I taped the OU programmes from last night; running back quickly through
them just now, I came across this little gem:

There is apparently, a planet wide lack of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere according to one ecologist on the last programme "The Big
Picture".

Talking about satellite analysis: different spectra of different
seasons, overlain, show that plant growth seems to be inhibited by the
lack of CO2 in their growing seasons. This is especially marked in the
tropics.

However the tropical models are already at a maximum due to all the
available sunlight being used. The most substantial increase in growth
appears to be along the forested regions of the northern hemisphere.

More northerly climes are inhibited by the cold.

In the Sahel, where a higher concentration of carbon dioxide would help
faster growth -and the accompanying better water retention/recycling;
there is a striking benefit in greater concentrations of CO2 in the
models shown.

Normalised Difference Vegetation Index -but you might get more hits with
: Normalized Difference Vegetation Index e.g.:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib...ingVegetation/


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

There is a growing strand of opinion (excuse the pun) that suggest that
there are some considerable benefits to be seen from more CO2 in the
atmosphere and this article adds to this.
Good point and well done.

Gavin.


"Michael Mcneil" wrote in message
news:5e4a205632396ea6adfe0be599b6c4b2.45219@mygate .mailgate.org...

I taped the OU programmes from last night; running back quickly through
them just now, I came across this little gem:

There is apparently, a planet wide lack of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere according to one ecologist on the last programme "The Big
Picture".

Talking about satellite analysis: different spectra of different
seasons, overlain, show that plant growth seems to be inhibited by the
lack of CO2 in their growing seasons. This is especially marked in the
tropics.

However the tropical models are already at a maximum due to all the
available sunlight being used. The most substantial increase in growth
appears to be along the forested regions of the northern hemisphere.

More northerly climes are inhibited by the cold.

In the Sahel, where a higher concentration of carbon dioxide would help
faster growth -and the accompanying better water retention/recycling;
there is a striking benefit in greater concentrations of CO2 in the
models shown.

Normalised Difference Vegetation Index -but you might get more hits with
: Normalized Difference Vegetation Index e.g.:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib...ingVegetation/


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Gavin Staples" wrote in message
...
There is a growing strand of opinion (excuse the pun) that suggest that
there are some considerable benefits to be seen from more CO2 in the
atmosphere and this article adds to this.
Good point and well done.

It's been known for years that plant growth is encouraged by higher
levels of CO2. This, and the warmer conditions that additional CO2
produces may well ensure crop yields are higher.

However the downside of all this is that the climatic bands will all
shift northwards, leading to enormous disruption to farming, not to
mention the stress on the ecosystem.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co....rPictures.html

"Col" wrote in message


However the downside of all this is that the climatic bands will all
shift northwards, leading to enormous disruption to farming, not to
mention the stress on the ecosystem.


How so?




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Michael Mcneil" wrote in message
news:5e4a205632396ea6adfe0be599b6c4b2.45219@mygate .mailgate.org...

I taped the OU programmes from last night; running back quickly through
them just now, I came across this little gem:

There is apparently, a planet wide lack of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere according to one ecologist on the last programme "The Big
Picture".

Talking about satellite analysis: different spectra of different
seasons, overlain, show that plant growth seems to be inhibited by the
lack of CO2 in their growing seasons. This is especially marked in the
tropics.

However the tropical models are already at a maximum due to all the
available sunlight being used. The most substantial increase in growth
appears to be along the forested regions of the northern hemisphere.

More northerly climes are inhibited by the cold.

In the Sahel, where a higher concentration of carbon dioxide would help
faster growth -and the accompanying better water retention/recycling;
there is a striking benefit in greater concentrations of CO2 in the
models shown.

Maunaloa CO2 data..

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2

Shows an increse of the annual variability, a fall during the N hemisphere
summer, along with the general rise in conc.
Works out at 0.014 ppm per year, doesn't sound much, but if it's due to
increase in plant biomass, then its an awful lot of extra plants each year.
Hello Carboniferous.

Michael Mcneil wrote:
"Col" wrote in message



However the downside of all this is that the climatic bands will all
shift northwards, leading to enormous disruption to farming, not to
mention the stress on the ecosystem.



How so?

If the planet as a whole gets warmer, one would generally expect
temepratures to rise everywhere. So the crops which grow best now in
the middle west would need to be moved further northward for the same
temperature conditions. But climate change may also affect rainfall, so
areas with adequate precipitation might become arid.

