BajaNomad

Is the Baja Peninsula Getting Greener?

SFandH - 6-2-2013 at 07:00 AM

I think it is. I've been driving from San Diego to BCS for quite some time and in the past 5 years or so it seems to me that it is getting greener. It is difficult to know though because I travel at different times of the year, sometimes shortly after several weeks of intermittent rain.

Here is a peer reviewed scientific study that concludes that the atmospheric increase in CO2 is making warm, arid regions greener, backing up my casual observations.

A positive effect of global warming on a local scale?

link

Osprey - 6-2-2013 at 07:18 AM

Can't argue with science BUT much of the peninsula is just that, a slender peninsula that doesn't make much of it's own weather -- the SOC and the Pacific bring a great deal of the moisture to make the greenery. As to the CO2, except for the border there is little man made CO2 (I'm guessing). To be convinced I'd have to see the sat charts of N. Africa and Baja California to throw in 100% on this particular reason for increased greening.

SFandH - 6-2-2013 at 07:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Osprey
Can't argue with science BUT much of the peninsula is just that, a slender peninsula that doesn't make much of it's own weather -- the SOC and the Pacific bring a great deal of the moisture to make the greenery.


Good point. Although I might add that the mountains down the middle do cause weather that otherwise would not occur. And, increasing CO2, for whatever reason, will cause warming of the atmosphere and a warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapor, which probably means more rainfall, someplace.

[Edited on 6-2-2013 by SFandH]

Osprey - 6-2-2013 at 07:53 AM

Better points than mine. Your signature piece about Abe Lincoln struck a chord > don't know about animals rights from Abe; his nickname, Honest Abe, was earned by him being a very honest and popular judge in c-ckfighting arenas.

David K - 6-2-2013 at 08:06 AM

Air, like the climate, is not static... it moves about this planet pushed by winds and pressure, as well as a rotating earth. CO2 created in one area does not stay in that area. The same is true of oxygen.

Plants breath in CO2, and breath out oxygen, the opposite of animals... Volcanos and other natural sources also 'breath out' CO2. If CO2 levels rise, so do the number of oxygen creating plants and trees.

That man thinks he is mightier than Nature and can change the climate is laughable... Nature always wins!

durrelllrobert - 6-2-2013 at 08:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SFandH




A positive effect of global warming on a local scale?

link


monoloco - 6-2-2013 at 08:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Air, like the climate, is not static... it moves about this planet pushed by winds and pressure, as well as a rotating earth. CO2 created in one area does not stay in that area. The same is true of oxygen.

Plants breath in CO2, and breath out oxygen, the opposite of animals... Volcanos and other natural sources also 'breath out' CO2. If CO2 levels rise, so do the number of oxygen creating plants and trees.

That man thinks he is mightier than Nature and can change the climate is laughable... Nature always wins!
What's laughable is the notion that the release of trillions of tons of CO2 and other gasses from the burning of hydrocarbons would have no effect on our climate. Nature does always win, and will eventually render extinct any species that doesn't live in balance with it's environment.

David K - 6-2-2013 at 08:39 AM

LOL good one Bob!

David K - 6-2-2013 at 08:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Air, like the climate, is not static... it moves about this planet pushed by winds and pressure, as well as a rotating earth. CO2 created in one area does not stay in that area. The same is true of oxygen.

Plants breath in CO2, and breath out oxygen, the opposite of animals... Volcanos and other natural sources also 'breath out' CO2. If CO2 levels rise, so do the number of oxygen creating plants and trees.

That man thinks he is mightier than Nature and can change the climate is laughable... Nature always wins!
What's laughable is the notion that the release of trillions of tons of CO2 and other gasses from the burning of hydrocarbons would have no effect on our climate. Nature does always win, and will eventually render extinct any species that doesn't live in balance with it's environment.


Sounds about right... everything has cause and effect. But, who controls how many volcanoes erupt in a year? I think man is part of this planet too, and what we do here is part of the natural order, since we are a nature part of earth. We will do bad, dirty things... then we change and do good and clean up things. I haven't see a volcano take back all the poisonous gasses and CO2 it has released... so there is a reason for it, and more trees may be the reason? Soil from volcanoes is some of the richest for growing, as well.

