Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem

[waldo]

CO2 fertilization is beneficial to all plants because it makes it easier for them to perform photo-synthesis. If you want to explain how the converse is true then please do so.

now you're just playing silly-buggar! Again, your focus is on non-real world growing scenarios/conditions... like greenhouses, like sunlit enclosures. You make your grandiose claims of global crop yield increases based on these non-real world growing scenarios/conditions. And again, regardless of selective crops within selective regions/latitudes, you outright ignore considerations that can... that will... affect presumptions on increased growth yields. Again, you continue to ignore the following post that I've repeated, ad nauseum! The real question for your continued silly buggar act is to have you explain why you have such a narrow limited vision/perspective on growth scenarios/conditions... and why you outright ignore considerations that can... that will... affect presumptions on growth yields.

Again, the post, as follows, that you continue to outright ignore:

.

citation request: most particularly, with respect to global yields; CO2 levels; distinctions between experimental enclosure studies/model simulations versus FACE results; stressed versus unstressed conditions, particularly with regard to weeds, pests, soil quality, water availability/quality, air quality, acclimation considerations, resource competition, etc.

Edited November 26, 2013 by waldo

[waldo]

no! Nice try. You specifically and repeatedly spoke of the distant past, the geological record and optimal conditions for life... you implied the optimal conditions of the distant past translated to today's world. Your nonsense in now speaking of room temperature and an African origination says nothing about your claimed "distant past, geological record based, optimal conditions for life"... and how you might presume to correlate "your unstated distant past optimal conditions", to today's world.

The evolutionary history on this planet and the conditions of which our ancestors thrived (we still share their DNA) has no relevance to understanding how life will fair due to climate change, especially when that climate changes to conditions closer to what our ancestors thrived in?

you specifically spoke of "optimal conditions for life"... you specifically and repeatedly made reference to the distant 500 million year old past... to geological records. I challenged you to identify those geological based indicators of "optimal conditions for life" that you spoke of. I challenged you to directly correlate the distant past's high CO2/temperature levels (levels that you never actually identified) to today's world. You've provided zippo, nada, zilch... you've provided nothing of definitive substance/detail. You simply trot out another generalized and unsubstantiated claim. Of course you do! It's what you're all about.

[waldo]

you truly have very limited reading & comprehension ability. None of what you've just thrown up has any bearing whatsoever on today's staple crop growing conditions... on growth considerations. I keep repeating the same quote that presents a representative grouping of caveats/influences/factors that can... that will... affect any presumptions on growth yields. You simply can't understand this most fundamental point that you can't make a blanket statement that global crop yields will increase. You just can't!

So I provide a paper that explains the importance of the CO2 fertilization effect after the last ice age which made it easier for humans to perform agriculture and you dismiss it because it occurred 10,000 years ago, which isn't recently enough for you? Well aren't you a CO2 fertilization effect denier.

Also, perhaps you need to reread this because you appear to fail at reading comprehension:

- 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 above statements do you disagree with?

already answered - here:

[-1=e^ipi]

no - although the jet stream 'north-south' shift is thought to be associated with Arctic amplification (a temperature gradient aspect), the increase in related extreme events is... possibly... attributed to an underlying physical basis/mechanism that is causing the jet stream movement to "stall out" and keep storms fixed in the same general region/area for days on end.

The link you have provided does not talk about the jet stream or a north-south shift. It talks about resonance effects at mid-latitudes and how a decreased temperature gradient may increase this resonance effect. Of course it doesn't actually tell me how the reduced temperature gradient increases this resonance effect. It says that 'some equations were developed and used' (paraphrasing) but does not provide a link for me to examine these equations. Anyway, the resonance article was interesting, but I think there is insufficient evidence to make any significant conclusions, as the article itself admits "So there’s no smoking gun on the table yet".

Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to explain what you are referring to. Are you referring to a weakening of the northern jet stream?

try that sentence again, hey! Your provided links have been shown to either be nonsensical, unrelated or lacking actual support for your claims.

Says the CO2 fertilization effect denier...

In this specific instance, you asked me for information that is quite readily available to you with a simple search...