It should also be noted that not all crops do better with increased CO_2
concentration. This situation is really quite complicated. It is an
oversimplification to suggest that in a warmer world that crops will be
easier to grow. Indeed, it might even make matters worse.

Also, one wonders about the motives of those who on the one hand
question predictions of global climate change from increased greenhouse
gas concentrations and then go ahead and predict that if it does happen,
we have have a boon in agriculture. That prediction is even less
certain that the predictions of global warming.

In article lgate.org, says...


I taped the OU programmes from last night; running back quickly through
them just now, I came across this little gem:

There is apparently, a planet wide lack of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere according to one ecologist on the last programme "The Big
Picture".

Talking about satellite analysis: different spectra of different
seasons, overlain, show that plant growth seems to be inhibited by the
lack of CO2 in their growing seasons. This is especially marked in the
tropics.

Not likely. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rather well mixed around
the globe, except in areas downwind of major sources, such as cities.

However the tropical models are already at a maximum due to all the
available sunlight being used. The most substantial increase in growth
appears to be along the forested regions of the northern hemisphere.

More northerly climes are inhibited by the cold.

In the Sahel, where a higher concentration of carbon dioxide would help
faster growth -and the accompanying better water retention/recycling;
there is a striking benefit in greater concentrations of CO2 in the
models shown.

Normalised Difference Vegetation Index -but you might get more hits with
: Normalized Difference Vegetation Index e.g.:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib...ingVegetation/

The idea that increasing CO2 will benefit plants has been around for a while.
The expectation was that increasing CO2 will lead to increased plant growth.
In most cases, plant growth is limited by the lack of some nutrient other
than CO2. In the case of a greenhouse or similar open air experiments,
increasing CO2 can promote plant biomass, however, that's under ideal
conditions in which extra water and fertilizer is provided to the plants.
Longer term experiments in open environments indicate that increasing CO2
alone will briefly cause an increase in plant growth, after which the soil
becomes depleted in other nutrients and the growth rates decline, AIUI.
In other words, natural ecosystems might not fair well, while agriculture
might be able to benefit thru the use of fertilizers and irrigation, (both
of which now depend on massive use of fossil fuels, BTW).

The drought prone/desert areas of the world occur in areas where the
atmospheric circulation produces subsiding air, which tends to be dry,
thus little rain falls. Increasing CO2 may change the location of these
dry belts, but they are likely to continue to exist. Some models have
pointed to an increased incidence of drought in the Great Plains of the
U.S. as a result of Global Warming resulting from increased CO2.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

"Col" wrote in message
...

"Gavin Staples" wrote in message
...
There is a growing strand of opinion (excuse the pun) that suggest that
there are some considerable benefits to be seen from more CO2 in the
atmosphere and this article adds to this.
Good point and well done.

It's been known for years that plant growth is encouraged by higher
levels of CO2. This, and the warmer conditions that additional CO2
produces may well ensure crop yields are higher.

However the downside of all this is that the climatic bands will all
shift northwards, leading to enormous disruption to farming, not to
mention the stress on the ecosystem.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co....rPictures.html



All that luverly rich tundra

lawrence Jenkins wrote:
"Col" wrote in message
...

"Gavin Staples" wrote in message
...
There is a growing strand of opinion (excuse the pun) that suggest
that there are some considerable benefits to be seen from more CO2
in the atmosphere and this article adds to this.
Good point and well done.

It's been known for years that plant growth is encouraged by higher
levels of CO2. This, and the warmer conditions that additional CO2
produces may well ensure crop yields are higher.

However the downside of all this is that the climatic bands will all
shift northwards, leading to enormous disruption to farming, not to
mention the stress on the ecosystem.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co....rPictures.html



All that luverly rich tundra

Tundra is froxen swamp, underlain by ice that built up over the millenia,
and covered by a think layer of moss and lichen. Nothing worth farming even
if the melting doesn't put it under water.

Leonard Evens wrote:
Michael Mcneil wrote:
"Col" wrote in message



However the downside of all this is that the climatic bands will all
shift northwards, leading to enormous disruption to farming, not to
mention the stress on the ecosystem.



How so?

If the planet as a whole gets warmer, one would generally expect
temepratures to rise everywhere.

Try comparing the temperatures of England with another city in North America
*at the same lattitude*. The earth is a heat engine with massive
inequealities in temperature driven by and driving the climate.

What a limited intellect you are. The idea that the rise in temperatures
would be evenly distributed is beyond stupid.