[Edited on 6-2-2013 by David K]

rts551 - 6-2-2013 at 08:53 AM

Yes, some people are like volcanoes. spew a lot of stuff that fertilizes plants.

David K - 6-2-2013 at 09:09 AM

Indeed! :yes:

SFandH - 6-2-2013 at 10:14 AM

Hmmmmm,

The original question was:

Is the Baja Peninsula Getting Greener?

Over the past 10 years, I think so and I think that's good.

Barry A. - 6-2-2013 at 10:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SFandH
Hmmmmm,

The original question was:

Is the Baja Peninsula Getting Greener?

Over the past 10 years, I think so and I think that's good.


Perhaps it is, and it does look like it, but that does concern me as I always noticed that when the desert turned green in Baja, the no-see-ums drove us nuts!!!

barry

BajaBlanca - 6-2-2013 at 10:51 AM

:lol::lol:


How i hate noseeums too

Here in our little village, as the inhabitants invest more and more into their homes and seeing as how we now have much less expensive water, the number of plants and trees has grown exponentially. We are definitely greener.

DavidE - 6-2-2013 at 11:00 AM

I try and keep in mind that the great aquifers that fed/feed the San Quintin, Vizcaino and Constitucion areas had to be created somehow. And that somehow was not the arid climate of today. From the time of the first transplant from the Asia-Alaska land bridge to the present, it is just a blink of real geological time.

I also keep in mind that a single die-off of the Amazon rain forest will produce more CO2 than man has made since the days of "Lucy". This is a statement of fact and not a political position.

windgrrl - 6-2-2013 at 01:05 PM

Definitely getting greener from Mulege to the East Cape. This year we travelled with clouds of many different sizes, colours and shapes of butterflies all the way to the tip of the peninsula. It was wonderful. They didn't thin ranks until January. I thought this might have something to do with extra rain somewhere. In the East Cape, there hasn't been a lot of rain, but there seems to be a lot of cloud condensation keeping the mountain tops more lush over the past decade. I think that central Baja is recovering from draught, but overall, it the biomass and roadside cattle looked in better shape this year in most places.

El Jefe - 6-2-2013 at 02:11 PM

Interesting stats from my friend Lou for rainfall on near east cape show that last year was unusually wet and therefore green. Prior to that not green at all down here. All you had to do was look at the cows. Bony as hell. This year they are fat and happy.

YEAR RAINFALL AMT {INCHES}

1998 23.25
1999 1.83
2000 9.08
2001 10.82
2002 4.51
2003 14.4
2004 4.52
2005 4.66
2006 11.41
2007 3.98
2008 4.51
2009 5.81
2010 2.66
2011 4.01
2012 18.07

123.60 ---------- = 8.24 INCHES AVERAGE 15 YRS.

I hope we are in a wetter trend, but one year is no trend. Time will tell.

Mexitron - 6-2-2013 at 04:07 PM

Doesn't seem any greener to me. I don't think you'd notice extra greening from higher CO2 levels in an arid environment-----go watch coastal Oregon for a few years!

On the volcanoes verses anthropogenic emissions we win hands down on CO2. Volcanoes release more sulphur dioxide and dust particles than carbon dioxide and tend to cool the climate ( unless its a giant eruption like the one in the Siberian Traps just before the Permian extinction and which may have contributed to that catastrophic event).

From the U.S Geological Survey:

"Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011)."

The rest of the article: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

This is not meant as political bait, just trying to sort thru the facts.

Barry A. - 6-2-2013 at 04:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
Doesn't seem any greener to me. I don't think you'd notice extra greening from higher CO2 levels in an arid environment-----go watch coastal Oregon for a few years!

On the volcanoes verses anthropogenic emissions we win hands down on CO2. Volcanoes release more sulphur dioxide and dust particles than carbon dioxide and tend to cool the climate ( unless its a giant eruption like the one in the Siberian Traps just before the Permian extinction and which may have contributed to that catastrophic event).