Yeah, cause things like CO2 fertilization effect, heat engine or geological history of the earth, are so no easily searchable... *sarcasm*

Anyway, are you referring to this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_amplification

So basically you are referring to the decrease in global temperature gradient? Okay, what is your point? I've bought up decrease in temperature gradient.

I most certainly won't be making any effort to accommodate your requests for help/assistance.

I guess providing that evidence stuff is hard when it's not on the side of climate alarmists.

[-1=e^ipi]

now you're just playing silly-buggar! Again, your focus is on non-real world growing scenarios/conditions... like greenhouses, like sunlit enclosures. You make your grandiose global crop yield increases based on these non-real world growing scenarios/conditions.

So the CO2 fertilization effect only applies to plants in greenhouses, but not in plants in the 'real world'? Really? What is this nonsense? Oh but wait, if I reference the CO2 fertilization effect at the end of the last ice age, that doesn't count either cause it was 10,000 years ago, and somehow the CO2 fertilization effect magically stopped working since then!

And again, regardless of selective crops within selective regions/latitudes, you outright ignore considerations that can... that will... affect presumptions on increased growth yields. Again, you continue to ignore the following post that I've repeated, ad nauseum! The real question for your continued silly buggar act is to have you explain why you have such a narrow limited vision/perspective on growth scenarios/conditions... and why you outright ignore considerations that can... that will... affect presumptions on growth yields.

Earlier I wrote:

- 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.

So what am I denying exactly? What about my position is unclear. Which of these 3 statements do you not agree with? You are trying to confuse 4 different statements I made as one in order to perform a strawman argument.

[waldo]

no - although the jet stream 'north-south' shift is thought to be associated with Arctic amplification (a temperature gradient aspect), the increase in related extreme events is... possibly... attributed to an underlying physical basis/mechanism that is causing the jet stream movement to "stall out" and keep storms fixed in the same general region/area for days on end.

The link you have provided does not talk about the jet stream or a north-south shift. It talks about resonance effects at mid-latitudes and how a decreased temperature gradient may increase this resonance effect. Of course it doesn't actually tell me how the reduced temperature gradient increases this resonance effect. It says that 'some equations were developed and used' (paraphrasing) but does not provide a link for me to examine these equations. Anyway, the resonance article was interesting, but I think there is insufficient evidence to make any significant conclusions, as the article itself admits "So there’s no smoking gun on the table yet".[/size]

Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to explain what you are referring to. Are you referring to a weakening of the northern jet stream?

gee... within the linked article, there's a link labeled "planetary waves" and there's a whole section titled "Planetary waves". What could this mean, what could this mean! Try the link... see Rossby waves! That wasn't so hard now, was it! Again, this line of study/research presumes to have found a... possible... underlying physical basis/mechanism... as to why the shifted jet stream is "stalling out" and, accordingly, keeping storms in place for extended periods of time.

clearly, you can't follow a defined statement and make the association to the referenced linked article. Too much for ya, hey!

.

[waldo]

Says the CO2 fertilization effect denier...

no - says the guy, you, perpetuating your silly buggar act. As before, already answered - here:

[waldo]

In this specific instance, you asked me for information that is quite readily available to you with a simple search... again, given your most overt insults, I most certainly won't be making any effort to accommodate your requests for help/assistance.

I guess providing that evidence stuff is hard when it's not on the side of climate alarmists.

if you're going to continue to throw blatant insults (like the one I bold, red-colour highlighted), I certainly won't respond to your requests for help/assistance.

[waldo]

So the CO2 fertilization effect only applies to plants in greenhouses, but not in plants in the 'real world'? Really? What is this nonsense?

no - the nonsense is your narrow focus on enclosure growth... the non-real world growth I keep emphasizing. You clearly prefer your isolated growth bubble that avoids any of those undesirable growth considerations that can... that will... affect growth. You do so, while presuming to tout your claims of increased global growth yields! In any case, again, already answered - here:

[-1=e^ipi]

you specifically spoke of "optimal conditions for life"...

