Update: Here you'll find the latest Nature article showing evidence of what I've described below - increased CO2 in the air has led to both an increase in plant mass across the planet and increased soil moisture levels (adequately CO2 fertilized plants use a *lot* less water) with a more pronounced effect in arid areas. I also find it interesting the CSIRO has taken down a similar page, but the internet archive saves the day with a copy.
Hi folks. I'm still learning that a lot of people know little of science, and less again of what science actually *is* .. Science is a philosophy and not a bunch of university credentials and it is about the process of observing and falsification not about proving anything. To put it simply, if some scientist proposes a theory and all the evidence fits that theory then that ain't the end of the process - that theory will be tested and tested and picked and poked at until the end of time. Science does not provide answers or proof, it just disproves myths and shows evidence why things are not, not why they are. Science isn't for everyone any more than any other 'ism' is, communists, socialists, capitalists - they all have merits but hey, not everyone has the mind to be a scientist - it's an uncomfortable place when it offers few answers and relies on a system of doubt. A lot of people cannot live with doubt, they like things simpler than that and that's fine.
This makes it easy to spot non-scientists.. they talk in absolutes, proof and consensus.
Another thing about science is that there are many things science will never explain because science depends on falsifiability - experiments must be able to be done which can prove things false, not prove them right. Say for example someone proposes that unicorns are real. They have no evidence for it, they have nothing but a belief that unicorns are real, but science cannot be used to examine their belief because science cannot design an experiment to prove the statement false. How come you may ask? Simple - you cannot prove something does not exist. It's simple logic for a scientific mind.. sure if they'd said 'unicorns live in my closet' anyone could take a look and say "no they do not" - but the person who framed this unicorn statement clarified it by talking of their closet. Simple to check out a closet.. but try to design a method to examine everything in the universe to ensure there are no unicorns.. So no REAL scientist would ever be caught saying 'unicorns do not exist' because it's not a thing science can ever examine. In fact a scientist is more likely to say 'unicorns MAY exist' than saying they don't. The better statement would be 'the existence of unicorns is improbable'. This applies to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and any other belief.
There also exists an example in logic referred to as the 'black swan' fallacy. Someone once observed that all the swans they had seen were white, so they concluded all swans were white. Then after settling Australia, black swans were found. In this case the black swans disproved the initial statement. it only takes one black swan to disprove a theory such as this, and this is how science should work. One observation can blow a long standing theory right out of the water. Sadly myths often persist even when they've been disproved, because people prefer to believe in things that are absolute or simple and science is neither of those things.
There are many professions and indeed 'sciences' which use the tools of science but which are not scientific in their approach. For example statistics, engineering, epidemiology and statistical modelling are very scientific looking to an outsider - they use lots of science and maths, but they are inherently not sciences. Sure, an engineer personally may be a scientist, just as the guy who digs sewage lines may be a scientist, but that is despite their training not because of it.
So let us now look at something with a scientists eye not a believers eye - it's about the environment.
Many serious scientists have already suggested the net change in CO2 could actually benefit the world, but this takes a longer view of the processes involved:
The Role of Plants in the Depletion of the Atmosphere.
Plants evolved a long time ago on this planet, long before almost everything else and they primarily use the sun as a source of energy by binding the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air in their metabolic processes and making food for themselves. when they die, they leave wood behind - and wood is rich in carbon.
The method of binding CO2 using the sun is known to all school kids as photosynthesis, but what we're often not taught is that there are three methods of photosynthesizing food, the main two processes are known to botanists and biochemists as C3 and C4, the other is CAM . C3 plants form arguably about 97% of all plants on Earth and were there at the dawn of time and their process has not changed. C4 are relatively newer and probably evolved to cope with the diminishing levels of CO2 and form about 3% of plant species. There are very few CAM plants and most resemble cactus. Almost all the plants you can think of including all our food crops are C3 plants. Sugar cane and Crab grass are good example of C4 plants.
Back at the time when plants first evolved to scavenge food from the air using sunlight there was far, far higher levels of CO2 in the air and as these levels have dropped, the C3 plants have had to cope by using more water. They are effectively starving as the CO2 levels lower, and using more water allows them to survive.
