LEVANT    ,QMI AGENCY
FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2013 07:00 PM EDT

David Suzuki said he is convinced the Harper government is building prisons to house people convicted of eco-activism charges.

Last week in Australia, David Suzuki did something he hasn’t done before: He allowed himself to be interviewed in a situation he did not control.

It was a disaster.

Usually, Suzuki speaks through his TV show on the CBC. When he appears at celebrity events, questions have been pre-screened.

Suzuki refuses to be interviewed by media he does not control, especially the Sun News Network.

His Australian visit shows the wisdom of this standard procedure.

Because when the Australian Broadcast Corporation (ABC) put even the simplest questions to him, he fell apart. But unlike his Canadian events, Suzuki couldn’t turn off the cameras.

The first question put to Suzuki by a critic in the audience was about the 15-year hiatus in global warming. There just hasn’t been any observed climate change since 1998, and it’s a major problem for the climate change industry, whose computer models all warned that we’d see significant warming by now.

Thermometers — including hyper-accurate satellite readings — say it just hasn’t happened. Here is a transcript of Suzuki’s response:

“Yeah, well, I don’t know why you’re saying that … In fact, the warming continues …. So where are you getting your information? I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they’re thinking.”

Normally, that’s the worst Suzuki would face — one tough question that slips past his handlers. But he had no handlers that day. And ABC let the questioner come again, citing his sources that the world hasn’t warmed: “Sure, yeah. UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS data shows a 17-year flat trend which suggests there may be something wrong with the CO2 warming theory?”

Now, that’s scientific jargon that a layman wouldn’t understand. But Suzuki claims he’s a scientist, and he has opined on global warming for years. But he had no clue what the questioner was even saying. Suzuki asked for an explanation: “Sorry, yeah, what is the reference? I don’t ...”

He actually said that.

The questioner had a third go at it, speaking very slowly: “Well, they’re the main data sets that IPCC use: UAH, University of Alabama, Huntsville; GISS, Goddard Institute of Science; HadCRUT. I don’t know what that stands for, HadCRUT; and RSS, Remote Sensing something. So those data sets suggest a 17-year flat trend, which suggests there may be a problem with the CO2.”

Suzuki still had no clue. “No, well, there may be a climate skeptic down in Huntsville, Alabama, who has taken the data and come to that conclusion … You know, we can cherry pick all kinds of stuff. Cherry pick, in fact, the scientists that we want to listen to, but let’s listen to the IPCC.”

That’s classic Suzuki — impugn the motives of anyone who disagrees with him. He heard “Alabama” and thought “hick” and called them a “skeptic.” He said we ought to listen to the IPCC – the one acronym Suzuki did know. That stands for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN’s climate bureaucracy.

But all of those places the questioner mentioned — including Alabama — were IPCC research stations. They’re the places that crunch the temperature data for the UN.

Suzuki had no clue.

ABC’s host tried to ask the question one more time. One more time, Suzuki was clueless.

“Well, what’s the problem? I mean they’re concluding still the warming ...” That was the first question in a very long hour for Suzuki. On everything from fracking to immigration, he shrugged at best, and made personal attacks at worst. He suggested the Canadian government was out to throw environmentalists in prison — the same government that has given him a TV show for 40 years.

He accused GMO food scientists in the audience of being in it for the money — and sat in shameful silence as they each told him their companies were giving away the patents to GMO food to poor farmers for free.

It was embarrassing for Suzuki to be revealed as a know-nothing huckster. But it’s equally embarrassing for the Canadian media, who for 40 years acted as Suzuki’s PR men, not real reporters like they have in Australia.


http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/27/down-under-blunder-david-suzuki-unmasked-as-a-know-nothing-huckster-on-australian-tv?

Edited by Joffa: 29/9/2013 12:12:13 PM

Environment
Climate change
Climate study predicts a watery future for New York, Boston and Miami
Study shows that 1,700 places in the United States are at greater risk of rising sea levels than previously thought

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent

theguardian.com, Tuesday 30 July 2013 10.17 AEST

More than 1,700 American cities and towns – including Boston, New York, and Miami – are at greater risk from rising sea levels than previously feared, a new study has found.

By 2100, the future of at least part of these 1,700 locations will be "locked in" by greenhouse gas emissions built up in the atmosphere, the analysis published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday found.

The survey does not specify a date by which these cities, or parts of them, would actually fall under water. Instead, it specifies a "locked-in" date, by which time a future under water would be certain – a point of no return.

Because of the inertia built into the climate system, even if all carbon emissions stopped immediately, it would take some time for the related global temperature rises to ease off. That means the fate of some cities is already sealed, the study says.