So you are saying we cannot determine the optimal conditions for life on this planet? In that case why bother with climate mitigation then, cause apparently CO2 and temperature levels do not affect how prosperous life is on our planet. *sarcasm*

If you advocates of climate change mitigation do not think that pre-industrial levels at the end of the mini-ice age are not optimal, then why do you advocate trying to return to such levels or to reduce that amount of CO2 humans release into the atmosphere?

I challenged you to identify those geological based indicators of "optimal conditions for life" that you spoke of.

By this, you mean either a measure of the total biomass on the planet? Estimating this is difficult simply due to insufficient information in the fossil record. We could look at the total number of species on the planet, but not all species are preserved in the fossil record and the number of species isn't necessarily the best indicator if biomass varies greatly. Ultimately, the most useful thing we can do with the geological record is look qualitatively at how life performed at different times as CO2 and temperature varied.

Another thing we could do is look at mass extinction events.

- The Permian-Triassic mass extinction, as mentioned earlier, involved very significant amounts of global warming caused primarily by the flood basalt eruptions at the Siberian Traps and eventually causing methane hydrate gasification. Of couse the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event had numerous causes, and initially there was short term cooling.

- The late devonian mass extinction event is interesting and is more directly related to a large change in atmospheric CO2 levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Devonian_extinction

"The "greening" of the continents occurred during Devonian time. The covering of the planet's continents with massive photosynthesizing land plants in the first forests may have reduced carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Since CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, reduced levels might have helped produce a chillier climate. Evidence such as glacial deposits in northern Brazil (located near the Devonian south pole) suggest widespread glaciation at the end-Devonian, as a broad continental mass covered the polar region. A cause of the extinctions may have been an episode of global cooling, following the mild climate of the Devonian period. The Hangenberg event has also been linked to glaciation in the tropics equivalent to that of the Pleistocene ice age ^[29]

The weathering of silicate rocks also draws down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This acted in concert with the burial of organic matter to decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from ~15 to ~3 times present levels. Carbon in the form of plant matter would be produced on prodigious scales, and given the right conditions could be stored and buried, eventually producing vast coal measures (e.g. in China) which locked the carbon out of the atmosphere and into thelithosphere.^[30] This reduction in atmospheric CO₂ would have caused global cooling and resulted in at least one period of late Devonian glaciation (and subsequent sea level fall),^[31] probably fluctuating in intensity alongside the 40ka Milankovic cycle. The continued drawdown of organic carbon eventually pulled the Earth out of its Greenhouse Earth state into the Icehouse that continued throughout the Carboniferous and Permian."

- The Ordovician-Sulurian mass extinction event was also caused by global cooling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician%E2%80%93Silurian_extinction_event

"The immediate cause of extinction appears to have been the movement ofGondwana into the south polar region. This led to global cooling, glaciation and consequent sea level fall."

- For the Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction event, there isn't currently a concensus on what the cause of the extinction event, or if there was cooling or warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic%E2%80%93Jurassic_extinction_event

"Massive volcanic eruptions, specifically the flood basalts of the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province (CAMP), would release carbon dioxide or sulfur dioxide and aerosols, which would cause either intense global warming (from the former) or cooling (from the latter)."

- And of course I'm sure you are familiar with the Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction event where an asteroid hit the Yucatan peninsula in mexico caused extreme global cooling.

Now, another option is to use pollen frequency (in ice cores, rocks, etc.) as a proxy for the amount of plant life at any given time and compare that to temperatures and CO2 levels. Pollen is something that is well preserved and easily quantifiable.

For example, here is an estimate of global temperature, CO2 levels and dust concentrations using Vostok ice core data from Antarctica.

And here is some pollen data from core samples from the Santa Barbara Basin in California for the past 140,000 years.

Here it is apparent that there is a strong relation between pollen and global temperatures. During the ice age ~140,000 years ago, we see very low global temperatures and low levels of sage, oak , pine and chaparrel levels of pollen. During the last interglacial period of 120,000-130,000 years ago, these pollen levels spiked. We see drops in global temperatures around 70,000, 90,000 and 110,000 years ago that correspond to drops in the oak pollen record, etc.

I challenged you to directly correlate the distant past's high CO2/temperature levels (levels that you never actually identified) to today's world.

