Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

CO2 pollution threatens koalas, researcher says

ROD MCGUIRK

The Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 10:08 AM EDT 08/05/08

Greenhouse gas may increase level toxicity of toxicity in eucalyptus leaves – the only food they will eat ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Antonio San from Canada writes: CO2 pollution? And now this is the loveable Koala...
  2. Douglas R. Swanson from Canada writes: I think that the researchers missed one critical point. Their data is based on young trees, not really stated in the article, but one assumes seedlings to saplings based on the information that they were grown in a green house. I am not sure what the growth dynamics are of young tree, but I am pretty sure that the young tree is putting as much of its energy in to growing into a mature tree over the shortest period of time, where as a mature tree is really only feeding itself.
    As to the possibility that koalas would feed on a sapling or seedling seems far fetched, as the tree would not support the weight of a feeding koala.
    The other question not determined was whether the saplings or seedlings produced the same level of toxins without the extra input of CO2.
    It could be that the toxin levels in the treess is required to dissuade predators, i.e. koalas, from feeding on a growing tree.
    Overall not a throughly researched project with too many unanswered questions.
    I find its too easy for sceintists to blame Climate Change and not do a proper job of research.
  3. M G from Canada writes: The '2' in CO2 should be subscripted (unlike the way I am able to write it in this comment). You have it superscripted in the headline and in normal font on this page.
  4. Unknown Philosopher from Canada writes: At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, 'The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.'
  5. Silent Majority from Canada writes: 'CO2 pollution'. This is nothing more than continued scare mongering.
  6. Biggest Redneck from Somewhere, United States writes: Further proof that if you want funding for your research it is best to find an AGW link. You not only get the funding but you get published in major newspapers with the appropriate scare mongering headline
  7. bill williams from Canada writes: -

    This is like dealing with children ... you know, one is accused of hitting the other a bunch of times in the car, and you get 'It wasn't me! and anyway, I only hit him once!'

    'There is no global warming ... and anyway it wasn't the global warming that killed the Koala.'

    -
  8. Steve Church from Canada writes: CO2 pollution is exactly what 'it' is - excessive substance concentrations in the wrong places from human activity by-products. Deal with it. The idea that the already-toxined-leaves of current trees are somehow going to chemically thin out as they mature has no support. It's actually the opposite - the toxin-enhanced trees are less likely to be picked. The further notion that koala's avoid young trees isn't realistic (the branches are easier to bend). The article identifies a theme - risks in unknown territory with uncertain outcomes. Add subtle changes in eucalyptus tree chemistry to the list of GHG pollution consequences.
  9. Unknown Philosopher from Canada writes: Natural wetlands produce more greenhouse-gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
  10. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: Ian Hume is not looking past his nose. It isn't CO2 it's loss of habitat everywhere which threatens species. In our consumption and developement, emissions won't matter a bit if we willingly allow forests to disappear and land to be claimed by humans, oh well - I guess rice and wheat are human crops - Eucalyptus isn't popular with humans...
  11. sucks to be you from Canada writes: Another nut finds his way out of the woodwork!
  12. Steve Church from Canada writes: CO2 affects the food supply ... Building an Ark says no, it's loss of habitat ... mmm, food supply is part of the habitat. Unknown Philospher drives by with irrelevant wetland misinformation ... methane not all GHGs ... CO2 is the dominant GHG player by a factor of 3 ... shrinking wetlands aren't driving levels up - human activity pollution is driving levels up, mainly from biomass burning - about twice the wetland release/year. Both posts may help illustrate the koala's problem.
  13. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: Thanks Mr. Church - I appreciate your sincerity, loss of habitat is THE issue for species (including our own Grizzlys, Elk, Carribou, Salmon..) and for those farther reaches of our globe Tigers, Elephants, Rhino's, Koalas etc.etc.etc. so wax on! Humans could care less until the day when someone says 'where did all the animals go? - to the Zoo'
  14. Unknown Philosopher from Canada writes: More than 95% of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit.
  15. Steve Church from Canada writes: Ark - nearly all of the koala decimation was human hunting about a century ago. Millions were killed, primarily for their fur. The remnants seem to have slowly declined from around the 400k mark. Now habitat loss could finish the last 80k off. Hume's research is as much about coffin nails as it is about a special threat.
  16. Unknown Philosopher from Canada writes: 71% of Earth's surface is ocean. As a matter of fact there is a dearth of scientific knowledge when it comes to oceans or Oceanography and this is important because the study of the oceans is intimately linked to understanding global warming and related biosphere concerns. The atmosphere and ocean are linked because of evaporation and precipitation as well as thermal flux (and solar insolation). Wind stress is a major driver of ocean currents while the ocean is a sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    ' Our planet is invested with two great oceans; one visible, the other invisible; one underfoot, the other overhead; one entirely envelopes it, the other covers about two thirds of its surface. '
    — Matthew F. Maury (1855) The Physical Geography of the Seas and Its Meteorology
  17. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: Steve Church from Canada writes: Ark - nearly all of the koala decimation was human hunting about a century ago...

