-1=e^ipi

Waldo, you really do not know how to debate on internet forums do you? You need to actually respond to what people write, rather than ignore what they write and straw man the few points that you actually decide to respond to. In your replies to my last post for example, you: - ignored occum's razor argument - straw man what i write about the significance of the geological record and the paper about the glaciation of Antarctica 34 million years ago - ignore my request to know if you are a creationist (which would explain your refusal to acknowledge any significance of evolution) - Do not indicate which feedback mechanisms I am supposedly ignoring - Downplay the fact that the first video tries to unscientifically link specific weather events in recent history to global warming - Do not try to defend the claim that dry places will become drier and wet places will become more wet (i.e. everything will become more extreme). - Do not defend your claim with evidence or theory that somehow weeds are so different than crops that they will be positively affected by climate change, while crops will be affected negatively. - Do not address the fact that the rice study does not take into account changes in CO2 concentrations, only temperature changes, because it is a regression based on cross-sectional data. Again, rice will benefit from the CO2 fertilization effect like all plants. - Do not address the fact that you could simply grow better suited crops to the new climate rather than growing the crops we do currently. - Do not defend the "on the only planet we will ever have" claim. - Do not address my re-request for an explanation as to how climate change results in an increase in the frequency of pressure resonance effects for the northern mid latitudes. You just link to an old post which I already explained was insufficient. - Do not acknowledge the quotes from the video that support the idea that CO2 & warming are good for plant life. I especially liked this one: ""Higher temperatures led to longer growing seasons and increased amounts of water and sun light in the northern hemisphere. Causing a net increase in atmospheric primary production" - Do not address the fact that the majority of the land mass and people are in the northern hemisphere, so a 65% increase in primary production in the northern hemisphere and a 70% decrease in primary production in the southern hemisphere is overall good. - strawman what I say with respect to the 13 year lull in global temperatures and the supposed decrease in primary production from 2000-2009. You pretend that I have a double standard with respect to the significance of climate variability in explaining decade long trends. See, you are so deluded in your climate alarmist dogma that you only see the parts of sentences or paragraphs you want to see. Oh look, I can play the let's bold text you like as well.