Your challenge doesn't even make sense. It is not possible to correlate CO2/temperature levels over time with 'today's world'. The first is 1D time series data. The second is a single data point for today. It is only mathematically possible to correlate things that are of the same dimension.

[-1=e^ipi]

already answered - here:

All you did in your response is call me a 'silly buggar', which I cannot find a definition for.

Anyway, if you want to move this discussion forward and not just troll this thread, it would be helpful if we can at least identify where we disagree. I made 4 statements:

- 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.

Tell me which you agree with and which you disagree with.

if you're going to continue to throw blatant insults (like the one I bold, red-colour highlighted), I certainly won't respond to your requests for help/assistance.

I like how you refer to supporting evidence for your argument as 'help/assistance for others' as if supporting evidence is something you climate alarmists do not need to provide, but only provide out of charity.

no - the nonsense is your narrow focus on enclosure growth... the non-real world growth I keep emphasizing. You clearly prefer your isolated growth bubble that avoids any of those undesirable growth considerations that can... that will... affect growth. You do so, while presuming to tout your claims of increased global growth yields! In any case, again, already answered - here:

All you did was call me a 'silly buggar', make false claims and continue to ignore the scientific consensus behind the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect.

[Bonam]

-1=e^ipi, way back years ago on these climate change threads I made the same point: before we go deciding whether we should change, not change, or reverse changes we have made to the climate, it might make sense to figure out what the optimal climate actually is. That's what we really need some more science on. What global average temperature and CO2 ppm level would maximize the Earth's carrying capacity for humans? What other factors (ocean current patterns, etc) can we control to enhance the Earth's ability to sustain human populations?

If we accept the fact that human civilization has the capacity to affect the Earth's climate (which climate change proponents implicitly do), then the rational course of action is to use that ability to optimize the climate, rather than simply assuming that whatever would exist without human influence is automatically best (i.e. what you call "gaia-worshiping nonsense").

Of course, that viewpoint was completely ignored by both climate change alarmists and skeptics, so that they could continue their never-ending circular arguments with each other.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Bonam

[waldo]

you specifically spoke of "optimal conditions for life"... you specifically and repeatedly made reference to the distant 500 million year old past... to geological records. I challenged you to identify those geological based indicators of "optimal conditions for life" that you spoke of. I challenged you to directly correlate the distant past's high CO2/temperature levels (levels that you never actually identified) to today's world. You've provided zippo, nada, zilch... you've provided nothing of definitive substance/detail. You simply trot out another generalized and unsubstantiated claim. Of course you do! It's what you're all about.

So you are saying we cannot determine the optimal conditions for life on this planet? In that case why bother with climate mitigation then, cause apparently CO2 and temperature levels do not affect how prosperous life is on our planet. *sarcasm*

no - I kept asking you to identify what the climate of the distant past... your going back 500 Million years ago... has to do with today's relatively recent warming, related climate change and attributions therein. Although you keep harping on that distant past, you're unable to answer this question/challenge put to you... well, other than your catch-all, hand-wave to the distant past's high CO2/temperature levels providing "optimal conditions to support human/plant life".

.

[waldo]

All you did in your response is call me a 'silly buggar', which I cannot find a definition for.

All you did was call me a 'silly buggar'

no - I didn't call you that... I referred to your "silly buggar act"... I play the ball, not the Concern Troll MLW member!

[waldo]

before we go deciding whether we should change, not change, or reverse changes we have made to the climate, it might make sense to figure out what the optimal climate actually is. That's what we really need some more science on. What global average temperature and CO2 ppm level would maximize the Earth's carrying capacity for humans? What other factors (ocean current patterns, etc) can we control to enhance the Earth's ability to sustain human populations?

If we accept the fact that human civilization has the capacity to affect the Earth's climate (which climate change proponents implicitly do), then the rational course of action is to use that ability to optimize the climate, rather than simply assuming that whatever would exist without human influence is automatically best (i.e. what you call "gaia-worshiping nonsense").