From the U.S Geological Survey:

"Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011)."

The rest of the article: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

This is not meant as political bait, just trying to sort thru the facts.


That's interesting stuff, Mexitron------I did not know that. I have long been spreading the rumor that volcanoes release more CO2 than humans------I will now have to reset my thinking.

Barry

rts551 - 6-2-2013 at 04:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BajaBlanca
:lol::lol:


How i hate noseeums too

Here in our little village, as the inhabitants invest more and more into their homes and seeing as how we now have much less expensive water, the number of plants and trees has grown exponentially. We are definitely greener.
\

and now we will have more water loving creatures as well!:bounce::bounce:

Mexitron - 6-2-2013 at 04:22 PM

But wait there's more!
Coincidentally saw this article on Xeric World Forums:

http://www.livescience.com/37055-greenhouse-gas-desert-plant...

"Beep, beep! There's more camouflage for sneaky roadrunners and wily coyotes in the deserts thanks to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, a new study finds.

Between 1982 and 2010, leaf cover on plants rose by 11 percent in arid areas, including the southwestern United States, Australia's Outback, the Middle East and some parts of Africa, the study found. The results were published May 15 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters."

However the study's results were not exactly confirmed conclusions...

bajacalifornian - 6-2-2013 at 04:23 PM

Every time it rains.

Barry A. - 6-2-2013 at 04:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
But wait there's more!
Coincidentally saw this article on Xeric World Forums:

http://www.livescience.com/37055-greenhouse-gas-desert-plant...

"Beep, beep! There's more camouflage for sneaky roadrunners and wily coyotes in the deserts thanks to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, a new study finds.

Between 1982 and 2010, leaf cover on plants rose by 11 percent in arid areas, including the southwestern United States, Australia's Outback, the Middle East and some parts of Africa, the study found. The results were published May 15 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters."

However the study's results were not exactly confirmed conclusions...



---------but, does it really matter??? No matter what we do we cannot effect the outcome by more than 1 to 3%, es verdad?

-----and in the meantime we destroy the world economy. Is it really worth it???

You decide.

Barry

gnukid - 6-2-2013 at 05:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Air, like the climate, is not static... it moves about this planet pushed by winds and pressure, as well as a rotating earth. CO2 created in one area does not stay in that area. The same is true of oxygen.

Plants breath in CO2, and breath out oxygen, the opposite of animals... Volcanos and other natural sources also 'breath out' CO2. If CO2 levels rise, so do the number of oxygen creating plants and trees.

That man thinks he is mightier than Nature and can change the climate is laughable... Nature always wins!
What's laughable is the notion that the release of trillions of tons of CO2 and other gasses from the burning of hydrocarbons would have no effect on our climate. Nature does always win, and will eventually render extinct any species that doesn't live in balance with it's environment.


The factors associated with the "enviroment" are endless, to suggest that human use of burning oil is a major factor would be myopic and absolutley false. Consider first that human generated CO2 makes up a very small portion of greeen house gasses, do your math, but however you look at it the human contribution is less than .01%, while volcanoes contribute far more.

If we were to conjecture about the singla largest factor in CO2 it would likely be the Sun, but it's affect is indirect and delayed meaning the temperature rises first, and hundreds of years later the CO2 rises.

Furthermore, if one were to take a simplisitc look at oil, ask where does it come from, it is not a fossil fuel, that is misnomer and misleading, oil is both biotic and abiotic, look it up for yourself. Oil and natural gas are biproducts of the earths processes and core magma. The earth is producing carbon based oil, when we burn it we are transfering the energy in one form to another, yet it has been demomstrated that waste from oil and coal can and is regenerated back to it's oringinal form.

Historically the earth has always been changing, many times historically the earth has much higher concentrations of CO2 in it's green house gas, which is a food source for plants and correlates directly to plant and animal diversity.