Unsurprisingly, you completely ignore my occum's razor argument. The geological past is significant in terms of understanding how life evolved on this planet, how life performed under different climactic conditions, and what we can expect life to do in response to climate change. Even the pro-350ppm paper that I linked to earlier uses the geological record and the glaciation of Antarctica 34 million years ago to justify it's position. Your refusal to recognize the importance of evolution and the geological record is bizarre. Out of curiosity, are you a creationist? This is a straw man argument. What feedback mechanisms am I ignoring? Okay I watched your silly CO2 is plant food video and it has a number of errors/misleading claims: - The majority of the video tries to connect specific recent weather events (floods, droughts) with climate change. This is wrong and unscientific. We cannot link specific weather events which are within year to year climate variability with longer term climate change. We can talk about the change in the frequency over time of various weather events as a result of climate change, but trying to link specific weather events is silly. The majority of the video is like "Oh look at these floods and droughts! How awful! Therefore, climate change is bad." - The video picks and chooses single sentences from scientific papers and presents them out of context to support its climate alarmist dogma. It doesn't present any theoretical models that explain its thesis. - "We get more extremes of flooding as a consequence and at the same time, in the places where it is not raining, things are drying out so we get droughts that are more extensive and longer lived." Typical climate alarmist nonsense. Places that are wet will get even wetter and places that are dry will get even drier? Why? Well it fits with the climate alarmist dogma and makes climate change seem bad so it must be true! The truth is, some places will get more dry and some places will get more wet with climate change, but some places that are wet will get more dry and some places that are dry will get more wet. The whole climate change will make everything more extreme nonsense has no scientific basis and in many cases the opposite is true (decrease in temperature gradient between poles and equator, decrease in temperature gradient between upper atmosphere and ocean). - "But higher levels of warming often negatively affect growth and yields" "Weeds benefit from warming and a higher carbon dioxide concentration" So the plants that we consider crops will be negatively affected by global warming, but the plants that we consider weeds will be positively affected by global warming? Despite the fact that both crops and weeds share common ancestors, have the same biological processes that perform photosynthesis and the distinction between weeds and crops is somewhat arbitrary? What nonsense. But as long as it fits with the climate alarmist dogma that global warming from higher CO2 concentrations is bad it must be correct, right? - "Rice, a staple for billions of people, is especially vulnerable to global warming, for reasons not yet clear." Lol, for reasons not yet clear. Anyway, I tracked down the paper it based this claim on and the video doesn't give the whole story: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/33/14562.full "Higher minimum temperature reduced yield, whereas higher maximum temperature raised it" "Diurnal temperature variation must be considered when investigating the impacts of climate change on irrigated rice in Asia" So the relationship between warming & rice crop yields is complex and is more to do with diurnal temperature variation than it has to do with the average temperature? Furthermore, the regression study doesn't take into account changes in CO2 concentrations (which will have a positive effect on crop yields due to CO2 fertilization), only changes in temperature. Also, why does the video only reference studies about the effect on rice yields? Why not wheat, corn or potatoes? Perhaps the video is only picking and choosing facts/studies that support its dogmatic, climate-alarmist thesis? Finally, the whole idea that we will continue to grow crops in the places that we currently grow them is flawed. Obviously, the crops we grow across the world are roughly optimized to the current climate. But if the climate changes, then it will make sense to change our crop growing patterns to the new climate. So we might grow corn or rice where we used to grow wheat, bananas where we used to grow rice, etc. If a place became unsuitable to grow rice, you wouldn't continue to grow rice there, would you? - "on the only planet we will ever have" Wrong, humans will start to colonize Mars this century. Also, this video reminds me that you have yet to fulfill my request for you to explain how a reduction in the global temperature gradient enhances the pressure resonance effect for the mid latitudes of the northern hemisphere. As for the second video: - "Previous research suggested that warmer temperatures and higher levels of precipitation, factors associated with climate change, were generally good for plant growth." Thanks for agreeing with me video! "But it is possible that we've had too much of a good thing" Oh noes! - "MODIS indicates a net decrease in primary production from 2000 through 2009." Firstly, there has been a lull in warming for the past 13 years, so a decrease during this period cannot be attributed to warming. Secondly, the time scale of a decade isn't sufficient to make significant conclusions about the effect of climate change. Decade to decade variability in primary production can be attributed to climate variability & cyclic effects. We would need a longer time line to conclude that it is due to increases in CO2 & climate change. If you want to argue that climate variability & cyclic effects are not sufficient enough to explain this then you will also have to explain how the lull in warming for the past 13 years is not due to climate variability & cyclic effects. - "Higher temperatures led to longer growing seasons and increased amounts of water and sun light in the northern hemisphere. Causing a net increase in atmospheric primary production" Wow, thanks for agreeing with me yet again video! - "65% increase in primary production in the northern hemisphere, 70% decrease in primary production in the southern hemisphere" Somehow the video concludes that the net result is a decrease in primary production, even though the majority of the earth's land mass and the majority of the earth's population lives in the northern hemisphere. 65% increase in primary production in the Northern Hemisphere and a 70% decrease in primary production in the southern hemisphere seems like a good thing. Also, the results seem to be explained by climate variability, not because of long term climate change. If anything, we should be more concerned with deforestation in Brazil than the effects of increased CO2 concentrations on primary production. waldo, on 30 Nov 2013 - 07:11 AM, said: no - high(er) sensitivity to varying fast and longer-term positive feedbacks implies greater warming overall, implies a greater enhancing influence of those longer-term positive feedbacks on warming --- greater warming overall, relative to quick warming associated with fast feedbacks and protracted resultant warming associated with longer-term feedbacks. I don't understand why you are disagreeing with me here. Some feedbacks (like melting of glacial ice) have a longer response time than other feedbacks (like release of CO2 and methane from the oceans). waldo, on 30 Nov 2013 - 07:43 AM, said: notwithstanding your mistaken full implication that they were climate models. That is a lie, I never said that they were climate models. waldo, on 30 Nov 2013 - 07:43 AM, said: yes, you did! You accepted 800 as the upper limit for the particular scenario you unknowingly referenced... you did so, because I informed you of that upper limit. Whereupon you decided to subsequently refer to it, the 800, as if you arrived at it... telling me, "if I didn't believe you"! Like I said, poser! You then doubled-down on your failure by associating that 800 level as the upper limit for all 6 scenarios... which it isn't. As I stated to you, the upper limit is ~ 1000 (actually 970). So yes, in fact you did absolutely equate, incorrectly equate, the 800 upper limit of the single scenario to the overall upper limit of the scenario grouping. Clearly your reading comprehension is poor and you do not understand what 'roughly' means and the difference between little mitigation and no mitigation. waldo, on 30 Nov 2013 - 07:43 AM, said: no - taking a mean/standard deviation across the scenarios has absolutely no place in any discussion of, effectively, disparate emission scenarios, each with their own unique and distinct storylines. Again, you don't know what you're talking about... but what else is new! I know for a fact that taking the mean of various models was not uncommon in physics when they were trying to determine the mass of neutrinos. I'll try to find a graphic for you. Anyway, taking the mean is no worse than only taking the most extreme climate projection/model cause it fits your climate alarmist dogma.

As expected, no amount of evidence will get you to admit that most climate alarmists hold the premise that pre-industrial CO2 levels were optimal. So I will get you to admit this using a different approach. I'm going to invoke occum's razor. Climate alarmists want to implement significant mitigation policies to reduce the amount of climate change and future CO2 concentrations. What is the reason for this / why do climate alarmists want this? - I propose that climate alarmists hold the premise that pre-industrial CO2 levels were optimal. - I also gave an alternative explanation (they want to avoid significant climate change from the melting of Antarctica, which is based on what happened 34 million years ago) but said that this cannot be the reason because the public and climate alarmists do not generally have a good understanding of the earth's geological record. (also, if you argue that this is the reason, you will be admitting that the Earth's geological record is relevant to the discussion) - By occum's razor, if you cannot find an alternative explanation as to why climate alarmists wish to reduce CO2 emissions, then we must go with my explanation, as it is the only one that makes sense. So please give your alternate explanation. That is because I am not a concern troll.

