It's all fun and games until the food chain dies off from ocean acidification

>>41535
Nature doesn't have to "admit" anything. There was no hard evidence before. Now, there is. There's never been some conspiracy hiding this phenomenon either. It's an idea taught in most environmental engineering classes and has been suspected (not quite proven) for decades.

However, the environmental and therefore economic and social impacts of rising CO2 levels can't be ignored, just because it makes plants grow better.

same story as presented by BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346
>The sensors show significant greening of something between 25% and 50% of the Earth's vegetated land, which in turn is slowing the pace of climate change as the plants are drawing CO2 from the atmosphere.

>>41553
>There was no hard evidence before.

So all the farmers owning a greenhouse and adding CO2 to have better yields were fools?
Also, this:

http://www.co2science.org/

>>41555
Anecdotal evidence =! Hard evidence

>>41535

The plants are not increasing their uptake fast enough to offset the increases in the atmosphere. This will however spawn into a new stream of arguments for the skeptics to froth at the gash over.

>>41553
Top 3 causes of co2 in the world cause 97% of all co2 being released.

#1 volcanoes
#2 forest fires
# decaying plant matter.

Go preach that global warming bullshit somewhere else.

>>41568

>#1 volcanoes

This is false anon. Google it. Human activity dwarfs volcanic activity when it comes to co2. Human activity is still not the leading emitter of co2 but that's another matter. It is human activity that is leading to the accumulation in the atmosphere of co2.

>>41569
Like you breathing from your mouth?

>>41581

It's surprisingly hard to find stats on this. I suspect it's cause there is no way to stop people from breathing and suggesting there are too many people is not very PC. There totally is too many people though.

Anyhoo the majority of human co2 comes from power generation. Farming and transport are other big contributors.

>>41583
Don't be civil. Your ruining my troll. Well played friend.

>>41555
>slowing the pace

As in not stopping or reversing. So it'll take slightly longer for all the negative effects of climate change to happen. It'll still happen, enabled by the lying plutocrats pointing to this study and claiming increased plant growth will offset all our carbon emissions.

>>41568
># decaying plant matter.

You dense motherfucker.

You think that because it's 'natural' means it's not a problem? Do you want to know what most of this CO2 producing plant matter is? In the taigas and northern landscapes. You want to know why this plant matter is decaying now? Because the northern hemisphere is warming just enough to bring those plants out of permafrost and other such natural events that kept them from decaying in the first place.

The funny thing about letting plants rot that have never rotted for millenniums is the fact that it creates a pretty fucking huge cycle of CO2 output.

Just because plants take in CO2 doesn't mean it's leaving the system (atmosphere). Yeah they produce oxygen, but that carbon gets incorporated into plant tissues, which eventually decompose when the plant dies.
Fungi and microorganisms responsible for decomposition produce more CO2 when they consume that same dead material, which just re-releases it back into the atmosphere. It does not leave the system.

The only way I know of where CO2 actually gets stored permanently (it never really leaves but can be locked up) is due to certain ecological mechanisms that are very complicated to explain but basically have to occur at the bottom of large bodies of water such as oceans. Though the changes in the global biosphere are threatening those systems' ability to sequester CO2 as efficiently as they could.

Some fear this will create a snowball effect that will result in catastrophic changes to our way of life, some think the environment will adapt to the change. It definitely will adapt and survive, whether or not humans will withstand that change remains to be seen.

>>41556
lel plants needing CO2 is anecdotal

>>41597
To summarize that process:
Phytoplankton absorb CO2, as plants do, into their tissues. CO2 becomes various types of long chain carbon molecules. That carbon gets consumed by microscopic crustaceans also present in the ocean environment, which continue to be consumed all the way up the food chain.
The vast majority of these small crustaceans don't get consumed or only get consumed by slightly larger carbon-rich shelled organisms that end up sinking to the ocean floor where they become the ocean sediment. Over millions of years this builds up and is compacted to form rock with high carbon content.