If anything we have a shortage of CO2, commerical grow houses pump it in to help there starving plants, the human contribution is practically negligable, in fact we have more oil reserves than ever before, we have also voluntarily reduced our CO2 output by more than 10% over the last decade without penalties or absurd carbon taxes.

There is so much misinformation in this debate, while people should step back and think clearly and use logic to think about basic ideas like where does oil come from, why is there so much, what happens when you burn oil does it affect the atmosphere in a radical way, what has happened historically?

Emotional arguments and personal attacks are not relevant to the discussion, stick to facts and reconsider the idea that humans are evil and the cause of all things-they are not.

rts551 - 6-2-2013 at 05:12 PM

gnukid you use the numbers as bad as any one else. What MOST people agree on is


Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

Its how you measure it number 1... and

Number 2 Does this percentage effect the overall balance of nature.



Some feel everything is cyclical and we are doomed to catastrophe anyway! So why worry. Use it or lose it. Right Barry?

gnukid - 6-2-2013 at 05:16 PM

Another topic for rational discussion is Green energy. The idea that energy is green, free, or sustainable, is absurd. The issue with all energy use as we use it today is that there must be storage and transfer of energy. Solar and Wind power are extremely inefficient and unreliable as sources of power and the energy must be stored and transfered. Both require petroleum products to produce, panels and wind turbines are expensive and are made of petroleum products that are so expensive that they are not practical were other traditional options exist. It may different on a boat or for occaisonal energy use. Both wind and solar take up space, causes pollution, they are unsightly and poor examples to focus on as solutions to reduce pollution.

The world of energy has far to go, it starts with people thinking about what is energy and where is it, how does one tap into it and use it. Tesla had many proven technologies, such as a wireless grid, which was shut down. There have been endless battery improvements but somehow they rarely seem to get to market, but soon, very soon, we will see an evolution or revolution and will have nothing to do with green energy.

DaliDali - 6-2-2013 at 05:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bajacalifornian
Every time it rains.


Bingo!!

gnukid - 6-2-2013 at 05:41 PM

Water vapor is major component of green house gasses. It's water, It's not a poison, nor is CO2. This is simplistic approach, but let's face it this is not the place for math.

While CO2 has increased globally, not everywhwere, but in places, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is quite low compared to history. Currently CO2 is about 400PPM.

But, tempertures have gone down in the period during the time where CO2 has gone up, slightly. The point there is no direct correlation, even if we are talking about very small numbers.

There is no global temperature warming since 1998 yet this was a period of rapid global development.

Take a moment to look up green house gasses, it's primarily water yet people are programmed to think it's poison. Whatever happened to whol CFC scare? overblown a bit? Global warming, didn't happne, yet still Gore, Obama and the EPA are trying to cah in and make you feel guilty while they fly around in super jets and lobby to increase control and taxes. And that's why they are failing.

Again, some basic concepts, Oil is not limited in quantity, Oil is not a fossil fuel-it didn't come from dinosaurs. Carbon is life, Carbon dioxide is food that is our symbiotic source of life, without it we would cease to exist. CO2 is low in concentrations compared to much of history.

Human generated CO2 has not been demonstrated to affect global temperature, weather, climate. In fact quite the opposite-- Temperature drives CO2.

Skipjack Joe - 6-2-2013 at 05:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DavidE

I also keep in mind that a single die-off of the Amazon rain forest will produce more CO2 than man has made since the days of "Lucy". This is a statement of fact and not a political position.



This is a common misconception many of us had. That being, that the Amazon is vital to our existence due to the O2 it generates. Measurements taken show that virtually all of the O2 it generates (and conversely CO2 it uses) never leaves the Amazon but it used by the rainforest itself. It uses up the O2 at night when plants respire and generate the CO2 they use up during photosynthesis with daylight.

It's believed that fully 1/2 of the world's free O2 comes from ocean plankton blooms.

P.S. Historically speaking, the early atmosphere of the planet never had O2. Oxygen was built up by anaerobic organisms and only when it became present in sufficient amounts did plants evolve. We, on the other hand, did not evolve to use up the abundance of oxygen. We came about to feed on the harvest of the new carbon the plants now made available.