You misrepresent the relevance of the earth's geological history. It wasn't just one point in time (cambrian) that the earth was warmer, The earth was warmer and had significantly more CO2 concentrations for the vast majority of it's history in the past 600 million years. The low levels of CO2 around 300 ppm and the low temperatures of 14 C average that we've had for the past 20ish million years are an outlier relative to the geologic record. This means that for the vast majority of the evolutionary history of organisms today on earth, CO2 concentrations were higher and temperatures are higher. As a result you have evolutionary traits such as the fact that plants prefer higher levels of CO2 and warmth to grow in. You just cannot wrap your head around the fact that someone can disagree with both climate alarmists and climate deniers, can you? I guess this guess back to you thinking that i'm a 'concern troll' who isn't presenting my 'real opinion'. I bring up the earth's geological history, not because I claim that recent warming is mostly the result of cyclic effects (as you seem to imply, perhaps your bias is negatively affecting your reading comprehension). I bring up the geological record because it is relevant to how life on earth evolved, and how life performed under higher CO2 and temperature levels. It's relevant in discussing how life will be affected by climate change and increased CO2 levels. And 'my argument' never said that positive feedbacks do not exist, despite your continued attempts to straw man my position, so positive feedback cannot undercut my position. Positive feedback is significant be it the reduction in the earth's albedo due to less glaciers/ice sheets, increased temperatures causing warmer oceans to release CO2 and methane, further increasing warming, or warmer temperatures increasing water vapor in the atmosphere. Your claim that more positive feedback = faster climate change isn't accurate. Different feedback mechanisms have different time responses. That is still a model, just not a climate model. I never approximated 800 to 970. I was giving you a hard time on 1000, because you are more focused on 800 != 1000 than the fact that the data supports my claim that: "800 ppm by the end of the century corresponds to a scenario where little mitigation policies take place" & "800 ppm corresponds roughly to the upper limit of CO2 concentrations by the end of the century under a no or little CO2 mitigation scenario". Again, the average of the 6 projections (which assume a no mitigation scenario) is ~700 ppm, which is less than 800 ppm. Taking the mean and standard deviation of different models is actually not that uncommon in science. I'm hesitant? Says the person that refuses to define their position. As for optimal, that depends on many factors but I'll give you a brief generalization. Because the majority of life on earth depends ultimately on plants, what is optimal for plant life is what is optimal for life on earth. As plants have evolved under much higher temperatures and CO2 concentrations for the majority of their evolutionary history, and based on the conditions under which plant growth is maximized today, I would have to argue that CO2 concentrations around 1200 ppm (though one could make a case for 1000 ppm) is optimal. Furthermore, if we want to talk about humans, the optimal average global temperature would correspond to room temperature. Current global average temperature is 14 C, which is far below room temperature. Humans of course spent most of their evolutionary history in warm east africa, which is why we prefer warmer conditions. Self projection much? If it is so clear and unambiguous, then you will have no problem defining it, will you? Or clarifying which of those 4 points you disagree with. Unlike you, I have no problem defining my position and do not hide behind ambiguity, poor grammar and straw man arguments. I guess I should re-explain why the post you keep saying 'here' to is nonsense. The CO2 fertilization effect doesn't magically stop when a plant is not in in a controlled growing environment. Not to mention I have provided various links to sources that deal with natural environments such as the CO2 fertilization effect at the end of the last ice age, the greening of the sahara desert, etc. This is a straw man. I am not 'ignoring' other effects and only considering the effect of CO2 fertilization on crop yields. You keep asking for effects on global yields without sufficient input parameters, which is not possible. The change in global yields depends on the CO2 level we choose, the crops we choose to grow (i.e. do we continue growing current crops or do we change to new crops better suited for the climate), etc. And yet again, you refuse to clarify your position and what parts of my position you disagree with: Quote Quote You also refused my request for you to comment on my point about 1200 ppm being optimal for plants: Quote

So you are more concerned about the rate of change than the magnitude of change? Well rapid climate change played a significant role in human evolution and there is a very supported scientific theory that the rapid development of the human brain is a result of rapid climate change. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-9980-9_13#page-1 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/drought-followed-by-brain-how-climate-change-spurred-evolution-of-human-intelligence-8884863.html So maybe after the climate change other species will start to evolve intelligence. Might not be so bad. I'm not sure I agree with your understanding on how technological advance occurs. And yes I understand how economies of scale works. In the context of radioactivity, half lives on the order of a hundred years is very very short. As a comparison, Uranium 235 has a half life of 700 million years, and Uranium 238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years.