Atmospheric CO2 becomes rock in oceans. This is the main permanent method for how much of atmospheric CO2 is absorbed and leaves the system. What occurs on land with plants may temporarily be stored as carbon in soil, but is often re-released during decomposition, or through other human activity such as farming.

>>41593
You've already drank the koolaid friend.

>>41568
Aaaaw cute.
Some doesn't understand basic carbon isotopes and their breakdown series.

Read a fucking book.

>>41662
And you've already gone full retard.

>>41556
> =!
but

>>41535
I'm curious if this has had an observable effect on the earth's albedo.

>>41714

not much
trees help in cloud formation, which increase albedo; but they reduce albedo in snow covered regions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo#Trees
>new forests in tropical and midlatitude areas tended to cool; new forests in high latitudes (e.g. Siberia) were neutral or perhaps warming

>>41535
The article says wheat, soy, and rice growth will increase. That's not a good thing and that doesn't mean it'll happen for plants we actually need(like kale)

>>42089

there are studies on many plants
for example:

http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/photo/photo_subject_c.php

Cantaloupe [Cucumis melo] photosynthesis responses increase 97.3% at 600ppm CO2 and 134% at 900ppm; while its dry weight (biomass) increases 13.7% and 34.3%:

http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_c.php

>>42092
>600ppm

sorry, I wrote it badly: it's a 600ppm increase above ambient conditions

>>42092

so, there are very few plants that don't like CO2 increases

for example Nutsedge, Yellow [Cyperus esculentus] decrease photosynthesis by 26% if you add 300ppm of CO2: if ambient is 400ppm you'll have a 700ppm total; which means, basically, that if at the end of this century ambient CO2 rises to 430ppm there isn't much to worry about those few plants.

>>41535
I always wondered about this.
We breathe in oxygen and exhale CO2. Then plants take in that CO2 and in turn pump out more oxygen. So wouldn't the solution to global warming just be to plant more large trees or even that the trees will eventually grow larger as a result of more CO2 in the air thus solving the problem?

Meanwhile, acidification of ocean is just fine.

Meanwhile, ice caps melting is just fine.

Meanwhile, rising smog levels is just fine.

>>42116
Acidification is only bad for corals right?
It isn't bad for algae?

Even then corals existed when CO2 was much much higher.

>>42117
If ice caps melt and release water then perhaps the pH levels will not increase?

>>42118
Smog has very little to do with CO2 and a lot to do with NOx.

>>42119
It's good for algae(due to higher levels of CO2 available), bad for pretty much everything else.

>>42119
It's horrible for anything that lives in the ocean and forms a shell
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

>>42123
Don't we find fossils of shelled species when CO2 was greater than 1%?

What I mean is that, I think that there are pathways for life to adapt to higher CO2.

>>42124
Life can adapt to just about any conditions where liquid water and sufficient nutrients and energy exist. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be enormously destructive to the current ecosystem.

>>42125
>Doesn't mean it wouldn't be enormously destructive to the current ecosystem.

It doesn't matter as long as it doesn't impact our food chain. This is what has been happening for centuries.

Ecological diversity is not important to us (speaking in averages).

>>42089
>wheat, soy, and rice growth will increase. That's not a good thing

Do you want half the world to starve and die?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement

>>42126
>It doesn't matter as long as it doesn't impact our food chain.
It will, dummy.

>has been happening for centuries
Doesn't mean it's not harmful. The industrial revolution caused acid rain, destruction of water bodies, erosion of land, smog etc, effects that we can still observe today.

Precisely because it's occurring for centuries that we can feel the effects today and that the damage piles up.

How is this /news/? How stupid is everyone that they don't realize plants Use CO2 to make energy? Has no one heard of photosynthesis?
More CO2 more Plant growth.

That doesn't mean that we should put more CO2 into the atmosphere. We humans also live on this planet and severe weather storms such as Hurricanes and tornadoes suck ass! Who wants more of those that are worse? Don't even mention the other cons.

>>42104
But if we have more trees where will we put our coal mines and luxury resorts, smart guy?

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=826

During their lifetimes, plants generally give off about half of the carbon dioxide (CO2), that they absorb, although this varies a great deal between different kinds of plants. Once they die, almost all of the carbon that they stored up in their bodies is released again into the atmosphere.

As you may know, plants use the energy in sunlight to convert CO2 (from the air) and water (from the soil) into sugars. This is called photosynthesis.Plants use some of these sugars as food to stay alive, and some of them to build new stems and leaves so they can grow. When plants burn their sugars for food, CO2 is produced as a waste product, just like the CO2 that we exhale is a waste product from the food we burn for energy. This happens day and night, but since photosynthesis is powered by sunlight, plants absorb much more CO2 than they give off during the daytime. At night, when photosynthesis is not happening, they give off much more CO2 than they absorb. While they're alive, overall, about half of the CO2 that plants absorb is given off as waste.

When you look at a tree, almost all of the body of the tree is made of sugars, which are made from carbon (from CO2) and hydrogen and oxygen (from water). When the tree dies, it rots as decomposers, like bacteria, fungi,and insects eat away at it. Those decomposers gradually release almost all of the tree's stored carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2. Only a very small portion of the carbon in the tree ends up staying in the soil or washing out to sea without changing back into CO2.

>>42119
>>42122
I suggest you read this, it's a very nice summary.
http://www.gdrc.org/oceans/fsheet-02.html

Once you're done, read this study. I'll post some excerpts from the results:
>6. Outlook
The importance of a fundamental understanding of marine ecosystem regulation becomes even more pressing in view of recent considerations to manage or manipulate oceanic CO2 sequestration. While the ocean’s capacity to store anthropogenic CO2 is immense, its sensitivity to related changes in environmental conditions is likely to be high. In contrast to the terrestrial biosphere, marine ecosystems have evolved in a comparatively homogenous environment under conditions of relative stability over evolutionary timescales. Even subtle changes in the environmental conditions may therefore have strong effects on ecosystem functioning, with yet unforeseeable consequences for elemental cycling.

>>41535
> finally admits

HURR

>>42434
lot of maybes in there, I'd want some confirmations first.

Like the behaviour of algae in warmer higher CO2 environments.

But then the algae blooms grow even larger and suck too much oxygen out of the water in shallow areas, displacing aquatic lifeforms.

>>42104
Technically, yeah.... Sure.
But our output far weighs they're conversation rate.
From the rise of the plants it took just over 100my (give or take) to go from 2000ppm to ~600ppm.

That's without "unnatural" output of Carbon..... Basically we're just too fast.

If you're really interested: https://scholarsandrogues.com/2012/03/06/csfe-co2-from-burning-fossil-fuels/ is a fantastic summary that is both easy to read and provides avenues for further technical understanding if in doubt.

I do recommend at least a quick read.

>>42501
It's not just "fast vs slow", it's a question of sources and sinks. Trees absorb lots of CO2, but the give it all back when they die. Animals emit lots of CO2, but it's all sourced from plants or other animals. Most of the carbon moving though the atmosphere is doing so in a closed cycle. So the actual rate of carbon flow simply doesn't matter - it's all going to end up back in the air anyway.

The "unnatural output of carbon" is fundamentally different. We aren't sourcing our carbon from the air or from living things, we're taking it from geological deposits that haven't changed in millions of years. Those deposits are outside the normal carbon cycle, so by burning them we're actually increasing the amount of carbon in circulation.

It's the total increase in carbon that's fucking shit up.

>>42508
Oh believe me, I'm well aware. I'm currently doing isotope dating on C13/C12 in the Simpson dessert.

Plants are how the initial carbon was deposited as sedimentary slabs of "carbon batteries" (coal for everyone else) so I'm well aware that that process eliminated the C-isotopes (primarily C12) from the carbon cycle.......
With that said, if we had enough plants and -stopped- 'releasing' carbon into the atmosphere we'd very okay in the few hundred thousand-million years....... Yeah that's not feasible but that's why I stated "technically"......

Which I'll fully admit is so unfeasible as to absolutely become a null point all-together.
But hey, in a perfect world etc etc.

