Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem

[-1=e^ipi]

I was referring to mankind's ability to do itself in. Just because we don't intend something to happen doesn't mean it can't. The Titanic wasn't intended to sink. It did. Agent Orange wasn't intended to cause cancer. It does. He doesn't know and neither do I but simple logic tells me that if we continue dumping ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere while simultaneously degrading the planets ability to deal with them, something is going to happen and it probably won't be good.

Huh? So because the Titanic sank and Agent Orange causes cancer, increased CO2 levels 'probably won't be good'? What happened to scientific rigor and fact based reasoning? This sounds like gaia worshiping nonsense: We have sinned against mother nature, therefore she will punish us.

Do you honestly think going to Mars is some kind of solution to this?

No, but it will certainly mean environmental radicals can no longer use the "But we only have one planet!" line. I look forward to that day.

Even if we could get to Mars tomorrow, it will be decades before any settlement there could be self sufficient, if ever.

Incorrect. The mars one mission plans to be self sufficient and eventually use the natural resources on mars to expand the colony

For all we know, this may be most hospitable planet in our galaxy. What chance will we have somewhere else if we screw this one up.

Earth probably is the most habitable planet in the galaxy for humans, because we evolved here, duh. So what? We can always terraform other planets or alter our DNA (and become proto-humans) so that we are better suited to live on other planets.

[-1=e^ipi]

Cleaning up the pollution would be a great thing. Start with plastics that are inundating the planet. Start with curtailing nuclear waste, start with reducing carbon MONOXIDE. The amount of waste we throw out in landfills and the stuff that is tossed down the drain. Start with reducing toxic elements in products we buy (like mercury in new 'efficient' light bulbs that are considered toxic waste when at end of life)

I agree with you on pollution, plastics & mercury. Not quite sure what you mean by reducing carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is a problem in urban environments and is a health problem because of car pollution. But it reacts pretty quickly with O2 to form CO2 so it isn't a global issue (rather a local one). Do you mean we should take measures to reduce car pollution in cities? If so then I would agree with you. For nuclear waste, i'm not quite sure where it is a significant problem. Nuclear energy is a very clean energy and produces a very small amount of waste (which is dealt with well in developed countries). Do you mean that we should recycle waste more?

I would also add to the list that we need to restrict use of helium for conservation purposes (putting a tax on helium balloons would be a start). Helium is produced on earth by radioactive decay that produces alpha particles, so it takes a very long time to accumulate helium and we are using up our global helium supply rapidly. The problem is once the helium gets into the atmosphere it floats to the top and escapes the earth's gravitational influence by solar winds. So once it is gone, it is gone. Helium is a very useful element; it is inherent, has low density while in gas form, can be useful for fusion reactors (some people want to mine helium 3 on the moon and bring it back to earth for fusion reactors), and most of all, helium is the only element that acts as a super-fluid (below 2 Kelvin)!

I encourage you guys to watch this video on super fluidity! Bose-Einstein condensates are awesome!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKOlfR5OcB4

[-1=e^ipi]

Nonsense. Tell that to the victims of Katrina, Sandy, Haiyan and the 60 tornadoes that touched down in the midwest the other day. The magnitude of which has never happened before this late in the year.

You are seriously trying to claim that specific weather events are caused by increased CO2 levels? Ridiculous and unscientific! Also, your claim that the magnitudes of these tornadoes and hurricanes has never occurred before is completely false. Actually, the past couple of years has seen a low rate of hurricanes in the Atlantic

And to note E-waste, which has rapidly become a huge problem globally.

.Yes, especially with its rare earth elements.

another guy who doesn't know the difference between weather and climate change!

Canada has a cold climate. But people have altered the climate slightly by making cities so that were we live is more habitable for humans. What is difficult to understand?

[Wilber]

While I do not know the future, the idea that people will cause themselves to go extinct via a thermonuclear war is ridiculous. About as likely as me dying in my sleep as a meteorite lands on my house. Such a war would have to have nuclear weapons target every single country on earth (so you would need a global war with everyone country involved) and even then I am skeptical that humans can cause their own extinction via nuclear weapons (rural/remote locations would avoid most damage and humans could always live underground). And no, increasing atmospheric CO2 by a few hundred ppm will not cause some sort of global catastrophe as you alarmists keep on suggesting.

As for the comment about evolution, for significant effects it usually takes much longer than a few millenia. However, when you look at humans, we haven't have had much time to evolve to live in cold places like Canada (humans mostly evolved to live in western equatorial africa), yet here we are flourishing. We flourish because we evolved brains that allow us to adapt to changing environmental conditions.