Actually, there is a very good reason to believe that we will not significantly overshoot optimal levels of CO2 for life on earth even with no mitigation policies: Think about it: - How are we increasing CO2 levels? By burning fossil fuels. - Where do fossil fuels come from? From dead plant material that died millions of years ago. - Where did these plants get their carbon from? From the air. - When these plants were getting CO2 from the air, where CO2 levels too high for life to prosper? No. - Why have CO2 levels been decreasing gradually over the past 600 million years (especially the past 50 million years)? Because plants have been taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, dying, and after they die some of that carbon gets trapped in the ground in the form of fossil fuels (admittedly there are other factors for the decrease in CO2, but the existence of plant life is the dominant one). Fossil Fuels will either run out or become too expensive to extract before we start to have CO2 levels that are significantly higher than the historical levels under which plants evolved their abilities in the past 600 million years. The idea that we can burn fossil fuels and return CO2 to the atmosphere to achieve levels of CO2 ppm that are much higher than the historic concentrations, when the carbon from fossil fuels originally comes from the atmosphere in the first place, is ludicrous. In the future, costs of removing CO2 will be much lower due to technological progress and economies of scale. I do not mind discussing the other implications of climate change. But can you at least admit that my 1200 ppm value is not arbitrary and has a strong basis?

How is acknowledging that there are positive feedback effects and that the earth was warmer in the past run counter to advocating against mitigation policies? Clearly you do not understand the difference between 'roughly the upper limit' and 'the absolute upper limit of the most extreme CO2 prediction model'. And the most extreme of the models only predicts 950 ppm, not 1000 ppm. For the link, there were 6 different models with end of century predictions of: ~950 ppm, ~850 ppm, ~700 ppm, ~625 ppm, ~575 ppm and ~550 ppm. That is a mean of 708 ppm with a standard deviation of 160 ppm. Anyway, you are just trying to argue semantics here. The magnitude of expected change is still less than what is optimal for plant life and on the order of a few hundred increase in ppm, and a few degrees increase in global temperatures. Also do you care to comment on my post about optimal CO2 for plant life?: Sigh, you continue to troll me. I'll try to find the David Suzuki video where he says that he would prefer to return to pre-industrial levels of CO2, but until then here is some more support of the idea that climate alarmists have a premise that pre-industrial CO2 is the optimal level. Here is 300.org which wants to move closer to pre-industrial levels than 350.org: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm Here is a Harvard research paper (yes climate alarmism affects universities), where there is a premise that people will want to move back to pre-industrial levels of CO2. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013EGUGA..15.2280M Slightly related, I did find this interesting paper which justifies the 350 target in an interesting/different way than climate alarmists. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf It argues that in the past 50 million years, we have had gradual reductions in atmospheric CO2 levels since the Eocene optimum. About 34 million years ago, there was significant climate change (which marked the end of the Eocene and the start of the Oligocence) because CO2 levels and temperatures resulted in the glaciation of Antarctica. This represents the most drastic climate change in the past 50 million years (which we supposedly want to avoid), and corresponds to atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 450+/-100 ppm. So in order to avoid the loss of the Antarctic Ice Sheet we should aim for 350 ppm (lower limit of the confidence interval). Even if I were to agree that the loss of the Antarctic Ice sheet were bad/should be avoided, the choice of 350 is a bit questionable. The confidence interval has a very large margin (better data could reduce it), and likely the CO2 concentration threshold required to cause the loss of the Antarctic ice sheet is significantly higher than the CO2 concentration threshold required to create the Antarctic ice sheet, as the earth's albedo is higher when you have an Antarctic Ice sheet. Anyway, so advocates of significant CO2 mitigation (350-450 ppm) justify their position on: A. They want to be as close the pre-industrial levels as feasibly possible, which implies an inherent assumption of the optimality of pre-industrial levels. B. They want to avoid the loss of the Antarctic Ice sheet and the most significant effects of climate change, so justify we target the highest CO2 concentration that let's us keep the Antarctic Ice sheet. But this argument is based on the geological record, which you constantly insist doesn't matter. So which is it? Do you want to have significant CO2 mitigation because you have an inherent premise that pre-industrial levels where somehow optimal, or do you admit that the geological record is relevant to the discussion? Edit: given that most climate alarmists / general public have little knowledge about the geological record, their reasons for wanting to perform significant CO2 mitigation policies has to be because they have an inherent assumption of the optimality of pre-industrial levels. Actually, I'm going to invoke occum's razor here and suggest that unless you can come up with an alternative explanation as to why climate alarmists which to perform significant CO2 mitigation strategies, what we must conclude is that climate alarmists have the inherent assumption of the optimality of pre-industrial levels. And yet again, you refuse to clarify your position and what parts of my position you disagree with: Quote

1500 ppm is optimal for marijuana. http://www.theweedblog.com/co2-and-marijuana-plants/ Maybe someone should tell Justin Trudeau!