    Thanks, I was unaware of that. Perhaps I should save a few berths on the ARK for these mistreated animals. Unfortunately though the bookings are busy these weeks and months, as Humans seem to care less and less about anyone but themselves...
  18. Antonio San from Canada writes: Bill Williams go to Burma and pump! Steve Church when 61k years ago the concentration of CO2 exceeded 300ppm naturally stop selling the BS this is poison at these concentration: every time you exhale your breath is at 15,000ppm CO2 concentration, have you died yet of kissing your girlfriend?
  19. Steve Church from Canada writes: Antonio San - useless and incorrect information seems par for your posts. Over the last million years CO2 varied between 200 and 300 ppms. The last time the globe was estimated at 3000 ppm by even the most aggressive study was 150 million years ago - Juarassic, Pangea breakup, Allosaurus, Apatasaurus, no flowers, no birds, economic activity = 0. The CO2 exhale is actually 40k-50k ppm and a gigantic 'so what?'.
  20. Steve Church from Canada writes: Unknown Philosopher - water/clouds is 30%-70% of the GHG effect. It's dominant with weather, but way down the scale on climate. For climate-GHG, CO2 is the main perp in the lower atmosphere and O3 is main perp in the upper atmosphere. Hth. Not sure what or why you're x-ref'ing the oceans to an article on eucalyptus trees, but doing a google on ocean acidification might help with your research. If you're looking to sort out the issues out, this site was worth the read:- http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
  21. Dickie Whithers from Cold Water, Canada writes:

    I'm doing my part. I only hit the remote start on my SUV as I walk out the front door (not when I sit down to have my coffee). No more warm vehicle in the winter, no more nice cool vehicle in the summer.

    I am going green if I freeze or sweat. Its time to do something people

    .
  22. martha stewart from Canada writes: Junk science.
  23. martha stewart from Canada writes: What this article did not mention:

    From:www.parkweb.vic.gov.au

    Koala Management and Fertility Control

    'What is the nature of the problem at sites over-browsed by koalas?

    Manna gum woodlands in a number of parks are under serious pressure from Koala over-browsing... high levels of defoliation have led to the death of some manna gums and there is a high risk that total defoliation of the koalas food trees will occur. This will lead to the slow, mass starvation of the koala population as has happened previously at numerous sites including French Island, Stony Point, Snake Island and most recently, Framlingham State Forest.

    Why do we need to do anything?

    Prior to European settlement, koala populations may have been kept in check through indigenous hunting practices and forest fire. The absence of these processes allows the koala population to expand very quickly. The continual over-browsing of koala food trees will result in their defoliation and death.'



  24. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: One of the worst aspects of Global Warming and GHG emissions is that it appears to specifically target only cute animals.

    It seems that cockroaches, creepy spiders, worms and Liberals will remain untouched. And we need the first three.
  25. Antonio San from Canada writes: CO2 concentration in atmosphere is not 3000ppm now and won't be for quite a while. read my post instead of fear mongering!
    Climate doesn't change because of CO2 concentrations: only Gore zealots belive this oversimplified fallacy!
  26. M.O SAB from Toronto, Canada writes: Hey Antonio...... Gore zealots??? try useful idiots.
  27. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: See Oh 'Squared' is not pollution.

    It is fertilizer.

    ..//
  28. Steve Church from Canada writes: Ant:- Retraction on the 300, but it makes your statement even more absurd - 61k years ago was ice-age onset and 250ppm. The current level is 385ppm and rising at about 2ppm per year - why would want to take reassurance from levels 100 years ago? The 385ppm is the highest in at least 600k years. Stop with the shallow 'fear mongering' deflections, and deal with the pollution. Climate and GHG concentrations are related . Your attempt at denial-by-sezso, and cranking out the usual grade-school nya-nya's, doesn't make it true. It only illustrates your blog-bound information and your inability to contribute to the topic of CO2's bad effect on these trees.
  29. Steve Church from Canada writes: Bib:- What, no graph? CO2 is not a fertilizer. Try to buy some (hint: try a pet store - for your aquarium). Find references to commercial crops being sprayed, washed, irrigated, or whatever, with CO2 - nothing. Read the article again about the effect CO2 has on the eucalyptus trees - increasing the toxics in the leaves but nothing about faster/better growth. Google FACE experiments and read about the reduced expectations of trees/plants being a long-term sink for CO2 pollution. A 40% rise in CO2 has not produced any long-term effects on growth-rates.
  30. martha stewart from Canada writes: Back to koalas the species supposedly threatened.