You know nothing of the sort. You assume that because humans might not be crazy enough to exterminate themselves with a massive nuclear exchange, they couldn't do it in a much less spectacular fashion due to simple apathy.

2007 study on global nuclear war

A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in July 2007,^[18] "Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences",^[19] used current climate models to look at the consequences of a global nuclear war involving most or all of the world's current nuclear arsenals (which the authors judged to be one the size of the world's arsenals twenty years earlier). The authors used a global circulation model, ModelE from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which they noted "has been tested extensively in global warming experiments and to examine the effects of volcanic eruptions on climate." The model was used to investigate the effects of a war involving the entire current global nuclear arsenal, projected to release about 150 Tg of smoke into the atmosphere, as well as a war involving about one third of the current nuclear arsenal, projected to release about 50 Tg of smoke. In the 150 Tg case they found that:

A global average surface cooling of –7 °C to –8 °C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still –4 °C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about –5 °C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude in the history of the human race. The temperature changes are largest over land ... Cooling of more than –20 °C occurs over large areas of North America and of more than –30 °C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions

In addition, they found that this cooling caused a weakening of the global hydrological cycle, reducing global precipitation by about 45%. As for the 50 Tg case involving one third of current nuclear arsenals, they said that the simulation "produced climate responses very similar to those for the 150 Tg case, but with about half the amplitude," but that "the time scale of response is about the same." They did not discuss the implications for agriculture in depth, but noted that a 1986 study which assumed no food production for a year projected that "most of the people on the planet would run out of food and starve to death by then" and commented that their own results show that "this period of no food production needs to be extended by many years, making the impacts of nuclear winter even worse than previously thought."

A global average surface cooling of –7 °C to –8 °C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still –4 °C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about –5 °C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude in the history of the human race. The temperature changes are largest over land ... Cooling of more than –20 °C occurs over large areas of North America and of more than –30 °C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions.

You are seriously trying to claim that specific weather events are caused by increased CO2 levels? Ridiculous and unscientific! Also, your claim that the magnitudes of these tornadoes and hurricanes has never occurred before is completely false. Actually, the past couple of years has seen a low rate of hurricanes in the Atlantic

This was in response to Argus's nonsensical claim that "we no longer adapt to the environment, the environment adapts to us"

However. Heat is energy and the more energy you put into the earths surface, the greater effect it will have on weather. This is why summer is hurricane and tornado season. Perhaps you haven't made that connection.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Wilber

[Wilber]

Huh? So because the Titanic sank and Agent Orange causes cancer, increased CO2 levels 'probably won't be good'? What happened to scientific rigor and fact based reasoning? This sounds like gaia worshiping nonsense: We have sinned against mother nature, therefore she will punish us.

No, it means that we don't always get what we intended.

No, but it will certainly mean environmental radicals can no longer use the "But we only have one planet!" line. I look forward to that day.

We do only have one planet. All we have done with Mars is send robots. We don't even have the capability to get one back yet.

Incorrect. The mars one mission plans to be self sufficient and eventually use the natural resources on mars to expand the colony

Earth probably is the most habitable planet in the galaxy for humans, because we evolved here, duh. So what? We can always terraform other planets or alter our DNA (and become proto-humans) so that we are better suited to live on other planets.

Yup, we are going to be a raving success and totaly re engineer planets likes Mars when we can't even not screw up planets like Earth. And you think I'm out of touch with reality

Edited November 25, 2013 by Wilber

[-1=e^ipi]

You know nothing of the sort. You assume that because humans might not be crazy enough to exterminate themselves with a massive nuclear exchange, they couldn't do it in a much less spectacular fashion due to simple apathy.

I don't think we have enough nukes to do this.

On the bright side, if global warming gets too large, we can always cause a nuclear winter to reduce the Earth's temperature! (just kidding)

But seriously though, I like how you referenced a study that explains how global warming and a new ice age would be really really bad. Maybe you can see why I think some warming can be good?

However. Heat is energy and the more energy you put into the earths surface, the greater effect it will have on weather. This is why summer is hurricane and tornado season. Perhaps you haven't made that connection.

Not really true. The primary driver of weather events is the global temperature gradient, not the average temperature. Global warming will have greatest effect in the polar regions and therefore reduce the global temperature gradient between polar and equatorial regions. In fact, more climate models have the frequency and severity of tornadoes in tornado-ally reducing with increasing global temperatures. Maybe it would help if you learn some basic physics on heat engines (you know, the physics that operates a steam engine or a refrigerator):

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

We do only have one planet. All we have done with Mars is send robots. We don't even have the capability to get one back yet.

We have had the capability for decades. We just don't want to spend the money.

Yup, we are going to be a raving success and totaly re engineer planets likes Mars when we can't even not screw up planets like Earth. And you think I'm out of touch with reality

How is engineering the earth by increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, such that the earth becomes more habitable for humans, screwing up?

[waldo]

again, a UNFCCC target/goal is not an equivalent to your declared expected/projected warming. It's clear you haven't a basic understanding of what that target's correlating limiter and influencing factors are to even presume on that temperature target... clearly, you haven't a clue as to what it's even predicated upon. Certainly, this didn't stop you from showing your true concern-troll self in posturing against "climate alarmists".

no - again, what you've repeatedly referenced is not, as you declare it, "a UNFCCC projection"... again, it's a target, a goal... it's not your declared expected/projected warming temperature. And again, none of this stopped you from spouting off against "climate alarmists/alarmism". Notwithstanding, again, you've not directly defined the "alarmist" benchmark for your own declared textbook definition of meeting/exceeding, "alarm, exaggeration and prophesy". Concern-troll, indeed!

I was using the UNFCCC targets of 2-3 degrees because they were based on models and I didn't have time to reference scientific papers at the time.

no - the UNFCCC target is not 2-3°C degrees... it's an absolute 2°C figure. You referenced it because you had no idea it was a target goal, a target predicated on policy driven mitigation efforts to limit CO2 emissions to a level presumed to avoid harmful climate change impacts... and at that, only a 50% chance of avoiding harmful impacts. Again, it is not an expected temperature warming projection; it is not there for you to use as a projection on the level of expected warming... unless you line-up with that mitigation requirement - which you clearly don't! Of course you hadn't a clue as to that temperature target's associated CO2 ppm level that presumes to avoid harmful effects. Notwithstanding, of course, that no matter what emission reduction efforts might come forward from an eventual 2020 agreement, there is accumulated warming "in the so-called pipe", that will occur regardless. And again, none of this speaks to your real underlying point that had you liberally throwing around the alarmist label, without qualifying it to any temperature projection... which you've still not done! Again, what's your temperature projection benchmark level for your alarmist designation?

Anyway, here is a compilation of various projects of the increase in global average temperatures over a century if CO2 levels are doubled (from 300 ppm to 600 ppm).

http://www.ig.utexas.edu/people/staff/charles/uncertainties_in_model_predictio.htm

You will see that most models predict a 2-4 degree increase (with one model predicting a 5 degree increase and another model predicting a 1 degree increase). There are references below if you want to look at them, but I would hope that you trust the institute of geophysics. Please note that doubling CO2 levels is a fairly high increase and pretty much represents a non-climate mitigation scenario. Anyway, a doubling of CO2 levels and an increase in global temperatures of 2-4 degrees will still leave the Earth below it's average CO2 levels and temperature levels for the past 500 million years despite gradual increase in solar irradiance due to the sun's life cycle.

Okay, so my point still stands that an increase in CO2 levels by a few hundred ppm and an increase in global temperatures by a few degrees will not cause this doomsday scenario and is probably beneficial for humans.

Are you satisfied now?

clearly, you're just winging it... when you don't know what you're talking about, google... is not your friend! The image you're drawing reference to is from a (dated 2001) study, a single study referencing a small subset of long dated models. A single study that has nothing to do with that U of Texas research institute, or that associated scientists emphasis (per that linked page) on model prediction uncertainties.

equally, you haven't a clue what your referenced image is even speaking to; specifically the A2 emission scenario... a scenario that has a year 2100 projection of a CO2 ppm concentration level of ~800 ppm with an associated (global surface) temperature increase projection in the range of ~2.5-to-5°C. Considering the difference between the current average global temperature and the historic climate data from the pre-industrial age is ~ 0.8°C, you're certainly quite cavalier with your stated, "increase in CO2 levels by a few hundred ppm and an increase in global temperatures by a few degrees", summary assessment!... your summary assessment which certainly doesn't line up with your reference to the A2 scenario. Notwithstanding the ocean acidification levels, sea/land ice melting, increases in extreme weather events (frequency and/or intensity, as applicable), etc., already being encountered with just that ~ 0.8°C projection rise. Given the recent days announcement on the 2012 emissions level, we can once again confirm that global emissions continue to be within the IPCC's highest emission scenarios... working towards that 5°C trajectory. But uhhh, that's no biggee for you, hey!

you keep beaking off about temperature and CO2 emission levels from "500 million years ago". Care to expand on just what significance you presume that has... to today's relatively recent warming. This should be a quick easy response for you... since you pretty much drop a reference to it every time you post.

[-1=e^ipi]

So are you saying you agree or disagree with the climate projections I have linked to that discuss the impacts of doubling CO2 levels?