Yes. Because I do not think that the CO2 levels that will occur under a no-mitigation policy (800 ppm) passes the optimum CO2 levels. As I said, there are ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal Furthermore, mitigation only starts to make sense if we are near optimal CO2 levels for life. Reality doesn't have a corporal body to have a foot. Here is a website that explains CO2 enrichment for plant growth and recommends concentrations to use in greenhouses etc. http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening-with-co2-explained.cfm I'll provide a few quotations: "When plants appeared and evolved on Earth, it is known for a fact that carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration was much higher than it is now. Then, the CO2 concentration was certainly above 1000 parts per million (ppm)." "That’s why so many indoor gardeners enrich their garden with CO2 during photosynthesis to supply the plants with this essential building material." "Roses are distinctive as they require about 1200 ppm in carbon dioxide concentration for best results. For many fruits and vegetables, the ideal CO2 level in the garden should be at least between 1000 and 1200 ppm." "Too much CO2 is bad to the plants. Generally, enriching the garden's air to raise the level between 1,000 and 1,500 ppm is recommended. There is apparently no benefit to augment the concentration higher than 1,500 ppm. Higher levels are a human health hazard. Plants do not benefit from higher levels either." So does 1200 ppm seem reasonable now? Edit: actually, if anything we should subsidize CO2 emissions (rather than tax) to get to 1200 ppm faster.

Of course it is relevant to recent warming. The CO2 levels and temperature levels that we predict in the future have already occurred in the past and life flourished under those conditions. Yes, 800 ppm corresponds to roughly the upper limit of what we should expect for CO2 concentrations by the end of this century if no or little CO2 mitigation takes place. If you do not believe me then perhaps you would prefer CO2 projections by the IPCC under no mitigation circumstances? http://www.ipcc-data.org/observ/ddc_co2.html Yep, 800 ppm is roughly the upper limit. Your sentence made no grammatical sense, and I asked you to clarify what you were asking (which you didn't do). With respect to targets of 350-450 ppm despite 275 ppm being the pre-industrial levels, this is because these targets are more attainable, not because the people who hold these targets think that 275 ppm isn't optimal And yet again, you refuse to clarify your position and what parts of my position you disagree with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing Aren't most of Canada's nuclear reactors CANDU heavy water reactors? Stupid like creating a bunch of irrational anti-nuclear laws that increase the cost of energy, reducing their economic opportunities and slowing the rate of technological progress? There is naturally occurring Uranium, Thorium and other radioactive elements within the coal. After you burn the goal, what remains is a highly radioactive ash. There is an inverse relationship between radioactivity and the half life. So if something has a very long half life, it isn't very radioactive. While I may disagree with you on how well controlled nuclear reactors in Russia/China are, why is that relevant for a developed country like Canada? Canada does nuclear energy very well and isn't going around dumping nuclear waste in Somalia (that would probably be way too expensive anyway). Seiverts. Rem is a cgs unit that is equal to 0.01 Sv. A bequerel isn't a measure of radioactivity but of frequency (1 Bq = 1 Hz).

Posting Error

I did not say that. You are making a strawman argument. Science informs people's decision making, but it doesn't alone tell people what to do. The consensus is on CO2 emissions cause global warming and climate change, not that we should perform mitigation policies to avoid global warming. If you want to prove that we should perform mitigation policies to avoid global warming you have to show: 1. That CO2 emissions cause global warming (this is the scientific consensus). 2. That global warming is bad (I strongly disagree with this). 3. That the costs of mitigation in terms of economic costs exceed the net benefits of performing mitigation policies (i.e. you have to show that mitigation is better than the do nothing approach). 4.That mitigation is a more cost effective solution to avoiding global warming than alternative methods (such as removing CO2 from the atmosphere in the future or increasing the earth's albedo such as by increasing cloud cover). 5. Even if you proved all that, you will still need to get all countries on board to agree on the mitigation solution. This is a big issue because while it may be in the global interest for a country to perform mitigation policies, it might not be in the national best interest (i.e. you have a problem of game theory, sort of like the prisoner's dilemma). Science gives you 1. You still need to prove 2-5.

I do not understand how your question is a response to my comment. Furthermore, our concern isn't emissions, but the overall CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Yes, I don't want to stop global warming, I thought that was clear. Genies do not exist and I have not screwed up. I'd prefer that you avoid metaphors because I take things literally and they create confusion. I do not understand how this comment relates to my physics degree. I do not advocate people sticking their heads in the sand and sand does not have a foot. If you think sand has a food and will put a foot up your backside then I suggest you seek psychiatric help. If you are trying to say that we should take no actions with regards to climate change, you are incorrect. We should definitely take adaptation measures and should perform some mitigation policies (but only if projected CO2 levels are extremely high like 1200 ppm or more and only if we get international consensus).