    Steve Church - The problem with your historic analysis is that you assume that the large numbers killed for fur was their 'natural' population level. It wasn't (see 9:27). It was a result of an early koala population explosion caused by the removal of aboriginal hunting and fire.

    Now the critical problem is that, with protection, there are too many for the remaining habitat (recall that with aboriginal fire regimes there was always limited habitat). But as the information from that national park site explains, many are in parks. Much else is protected. Your vision of inevitable decline due to habitat loss is bogus and alarmist - unless the koalas are not managed.

    So, if it was true that koalaswill have a harder time digesting future leaves, that would be a good thing. It would lower their reproductive rate and their numbers 'naturally.' They would be less likely to eat themselves into oblivion. Less need to shoot them.
  31. David Simon from Canada writes: Has anybody checked Qantas? Apparently koalas hate Qantas (or used to)
  32. Mark H from Indy, United States writes: What's this CO squared stuff? If you can make a superscript in a headline, you'd think you could make a subscript and have it be, you know, CORRECT.

    Beyond that, CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a necessary gas for life on earth as we know it. Lower it at your own risk, whatever the stupid reason you think up.
  33. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: OAK RIDGE, Tenn., Feb. 16, 2004 -- Trees absorb more carbon dioxide when the amount in the atmosphere is higher...

    For the last six years, Norby and colleagues at ORNL have examined the responses to elevated carbon dioxide levels in a stand of sweetgum trees a few miles from ORNL. The experiment consisted of pumping tons of carbon dioxide into the plots, raising the concentration of carbon dioxide in the tree stand from the ambient level of about 370 parts per million to 550 ppm, and studying the effects.

    ...

    In every year since the FACE project began, net primary productivity, which is the total amount of carbon dioxide fixed into organic matter such as leaves, stems and roots, has been higher in plots given extra carbon dioxide. The average increase has been 24 percent, and there is no indication that the increase will not continue. But, Norby notes, while his colleagues have observed a sustained increase in leaf photosynthesis, the response to carbon dioxide fertilization would not be apparent if only above-ground growth were measured. Wood production increased significantly during only the first year of treatment.

    While Norby and colleagues have learned a great deal about above-ground allocation of carbon dioxide, in recent years they have focused their efforts on impacts on fine roots and soil sequestration of carbon dioxide. Fine root production has increased substantially in response to elevated carbon dioxide.
  34. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: See oh squared is good for the environment. It is fertilizer.

    http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA334.html

    The more CO2 the more plants grow.. the more food that can be produce per square foot.

    The twisted greens would rather starve people, exemplified by their run to make biofuel out of corn.

    Now they want to take beneficial CO2 out of the air ad prevent bountiful crop growth.....

    Enviroreligion.... doesn't, didn't... won't make sense.....//
  35. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: ..//

    Facts that don't agree with your religion are necon. I understand the reasoning. If Galileo told you the the earth revolved around the sun you call him a neocon.

    Facts must be very painful for your religious mind. Tell you what.. if you can fathom it, put a plant in a CO2 free chamber, and put a plant in a CO2 filled chamber.

    Let them have water and sun.... see what happens.

    Did that suggestion hurt your little religion.

    Go pray to your enviro-god and ask it for guidance....

    and starve the 3rd world by making biofuel from corn.. nice god ya got there.
  36. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: ..//

    CO2 is ferilizer for plants.

    They can't live without it.

    We will die if the greens take away the CO2.

    idiots......
  37. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: What about little lambs?

    Are they at least safe?

    Oh, and baby kittens. Has anyone given a thought to them?

    You know what just occurred to me? I'll bet panda bears are especially vulnerable. This just gets worser and worser...
  38. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: ..//

    The suicidal greens want to remove life giving CO2 from the atmosphere.

    This will kill plant growth and reduce oxygen production and food growth.

    This is criminal activity based on a fraudulent religion. Proponents of CO2 reduction should be jailed.

    ..//
  39. PANIC! At The Ice Floe from Ottawa, Canada writes: r b from Calgary, Canada writes: What about little lambs?

    Are they at least safe?

    Oh, and baby kittens. Has anyone given a thought to them?

