Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

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

You are arguing with me. So you are either arguing for massive spending on CO2 reductions or you are arguing irrelevant strawmen. Which is it?

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.

The fact that humans CO2 is causing warming does NOT mean we have to do anything about it. It is simply a fact. Its effects are good and bad. The claim that we have to do something about it is a *political* claim and scientists have no special knowledge to help people decide what to do. Nor are there anything close to a 95% among scientists (as irrelevant as their opinion is). Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I said a vast vast growing majority

So you now admit you were wrong to incessantly use that 95% of scientists agree factoid?.

A survey that actually asks the questions you claim is here:

https://www.academia.edu/2365610/A_Survey_of_Climate_Scientists_Concerning_Climate_Science_and_Climate_Change

Given our current state on knowledge, climate change is now mostly a political issue: >50%

The best approach to resolving the problems related to climate change is mitigation: <60%

But as I said, when it comes to the decision of adaption vs mitigation a climate scientist's opinion is no better than yours or mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

Glad we have established that.

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

If we continue to emit unabated, I don't see any way they won't.

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.

This isn't news to me but if you read your own link, it puts the cost of capturing just 10% of our present annual emissions at close to a trillion dollars per year. Sounds like a wonderful plan.

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

But it's implications can be far more severe. I'm getting the impression you aren't much good with metaphors.

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.

Wonderful if all you are interested in is growing pot, but of course it ignores all the other implications of global warming and climate change.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if you admit it is in fact a vast vast growing majority, that's growing.

I gave you a link to a survey. It is a bare majority (<60%) and you have absolutely no basis for the 'growing' part. If anything, the recent slow down in warming should convince most true scientists that the problem may not be as severe as they thought it might be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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?

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!

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?:

"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?

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:

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

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

Given our current state on knowledge, climate change is now mostly a political issue: >50%.

...duh

The best approach to resolving the problems related to climate change is mitigation: <60%

Ditto, given it's too late now to avoid it.

you have absolutely no basis for the 'growing' part.

You obviously didn't read the link I posted.

Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we continue to emit unabated, I don't see any way they won't.

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.

This isn't news to me but if you read your own link, it puts the cost of capturing just 10% of our present annual emissions at close to a trillion dollars per year. Sounds like a wonderful plan.

In the future, costs of removing CO2 will be much lower due to technological progress and economies of scale.

Wonderful if all you are interested in is growing pot, but of course it ignores all the other implications of global warming and climate change.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That dead plant material accumulated over millions of years. We are releasing it in a matter of a few centuries.

That technology will only advance if someone is willing to pay fo it. You seem to think there is no need. Economy of scale keeps unit costs down. That doesn't mean it will make the total cost lower.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

If that is the case, then why is there a need to store radioactive waste long term on the scale of hundreds of years? It's slow decay should not be a problem, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That dead plant material accumulated over millions of years. We are releasing it in a matter of a few centuries.

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. :)

That technology will only advance if someone is willing to pay fo it. You seem to think there is no need. Economy of scale keeps unit costs down. That doesn't mean it will make the total cost lower.

I'm not sure I agree with your understanding on how technological advance occurs.

And yes I understand how economies of scale works.

If that is the case, then why is there a need to store radioactive waste long term on the scale of hundreds of years? It's slow decay should not be a problem, right?

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.

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!

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.

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?

that it was warmer in the long distant past (your described 500-600 million years ago) has absolutely nothing to do with today's relatively recent warming and attributions therein. Any climate is a result of forcings... those forcings of the past are known and have no correlation to today where mankind is the most significant influence relative to anthropogenic forcings on climate. Those of you who advocate against mitigation, presume to do so because... you either could care less about the impacts of warming... or you believe the amount of expected warming will be low(er). When you undercut your own "argument", when you reference back to the long distant past, you are reinforcing climate is highly sensitive to positive feedbacks... you are accepting that the climate of today will be significantly influenced by positive feedbacks; feedbacks that will amplify the basic warming associated with CO2. Equally, when you acknowledge that climate sensitivity is higher, you are accepting that warming will not occur slowly... you are undercutting your own position advocating for adaptation; a position that has an underlying premise that there will be time to react and adapt.

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!!!

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!

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!

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.

clearly you haven't even the most basic of understandings... but that certainly hasn't stopped you before! Those 6, "what you call models" are not... models. They are emission scenarios/underlying storylines that reflect upon a significant number of carbon cycle models/general circulation models. And no... counter to your claim, the upper limit is 970, not your stated 950. So.... you are fine with your approximation of 800 to 970... but you're going to call me out because I said approximately 1000, rather than 970??? :lol:

you really should know when to call it a day! Given the nature of those scenarios and related storylines, it makes absolutely no sense for you to even consider taking a mean/standard deviation across them! Like I said, you haven't a clue what you're talking about!

