Increased CO2 has been shown to increase plant growth i.e. larger plants and more of them - so more total pores. Higher temperatures also means more evapotranspiration.

Reply: Very good point Patrick. I will also add that I saw a study in regards to CO2 and tree growth recently, and the increase in Co2 made very little difference in the growth under normal conditions. But, when fertilizers were involved with the CO2 treated trees and non-treated trees, then there was a notable increase in growth of the CO2 trees compared to the non-CO2 trees. Brett.

In other words, the author has focused on only one small aspect of the system and failed to consider the big picture.

The Met has been batting a big 0.000 on their global warming predictions this year. They should give it up and stick to forecasting the UK weather for the next 48 hours.

Here we go again, today's doom and gloom report. From the article: "People may be underestimating flood risks because they do not expect the soil to be as saturated as it might be," Betts said. "We also suggest the conservation of water by plants would partly offset the scarcity during a drought."

First, the soil is going to be saturated more than expected. Then, in the very next sentence, they talk about the scarcity of water during drought. So, according to this article, saturated soils should be expected during droughts? Huh?

Sounds to me like CYA language, aka "weasel" words. These people never cease to amaze me.

Climate change is more than just a change in the meteorological conditions. It is also a change in the whole ecology.

With plants extracting less water from the soil due to increased CO2 levels, surplus water will drain into rivers and increase global flows another 6 percent on top of the 11 percent rise already predicted due to global warming.

We need to study this to get the whole picture because this hasn't been looked at before.

I wonder what levels of CO2 they are working with and if a wide variety of plants were used?

Nevermind, just found another article of the same story http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn12559-leaf-sweat-glands-to-worsen-future-flooding.html , they were working with Models at 560 ppm CO2, other variables not mentioned, no mention of any experiments.

Furthermore, researchers have long known that stomata tend to shrink when CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise. Tend to shrink? Do they take into account that when plants have plenty of CO2, H2O, and Sunlight they grow producing more stomata?

They ATTRIBUTE a 3% increase in river flow during the 20th Century to this stomata phenomenon (how the 3% increase was determined was not presented), while it was just determined that the tropics have increased rainfall of 5% over the last 30 years. Increased river flow couldn't have anything to do with that I suppose.

Last paragraph However, she says she is sceptical of the suggestion that the agency should take the effects of shrinking stomata into consideration when formulating flood policies. Several studies have indicated that the impact of soil moisture and transpiration on overland flow is "negligible", she says.

Anybody else hear "WOLF!" Seems to me that the scientific method is being replaced with Step 1. Conjecture and Step 2. Publication.

Regards,

Steve

Patrick,

What if any predictions has the MET made this year?

Before making accusations you should check the facts or at least present some to support such claims.

Baseless claims look like nothing more than drivel.

Does anyone know where I can find the science that supposedly settled the issue of CO2's role in GW?

Does it exist?

Brett, are you aware of any studies that show a 100 ppm increase in CO2 causes , not the Effects, there is a new publication every 15 minutes on the Effects, but on the Cause. Reply: No, I do not, but that does not mean there is not. I am not a good source for that question. Brett

Actually, Andrew, hundreds of research papers have been written dealing with the effect of increased CO2 on plants. If you would like, I could post the papers for you. Now, much to bt's chagrine, many will not have links, so you may actually have to look at the papers the old-fashioned way.

So there is this scientist who trains a frog to jump on voice command. He cuts off one of the frog's legs and notices the frog can't jump as far. Repeats with the second leg and third, until the frog has no more legs.

Puzzled why the frog no longer jumps, he concludes that the frog has gone deaf.

This is about the level of science which AGW proponents need to attain in order to get their 15 minutes of fame.

I actually read through most of this study. A couple of things I took note of that I believe are missing from the analysis.

The first is that we have heard for a long time that higher levels of CO2 with lead to higher temps. Correct me if I'm wrong but won't higher temps then lead to drier conditions? Won't these drier conditions balance out the increased water-storing capabilities of the plants? I am curious if the scientists took this into consideration.