    You know what just occurred to me? I'll bet panda bears are especially vulnerable. This just gets worser and worser...

    Don't forget babies...Oh ya...I forgot that eco-nazis hate babies too. Never mind. Let's keep it to cute fuzzy animals.
  40. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: We know that the eco nazis enviro priests don't care about poor brown people.

    They want to suck all the CO2 out of the air and convert food into oil.

    There are people starving because of this religion.

    ..//
  41. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: We know that the eco nazis enviro priests don't care about poor brown people.

    They want to suck all the CO2 out of the air and convert food into oil.

    There are people starving because of this religion.

    ..//
  42. BaB OmimO from Canada writes: CO2 is fertilizer for plants.

    They can't live without it.

    We will die if the greens take away the CO2.
  43. Prairie Boy from Canada writes: 'May' as in might. as in possible, any chance of probable? No?
  44. Steve Church from Canada writes: Bib - Endless reposting adds neither accuracy nor validity to your claims. Learn the difference between food and fertilizer. Sort out the difference between natural CO2 levels and CO2 pollution. Maybe then you'll start to sort it all out. Get passed your hyperbole about a CO2-free atmosphere. The rest of the shrill doesn't belong in a public forum.
  45. BaB OmimO from Canada writes: natural CO2 levels and CO2 pollution?

    CO2 is CO2...

    I doubt you've convinced anyone of anything. You are a religious zealot.

    The earth is round. There is no Santa Claus.

    CO2 is essential fertilizer for life.

    ..//
  46. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Unknown Philosopher writes: 'Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit.'

    Well, it would be minus 280F at night and plus 260F in the day - like the Moon - if there were no greenhouse effect.

    Of course, the greenhouse effect can result in an isothermal planet too - same temperature night and day, pole or equator - like on Venus.

    However, the 6 billion people on the planet today need the climate to either stay the way it is, or if it changes, then to change very, very, very slowly.
  47. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    BiB AmomA writes: 'Facts must be very painful for your religious mind. Tell you what.. if you can fathom it, put a plant in a CO2 free chamber, and put a plant in a CO2 filled chamber.'

    Great experiment! Try it on yourself, and report back to us!

    (hint: be sure to put yourself in the 'CO2 free chamber' first)
  48. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Prairie Boy writes: 'May as in might. As in possible, any chance of probable? No?'

    So if a doctor tells you 'eating that berry may kill you' you'd eat a bowl full I suppose.
  49. Steve Church from Canada writes: Bib: It would be a smart thing to back off on the personal slanders. Baseline CO2 levels of 385 isn't the natural level of CO2 - it's a 40% unnatural pollution boost. Your last comment indicates you still get food and fertilizer confused. The stuff in the middle is nonsense. CO2 levels are 40% higher, and the result on the eucalyptus tree is toxic leaves, not a 40% higher growth rate. Post a link showing the global bio-bloom from the GHG increase. If you can't, stop pretending it's the silver lining in the problem.
  50. BaB OmimO from Canada writes: Great experiment! Try it on yourself, and report back to us!

    (hint: be sure to put yourself in the 'CO2 free chamber' first)

    ..

    ..smile...
  51. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    Steve Church - Nice post.

    And BTW, Bib, daily exposure to CO2 levels of 800ppm and above (just twice where we are right now) is considered unsafe.

    So, I guess we're halfway to the point where the entire atmosphere of the planet will be considered 'unsafe' for humans.
  52. BaB OmimO from Canada writes: CO2 is fertilizer..

    If you think my comments don't matter than ignore me.

    ..//

    CO2 is essential to support the creation of all organic life. Higher concentrations of CO2 promote higher growth rates and bumper crop production.

    Starving the world of CO2 is rational only to religious monolithic adherents to insane eco-terrorism.

    Biofuels starve the poor.
    CO2 reduction starve plants, thereby starving the poor.

    Eco nazis on think of themselves in their euro elitist enviro churches.

    CO2 is FERTILIZER.

    ..//
  53. BaB OmimO from Canada writes: ..// so we're all gonna die from CO2?

    Yes....the voice of eco reason. keep posting.... you only help me in doing so.

    I copy these outlandish assertions for my students' benefit.

    You guys are poster children for the indoctrinated.

    ..//
  54. martha stewart from Canada writes: Steve Church - Waiting for your comments on your misleading analysis of koala population history and prospects.