So where did all the CO2 go? We again are taught in school that normally when plants die, bacteria consume the remains releasing the CO2 and methane which in time also breaks down to CO2, thus replenishing the atmosphere. However, eons back in times when CO2 was plentiful the plants grew enormously fast and large. Their method of gathering food worked well, but as often happens when a resource is plundered without concern for the future there are unforseen consequences. The problem for the plants was that they grew so fast and so dense in this time of a CO2 enriched atmosphere that there simply wasn't time enough for the bacteria to break down the masses of wood and so it collected and in time compressed, solidified and fossilized to form what we now call coal. There are trillions of tons of coal underground, even in the Arctic where plants thrived when the planet was not in an ice ages as it is now.
CO2 is also absorbed by the ocean where it converts to carbonic acid, then carbonates, then eventually calcium carbonate or limestone. The shorelines of the world are lined with marble, limestone and sandstone which are locked up forms of carbon dioxide. Again, trillions of tons of carbon is locked in limestone.
So how big a deal is it for these C3 plants to cope today with our low levels of CO2? Well we now have an atmospheric concentration of CO2 of around 350 parts per million (or ppm). That's not a lot, considering plants evolved when it was over 3000 ppm. In fact growers who use greenhouses often increase their yields dramatically by pumping carbon dioxide food in for the plants in the order of 1000 to 1500 ppm. This doubles the plant growth and can cut the amount of water the plants need by as much as 90%. This is a huge benefit to growers both in saving water and in having twice as much food produced by plants from the same amount of area. They can actually increase the amount used to 10,000 ppm but it becomes more expensive and the return is proportionally not as great. However, it is clear that reducing the fertilizer and water required by simply increasing the CO2 available to the plants is a relatively cheap way of letting the plants grow in an environment closer to their optimum.
What happens if the CO2 levels continue to fall? The old, dominant C3 plants could in time be replaced by the more drought tolerant C4 and CAM plants and due to their efficiency these plants will draw even more of the diminishing CO2, their food, from the air. The 'kill point' for C3 plants is 200 ppm - we've been close to that.. if we ever hit it, 97% of ALL plants on this planet will die! Just because a system is 'natural' doesn't mean it's functional, the C3's just don't know they're being greedy with the CO2. If they are replaced by C4 plants which are less reliant on water they cannot be as controlled by such environmental conditions as drought and they can actually suck literally all the CO2 from the air as they are more efficient consumers - they are far more aggressive in their consumption of the dwindling CO2, and when there's no CO2 left, life ends.
One thing that has been shown across the world as the industrialized nations have increased the burning of coal is that CO2 levels in the air increase, and this predictably has led to an increase in crop yields. In fact when they compare droughts (remember, plants need more water when there is less CO2 in the air) from the 1950's when CO2 levels were quite low to todays comparable droughts they have found less crops die and there is less famine - the plants which could not survive and died from lack of water in the 1950's actually do better today by not needing as much water since there's more CO2 available for them.
All of the above is observable and confirmed. None of it is unscientific, modelled or propped up by belief. Now many skeptics of anthropomorphic climate change are in fact very dedicated environmentalists, however they believe we should be concentrating on solving REAL pollution problems and not imagined ones - things like sulfurous emissions, particulates, poisonous runoff and worst - consumer waste (unnecessary disposal and consumption of new products just because the new things are 'new' and the old items are 'old' - upgradeitis )
So in contrast to what we've been told over the last few decades, the way to 'save the world' may ironically involve using up all that locked away carbon by burning it for our own power needs, replenishing the air and allowing the plants to proliferate again. It would mean they'd use less water, allowing more ground water to accumulate, it would allow smaller farms to produce far more food meaning humans would not need to use as much land for their own purposes.
just a thought
-karl
PS: Antonyms are words that are opposites such as:
skeptical <-----> gullible
pollutant <-----> nutrient
Interestingly, Jo Nova posted an article about research done in the 1950's which showed how corn crops can deplete the CO2 from the air within a few hours before shutting down due to lack of gaseous 'food'.
Some more information on C3, C4 and CAM plants can be found here , and interestingly it suggests C4 plants can run the CO2 in the air down to ZERO. Imagine if they eventually dominated.. it could be proposed that these plants in the worst case scenario could wipe out all life if they gobbled up all the CO2!
4:55 p.m. - 2013-09-29
Recent entries:
Money and Pretend Money - 2016-03-01
arrogance - 2016-02-27
Speed Camera Defence - 2016-01-17
burns, Ice water versus cold running water. - 2015-01-30
Wealth (or lack thereof) in Oz - 2014-08-26
My profile
Archives
Notes
Diaryland
Random
RSS
others: