Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

so what? As you've been repeatedly challenged on, what does the distant past (now you've gone back 600 million years), it's conditions, and presumed climate therein, have to do with today's relatively recent warming, related climate change and attributions therein? I expect you'll be throwing down the Venus mantle next, hey?

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.

BS! You spoke of expected warming, a projection of expected warming. What you kept calling, what you keep calling a projection, was and is not... it's a target, a goal. One presumed to be the level at which the most harmful effects of warming/climate change will begin to be realized. It assumes on actually tackling emissions with targeted reduction commitments/actions. It has absolutely nothing to do with expected warming... unless one buys into the need for mitigation and accepts that appropriate actions will be taken. This was not your underlying premise... again, you were speaking to how much warming, outright, could be expected with rising CO2. And you were doing so, only because you were pushed/prodded to come up with a figure (a benchmark) to associate with your alarmist labeling.

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.

don't try to backpedal on your stooopid claim and your associated ignorance of the related discussion points. Stand up for your stated nonsense - be loud and proud of it!

Pointing out and countering your strawman arguments is not backpedaling.

Of course, even if you were to cough up some guy out there who lines up with your alarmist bleating, does that qualify your broad based attachment to your catch all "alarmist labeling'.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

:lol: yes, you are... the strawman man!

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:

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.

And yet again, you refuse to clarify your position and what parts of my position you disagree with:

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 specify the scenario?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I gave up on waldo a long time ago because of this crap. If you make a point that he can't address he ignores it or posts some irrelevant nonsense in a hope of distracting you from from the point you made. He will never concede even the smallest point and will get progressively more and more absurd if you press him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should be able to recylce everything. But many companies do not operate and cannot continue to make money if everything can be recycled. Mining operations will be reduced, oil exploration can stop, which can seriously reduce ths so called carbon foot print and CO2 emissions.

Sorry if I was unclear, I meant nuclear waste recycling in particular.

As for the 'clean' meme of nuclear power, we only need to look at indicents like 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, San Onofre (california) Fort Calhoune (nebraska) Those two plants are closed and are offline forever. Check into both of those US nuke plants.

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?

And where do you store all this nuclear material? How long does a fuel rod last, and how long do you need to store the waste?? Nuclear energy is not carbon neutral, and is NOT green energy. This is dangerous to hold the view that nuclear energy is safe.

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. :P

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.

You aware of what has been happening in Somalia and the reason why hijacking of foreign ships is high in the area?

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.

And we are not immune to it in Canada.

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!

You have to laugh when people claim that nuclear energy is green and safe.

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What CO2 emissions? Today's levels? 20% higher? 50% higher? 100% higher? 200% higher? Infinitely Higher? As you have no plan to curb or reduce emissions, please explain.

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.

Because the cause is the emissions that you are doing nothing to reduce. If you don't deal with that, you will not be stopping anything.

Yes, I don't want to stop global warming, I thought that was clear.

So you propose to try and stick the genie back into the bottle after you have determined you have screwed up, but it is too expensive and inconvenient not to put yourself in that position in the first place. Brilliant. For this you need a physics degree?

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.

It's clear to me that you have no plan other than we stick our heads in the sand until reality sticks its foot up our backsides, which is probably just what we will do.\

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science doesn't inform our decision and policy making? You've got to be kidding me.

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.

Yes and these schools of thought are well represented amongst the 95% or so of professionals and experts worldwide who have been recommending action on climate change for years and years now.

Is or has there ever been any issue whatsoever that has required more than a 95% consensus to warrant action? Is climate change the only technical challenge to exact such a high standard and level of trust and confidence in what science says before action is taken?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I was unclear, I meant nuclear waste recycling in particular.

Currently there is no way to recycle spent fuel rods. And the only reason uranium was favoured over others was because of the ability to make a weapon out of the waste. Otherwise we just might have a world full of safer thorium breader reactors.

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).

They are about to throw a new cover on it. That is what will be needed at Fukushima in another decade or two, if they ever get it cleaned up.

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.

You don't want to know how many of these 40 year old reactors are in North America.

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?

I like the idea of thorium. No chance of a critical run away meltdown like we see at Fukushima. Three core meltdowns and one melthrough and they have NO idea where the material is going. They cannot get in there to tell. Again, you don't want to know how many of these old reactors are kicking around.

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).

The waste is not small, it is a large LONG term issue. If you are lucky enough your future generations are going to have to deal with all the stupid things done over the last century.

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

Would be good to know what the source of this radiation is.

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.

It can be, but IS it getting recycled?

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. :P

If you are talking about radioactivity, you will need to differentiate between some very very low level fast decaying radioactivity like K-40 compared to very high level long term decay radioactivity from plutonium, uranium and cecium. The banana comparison that gets trotted around is horrible and is a nice line for the uneducated.

The banana does not register on my geiger counter.

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.

Nuclear energy is about as safe and stable as you hanging off a cliff with your fingernails.

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 bet it's not just Italy that has the issue. This is what we know of. What about places like Pakistan and India? You think they got all that under control? Let's bring in China and Russia? How many nuclear warships are at the bottom of the ocean? Any?

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!

I hope you are right, but I have serious doubts.

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!

Potassium is beneficial for the body, plutonium, uranium and cecium are not good for the body in any dose. The more you know.

Many of these articles measure radiation different. We have seiverts, bequerels and rems. Which one would you like to use as a base? So this is part of the confusion many will have when it comes to talking about radioactivity. Not all radioactivity is the same or even measured the same.

F'n quote system.

Edited by GostHacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

no - you don't know what you're talking about. You can keep repeating that same paragraph, forevah!; again, it has nothing to do with today's relatively recent warming, related climate change or attributions therein. Although I've stated it several times now, you haven't the basic understanding that each and every time you reference back to the long distant past, when you point out the high CO2/temperature levels of the past, you're making the case that the earth's climate is more sensitive, has a high(er) sensitivity to CO2 influence/feedbacks..... as I said, this is you scoring your "own goal" and goes against your underlying premise/implication that climate sensitivity is low(er) and that, accordingly, we don't need to do 'much of anything' about it. Yes, again, keep referencing that distant past... keep scoring on yourself!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

no - you don't know what you're talking about. You threw up a link to a scientists personal (long dated) web page with an emphasis on one of his research interests - model uncertainties. The only reason you linked to that page was because it included a graphic you thought you could leverage. As I pointed out to you, you hadn't a clue as to what the graphic was about. It was I that actually informed you of your nonsense and pointed out you actually, unknowingly, included a graph that speaks to a specific emissions scenario... one that has an upper range of 800ppm of CO2 atmospheric concentration. So... of course, you now presume to use that 800ppm level reference to inform me!!! :lol:

but again, you stumble and bumble when you now speak to "little mitigation taking place" in relation to that reference. What you don't realize, in your continued stumbling and bumbling, is that none of the IPCC emission scenarios, in that emissions scenario grouping that you're referencing with that graphic, include any mitigation considerations. They are benchmark references... mitigation is not a consideration in their output results/considerations. Oh look, you scored another "own goal" on yourself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I challenged you to support your claim... you came back with a reference that, per your linked article's direct quotes of the scientist in question, did not support your claim. After clearing up yet another of your fails, I asked you, "Of course, even if you were to cough up some guy out there who lines up with your alarmist bleating, does that qualify your broad based attachment to your catch all "alarmist labeling"... I also suggested that you should take a step back, collect yourself and come back with a full account of just what constitutes your benchmark reference for labeling someone an alarmist. I've already pointed out your 2 big-time fails in your presumed alarmist labeling!

I purposely highlighted your avoidance in actually identifying the CO2 level you attached to your emphasis on pre-industrial. Once you finally came around and identified it as 270ppm, we then had the required perspective. And yes, as you point out by referencing 350.org, that's exactly why I included reference to 350 in the following question directed at you:

How is this scientific focused 450ppm... even 400ppm... even 350ppm... how are any of those levels, grounds for your claim that, as you stated, "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

uhhh..... and how does your linking to 350.org, an organization advocating for a 'safe limit' of 350ppm, support your claim that, as you said, "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"... you know, the level you finally identified/acknowledged to be 270ppm. In your world, is 450ppm... is 400ppm....... is 350ppm, the same as pre-industrial 270ppm? :lol:

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

If you you have no plan to control emissions you have no control over overall CO2 concentrations.

Yes, I don't want to stop global warming, I thought that was clear.

Yet you say we should stop at a point just past optimum even though you have no clue what optimum is or how to stop.

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.

The genie would be the CO2 you have let loose and now want to get rid of while continuing to let it loose because you have taken no steps to do otherwise.

That's the point, I don't know how your physics degree relates. You were the one waving it around.

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).

Sand doesn't have a foot, reality does.