    Bottom line, CO2 is not their biggest problem to put it mildly. And that is what this alarmist junk science article is supposedly about.
  55. RD Lone from Vancouver, Canada writes: But but.. think about the bunnies! CO2 will make little plants grow faster. More bunnies or more koalas.. oh the hard decisions we need to make.
  56. Steve Church from Canada writes: Bib - Higher concentrations of CO2 had had no such harvest effect. No bumper crop has ever been reported. No CO2 fertilization has ever produced it. The ridiculous claim about starving the world of CO2, and its consequences, is really pathetic. It's probably better not to talk about 'indoctrination' when you can't tell the difference between food and fertilizer.
  57. Antonio San from Canada writes: Looks like IPCC can improve...
    Abstract



    We compare new observationally- based data sets of Antarctic near-surface air temperature and snowfall accumulation with 20th century simulations from global climate models (GCMs) that support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Annual Antarctic snowfall accumulation trends in the GCMs agree with observations during 1960–1999, and the sensitivity of snowfall accumulation to near-surface air temperature fluctuations is approximately the same as observed, about 5% K−1. Thus if Antarctic temperatures rise as projected, snowfall increases may partially offset ice sheet mass loss by mitigating an additional 1 mm y−1 of global sea level rise by 2100. However, 20th century (1880–1999) annual Antarctic near-surface air temperature trends in the GCMs are about 2.5-to-5 times larger-than- observed, possibly due to the radiative impact of unrealistic increases in water vapor. Resolving the relative contributions of dynamic and radiative forcing on Antarctic temperature variability in GCMs will lead to more robust 21st century projections' Monaghan et al., geophysical letters 2008
  58. Antonio San from Canada writes: Steve Church, you should know that it is the CO2 fertilized Bristlecones that gave Mann et al. their now infamous hockey stick artefact!
    At 385ppm CO2 is no poison and is not responsible for climate change.
  59. Dr Demento from Canada writes: Unknown Philosopher from Canada writes: 'Natural wetlands produce more greenhouse-gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.'

    How do you explain the 37% increase in CO2 levels over the past 200 years after 500,000 years of lower levels?

    What else besides the constant burning of fossil fuels by mankind since the industrial revolution could have caused such a jump?
  60. martha stewart from Canada writes: From: Fagan, B. 2003. Before California: An Archaeologist Looks at Our Earliest Inhabitants. AltaMira Press.

    As the last Ice Age ended, with CO2 levels 'up to a third higher than it had been at any time during the previous 120,000 years. This enrichment increased photosynthesis, biomass, and seed yield, so that Holocene plants were more productive and drought resistant than in earlier times. This greater, but inconspicuous, plant productivity was an important asset for hunter-gatherers...'
  61. Steve Church from Canada writes: Antonio San - your remark is bizarre. The bristlecone issue relates to the MWP. MacIntyre's speculation is proof-by-claim. There's no proof of CO2 fertilization in it. Buying in on the modern junk about CO2 enhancement actually illustrates that CO2 has not has an effect - the dendro x-ref with boreholes and ice cores instead of showing a bloated CO2 response. No one said 385 ppm is poison - more strawman. The renewed nonsense about not 'causing' climate change where contribution is the GHG issue, continues to reflect a 'butwhatabout' position. Try referring to the issue in the article for a change.
  62. martha stewart from Canada writes: Steve Church writes: 'Try referring to the issue in the article for a change.'

    Exactly. You posted a misleading historical analysis and unsubstantiated alarmist forecast for the koala population and I posted information to enlighten you.

    Now nothing but silence from you on that, even though that is 'the issue in the article.'

    This article is supposedly about the potential impacts of some possible CO2 levels on the koala population. But this scientist has ignopred the realities of the koala population in the first place. So did you. So the rest is irrelevant.

    BTW, this method of using false historical assumptions about past wildlife populations is the standard method of deception used by the Green fear mongers. Grossly exaggerate past numbers to make present numbers look really, really, bad...
  63. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    It's funny how you just mention the molecule CO2 and people get all worked up. Some even seem to go completely off the deep-end (see Bib/Bab)!

    This article wasn't even talking about global warming but rather a fairly specific relationship between atmospheric CO2, eucalyptus leaves and koalas. While we can argue until we're blue in the face about the causes of rising atmospheric CO2 levels and where they will go in the future, the fact that the levels ARE rising is well documented through repeatable and quantifiable means.