"Even if we could just stop global emissions tomorrow on a dime, Fort Lauderdale, Miami Gardens, Hoboken, New Jersey will be under sea level," said Benjamin Strauss, a researcher at Climate Central, and author of the paper. Dramatic cuts in emissions – much greater than Barack Obama and other world leaders have so far agreed – could save nearly 1,000 of those towns, by averting the sea-level rise, the study found.

"Hundreds of American cities are already locked into watery futures and we are growing that group very rapidly," Strauss said. "We are locking in hundreds more as we continue to emit carbon into the atmosphere."

A recent study, also published in PNAS by the climate scientist Anders Levermann found each 1C rise in atmospheric warming would lead eventually to 2.3m of sea-level rise. The latest study takes those figures, and factors in the current rate of carbon emissions, as well as the best estimate of global temperature sensitivity to pollution.

For the study, a location was deemed "under threat" if 25% of its current population lives below the locked-in future high-tide level. Some 1,700 places are at risk in this definition. Even if bar is set higher, at 50% of the current population, 1,400 places would be under threat by 2100.

The list of threatened communities spans Sacramento, California – which lies far from the sea but would be vulnerable to flooding in the San Joaquin delta – and Norfolk, Virginia. The latter town is home of America's largest navy base, whose miles of waterfront installations would be at risk of being locked in to future sea level rises by the 2040s. The Pentagon has already begun actively planning for a future under climate change, including relocating bases.

About half the population of Cambridge, Massachusetts, across the Charles River from Boston and home to Harvard and MIT, could be locked in to a future below sea level by the early 2060s, the study found. Several coastal cities in Texas were also vulnerable.

But the region at highest risk was Florida, which has dozens of towns which will be locked by century's end. The date of no-return for much of Miami would be 2041, the study found. Half of Palm Beach with its millionaires' estates along the sea front would be beyond saving by the 2060s. The point of no return for other cities such as Fort Lauderdale would come before that.

"Pretty much everywhere it seems you are going to be under water unless you build a massive system of dykes and levees," Strauss said.


• This article was amended on 29 July 2013 to correct a mischaracterisation of the study. The original article stated that 1,700 American cities would be under sea level by 2100. In fact, the analysis states that these locations, or at least part of them would be "locked in" to a future below high-tide levels, which would come at an unspecified later date.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/29/climate-new-york-boston-miami-sea-level

Don't want them to get going too well. They might start to suck in too much carbon dioxide and cause insects to grow massive or a mass extinction event like they did in the late devonian.

Global warming making earth ‘greener’

COURTESY NS

THE planet is getting lusher, and we are responsible. Carbon dioxide generated by human activity is stimulating photosynthesis and causing a beneficial greening of the Earth's surface. For the first time, researchers claim to have shown that the increase in plant cover is due to this "CO2 fertilisation effect" rather than other causes. However, it remains unclear whether the effect can counter any negative consequences of global warming, such as the spread of deserts.
Recent satellite studies have shown that the planet is harbouring more vegetation overall, but pinning down the cause has been difficult. Factors such as higher temperatures, extra rainfall, and an increase in atmospheric CO2 – which helps plants use water more efficiently – could all be boosting vegetation.
To home in on the effect of CO2, Randall Donohue of Australia's national research institute, the CSIRO in Canberra, monitored vegetation at the edges of deserts in Australia, southern Africa, the US Southwest, North Africa, the Middle East and central Asia. These are regions where there is ample warmth and sunlight, but only just enough rainfall for vegetation to grow, so any change in plant cover must be the result of a change in rainfall patterns or CO2 levels, or both.
If CO2 levels were constant, then the amount of vegetation per unit of rainfall ought to be constant, too. However, the team found that this figure rose by 11 per cent in these areas between 1982 and 2010, mirroring the rise in CO2 (Geophysical Research Letters, doi.org/mqx). Donohue says this lends "strong support" to the idea that CO2 fertilisation drove the greening. Climate change studies have predicted that many dry areas will get drier and that some deserts will expand. Donohue's findings make this less certain. However, the greening effect may not apply to the world's driest regions. Beth Newingham of the University of Idaho, Moscow, recently published the result of a 10-year experiment involving a greenhouse set up in the Mojave Desert of Nevada. She found "no sustained increase in biomass" when extra CO2 was pumped into the greenhouse. "You cannot assume that all these deserts respond the same," she says. "Enough water needs to be present for the plants to respond at all." The extra plant growth could have knock-on effects on climate, Donohue says, by increasing rainfall, affecting river flows and changing the likelihood of wildfires. It will also absorb more CO2 from the air, potentially damping down global warming but also limiting the CO2 fertilisation effect itself.