What is so magic about 1200 ppm and how would you propose to maintain or reduce it even if you could get international consensus? Which you won't because you will have the same culprits denying whatever science fits your view, unless of they are being affected personally, in which case they will likely change their tune. That pesky reality again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently there is no way to recycle spent fuel rods. And the only reason uranium was favoured over others was because of the ability to make a weapon out of the waste. Otherwise we just might have a world full of safer thorium breader reactors.

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

You don't want to know how many of these 40 year old reactors are in North America.

Aren't most of Canada's nuclear reactors CANDU heavy water reactors?

The waste is not small, it is a large LONG term issue. If you are lucky enough your future generations are going to have to deal with all the stupid things done over the last century.

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?

Would be good to know what the source of this radiation is.

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.

If you are talking about radioactivity, you will need to differentiate between some very very low level fast decaying radioactivity like K-40 compared to very high level long term decay radioactivity from plutonium, uranium and cecium. The banana comparison that gets trotted around is horrible and is a nice line for the uneducated.

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.

I bet it's not just Italy that has the issue. This is what we know of. What about places like Pakistan and India? You think they got all that under control? Let's bring in China and Russia? How many nuclear warships are at the bottom of the ocean? Any?

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).

Many of these articles measure radiation different. We have seiverts, bequerels and rems. Which one would you like to use as a base?

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - you don't know what you're talking about. You can keep repeating that same paragraph, forevah!; again, it has nothing to do with today's relatively recent warming, related climate change or attributions therein.

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.

but again, you stumble and bumble when you now speak to "little mitigation taking place" in relation to that reference. What you don't realize, in your continued stumbling and bumbling, is that none of the IPCC emission scenarios, in that emissions scenario grouping that you're referencing with that graphic, include any mitigation considerations. They are benchmark references... mitigation is not a consideration in their output results/considerations. Oh look, you scored another "own goal" on yourself!

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.

uhhh..... and how does your linking to 350.org, an organization advocating for a 'safe limit' of 350ppm, support your claim that, as you said, "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"... you know, the level you finally identified/acknowledged to be 270ppm. In your world, is 450ppm... is 400ppm....... is 350ppm, the same as pre-industrial 270ppm? :lol:

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:

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 specify the scenario?

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you you have no plan to control emissions you have no control over overall CO2 concentrations.

Yes.

Yet you say we should stop at a point just past optimum even though you have no clue what optimum is or how to stop.

Because I do not think that the CO2 levels that will occur under a no-mitigation policy (800 ppm) passes the optimum CO2 levels.

The genie would be the CO2 you have let loose and now want to get rid of while continuing to let it loose because you have taken no steps to do otherwise.

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.

Sand doesn't have a foot, reality does.

Reality doesn't have a corporal body to have a foot.

What is so magic about 1200 ppm and how would you propose to maintain or reduce it even if you could get international consensus? Which you won't because you will have the same culprits denying whatever science fits your view, unless of they are being affected personally, in which case they will likely change their tune. That pesky reality again.

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.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - you don't know what you're talking about. You can keep repeating that same paragraph, forevah!; again, it has nothing to do with today's relatively recent warming, related climate change or attributions therein. Although I've stated it several times now, you haven't the basic understanding that each and every time you reference back to the long distant past, when you point out the high CO2/temperature levels of the past, you're making the case that the earth's climate is more sensitive, has a high(er) sensitivity to CO2 influence/feedbacks..... as I said, this is you scoring your "own goal" and goes against your underlying premise/implication that climate sensitivity is low(er) and that, accordingly, we don't need to do 'much of anything' about it. Yes, again, keep referencing that distant past... keep scoring on yourself!

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.

no - again, the only relevant point from the long distant past (500-600 Million years ago per your continued statements), is one that undercuts your own ridiculous misunderstandings... that only relevant point to the relatively recent warming and related climate change of today, is the revelation that the earth's climate is highly sensitive to small changes in heat and that positive feedbacks amplify additional warming. All of which is, again, counter to your "no worries, do nothing, delay, CO2 is nothing more than plant food" blustering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - you don't know what you're talking about. You threw up a link to a scientists personal (long dated) web page with an emphasis on one of his research interests - model uncertainties. The only reason you linked to that page was because it included a graphic you thought you could leverage. As I pointed out to you, you hadn't a clue as to what the graphic was about. It was I that actually informed you of your nonsense and pointed out you actually, unknowingly, included a graph that speaks to a specific emissions scenario... one that has an upper range of 800 ppm of CO2 atmospheric concentration. So... of course, you now presume to use that 800 ppm level reference to inform me!!! :lol:

but again, you stumble and bumble when you now speak to "little mitigation taking place" in relation to that reference. What you don't realize, in your continued stumbling and bumbling, is that none of the IPCC emission scenarios, in that emissions scenario grouping that you're referencing with that graphic, include any mitigation considerations. They are benchmark references... mitigation is not a consideration in their output results/considerations. Oh look, you scored another "own goal" on yourself!