Sorry if I was unclear, I meant nuclear waste recycling in particular. The Chernobyl disaster occurred at the end/collapse of the soviet union when the people in charge were not concerned at all for safety and used way outdated/terrible technology (graphite was the moderator, lol). Fukushima occurred with fairly outdated 40-year old reactors (many newer reactors have safety features in their design such that it is physically impossible for them to have steam explosions like with Fukushima). The plants were fine after a 9.0 magnitude earthquake off of Sendai, it was the tsunami that knocked out the backup power generators for the cooling system that created the problem. So yes, generalize all of nuclear power cause of a few select events with special circumstances & outdated technology. What about CANDU reactors? What about Thorium-salt reactors? Nuclear fuel has about 10 million times more energy density than chemical sources of fuel, so the waste we are talking about is very small (as in a person's lifetime waste would be roughly the size of a thousandth of a square metre). And actually, coal burning results in more radioactive material remaining per unit of energy than nuclear power. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste Furthermore, much of the waste can be reprocessed/recycled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing Some types of reactors like CANDUU do not generate as much waste as more conventional enriched U-238 + light water reactors. As for where to store the energy, it is common practice to store the waste near the reactor where it can be monitored. However, the plan was to store ALL of North America's nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. Unfortunately, a combination of congress defunding the project & lefties making it impossible for the US to make reactors for the past 30 years has left Yucca Mountain unused/abandoned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository If you are so paranoid about radioactivity, then I suggest you avoid eating bananas. They are high in the radioactive isotope K-40 and are the most radioactive fruit. And lol at posting random links to anti-nuclear opinion articles to prove that nuclear energy is bad. I'm aware that western society has an irrational anti-nuclear bias and most people know little about nuclear physics. Oh noes, those poor pirates! *sarcasm* The reason for all their piracy is cause of European nuclear waste! It's not like their piracy has anything to do with Somalia being an anarchist state, Somalians living in poverty so they have nowhere else to turn, or Islamic texts that endorse piracy! And it's not like Somalian pirates are untrustworthy or anything. *sarcasm* Oh and we should stop nuclear energy everywhere cause some mafia in Italy does illegal things? That's what the mafia does. Maybe it would be more prudent to throw the mafia in jail and manage your nuclear power plants sensibly. I've been the the reactors in the Bruce peninsula region and see nothing wrong with them. The region near lake Huron is geologically stable and not prone to earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. so if the waste storage is done sensibly, I see no reason storing it next to lake Huron. If you are worried about reglaciation of the area in a few ten thousand years, global warming will take care of that. The earth never has to suffer through an ice age again! And you have to laugh at anti-nuclear idiots who don't understand the technology. I suggest you go eat a banana. You need your potassium 40!

Perhaps you do not understand that a strawman argument is a fallacy. Here is a link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man And congratulations on ignoring the majority of my post (yet again). You haven't acknowledged that I cannot give you 'an exact number' on the increase in crop yields as a result of global warming without input parameters: And yet again, you refuse to clarify your position and what parts of my position you disagree with: Your argument consists of straw man arguments, random smiley face arguments, purposely not distinguishing/specifying between different climate scenarios, asking me for results of a model without sufficient input parameters, poor/unintelligible grammar and ignoring half of what I post.

From page 17: The reason the past 500 million years are significant is because multi-cellular life has flourished during this time period, which means that the past 500 million years have had conditions that are good for life. Furthermore, as CO2 and temperature levels have varied over the past 500 million years, we can see how well life has faired under different climactic conditions. From the geological record we can see what CO2 and temperature levels have been optimal for life and predict what may happen if we increase CO2 levels and temperature levels by CO2 emissions. In the geological record we see that we are well below the average for the past 500 years, climate change will merely bring us closer to the average, and life has flourished during warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels. The amount of warming we expect depends on what actions we take. If we perform some mitigation policies and target 450 ppm then 2 C is the expected amount of warming. Do you not understand that what will happen depends on what we do? I also gave climate models in this thread that predict 4 C warming if we go to 800 ppm, which corresponds to a scenario where little mitigation takes place. Either way, the amount of climate change we should expect will be on the order of a few hundred ppm increase in CO2 levels and a few degrees of warming. Pointing out and countering your strawman arguments is not backpedaling. So even if I find any evidence that shows that climate alarmists believe that pre-industrial CO2, it won't be good enough for you? So even if I point at organizations like 350.org (http://350.org/en/about/science) or get quotes from David Suzuki, it won't count? The fact that alarmists want to stop CO2 emissions as much as possible (and even reduce CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels) implies that they believe that pre-industrial levels are optimal.

Mitigation of CO2 emissions... I thought that was implied in a climate change thread. The premise that we should stop at the optimal climate for life on the earth is false; if we factor in the costs of mitigation and the possibility of alternative methods for countering higher global temperatures (such as sea water clouds or space mirrors), then it is reasonable that we should stop slightly higher than the optimum. The second part of the sentence makes little sense. If you plan on the course of action (how much mitigation/adaptation we should do, what CO2 levels we should aim for, etc.) and you follow that plan, how could you have 'taken no steps to deal with the cause'? All physical processes that increase entropy are irreversible. So whatever we do will be irreversible. Or are you talking about being unable to alter the climate back to current conditions? Of course we can remove CO2 from the atmosphere in the future and reverse climate change if we decide to. Here is a wiki entry on different CO2 removal techniques: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal One should not have 'faith' in science, faith is for religions. Maybe you would prefer to use the words trust or confidence instead? Science doesn't tell people want to do. If you think otherwise then you do not understand science. Science can give us a better understanding of the universe, but it alone does not tell us what actions we should take; to do that you also need economics, philosophy, etc.