I'll take the correction as my lack of full explanation, typing on phones suck.

I now return to working on, what a coincidence, coal and gas seam estimation spreadsheets.

>>42512
Well, 10s of millions of years.

Please excuse me retardation.

>>42124
>>42126
https://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news81042.html

The researchers found that there would be “limited scope” for acclimation to warmer waters and acidification. Very few species will escape the negative effects of increasing CO2, with an expected large reduction in species diversity and abundance across the globe. One exception will be microorganisms, which are expected to increase in number and diversity.

From a total food web point of view, primary production from the smallest plankton is expected to increase in the warmer waters but this often doesn’t translate into secondary production (the zooplankton and smaller fish) which shows decreased productivity under ocean acidification.

“With higher metabolic rates in the warmer water, and therefore a greater demand for food, there is a mismatch with less food available for carnivores ─ the bigger fish that fisheries industries are based around,” says Associate Professor Nagelkerken. “There will be a species collapse from the top of the food chain down.”

>>42323
Yes
>>42093
That's not good
Ambient is currently 425ppm however it was 300ppm preindustrialization

1000ppm and humans start getting headaches

5000ppm and blood acidity increases to dangerous levels

By the time we reach 5000 we will have a runaway and the increase in heat will release massive amounts of gas into the atmosphere increasing air pressure significantly (this may actually reduce partial pressure of co2 but at this point it doesn't matter)

>>42537
>1000ppm and humans start getting headaches
>5000ppm and blood acidity increases to dangerous levels
Are you sure you don't mean 10,000 and 50,000 ppm?
There aren't many studies showing impairment below 1%, and I've definitely never heard of 0.5% CO2 described as "dangerous".

>>42537
I'd be curious and concerned if true.
As always: Source? Journal and title will do, I can look up up from there.

>>42543
This. You can easily measure around 5k ppm in a closed room (office) with a bunch of people. They are sleepy and headaches usually happen, but they are nowhere close to death by poisoning. That level is higher than 30k ppm

>>42126
>Ecological diversity is not important to us

ahahaha

>>42543
I am 100% positive about this

I am an electromechanical design engineer in a company that works solely with co2 systems

About 20% of people will notice nausea and headaches at above 1000ppm, this is why bongland puts their level at 1000ppm following some court cases, ever felt "stuffy" in a poorly ventilated room? That is the reaction to being between 1250-1500, those with weaker circulatory systems or kidneys will feel that way at 800 and begin getting headaches at 1100

The drowsiness you feel in a full car with inside (circulated air) is due to the co2 being around 2500ppm

The us has done studies on permanent damage to people at 10,000ppm and determined it is safe for an 8 hour exposure, this was not a study on how individuals felt but instead a study on blood concentration of co2 and physical permanent effects. Again,this is for an 8 hour work day and it assumes you have 16 more hours of time in atmospheric conditions for your kidneys to lower acidity and co2 blood concentrations

Also just so you know 30000 is the 15 minute exposure limit, it will kill you in under an hour and cause permanent damage in under half an hour

50k and you'll be dead in a few minutes (and likely pass out in 2 breaths)

I'm at work on my phone right now but i can provide sources when i get home at the end of the day

>>42560
Btw the lake nyos explosion increased local concentration to between 75,000 to 200,000 ppm which killed thousands in under an hour

>>42560
Thanks for the info Anon, we need more posters like you

>>42565
Np, co2 is my bread and butter

>>42560
Fascinating. If you don't mind, sources would be great. I'll add them to my broad list of "subjects".... I can see these being relevant to myself sometime in the future (I'm the carbon dating guy, who knows where my future will take me).

>>41535
it's been known for sometime that having more CO2 benefits plants but plants benefits arent ours, we're human primate animals not plants.
the fact is CO2 intake by plants WILL NOT in anyway offset the output and WILL increase plant toxicity as the high CO2 availabilty reduces the effort needed for plants to put into energy production and they move their efforts to defensive mechanisms.
if you have any interest in eating plants, this is bad news.