    In this situation rising atmospheric CO2 levels result in changes to the physiology of the eucalyptus plant that could potentially cause harm to the koala bear population. It is probably less of an issue than loss of habitat, but it is an issue none the less.
  64. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: Steve Church from Canada writes: CO2 affects the food supply ... Building an Ark says no, it's loss of habitat ... mmm, food supply is part of the habitat.
    'The world's largest population of wild orangutans – on Indonesia's Borneo island – faces extinction within three years because of rapidly expanding oil-palm plantations, a conservationist group said Wednesday.
    A report by the Centre for Orangutan Protection says that only 20,000 of the endangered primates remain in the tropical jungle of Central Kalimantan, down from 31,300 in 2004.

    If the government does not protect wildlife from commercial exploitation, illegal logging and poachers, orangutans there could be extinct by 2011, said Hardi Baktiantoro, the group's head.

    Mr Church Hello? Loss of habitat? Hello Earth to Church???
  65. Steve Church from Canada writes: Tony:- The rising CO2 levels are from human activity. It's a known:- http://tinyurl.com/2ffs6q An alternative explanation would have to find a mass mystery source for the CO2, and a secret hiding place for all the pollution. The issue meshes the article to AGW and 'gee it'll make the roses grow' seamlessly. Antonio brought up the exceptional CO2 growth on bristlecone pines - that's the real connection to the hockey stick, exceptional. The article highlights the uncertainty of the consequences, and the potential for collateral damage. If the Greening Theory had merit, it should have shown up outside the open-air labs a long time ago.
  66. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, Canada writes:
    Demento:

    '...What else besides the constant burning of fossil fuels by mankind since the industrial revolution could have caused such a jump?...'

    Good question. What caused the jump from 170 ppmv to 290 ppmv 140,000 years ago? And then why did it drop to 230 after that. Maybe you and Steve Church could tell us what the 'natural' number for CO2 is supposed to be, since in the geological scale of things it seems to bounce around a lot?

    Regards, BRK
  67. Steve Church from Canada writes: Ark - What the?? What part of 'food supply is part of habitat' did you not understand? Klapp - When CO2 rises above it's peak natural level for the last million years in sync with the industrial revolution's GHG pollution, AND you refer to the interglacial rise of 50 ppm over 8,000 years as 'jumps', you just wasting electricity.
  68. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: Church Let's keep this simple so that your enlightened cranium get's it. Humans do far more harm destroying habitat through crops, burning of rainforests for land, and draining wetlands than incremental CO2 raises. You put far too much effort into gaseous arguments while humans sprawl continues unabated. The biggest land grab ever is happening now, Rome(our forests) are burning and you fiddle with CO2???
  69. Steve Church from Canada writes: Ark:- Let's put it straight down - nothing has a greater habitat-wrecking potential than signficiantly altering the chemical composition of the biosphere. You don't have to get hands on to wreck it. You can decimate the ozone layer with it. Your 'this-not-that platform' is myopic at best. There's nothing in my posts that dismisses habitat loss, but you want the GHG pollution issue to wait until your problem is attended to. That's a fiddler's tune if there ever was one.
  70. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: Church this is not an all or nothing aurgument here. What I'm trying to illustrate is the explosion of humans across this Planet - and as in Borneo/ South America or host of ecosystems, the loss of the Planets Lungs - the tropical rainforest will have major implications on life for this Planet. You are the one who seems fixated on gases...
  71. Steve Church from Canada writes: U bet Antionio - go to MacIntyre's site to show that Steve MacIntyre has proof. His proof is Sherwood Idso of the OISM scam stuff, the guy who hunts around for any peck of evidence to support his early 90s experiments. But please avoid going to the Arrigo 1997 study - 'The present tree-ring evidence for a possible CO2 fertilization under natural conditions appears to be very limited.' http://www.jstor.org/pss/42860
  72. Steve Church from Canada writes: No Ark, if you want to be in a discussion that focuses on habitat, go back to the organgutangs. The article here is CO2's effect on the euc tree and the possible implications to the koala bear. You raised the habitat issue you're fixated on. I'm done with that aspect of it.
  73. Pete Kauchak, Green Tory from Cascadia, Canada writes: Koalas live their entire lives being stoned anyways.
  74. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: Church you are all obviously a braniac who loves a good argument. The most posts on this are yours! Cheers to you, and you are correct as always - yours is the only issue on this Planet, that's why you study molecules, they are easier than engaging human debate. Best of luck - please don't worry about the forests - there's none left but you didn't see them go...
  75. martha stewart from Canada writes: Steve Church writes: 'You raised the habitat issue you're fixated on. I'm done with that aspect of it.'

    But Steve Church, you wrote a bogus and alarmist view (5:56) of their history and prospects related to habitat and now you won't comment on the correct information provided.

    You apparently did not understand why their populations were so high or that there are national parks and conservation programs and areas in Australia.