I meant the global temperatures and CO2 levels from 1850/1880. So that would be roughly 0.8 C below current global temperatures and a CO2 level of 270-280 ppm. You are making a strawman argument here. My claim was that some climate alarmists want to return to pre-industrial levels not that climate scientists (though that isn't to say scientists cannot be alarmists) want to return to pre-industrial levels. Science cannot want to do anything or tell us what to do. It merely helps us understand the reality of the universe we live in. In order to make decisions with respect to climate change, one must use economics, philosophy, etc. 395 ppm is still well below the average for the past 600 million years. Heck, pretty much any point in time before 15 million years ago had higher CO2 levels than now. So we are still within the historic realm of CO2 concentrations. What is difficult for you to understand? I claimed that there were projection models that showed a level of warming of 2 C. And yes these models exist, they are the ones that were used by the UNFCCC to make their 2 C target. Obviously, what will happen will depend on what humans do with respect to CO2 emission mitigation policies. But somehow, making a comment which is correct is a 'belly-flop big-time fail' in your mind. This isn't a sentence that makes grammatical sense. You seem to have a habit of using sentences with poor, complex or incorrect grammar (sentences with many words ending in ing for example). Could you please try to use simple/correct grammar so that what you say is actually understandable? Are you implying that I claimed that the UNFCCC's target CO2 ppm is the same as that which climate alarmists believe is optimal for life on this planet? Because if that is true, you are performing a strawman argument (clearly the strawman argument is your favorite argument technique). Climate alarmists usually believe that pre-industrial levels (270 ppm) are the optimal CO2 levels for life on this planet, yes. The target CO2 of the UNFCCC is 450 ppm, yes. But why would they be the same, or why do you think I claimed that they were the same? Even if the UNFCCC were run completely by climate alarmists and they have the same premise as the climate alarmists about optimal CO2 levels, that doesn't mean their target will by 270 ppm. They have to factor in the costs of mitigation and they also have to set goals which are reasonable given the political situation across the planet, which is why their target of 450 ppm is higher than 270 ppm. Again, strawman argument, yet again. My claim was that the CO2 fertilization effect was beneficial to crop yields everywhere (which it is), while acknowledging that indirect effects from higher CO2 levels via climate change will have varying effects on crop yields depending on location. My position has always been consistent. But given the number of times you used this strawman argument and ignore when I point out that it is a strawman argument, I expect your next response will be a simple repeat of your strawman argument. With respect to the CO2 fertilization effect, this will affect ALL plants & crops at ALL latitudes in a positive way. It's basic biology. To determine the level of crop yield increase you need to have the increase in CO2 levels and what kinds of crops we are growing in different locations as input parameters. I can't give you an exact number without relation to a certain CO2 level can I? Furthermore, as I have said multiple times in this thread, the total effect on crop yields depends largely on if we continue with current growing patterns, or if we adapt and grow crops that are better suited to the changed climate. That's because the CO2 fertilization effect is beneficial everywhere. Or are you talking about the indirect affects of CO2 on crop yields? I cannot know because you are purposely unclear and never distinguish if you are talking about the effect of the CO2 fertilization effect or if you are talking about the combined effect when including indirect factors such as temperature, precipitation and wind changes. You mean the post where you call me names? I've addressed that many times. Please see my previous posts. Again, you are being unclear about which increase in crop yields in another attempt to strawman my position. Are we talking about the increase due to the CO2 fertilization effect or are we talking more generally about the net effect of climate change? Are we talking about the change in crop yields if we continue our current growing patterns or are we talking about changes in crop yields if we adapt to the new climate? How much climate change are we talking about? You merge all these different scenarios into one giant mess of ambiguity, and then strawman my position. So again my position on crop yields is as follows: - The CO2 fertilization effect will cause increases in crop yields everywhere. - Other effects such as changes to temperature, precipitation, cloud cover, wind and other weather effects will have varying effects on crop yields depending on location. - If we do not change our geographical distribution of crops (our current crop distribution is roughly optimized for current climatic conditions) then the overall effect of climate change will have a slight negative impact on crop yields. Most climate studies that measure climate effects on crop yields assume that humans will not adapt to the new climate, which is nonsense. - However, if we are reasonable and change our crop growing patterns such that we grow crops that are better suited to a warmer climate (and the amount of climate change is reasonable such as 3 C global temperature increase & 400 ppm CO2 increase) then crop yields will overall increase. Which of the 4 points do you disagree with or want me to provide evidence for? Which ones do you agree with? When you are talking about changes in crop yields, can you please specific they scenario.