- See more at: http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/07/13/news/entertainment/global-warming-making-earth-greener/?#sthash.XET75F3N.dpuf

The above article clearly illustrates that it is far more important to focus cleaning up air pollution which has a clear, quantifiable effect over wasting billions on something that may, at worst, heat the planet by the tiniest of percentages in a few hundred years.

Air pollution 'kills more than 2 million people every year'

Climate change only partly to blame, say scientists, as sooty particles and ozone account for most deaths

guardian.co.uk, Friday 12 July 2013 20.14 AEST

More than 2 million deaths occur globally each year as a direct result of air pollution from human activity, a team of international scientists has said.

But climate change has only made a small contribution to the lethal effects, according to the study published on Friday in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

It suggests that 2.1 million people die after inhaling fine sooty particles called PM2.5s generated by diesel engines, power plants and coal fires.

Another 470,000 are thought to be killed by high levels of ozone, created when vehicle exhaust gases react with oxygen.

Dr Jason West from the University of North Carolina said: "Our estimates make outdoor air pollution among the most important environmental risk factors for health.

"Many of these deaths are estimated to occur in east Asia and south Asia, where population is high and air pollution is severe."

Climate change since 1850 has only led to 1,500 extra deaths from ozone and 2,200 from PM2.5 particulates, according to the research.

The scientists used climate computer models to simulate concentrations of ozone and PM2.5s in the years 2000 and 1850. Epidemiological studies were then used to assess how the levels related to worldwide death rates.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/12/air-pollution-deaths-climate-change?

Bit of a catch 22 there. Diesel is more environmentally friendly and sustainable than petroleum but far more carcinogenic.

In 10 years time half of China are going to go full Futurama sewer mutant.

Edited by afromanGT: 11/7/2013 12:27:58 PM

The concern in Australia is the massive increase in diesel cars.
The World Health Organisation has already shown that diesel causes cancer.

In addition to anthropogenic climate change, its another detrimental side effect of current vehicle fuels.

Air pollution boosts lung, heart risks

Long-term exposure to particulate air pollution boosts the risk of lung cancer, even at concentrations below the legal maximum, according to a European study.

A separate report says short-term surge in these particles or other gas pollutants in the air also increases the risk of heart failure.

European epidemiologists say they had found an unmistakeable link between lung cancer and localised air pollution by particulate matter.

The evidence comes from 17 high-quality investigations carried out among 312,000 people in nine European countries, according to the paper in The Lancet Oncology.

These earlier studies, which had already been published, were based on reliable records of the health and lifestyle of 2095 people who died from lung cancer during an average 13-year monitoring period.

The team sourced environmental data around the individuals' home addresses, then calculated their exposure to levels of particulate matter -- the gritty residual pollution from fossil-fuel-burning power stations, cars and factories.

Particulate matter falls into two categories: PM2.5, meaning particles measuring no more than 2.5 micrometres, 30 times smaller than a human hair, and the slightly coarser variant, PM10.

Current EU air quality standards limit PM10 exposure to a yearly average of 40 micrograms per cubic metre, and PM2.5 exposure to 25 micrograms per cubic metre per year.

The UN's World Health Organisation (WHO) has guidelines recommending that annual exposure be limited to 20 micrograms per cubic metre for PM10 and 10 micrograms per cubic metre for PM2.5

Unexpectedly, the new study found a cancer risk at every level, and confirmed that the higher the level, the greater the risk.


'No threshold'
The results took account of smoking, diet and occupation -- which can skew the risk picture.

"We found no threshold below which there was no risk," says Ole Raaschou-Nielsen from the Danish Cancer Society Research Centre in Copenhagen.

"The more the worse, the less the better."

Every increase of five micrograms per cubic metre of PM2.5 drove the risk of lung cancer up by 18 per cent.

And every increase of 10 micrograms per cubic metre of PM10 boosted risk by 22 per cent, including for adenocarcinoma, a type of lung cancer associated with non-smokers.

In an independent comment, Jon Ayres, a professor of environmental and respiratory medicine at the Institute of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in Birmingham, England, praised the design and scope of the study.

"There is now no doubt that fine particles are a cause of lung cancer," he says.

Smog alert
In a separate study in The Lancet, scientists at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland carried out a meta-analysis of 35 studies in 12 countries.

It looked at PM2.5, PM10 and four air pollutants: carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and ozone.

They found that even a brief spike in exposure -- the kind that happens when a city calls a smog alert -- caused the risk of hospitalisation or death from heart failure to rise by two or three percentage points. The only exception was ozone, a well-known respiratory irritant at the ground level.

Modelling the situation for the United States, the study suggests that if the average PM2.5 were reduced by 3.9 micrograms per cubic metre, nearly 8000 heart-failure hospitalisations would be averted each year and the country would save a third of a billion dollars annually.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/07/10/3800159.htm