    I guess that's why you are done with that. Best if you just stayed focused on the molecules and not attempt to comment on the big picture realities.
  76. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: ..//

    CO2 is fertilizer.

    http://www.discovery.org/v/30

    Time index 15:15 to 18:15

    ..//
  77. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: You (Bob ImamI, from Canada) wrote: ,,//

    Everybody knows that the UN declared a worldwide crisis on the rice supply.

    ANYONE DISAGREE?

    Why was there a shortage of food? because the lame brained eco nazis got government grants to turn food for the poor into corn for BIOFUEL.

    Yup the church of the eco elitists now want to empty the planet of CO2.

    CO2 is Fertilizer.

    Crops grow better with higher concentrations of CO2. More food less starvation. But that doesn't fit into the eco eugenics of starving the brown people into extinction. If that isn't enough, carbon tax hurts developing nations more than the 1st world.

    Enviro elitists now want all the fuel, food money for themselves.

    Posted 08/05/08 at 3:18 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

    You (Bob ImamI, from Canada) wrote: Brian,

    Now that is a great question. What is the correct number?

    I suggest it the one that maximizes vegetation and rain, in which case we need more CO2.

    ..//

     Posted 08/05/08 at 5:37 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
  78. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, Canada writes:
    Steve Church:

    '...AND you refer to the interglacial rise of 50 ppm over 8,000 years as 'jumps', you just wasting electricity....'

    Why is it that the left of centre crowd are always so abysmal at math? (290 - 170 = 50?)

    As for the 50 ppm change over 8,000 years, you clearly have never looked 'under the hood', so to speak, of ice core data. It can change a lot faster than that.

    Regards, BRK
  79. martha stewart from Canada writes: Save the CO2!!!

    Hey BiB, hope you caught my 3:44 post.
  80. Steve Church from Canada writes: Klapp:- Zit pick somewhere else. Your extreme stretch number of 120 over a 6000 year de-glaciation ... is about 2ppm per century. You called that a 'jump'. Your claim of much faster rises is fantasy of the Jaworowski variety. Until you come up with more science and less fiction, get someone else to do your homework - http://tinyurl.com/3n2hj8 Referring to the ice-cores - 'But the rate of change is even more dramatic, with increases in carbon dioxide never exceeding 30 ppm in 1,000 years -- and yet now carbon dioxide has risen by 30 ppm in the last 17 years.' Btw - last 3 glacials is 210ppm and interglacial is 280ppm. If that's your horse ... giddyup outa town. Unless your next post is about the article, you can go cacaw with the other fence crows.
  81. Rex Carbo from Canada writes: Any chance the koalas can adapt?
  82. Red-necked and loving it you from Canada writes: I think you're all emitting way too much gas.
  83. BaB OmimO from Canada writes: Martha,

    I did. Where do you get this stuff. It is great.

    Being a chemist, (organic kinetics) I get into the minutia and don't get big trends stuff except recreationally.

    It is clearly a concentration issue and I have not seen anything negative about CO2 increases. Thanks Martha....

    It may be quite possible that humanity is playing a greater role in invigorating (unwittingly) a new explosion of plant growth by releasing what CO2 used to be in the atmosphere and is now trapped underground. This will alter the partial pressure in the atmosphere, losing some Co2 to the ocean but keep a fair bit in the atmosphere to stimulate growth.

    This article is gloom and doom, twisted into existence to ad force to the absurd notion that CO2 is harmful.

    I'm googling your key words. Thanks.

    ..//
  84. BaB OmimO from Canada writes: I forgot...

    CO2 is fertilizer.

    Its is beneficial to plant growth.
  85. martha stewart from Canada writes: BaB - Archaeologists have been looking at the impacts of climate change for a long time. It helps to explains the changes they see in cultures as humans adapt to it over time. That's why I know none of the changes we have seen recently are 'unprecendented' no matter how many times that Big Lie is repeated.

    Don't know if you can get the specific California info by googling. Its in a book. But lots on line about the real problems that koalas face.

    The story of what happened to the Australian megafauna when the aborigines arrived is also very interesting. Same thing as happened to the North American megafauna when Eurasians arrived. Of course, now they are trying to blame the latter on, what else, climate change, But with bogus arguments, of course.