and no, this is not arguing semantics. If you are going to put forward something you know nothing about... and then presume to advise on it while speaking from some presumed degree of understanding (which you do not have), you most certainly will be called on it. You keep barking your unsubstantiated opinion on optimal conditions for human & plant life, yet somehow, you are very hesitant to define optimal and substantiate it within the context and confines of the real world of today... you had a separate thread pointed out for you to extend upon this theme. You either trot out the long distant past or you continue to make your stoopid and isolated non-real world references to enclosure growth studies! For your most self-serving convenience, you simply choose to remain within the shadows of your trusty vagueness, lack of specificity, lack of detail, lack of substantiation, etc.. Of course you do! It is entirely what you are about!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and, once again, your consistently displayed lack of comprehension rises to the top! You've shown nothing other than non-real world, enclosure 'greenhouse/chamber' type studies... you started out claiming rising CO2 is a big positive for the world... an increase in "global crop yields" you trumpeted, over and over and over again! Even when pressured and you finally begin to come around to, (on a most limited level), recognize and acknowledge influences on real-world crop growth yields, you still continue to bleat on about "an increase in global growth yields".

you've provided nothing... ever... that speaks to specific latitudes associated with your anticipated crop growth increase. You've provided nothing... ever... to identify the actual type of staple crops associated with your anticipated crop growth increase. You've provided nothing... ever... to quantify your claimed level of global crop yield increase - what level, 5% increase, 10% increase... what increase level? You've provided nothing... ever... that speaks to the regions/latitudes where growth yields are anticipated to decrease..... and, accordingly, what overall world impact any limited gains within select latitudes, within select crops, means to an overall world population increasing and needing to be fed. And, of course, you absolutely avoid the post I keep throwing back at you; you absolutely refuse to properly and completely address it. Of course you do... that would just get in the way of your blanket claims... your blanket unsubstantiated claims... of rising CO2 being a positive gain for the world in terms of, as you say, "an increase in global crop yields". Like I said, you're simply one of those (concern troll type) guys that talk of CO2 as if it's nothing more than plant food!

Also do you care to comment on my post about optimal CO2 for plant life?

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

no - my position (on your nonsense) is clear and unambiguous... and has been repeated ad nauseum! You simply refuse to acknowledge it. As before, as always:

no - the only ambiguity is yours... it's identified in the post 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

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:

so what! Notwithstanding, after 3 tries now, you have not supported your claim, I pointedly asked you what difference would it make if you found... one guy out there advocating for a return to pre-industrial concentrations. It simply allows you to trot out yet another of your strawman plays... it is simply a means for you to throw out the alarmist label... to blindly throw it out! You certainly are a unique Concern Troll - usually the act targets those, "alarmists, as you say", who speak to the higher end of concentrations... the worst case scenarios! Yes, your act is somewhat unique!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I have most certainly never been in a position to concede a single thing to you. You are unable to argue the science, so you continually revert to your favoured denier blog sites... your kind of science... (denier) blog science rules, hey!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best approach to resolving the problems related to climate change is mitigation: <60%

a survey from H. von Storch! Nice! Setting aside the guy (and his history), and without scrutinizing the actual methodology of that survey, the question is bogus! It (probably purposely) was framed to posit the issue as a zero sum game... leveraging one approach over the other. Few legitimate climate scientists view a solutions strategy approach that exclusively includes just mitigation... or exclusively includes just adaptation. No, both strategies are a part of the required... and expected mix. You are the one that continues to posture an exclusive Adapt-R-Us (adaptation only) solution approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything, the recent slow down in warming should convince most true scientists that the problem may not be as severe as they thought it might be.

no - the rate of warming has slowed only if you purposely target short-term trends and only if you purposely isolate to global surface temperature (to the exclusion of global ocean warming). On the other hand, as I spoke to earlier, if this study holds up... even if improperly focusing on short-term trending, there has been little to no slow-down in surface temperature warming: Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends

Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows --- A new study fills in the gaps missed by the Met Office, and finds the warming 'pause' is barely a speed bump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that it was warmer in the long distant past (your described 500-600 million years ago) has absolutely nothing to do with today's relatively recent warming and attributions therein. Any climate is a result of forcings...

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.

Any climate is a result of forcings... those forcings of the past are known and have no correlation to today where mankind is the most significant influence relative to anthropogenic forcings on climate. Those of you who advocate against mitigation, presume to do so because... you either could care less about the impacts of warming... or you believe the amount of expected warming will be low(er). When you undercut your own "argument", when you reference back to the long distant past, you are reinforcing climate is highly sensitive to positive feedbacks... you are accepting that the climate of today will be significantly influenced by positive feedbacks; feedbacks that will amplify the basic warming associated with CO2.

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.

Equally, when you acknowledge that climate sensitivity is higher, you are accepting that warming will not occur slowly... you are undercutting your own position advocating for adaptation; a position that has an underlying premise that there will be time to react and adapt.

Your claim that more positive feedback = faster climate change isn't accurate. Different feedback mechanisms have different time responses.

clearly you haven't even the most basic of understandings... but that certainly hasn't stopped you before! Those 6, "what you call models" are not... models. They are emission scenarios/underlying storylines that reflect upon a significant number of carbon cycle models/general circulation models.

That is still a model, just not a climate model.

So.... you are fine with your approximation of 800 to 970... but you're going to call me out because I said approximately 1000, rather than 970??? :lol:

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.

you really should know when to call it a day! Given the nature of those scenarios and related storylines, it makes absolutely no sense for you to even consider taking a mean/standard deviation across them! Like I said, you haven't a clue what you're talking about!