[Edited on 6-3-2013 by Skipjack Joe]

Bajaboy - 6-2-2013 at 06:18 PM

I'm going to listen to the experts at NOAA way before I'll let anyone here persuade me:light:

What's Good for the Environment

MrBillM - 6-2-2013 at 06:37 PM

Is whatever is Good for US.

That US being Mankind, but even more specifically, those of US (nationally-speaking) at the TOP.

I'd hate to think that I had to give up things I consider important to save the third-world at some point in the future.

The Bangladeshis are on their own.

Hope they can swim.

acadist - 6-2-2013 at 06:42 PM

TOO FUNNY!!!!! How do I post it to Facebook?
Quote:
Originally posted by durrelllrobert
Quote:
Originally posted by SFandH




A positive effect of global warming on a local scale?

link


durrelllrobert - 6-2-2013 at 07:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by acadist
TOO FUNNY!!!!! How do I post it to Facebook?
Quote:
Originally posted by durrelllrobert
Quote:
Originally posted by SFandH




A positive effect of global warming on a local scale?

link




Just right click on the picture and select "save picture as" whatever you want to call it. Now that it's on YOUR computer open Face Book and click on "Your Photos" then click on "upload" to put it on FB. I don't use FB but my wife told me that's how you do it. Hope it works.

Mexitron - 6-3-2013 at 03:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
But wait there's more!
Coincidentally saw this article on Xeric World Forums:

http://www.livescience.com/37055-greenhouse-gas-desert-plant...

"Beep, beep! There's more camouflage for sneaky roadrunners and wily coyotes in the deserts thanks to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, a new study finds.

Between 1982 and 2010, leaf cover on plants rose by 11 percent in arid areas, including the southwestern United States, Australia's Outback, the Middle East and some parts of Africa, the study found. The results were published May 15 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters."

However the study's results were not exactly confirmed conclusions...



---------but, does it really matter??? No matter what we do we cannot effect the outcome by more than 1 to 3%, es verdad?

-----and in the meantime we destroy the world economy. Is it really worth it???

You decide.

Barry


I think it would be hard to shift gears too fast anyway, unless some overwhelming catastrophic events forced it. The switch to less fossil fuels may happen of its own accord anyway---solar is more competitive every year and gas is going up and up. The solar panel /hydrogen fuel cell is an attractive option. Hyperloops are even more interesting for longer trips.

Skipjack Joe - 6-4-2013 at 08:08 AM

Ice measurements (from USGS).

Even though these numbers look to be potentially very high, the scientific community believes that Antarctica will not lose it's ice due to an average temp of -37C. The North Pole will go, however, with a sea level rise of about 25 feet. Barry can interpret the significance of this for you.

Location Volume (km3) Potential sea-level rise, (m)
=======================================
East Antarctic ice sheet
26,039,200
64.80

West Antarctic ice sheet
3,262,000
8.06

Antarctic Peninsula
227,100
.46

Greenland
2,620,000
6.55

All other ice caps, ice fields, and valley glaciers
180,000
.45
====================================
Total
32,328,300
80.32 (meters)

mtgoat666 - 11-20-2014 at 11:42 AM

Nasa animation shows stunning year in the life of carbon emissions:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/19/nasa-anim...

(i do suppose some of you think this is a pack of liberal lies, :lol::lol::lol:)

David K - 11-20-2014 at 05:01 PM

Good thing the ice caps are growing! :light:

StuckSucks - 11-20-2014 at 06:09 PM

It was very green a week ago. Looking north from Agua Verde:


And while we're at it, what's wrong with climate change? It's been happening for a lot longer than we've been around. 5000 years ago, Lake Manly flooded Death Valley. There were rainforests on the mountain tops above Mitchell Caverns in the Mojave Desert. Central California's central valley was dotted with large lakes until 150 years ago. Greenland was called Greenland for a reason. This is nothing new - I'm over it.