    This particular article (koalas) is about genuine junk science. Only goes to show you how science is being twisted by the need to attach the words climate change to every research funding proposal.
  86. Jillian Fecteau from Canada writes: I constantly read commentary suggesting that all issues surrounding global warming are misrepresented by scientists who just want money. For example, 'Martha Stewart' seems to suggest that humans have no carbon footprint and its all a big lie ... and the goal of scientists is to simply make money... Well ... unlike any other time in human history ... there are more of us than have ever existed before and we use more fossil fuels than ever before too. The only 'big lie' around here is to assume that humans have no impact on the planet. Another 'big lie' is that scientists make up such issues because they want more money. Who dreams this stuff up? There is no truth to it whatsoever. First world countries spent precious little money on research in general.... Canadian labs are underfunded compared to most first world nations. NSERC -- the funding agency for ALL basic science and engineering research in Canada (not just issues of global warming, folks) receives 0.06% of the Canadian GDP per year and less than 0.5% of all federal funding. Moreover, this funding accounts for all basic science and engineering -- very few labs exist in Canada that are dedicated to issues of global warming. Indeed only approximately 10% of the moneys of NSERC are dedicated to the 'environment'. Considering all research that falls under the label 'Environment' -- maybe 5% of that is dedicated to global warming. Indeed 5% is a high ball estimate. So ... a fair estimate is that less than 0.05% of all funding from the Canadian government in basic science is dedicated to issues of global warming. If you are going to clog the blogs with opinions ... at least make them informed opinions. The only benefactor in issues of global warming are the companies who want us to believe that there is not a problem. They are the ones making the money ... not the scientists.
  87. Farm Boy from Belfast, United Kingdom writes: If it looks cute and cuddly it must be threatened! These stories are becoming more and more laughable every day.
  88. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, Canada writes:
    Steve Church:

    '...Your claim of much faster rises is fantasy of the Jaworowski variety...'

    The 'noise' in the ice cores shows much higher rates of change than your proposed 'natural maximum' (50 ppm over 2 centuries are possible). But the ice core data is likely underestimating the capability of the earths sinks and sources to change, since the CO2 from different time frames can mix before being 'captured' in an ice bubble.

    Jaworowski is correct in pointing out that the presence of liquid phase water during the compaction process has implications for the temporal resolution these ice core data provide. It means that it is unlikely that any bubble contains the gas from just one year or even a decade, or maybe even 50 years. Who really knows.

    The point is that ice core data are 'smoothed' by mother nature during the process and so the max rate of 'natural' CO2 change historically speaking is not well understood; the record is simply not capable of reliably resolving the real CO2 change rate, at least not down at the decade/century time frames.

    Think about it: the annual cycle shows a change of 5 ppmv. This shows the relationship between oceans and the biosphere on a seasonal basis of course, but it is not to hard to imagine that sustained La Nina/drought etc. over a century could drift the relationship between source and sink to rates of change much greater than your proposed 'natural maximum' of 30 ppm over 1000 years.

    As a final point, the CO2 rate of change has been decreasing over the last 6 years or so. Since the rate of anthropogenic emissions change has been accelerating, that clearly implies that there must be significant changes in the strength of natural sources over a period of less than a decade.

    Regards, BRK
  89. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, Canada writes:
    Steve Church:

    I offer up a suggestion to you and other posters here. If you're going to pass judgment on the nitty gritty of scientic issues, why not do more than cut and paste other's work into your post. Take the step of downloading and looking at the nitty gritty of the data before you heap contempt on other's perspectives.

    Regards, BRK
  90. BaB OmimO from Canada writes: ..//

    Good morning.

    CO2 is still fertilizer today as is and ever has been.

    Check out this great vid...

    http://www.discovery.org/v/30

    Time index 15:15 to 18:15
  91. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: In the absence of temperature increases over the last six or seven years, other possibilities, no matter how faint, have to be dredged up to try to keep the panic over CO2 at an hysterical level.
  92. martha stewart from Canada writes: Jillian Fecteau writes: "For example, 'Martha Stewart' seems to suggest that humans have no carbon footprint and its all a big lie ..."

    I have NEVER said this. If you are going to talk about big lies, why start with one?

    Your conclusion is also a Big Lie: "The only benefactor in issues of global warming are the companies who want us to believe that there is not a problem. They are the ones making the money ... not the scientists."

    You conveniently ignore the exponential increases in funding devoted to climate change research. Who gets that?

    You ignore the whole global warming industry - carbon credit trading, etc., and every so-called environmental group jumping on this bandwagon to raise donations.

    You sound like a scientist pumping for funding. If you're not happy with government, consider the private sector. They are investing plenty in USEFUL research on energy efficiency. The increasing price of fossil fuels will do more to help than all this fear mongering.
  93. Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: As usual, so many fallacious arguments used on these treads. Where would one even start? At least the ignorance hasn't spilled over into economics on this one (yet).

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.