Of course, that viewpoint was completely ignored by both climate change alarmists and skeptics, so that they could continue their never-ending circular arguments with each other.

if you presume to just drop into the thread... the other guy wasn't speaking to the present. No, he was, as is oft done by fake skeptics/deniers, attempting to leverage the long distant past's high CO2/temperature levels as an indicator of "no worries" for today's relatively recent warming, related climate change and attribution therein.

so you feel your viewpoint on today's optimal climate conditions was "completely ignored"??? Did you strike up a dedicated thread... I don't recall one? I certainly don't recall any posts following that theme. There's certainly nothing preventing you from initiating that discussion again - is there?

[Bonam]

Did you strike up a dedicated thread... I don't recall one?

Yes, here you go:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/16200-climate-change-the-rational-argument/

[waldo]

already answered - here:

Anyway, if you want to move this discussion forward and not just troll this thread, it would be helpful if we can at least identify where we disagree.

no - if you have any presumption of moving off your trolling act, of, as you say, "moving the discussion forward", you have a post waiting for you to completely/properly respond to; again - here:

.

[waldo]

Yes, here you go:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/16200-climate-change-the-rational-argument/

a 4 page thread... you weren't as you say, 'completely ignored". Perhaps the discussion didn't follow your intent... other than your OP, I don't see you attempting to keep the thread on track. Perhaps, if you're inclined, resurrect it - you might get more bites.

[-1=e^ipi]

-1=e^ipi, way back years ago on these climate change threads I made the same point: before we go deciding whether we should change, not change, or reverse changes we have made to the climate, it might make sense to figure out what the optimal climate actually is. That's what we really need some more science on. What global average temperature and CO2 ppm level would maximize the Earth's carrying capacity for humans? What other factors (ocean current patterns, etc) can we control to enhance the Earth's ability to sustain human populations?

If we accept the fact that human civilization has the capacity to affect the Earth's climate (which climate change proponents implicitly do), then the rational course of action is to use that ability to optimize the climate, rather than simply assuming that whatever would exist without human influence is automatically best (i.e. what you call "gaia-worshiping nonsense").

Of course, that viewpoint was completely ignored by both climate change alarmists and skeptics, so that they could continue their never-ending circular arguments with each other.

Yes, here you go:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/16200-climate-change-the-rational-argument/

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.

no - I kept asking you to identify what the climate of the distant past... your going back 500 Million years ago... has to do with today's relatively recent warming, related climate change and attributions therein. Although you keep harping on that distant past, you're unable to answer this question/challenge put to you... well, other than your catch-all, hand-wave to the distant past's high CO2/temperature levels providing "optimal conditions to support human/plant life".

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.

if you presume to just drop into the thread... the other guy wasn't speaking to the present. No, he was, as is oft done by fake skeptics/deniers

I'm a denier now? What have I denied?

no - if you have any presumption of moving off your trolling act, of, as you say, "moving the discussion forward", you have a post waiting for you to completely/properly respond to; again - here:

So you refuse to clarify which statements that I made that you disagree with? wtf lol. I guess you wish to hide behind ambiguity.

[Bonam]

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.

Yep, nice to have someone else trained in physics on the forum

[Wilber]

-1=e^ipi, way back years ago on these climate change threads I made the same point: before we go deciding whether we should change, not change, or reverse changes we have made to the climate, it might make sense to figure out what the optimal climate actually is. That's what we really need some more science on. What global average temperature and CO2 ppm level would maximize the Earth's carrying capacity for humans? What other factors (ocean current patterns, etc) can we control to enhance the Earth's ability to sustain human populations?

If we accept the fact that human civilization has the capacity to affect the Earth's climate (which climate change proponents implicitly do), then the rational course of action is to use that ability to optimize the climate, rather than simply assuming that whatever would exist without human influence is automatically best (i.e. what you call "gaia-worshiping nonsense").

Of course, that viewpoint was completely ignored by both climate change alarmists and skeptics, so that they could continue their never-ending circular arguments with each other.

So we figure out what that optimum is. Then what? Right now we are dumping ever increasing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere so what happens when we reach that so called optimum level? What's our plan, just somehow magically stop?