Perhaps consistently was the wrong word, but here is a quote: Either 1850 or 1880 would be used as the benchmark. That's what the IPCC and various climate change mitigation advocacy groups use. Here is an example of a climate alarmist saying that we need to return to pre-industrial levels. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/15/climatechange.carbonemissions ther 1850 or 1880 would be used as the benchmark. That's what the IPCC and various climate change mitigation advocacy groups use. If that is the case, then you have to look at the net cost of doing nothing (in terms of the environment) and compare that to the cost of performing mitigation policies (in terms of the economy). If the mitigation costs are higher than the environmental benefits then it wouldn't make sense to perform mitigation policies as opposed to the 'do nothing' approach. More likely though, we would choose a compromise between environmental concerns and economic concerns. So overall, we probably will not end up at the 'optimum level'. Furthermore, even if the benefits of mitigation exceed the costs of mitigation, we should still compare mitigation to other options to counter climate change (such as increasing cloud cover using sea water or building a giant space mirror). And even if mitigation is the best plan, you still need to get all countries in the world to agree (including theocracies that believe the earth is 6,000 years old and do not agree with evolution) and you have an issue of game theory where a country's best interest and the global best interest are often not the same. I don't see how it is rational to slow down the process if we disagree if the process is beneficial or not and we don't have a plan. Formulate a plan first.

Then you look at the costs of changing (and/or preventing change) with respect to the climate, you look at the costs and benefits of that change in climate, you look at various ways to change the climate, and then you choose the best course of action. That is why you plan the best course of action that is optimal for humans on earth. If CO2 mitigation policies or alternatives (like increasing cloud cover using sea water) are necessary then do so. I agree. What humans are doing now with respect to CO2 emissions & climate change has no goal/objective. That's why discussing what is the optimal global climate for humans on earth, what course of action should we take with respect to climate change, are interesting topics. No you misread me. I was claiming that climate alarmists have a premise that the pre-industrial CO2 and temperature levels in the mid 19th century towards the end of the little ice age are somehow optimal. Ah, this explains a lot. Concern Troll (urban dictionary, had to look this one up) "In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with "concerns". The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you're an ally. Concern trolls who use fake identities are sometimes known as sockpuppets." Furthermore, you imply that the position that I give is not my 'real position' and have consistently accused me of being a denier that CO2 emissions cause global warming, despite no evidence and evidence to the contrary. So let me see if I understand this correctly: - You believe that I am really a climate denier who does not accept that humans emitting large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere affects the climate. - You think that I am pretending to agree with anthropogenic climate change to gain sympathy and to act as a 'concern troll'. - It's not like someone can have different position, clearly they have to be either a climate denier or a climate alarmist. - But we all know that climate alarmists have 100% of science on their side (as shown by the wonderful knowledge of global temperature gradient and heat engines by climate alarmists in this thread), so the only reasons someone could disagree with climate alarmists is either they are paid for by an oil company, are trolling, or are a climate denier. You really like referencing a post you made earlier in this thread where you use ad hominem fallacies don't you (like "you're just playing silly-buggar!")? I have provided more than sufficient evidence to support the CO2 fertilization effect in this thread. The CO2 fertilization effect is well established, has scientific consensus, and comes down to basic chemistry that if you increase your limiting reactant in a reaction (such as photosynthesis), more of that reaction will occur. But I guess that somehow the CO2 fertilization effect magically stops working 'in the real world' and for some reason looking at the CO2 fertilization effect in the past such as 10,000 years ago when the last ice age ended doesn't counter either because it isn't recent enough. *sarcasm* Is this the same logic you guys use when explaining heat engines? How about you at least admit that the CO2 fertilization effect exists. And what is with your continued insistence on performing this strawman argument that I've never said there are other factors that influence crop yields other than the CO2 fertilization effect? I've consistently said that indirect effects of CO2 increases by climate change (changes in temperatures, rainfall, wind speeds, etc.) will have varying effects on crop yields.

So the majority do not support a merger, what is your point?

So the only way someone can advocate a merger is if they are secretly controlled by the elite? There are plenty of Canadians in this thread who would support a merger under some circumstances. But I guess 'Canadians [don't] want any merger' *sarcasm*.

Ahh, good to see someone else has a similar position to me but too bad your argument was ignored. But yeah, it seems some people don't even want to argue what the optimal climate for humans is, or challenge the premise that somehow pre-industrial levels were optimal. From page 17: The reason the past 500 million years are significant is because multi-cellular life has flourished during this time period, which means that the past 500 million years have had conditions that are good for life. Furthermore, as CO2 and temperature levels have varied over the past 500 million years, we can see how well life has faired under different climactic conditions. From the geological record we can see what CO2 and temperature levels have been optimal for life and predict what may happen if we increase CO2 levels and temperature levels by CO2 emissions. In the geological record we see that we are well below the average for the past 500 years, climate change will merely bring us closer to the average, and life has flourished during warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels. I'm a denier now? What have I denied? So you refuse to clarify which statements that I made that you disagree with? wtf lol. I guess you wish to hide behind ambiguity.

I do not agree. The whole plan distinguishes between non-aboriginal and aboriginal people based upon race; everyone should be equal under the law. Now if you wanted to make a strategic plan for 'people of remote communities' corrections, then I would might be okay with it.