How I got personally affected by global climate change

[dogfriend]

For me, the poison ivy issue is one of those things that no one considered, but they are now seeing that increased CO2 concentration is leading to stronger (more itchy) poison ivy. What other effects might we see in the future? Will certain plants (vines) start choking out other plants as postulated in the Nat Geog article? How is that going to affect us (the collective us)?

In California, there is a problem with water. Most of the sources of water are in Northern California; most of the users are in Central (farming) and Southern California. How are warming temps going to affect the snowpack in the Sierras (the source of most of the water)? It appears that it is already having some effect with a lot of "drought" years and not so many deep snowfall years. What will happen if it gets worse?

[tochatihu]

Carbon dioxide concentrations at the forest floor (where poison ivy grows) are often very much higher than the 'free troposphere' values (latter currently about 380 ppm). Beneath the surface, where the seeds germinate, CO2 is very very much higher.

Basically I'm not in favor of a direct CO2 effect here. Back before big fossil fuel, the 'free troposphere' was 280 ppm and the forest floor and soil interstices' CO2 were very similar to what they are today.

Up in the canopy it's a different story because that's where the photosynthesis is drawing down CO2.

There are many possible indirect effects (e.g., bird populations, migration patterns, food choices) that I'd be thinking about. But not direct CO2 effects. Not on the forest floor.

I jump on things like this when they are posted in the hopes that some of my PC pals may develop an interest in these fascinating topics.

I read the Mohan et al article (thanks for the pointer dogfriend, it's open access so anybody can download it). Their focus was on plant growth rate; they did not do seed germination or seedling establishment tests. Also all of their treatments are with herbivores (deer) excluded, so there are many aspects to consider.

[Shawn Clark]

Originally Posted by Felt

With a few exceptions, I do not believe that man has any ability to alter global environmental events.

That's self refuting. If you have to state "with a few exceptions" then your thesis is already cooked.

It's not just man, but life in general that can alter the global environment. This oxygen atmosphere wouldn't exist without the life that created it. And we (man) can certainly alter it on continent wide scales, and have done so several times: see the Dust Bowl Days as an example. We've reshaped huge swaths of planet turning swamps into farmland, and sometimes plains into desert...or desert into farms.

Assuming that life can't alter climate is a poor bet. That is the bet you are making. Just because man is the primary lifeform under consideration doesn't alter the fact.

It's especially a poor bet when man is digging up millions of years worth of long dead life forms and spewing their combusted remains into the atmosphere simultaneously.

Man may be able to modify specific areas, for example during WWII, I have read that rain often followed intense bombardments

It's ironic that you would rely on this sort of myth as an "exception." I forget the quote but it extends back to ancient times...something about great storms/rains often following great battles. Can't remember if it is an ancient Greek quote or around 2 millenia old Roman era. It seems to come up in every major conflict throughout history...I don't put much credence in it.

[hobbit]

I haven't seen too much more poison ivy in my backyard, but that
might have something to do with the notable uptick in RoundUp
concentration.
.
_H*

[Felt]

One of the truths evident with the "sky is falling" crowd ... is the absolute, insulting tone towards anyone that disagrees.

There is no need to be nasty. The attitude stifles discussion of the issue, neither does it recruit converts. "My way or the highway" is offensive to anyone that does not follow the political rhetoric.

[icarus]

Felt,

I'm note sure that Shawn meant to be insulting but I think that he makes a good point about your comment being self refuting. As for "the sky is falling crowd" and the desire to "recruit" anyone assumes that there is "real" debate as to whether or not human caused climate change exists. The frustration amongst many of us, is the vitriol and considerable misinformation that is tossed out to rebut the vast majority of evidence that indeed humans are causing and continue to cause dramatic and (probably) catastrophic climate change, is seen not only as the misinformation that it is, but more importantly an orchestrated effort to cloud the issue, most often for financial gain. For example, the "Clean Coal Institute" is in every sense an oxymoron. It's exists solely for the purpose of continuing to allow the burning of coal, rather than for dissemination of scientific information.

Global warming deniers like to point out that global warming believers are in it so that some "government" can tax and control the rest of us. If you look carefully at who stands to benefit from any real attempt reduce CO2, there is little benefit to be had by individuals. On the other hand, if you look at who tends to fund the "anti" campaign the huge vast majority of it comes from entities that benefit from NOT solving the problem. Big oil, big coal, big utilities, big chemical an big agri stand to have the very nature of their business change at great cost, so while it is self serving and in my mind criminally wrong, their opposition is understandable. What causes the rest of us so much angst is that others have bought the misinformation and to some great extent carry the water of the deniers.

My bottom line is, the vast majority of peer reviewed evidence is that man caused global warming IS happening. The argument in the scientific community is over how much and how fast. The deniers take these studies that can and do have conflicting details, but agree in general and use it to say, "See, the scientific community doesn't even believe this!" The reality is that while the cost of doing something is indeed great, the cost of doing nothing is far greater. The tragedy of this reality however is that it won't be us (those on the back nine so to speak) who pays the price, but it will be our children and grandchildren. This is why folks can sound nasty!

The "Clean Coal" institute shows pictures of sunny skys, flowing wheat and kids flying kites. To me that is nasty!

Icarus

[jayman]

Originally Posted by hobbit

I haven't seen too much more poison ivy in my backyard, but that
might have something to do with the notable uptick in RoundUp
concentration.

I'm also a big fan of glyphosate and diquat

[Shawn Clark]

Originally Posted by Felt

One of the truths evident with the "sky is falling" crowd ... is the absolute, insulting tone towards anyone that disagrees.

I wasn't being insulting. If I had been, you would have no doubt. I gave you the benefit of a doubt the first time, but your response suggests I need not have bothered.

Life is too short to waste it on willfully ignorant and disingenuous people. There, now you can feel insulted!

[drees]

Originally Posted by Felt

With a few exceptions, I do not believe that man has any ability to alter global environmental events. Man may be able to modify specific areas, for example during WWII, I have read that rain often followed intense bombardments; and the climate certainly was modified briefly in Japan following the A-bomb. But man cannot stop, or change even the path of a hurricane; deminish a severe rain storm; or reduce the frequency of lightning.

Hate to tell you, but you just contradicted yourself, there.

And yes, there has been efforts to make changes to storms with mixed results. I'm certain that with a decent amount of R&D even large hurricanes could be substantially altered (previous attempts have had only a minimal effect on them at most due to their experimental nature).

[burritos]

But does that mean the CO2 is being sequestered by the ivy?