Second, if the plants lose less water through evapotranspiration, won't that then result in less moisture in the air? Less moisture then would lead to less rain and thus less run-off? Was this included in the model?

Just my thoughts on what seems to be another blame-everything-on-global-warming story.

Patrick,

"Increased CO2 has been shown to increase plant growth i.e. larger plants and more of them - so more total pores. Higher temperatures also means more evapotranspiration."

You are good. So its basically balances itself out to the point where it wont cause anymore flooding. Is that right?

Andrew,

Happy to post them again.

The world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007, the UK's Met Office says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6228765.stm

Sunday April 8, 2007 Britain set to enjoy another sizzling summer after new evidence from the Met Office suggested above average temperatures for the season.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2052500,00.html

Darren,

Thx!

The point I was making is that if the author accepts global warming (which clearly he does) then he also has to accept that higher temperatures will lead to additional evapotranspiration. In addition, many scientists believe that additional CO2 will lead to more rapid plant growth, snd thus more pores transpiring water back to the atmosphere.

So while there may be smaller pore openings restricting evaporation, other related effects of CO2 tend to point to more water moving the soil into the atmosphere.

Generally proponents of AGW have claimed that AGW will lead to more evaporation, so this paper would seem to be at odds with the conventional "wisdom" of the audience the seems to be trying to impress.

Patrick,

Thanks for the info.

Your credibility is enhanced with substance.

It is however too early to make a call on what the average Global temperture is for the year.

Also, I have not seen a number for Britain summer temps. While I suspect that it was not all that hot, it may end up above average even though that is not saying much.

Anybody want to guess where 2007 is going to end up for the year compared to 1880 to current?

Here are some choices.

Bottom Quartile
3rd Quartile
2nd Quartile
Top Quartile
Top Decile
New Record

Andrew

My answer to your guess is:

top decile, in fact, probably top "vingtile" if I can maybe coin a phrase.

However, Ithink you're wasting your time with evidence like that, because many peopel here don't deny thatthe earth has warmed, they just deny thatthe warmign is from anything other than natural causes.

Steve,

Chapter 1 of the IPCC report is an historical overview of the science concerning CO2's role in Global Warming.

It describes the basics and the progress over time in understanding.

Included are references to many peer reviewed science article on the topic.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch01.pdf

Paul,

Hundred of papers are too many for this time constrained guy. However, if you could recommend 1 or 2 in particular, that would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Andrew,

I'm glad you liked the links. I guess the third time is a charm.

Here is another one I'm sure you will love. It shows how the USHCN data set is artificially manipulated upwards to create the impression of warming.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/mean2.5X3.5_pg.gif

Note that currently the final filnet data is about 0.6 degrees above the raw temperature readings. In 1930, there was essentially no difference.

What this means is that before NOAA reports the current temperature averages, they add 0.6 degrees to the data. Which means that the raw temperature data for 1998 is actually 0.6 degrees cooler than 1934.

Given that UHI effects are much worse now than the 1930s, the manipulation is even more blatant. One might think the adder should be going the other direction.

It is these highly questionable manipulations that Steve McIntyre is trying to understand and get access to. It is not surprising that nobody at NOAA, NASA or the Met wants to give him access to the data and methodology. I suspect there will be serious repercussions as he gradually peels the layers off of this opaque methodology.

Some interesting temperature records. Most US states set their all time highest temperatures in the 1930s. None of them have all time highest records set after 1994.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001416.html

This page shows the all time highest temperatures by continent.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html
None of them were set after 1978.

In contrast - as I mentioned on the other thread - Vostok, Antarctica is forecast (-122F) to come within a few degrees of the coldest temperature ever recorded on earth (-128F) this week.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=-78.44999695,106.87000275

Andrew,
It depends on which version of what database you use. Do you use the USHCN ver 1 or ver 2? THe GHCN, or the different flavors of GISS or Hadcru -each having thier own adjustments, surface data, etc... Climate Science is like 31 Flavors -there is something for everyone.

Patrick,

Sorry, but I just do not easily buy into conspiracy theories especially with arctic sea ice reaching new minimums, sea levels continuing to rise and over a hundred scientist signing a report saying that global warming really is happening.