What we are doing is not engineering the climate. Engineers have a specific objective when they design something and a plan which will get them there. What we are doing is an uncontrolled experiment with no objective and no plan for the consequences.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Wilber

[waldo]

you specifically spoke of "optimal conditions for life"... you specifically and repeatedly made reference to the distant 500 million year old past... to geological records. I challenged you to identify those geological based indicators of "optimal conditions for life" that you spoke of. I challenged you to directly correlate the distant past's high CO2/temperature levels (levels that you never actually identified) to today's world. You've provided zippo, nada, zilch... you've provided nothing of definitive substance/detail. You simply trot out another generalized and unsubstantiated claim. Of course you do! It's what you're all about.

no - I kept asking you to identify what the climate of the distant past... your going back 500 Million years ago... has to do with today's relatively recent warming, related climate change and attributions therein. Although you keep harping on that distant past, you're unable to answer this question/challenge put to you... well, other than your catch-all, hand-wave to the distant past's high CO2/temperature levels providing "optimal conditions to support human/plant life".

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.

so your... "premise"... is that pre-industrial levels were optimal. Pre-industrial??? Is that why you repeatedly reference back 500 Million years ago? Is that your pre-industrial?

it's quite telling on yourself that you proclaim "an unwillingness to argue" something that you've left to nothing more than degrees of generalization, of vagueness, of no specificity, of no definition, of no correlation to today, of..... a general hand-wave to nothing more than a catch-all phrase "optimal conditions for human/plant life". You've had another thread identified for you; that thread's originator has claimed it's intent was to speak to identifying "optimal conditions"... now he didn't have your wisdom/foresight in going back 500 Million years ago, but I trust he would relish the idea of you resurrecting that thread. However, I trust he's looking for more than just another of your "hand waves" to nothingness!

[waldo]

the other guy wasn't speaking to the present. No, he was, as is oft done by fake skeptics/deniers, attempting to leverage the long distant past's high CO2/temperature levels as an indicator of "no worries" for today's relatively recent warming, related climate change and attribution therein.

I'm a denier now? What have I denied?

more of your reading/comprehension difficulty, hey. You're the one making your association and personal attachment to my reference. I've certainly labeled you a concern troll; beyond that, we'll need a bit more time to flush out your real position.

[waldo]

already answered - here:

Anyway, if you want to move this discussion forward and not just troll this thread, it would be helpful if we can at least identify where we disagree.

no - if you have any presumption of moving off your trolling act, of, as you say, "moving the discussion forward", you have a post waiting for you to completely/properly respond to; again - here:

So you refuse to clarify which statements that I made that you disagree with? wtf lol. I guess you wish to hide behind ambiguity.

no - the only ambiguity is yours... it's identified in the thread you won't touch; again - here. The one I'll keep throwing back at you... until you speak to your own ambiguity. You know, come out from behind your blatant, broad and all encompassing claim of an increase in global crop yields, come out from behind your isolation to enclosure non-real world growth studies, come out from behind your refusal to speak to the myriad of considerations on any presumption of staple crop growth increase, on any staple crop, in any world region, at any geographic latitude level.

.

[-1=e^ipi]

So we figure out what that optimum is. Then what?

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.

Right now we are dumping ever increasing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere so what happens when we reach that so called optimum level? What's our plan, just somehow magically stop?

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.

What we are doing is not engineering the climate. Engineers have a specific objective when they design something and a plan which will get them there. What we are doing is an uncontrolled experiment with no objective and no plan for the consequences.

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.

so your... "premise"... is that pre-industrial levels were optimal. Pre-industrial??? Is that why you repeatedly reference back 500 Million years ago? Is that your pre-industrial?

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.

more of your reading/comprehension difficulty, hey. You're the one making your association and personal attachment to my reference. I've certainly labeled you a concern troll; beyond that, we'll need a bit more time to flush out your real position.

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.

no - the only ambiguity is yours... it's identified in the thread you won't touch; again - here.

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!")?

come out from behind your isolation to enclosure non-real world growth studies, come out from behind your refusal to speak to the myriad of considerations on any presumption of staple crop growth increase, on any staple crop, in any world region, at any geographic latitude level.

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.

Edited November 27, 2013 by -1=e^ipi