>>42518
Alright complex life in the oceans is finished.

Big deal, if we can't stop overfishing you can't expect to stop climate change. Overfishing is already putting a stop to most complex life in the ocean.

Also this post does not refute the claim made about the shelled life existing when CO2 levels were greater than 1%, which is nowhere near what we find today or can expect with the end of this century.

>>42700
We eat plants that have been domesticated, they do not produce toxins.

>>42795
>do not produce toxins.
Apple seeds contain very small amounts of cyanide.
Nutmeg in large quantities is poisonous.
Beans and legumes contain phytic acid and oxalates.

>>42800
We don't eat apple seeds nor do we eat nutmeg in large quantities. For that matter cinnamon is toxic but we do not die from it.

What you are stating is hardly relevant since plants that produce higher levels of toxins will be weeded out and this process is called artificial selection, which has been in practise for thousands of years leading to domesticated species. Apples for example were never as large or as sweet, and their seeds remained "toxic" since no one ate them in large quantities.

We manufacture genomes these days.

>>42803
You said
>We eat plants that have been domesticated, they do not produce toxins.
And I pointed out that we do eat things which have such compounds present in them.
Which was rather a straightforward example of countering your statement.

Just because we don't die from them (usually) doesn't mean they cannot be harmful. Nut allergies exist and can be fatal but nuts aren't weeded out are they?

Large numbers of mushrooms are poisonous to us but they're still not weeded out.

Just because we don't or can't consume some plants doesn't mean they'll be weeded out.

>>42795
>Big deal, if we can't stop overfishing you can't expect to stop climate change. Overfishing is already putting a stop to most complex life in the ocean.
To suggest that overfishing is harder to stop than climate change is ridiculous. On local and national scales, overfishing can and is managed very well with proper environmental legislation and rules governing access to fish stocks. The Australian system is an example of how it can work properly. The problem is third world (and some first world) countries where fisheries management is not addressed due to various cultural and economic reasons. Implementing sustainable fisheries policies is a hell of a lot easier than reducing ocean temperatures and increasing ocean pH

>Also this post does not refute the claim made about the shelled life existing when CO2 levels were greater than 1%
This comes down to the specific type of marine organism you're referring to and the chemical process by which they form shells. A decrease in pH results in less availability of carbonate ions. The availability of carbonate ions is crucial for marine calcifying organisms to form their skeletons and shells that are made of different crystalline forms of calcium carbonate, such as calcite and aragonite. For these organisms simply chemistry dictates that a drop in pH will result in decreased production of calcite and aragonite shells and skeletons. We have observed this phenomenon in the ocean and in lab conditions. However by contrast lobsters and crabs are able to continue to produce their shells in more acidic waters because they form via different processes.

The paper I linked previously accounted for this and analysed the combined effects of multiple stressors on whole communities, including species interactions. Which I think is more thorough than claiming that: "some species were ok with 1% CO2, therefore it'll be fine"

>>42806
Being this pedantic, what is being stated is that domesticated plants do not produce toxic substances which knock people out.

The example you have used are: apple seeds and nutmeg (in large quantities). Why don't you start with staples like rice and wheat

>>42807
The suggestion is the opposite of what you have written out. If it is nearly impossible to impose strict limits on fishing forget about legislating CO2 controls.

>"some species were ok with 1% CO2, therefore it'll be fine"

This is the argument you are avoiding, the diversity of fish was enormous for a large extent of Earth's history but it currently is not. It does not make me lose sleep.

>>42795
>Also this post does not refute the claim made about the shelled life existing when CO2 levels were greater than 1%,
Just because life existed back then over millions of years ago (or even hundreds of thousands), in high CO2 levels doesn't mean that the life currently present will be just fine as well.

The organisms adopted over time, naturally, to the changing compositions in air and water.

We've seen that our contribution to the CO2 levels is such that we emit at a rate faster than what life forms can adapt to. That's why we get shell creatures loosing their shells due to the acidification of the ocean, algae rise, corals dying etc

>>42811
>Why don't you start with staples
I mentioned beans, legumes and nuts and they're staples worldwide.