I recall a guy at an airport that tried to convince me that no man had ever set foot on the moon either. Supposedly, NASA was in conclusion with Hollywood in producing the film clip with Neil Armstrong!

Anyhow, I looked at the link, but it is just a graph will different colored markings and means almost nothing to me.

Nevertheless, I agree that NOAA should provide some type of technical description of how they obtain their measurement. Have you reviewed the following documents?

Jones, P. D., M. New, D. E. Parker and S. Martin, submitted: Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years. Rev. Geophys.

New, M. G., M. Hulme and P. D. Jones, in press: Representing 20th century space-time climate variability. I: Development of a 1961-1990 mean monthly terrestrial climatology. J. Climate.

Parker, D. E., M. Jackson and E. B. Horton, 1995: The GISST2.2 sea surface temperature and sea-ice climatology. Climate Research Technical Note, CRTN 63, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Bracknel, UK.

Rigor, I. G., R. L. Colony and S. Martin, submitted: Statistics of surface air temperature observations in the Arctic. J. Climate.

Martin, S. and E.A. Munoz: Properties of the Arctic 2-Meter Air temperature field for 1979 to the present derived from a new gridded data set. J. Climate, 10, 1428-1440.

Also problems with the Historical Climate network cut both way.

For example, near where I live is a station that has been in existence since the Civil War. The all time record high temperature was set in the 1870s. But, that was back when the official thermometer was in the sun on a window ledge of a downtown brick building. Now, the official historical thermometer is in a back yard with lots of shade trees.

JP,

I do not know the databases very well. The NCDC should be fine.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html

Global warming. Global cooling. Man made, or natural earth temperature variances? If you do your research, you will find the earths temperature has been constantly in movement. If you remember backing the mid 70�s, the global cooling scare was the manner in which the left tried to control your individual actions. Since the scare tactics didn�t pan out (sorry lefties), and we stopped cooling off for a period, they had to find some other way to control individual�s actions. I know! Now that we are going into a warming trend, use that as the focus! So, using algores science fiction novel as the bible, we can all join in as a world body and take away rights using this scare tactic. If this warming period is man-made, why has their been several warming and cooling periods in the earths history, before the evil air conditioners, automobiles and factories? Oh, I don�t know�maybe the natural way things occur? I know that is far fetched, but maybe if this isn�t such a catastrophe, the UN would stay as pathetic as they are currently, and by golly how are we going to reduce the United States to a third world level if the Americans still have choices?

Andrew,

I don't buy into conspiracy theories either. Just human nature to bias your belief system towards more money, recognition and avoiding ridicule from your peers. Most people do that. I grew up in a scientific community and became aware at a young age of how grossly political government funded science is. TMI, oil shale, Star Wars, nuclear non-proliferation, terrorism, AIDS - research emphasis turns on a dime with funding.

If you look at the loss of arctic sea ice, it is not symmetrical. It is specifically the areas surrounding Siberia which are losing ice starting in late June through August. (Arctic melt is done for the year and the sea ice extent will start increasing again within the next week or two.) There is almost no loss anywhere else. I find the dirty snow theory extremely appealing because of the massive, filthy oil industry in northern Siberia bordering the Kara, Laptev, East Siberian and Chukchi Seas. Why don't we see ice loss in the Greenland Sea or the Southern hemisphere?

I heard Al gore's testimony to the Senate committee on "manmade" global warming. He said that human activity is responsible for 5% of the sum of greenhouse gases. What is a reasonable reduction of that 5% that will make our planet the utopian paradise of ecological balance flowing with milk and honey? Will my use of toxic curly-Q lightbulbs and driving a hybrid SUV for the rest of my life offset the emmissions of one trip of Al gore's Gulfstream Jet?

I believe we are expected to sacrifice our economy and future progress in pursuit of a doomed endeavor, that will ultimately succeed only in surrendering control of our lives to the power-loving eco-bureaucrats who live in coastal mansions and fly private jets between Hollywood and New York/ DC.

Who thinks the world is supposed to last forever? Maybe it's time for the human race to get in line behing the wooly mamouth.