Taking the mean and standard deviation of different models is actually not that uncommon in science.

you are very hesitant to define optimal and substantiate it within the context and confines of the real world of today... you had a separate thread pointed out for you to extend upon this theme.

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.

For your most self-serving convenience, you simply choose to remain within the shadows of your trusty vagueness, lack of specificity, lack of detail, lack of substantiation, etc.. Of course you do! It is entirely what you are about!

Self projection much?

no - my position (on your nonsense) is clear and unambiguous... and has been repeated ad nauseum! You simply refuse to acknowledge it. As before, as always:

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.

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.

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.

And again, regardless of selective crops within selective regions/latitudes, you outright ignore considerations that can... that will... affect presumptions on increased growth yields. ... and why you outright ignore considerations that can... that will... affect presumptions on growth yields.

This is a straw man. I am not 'ignoring' other effects and only considering the effect of CO2 fertilization on crop yields.

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.
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

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?

You also refused my request for you to comment on my point about 1200 ppm being optimal for plants:

Quote

"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?

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

so what! Notwithstanding, after 3 tries now, you have not supported your claim, I pointedly asked you what difference would it make if you found... one guy out there advocating for a return to pre-industrial concentrations. It simply allows you to trot out yet another of your strawman plays... it is simply a means for you to throw out the alarmist label... to blindly throw it out!.

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.

You certainly are a unique Concern Troll - usually the act targets those, "alarmists, as you say", who speak to the higher end of concentrations... the worst case scenarios! Yes, your act is somewhat unique!

That is because I am not a concern troll.

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

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.

"no amount of evidence"! Say what? Considering you haven't provided a single scrap of that evidence.... :lol: But again, so what... if you actually could find a guy... which you haven't so far... so what? Again, it's simply another way for you to deflect/distract and wildly throw about your alarmist labeling... part of your ongoing silly buggar act! Why are you harping on your so-called "alarmists"... who around here has ever spoken of pre-industrial levels... other than until you brought it forward? Why the charade?

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that it was warmer in the long distant past (your described 500-600 million years ago) has absolutely nothing to do with today's relatively recent warming and attributions therein. Any climate is a result of forcings... those forcings of the past are known and have no correlation to today where mankind is the most significant influence relative to anthropogenic forcings on climate. Those of you who advocate against mitigation, presume to do so because... you either could care less about the impacts of warming... or you believe the amount of expected warming will be low(er). When you undercut your own "argument", when you reference back to the long distant past, you are reinforcing climate is highly sensitive to positive feedbacks... you are accepting that the climate of today will be significantly influenced by positive feedbacks; feedbacks that will amplify the basic warming associated with CO2. Equally, when you acknowledge that climate sensitivity is higher, you are accepting that warming will not occur slowly... you are undercutting your own position advocating for adaptation; a position that has an underlying premise that there will be time to react and adapt.

You misrepresent the relevance of the earth's geological history. 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 things such as the fact that plants prefer higher levels of CO2 and warmth to grow in.

and you ignore the only real significance looking at the long distant past has; i.e., climate sensitivity. You continue to spew your "CO2 is nothing more than plant food" nonsense, while you purposely ignore all manner of climate change related impacts to warming and related positive feedback mechanisms enhancing on that warming. Don't worry, just close yourself up tight in your isolated greenhouse enclosure and you'll be fine! No worries, hey?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that it was warmer in the long distant past (your described 500-600 million years ago) has absolutely nothing to do with today's relatively recent warming and attributions therein. Any climate is a result of forcings... those forcings of the past are known and have no correlation to today where mankind is the most significant influence relative to anthropogenic forcings on climate. Those of you who advocate against mitigation, presume to do so because... you either could care less about the impacts of warming... or you believe the amount of expected warming will be low(er). When you undercut your own "argument", when you reference back to the long distant past, you are reinforcing climate is highly sensitive to positive feedbacks... you are accepting that the climate of today will be significantly influenced by positive feedbacks; feedbacks that will amplify the basic warming associated with CO2. Equally, when you acknowledge that climate sensitivity is higher, you are accepting that warming will not occur slowly... you are undercutting your own position advocating for adaptation; a position that has an underlying premise that there will be time to react and adapt.

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.

other than providing a reference on the high(er) sensitivity of climate, looking at the distant past provides no (direct) relevance to today's relatively recent warming, related climate change and attributions therein.

it provides you no shelter from your incessant nonsensical play on the "CO2 is nothing more than plant food" meme:

it provides you no shelter from your incessant nonsensical position relative to isolated and non-real world enclosure growth studies:

it provides you no shelter from your purposeful avoidance of caveats/influences/factors that can... that will... affect any presumed increase in global crop yields (in any regions, at any latitudes). Most pointedly, if one actually goes beyond your unsubstantiated opinion concerning the past record... actually begins to look at that record, you just might be surprised what looking at real data/studies will show you within that past record: Insects Will Feast, Plants Will Suffer: Ancient Leaves Show Affect Of Global Warming

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...