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.

wtf! "If I don't believe you" ... believe you!!! Bloody hell! What an absolute poser you are! For a guy (you) who obviously knew nothing about IPCC emission scenarios a few thread pages back, for a guy (you) who had to have it explained to you that your interpretation of your linked graphic (referencing one of those emission scenarios) was incorrect, for a guy (you) who had to have the 800 ppm limit pointed out to you (for that single scenario you unknowingly referenced), for a guy (you) who had to be corrected on your reference to mitigation within an emission scenario... for a guy (you) who had to have all that handed to you... you sure have become quite the expert, hey! :lol: And no, 800 ppm is not the upper limit across that spread of emission scenarios... try roughly 1000 ppm. Poser!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I purposely highlighted your avoidance in actually identifying the CO2 level you attached to your emphasis on pre-industrial. Once you finally came around and identified it as 270 ppm, we then had the required perspective. And yes, as you point out by referencing 350.org, that's exactly why I included reference to 350 in the following question directed at you:

how is this scientific focused 450 ppm... even 400 ppm... even 350 ppm... how are any of those levels, grounds for your claim that, as you stated, "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

uhhh..... and how does your linking to 350.org, an organization advocating for a 'safe limit' of 350 ppm, support your claim that, as you said, "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"... you know, the level you finally identified/acknowledged to be 270 ppm. In your world, is 450 ppm... is 40 0ppm....... is 350 ppm, the same as pre-industrial 270 ppm?

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

oh my! So... after all your page after page blustering repeatedly claiming that, as you said, "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", you were not able to support that claim. You now peel back, big time, to state... well, they mean 275 ppm, they're just not saying it! :lol:

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look I am getting sick and tired of you making crap up. The 95% consensus refers to the belief that human CO2 emissions have caused some of the warming. The 95% consensus is NOT that politicians should immediately spend billions trying to reduce CO2 emissions. When I looked I could not find a poll that even asked the questions that you claim have a 95% consensus which means your entire argument is a fabrication. If you disagree then provide a link to the exact poll which you are quoting. If you can't do that then admit you were making stuff up.

It's as high as 97% - 98% of climate scientists according to this link, probably a bunch of commies. Whatever the precise number, it remains a vast vast and growing majority.

Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Apparently there is this idea floating around that only people who are experts should be weighing in on this debate and yet what are laymen/voters who are expected to do just that when they elect someone supposed to do, simply ignore the evidence and sheer weight of expert professional opinion on the matter and have faith in what a vanishingly small number of skeptics say? That seems completely nuts.

That said if this was an economic decision like...cutting the GST lets say, and the majority of economists said it was a bad idea... You know something Tim you worry too much. I'm quite certain your side has won hands down on AGW, and there will be no meaningful action whatsoever taken so, be happy and make some popcorn.

Interestingly enough I notice that over half of people, or Americans at least, believe there is significant disagreement amongst scientists. How convenient is that? Must be that left-dominated media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's as high as 97% - 98% of climate scientists according to this link

This is the trouble with people like you. You get all hot and bothered when you hear some bogus talking point but you are completely clueless when it comes to the facts behind the talking point.

From your link:

97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming,

That is ALL the consensus says. And guess what: I agree with that statement.

It does NOT say we should immediately spend billions to reduce CO2 emissions.

But the last statement is what you have been arguing in this thread.

So I take it from your response that you now admit you were making crap up and there is no 95% consensus of scientists who think that immediate and expensive emission reductions are necessary.

So will you now stop making that bogus argument?

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

That's right, I said it and then you repeated it, science informs people's decision making.

And speaking of straw I never said science alone tells people what to do. Of course if Morris was here he'd jump all over that and suggest it's people's toasters that often tip the balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does NOT say we should immediately spend billions to reduce CO2 emissions.

So will you now stop making that bogus argument?

Speaking of bogus arguments where did I say we should immediately spend billions to reduce CO2 emissions?

I'm not hot and bothered, I'm just puzzled about how laymen and voters are supposed to ignore so much consensus when trying to make a decision on how to direct their representatives to act or not act as the case may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...