>>42814
>naturally
There was nothing natural about asteroids slamming into Earth and causing super winters. Or the rapid decrease of CO2 due to terrestrial vegetation. A very fallacious argument anyhow.

What you must show is that the rate of CO2 rise will leave species such as algae unable to adapt, i.e. present the limits of adaptation. When niches open up rapid adaptation does occur. I more inclined that such predictions are beyond biology at this point.

>>42816
And do you have studies which show the toxicity of these staples with respect to CO2 concentrations? I had to reread you original post and it seems like it was a hypothesis.

>>42811
>The suggestion is the opposite of what you have written out. If it is nearly impossible to impose strict limits on fishing forget about legislating CO2 controls.
It's not 'nearly impossible' it's just politically unpopular in some countries, primarily in some poorer countries who dont have the resources to police it. Managing fish stocks is a basic first step. Reducing our CO2 emissions and consequential ocean acidification and warming should still be the number #1 priority since the effects of these are far more damaging to marine organisms and marine life as whole than overfishing

>This is the argument you are avoiding, the diversity of fish was enormous for a large extent of Earth's history but it currently is not. It does not make me lose sleep.
The diversity of fish IS currently enormous?!? I dont really understand your preoccupation with the diversity of past ocean life. What matters is the ocean life we currently have and their response to ocean acidification and climate change. If science is objectively telling us that marine organisms and the marine food web will collapse unless ocean acidification and ocean warming is slowed, unless you're happy not eating seafood or paying a shitload for it, doesnt that warrant some sort of action to address it??

>>42820
>There was nothing natural about asteroids slamming into Earth and causing super winters. Or the rapid decrease of CO2 due to terrestrial vegetation.
Uh, do you think aliens were throwing those asteroids?

>>42822
The number of different unrelated fish species was much greater in various times of Earth's history than it is today.

The obsession is your's, that one state is preferable to other but you cannot quantify the future state. I am thus rejecting your prediction of my unhappiness to the future state:
>marine organisms and the marine food web will collapse unless ocean acidification and ocean warming is slowed

Also I do not enjoy sea food, so please let the over fishers know about their poor choices in managing a wild resource.

>>42825
Don't you believe that aliens are natural? Should we plan about natural plagues we might encounter when we meet aliens?

>>42827
>Don't you believe that aliens are natural?
That depends on how you define "natural". I'd go with "natural". is contrasted to "done by an intelligence". So aliens might be natural, but the shit they do wouldn't be.

>Should we plan about natural plagues we might encounter when we meet aliens?
No, that would be silly.

>>42826

>I don't care about fish
>fuck the oceans
>it's not going to matter to society if the oceans are barren

lol

>>42811
>domesticated plants do not produce toxic substances which knock people out.

They do indeed, potatoes, tomatoes, cassava, clover....

Legumes and grains also produce less protein at elevated CO2.

>>42826
>The obsession is your's,
You brought it up and continue to bring it up
>That one state is preferable to other
I make no apologies for the fact I place higher importance on current and future states of marine life than I do on the state of marine life from 10000 years ago.

>but you cannot quantify the future state. I am thus rejecting your prediction of my unhappiness to the future state
Ignoring everything Ive said thus far. Good argument m9

>Also I do not enjoy sea food, so please let the over fishers know about their poor choices in managing a wild resource.
Believe me we do. If you'd just led your argument with "I dont really care", we would have established that you dont know or care what you're talking about a lot sooner.

Ocean is the biggest CO2 sink.
Just because plants are growing harder now is irrelevant.

>>42425
Bingo.

>>42553
People never get ecology, not even scientist from other fields. It's the "I told you so, but you never listened" science.

>>42795
>We eat plants that have been domesticated, they do not produce toxins.
see >>42800 for how this statement is wrong
and consider that as plants have to work less and less in energy conversion they will (and are currently in the process of) spending more of their energy on toxic defensive mechanisms.
if you feed a lemon or lime to your dog it will have seizures and likely die. this could be us someday soon.