The point is that what will occur as a result of climate change is an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels by a few hundred ppm and an increase in global temperatures by a few degrees. Do you agree with this statement.

Therefore, the alarmist claims that the Earth will boil over, the atmosphere will no longer be breathable or we will face a mass extinction event comparable to the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event is simply not true and not supported by science.

So can we at least agree on roughly the quantity of CO2 ppm increase and temperature increase that will result from CO2 emissions?

Notwithstanding the ocean acidification levels, sea/land ice melting, increases in extreme weather events (frequency and/or intensity, as applicable), etc.

I have no denied that ocean acidification, sea level rise and ice melting will result from increasing CO2 levels. The extreme weather event claim is however false. Global temperature gradient is the primary driver of extreme weather events and the temperature gradient will decrease with global warming.

working towards that 5°C trajectory. But uhhh, that's no biggee for you, hey!

I think that a 5 degree increase would be fine, especially given the history of the planet. If you start to go over that then I think we would start to see significant environmental impacts, decreasing marginal crop yields and mitigation policies become more justified.

you keep beaking off about temperature and CO2 emission levels from "500 million years ago". Care to expand on just what significance you presume that has... to today's relatively recent warming. This should be a quick easy response for you... since you pretty much drop a reference to it every time you post.

With respect to understanding the environmental impacts of increasing atmospheric CO2, it is important to understand the geological and evolutionary history of the planet. The reason I refer to 500 million years ago is because 500 million years ago corresponds to the cambrian explosion where multicellular life started to flourish. The past 500 million years of the planet has a constant theme that increased global temperatures correspond to life flourishing (multicellular life started to flourish during the warm temperatures of the cambrian explosion not during the cryogenian period 650 million years ago where we had a 'snowball earth' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth , life flourished during the time of the dinosaurs when temperatures and CO2 levels were much higher, and humans have flourished since the end of the last ice age); The only exception to this theme is the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event.

Anyway, maybe you should look at this wikipedia entry on the global temperature record to understand where we currently are relative to the past 500 million years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

Here are some articles on the CO2 ppm history of the planet in the past 500 million years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

Here is a good study with a graph that has both CO2 and temperature for the past 500 million years.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/10/study-climate-460-mya-was-like-today-but-thought-to-have-co2-levels-20-times-as-high/

[-1=e^ipi]

I'll double post this graph because it completely pwns the arguments of the climate alarmists who continuously deny science and the Earth's history.

[Keepitsimple]

In just about every country, state, province and city, the media looks for - and pounces on political scandals, corruption, incompetence and "ideology".....yet when it comes to Climate Change, Kyoto, Gore, Suzuki, the IPCC, etc., they can find no wrong, no ulterior motives, no ideology, no agendas. There's a huge story yet to be told.

[waldo]

So are you saying you agree or disagree with the climate projections I have linked to that discuss the impacts of doubling CO2 levels?

if you're referencing the last link you put up, you don't have a clue what you linked to... you 'dreamed up' a 300-to-600 ppm doubling reference! That doesn't appear on your linked page, or within the study associated to the graphic. As I said, the A2 scenario, on a 2100 projection trajectory, reaches ~ the 800 ppm level. One would think if you're going to throw up that link/graphic you should actually know what it means, hey!

The point is that what will occur as a result of climate change is an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels by a few hundred ppm and an increase in global temperatures by a few degrees. Do you agree with this statement.

based on what? Certainly nothing you presented, certainly nothing you've referenced, supports that claim... an absolute claim. In fact, your very graphic (reference to A2) contradicts your claim. Like I said, when you don't know what you're talking about, google... is not your friend.

Therefore, the alarmist claims that the Earth will boil over, the atmosphere will no longer be breathable or we will face a mass extinction event comparable to the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event is simply not true and not supported by science.

as I said, you (and TimG) followed your Concern Troll playbook, to a tee. You've purposely set up the doomsday strawman. Should I ask you again to qualify your alarmist labeling... to specifically state what temperature level increase is your personal benchmark for labeling someone an alarmist? Why is this so difficult for you to respond to? Is there a problem?

So can we at least agree on roughly the quantity of CO2 ppm increase and temperature increase that will result from CO2 emissions?

put up something that actually supports your claim. Again, you failed, big time with your last link/graphic.

I have no denied that ocean acidification, sea level rise and ice melting will result from increasing CO2 levels. The extreme weather event claim is however false. Global temperature gradient is the primary driver of extreme weather events and the temperature gradient will decrease with global warming.

citation request

I think that a 5 degree increase would be fine, especially given the history of the planet. If you start to go over that then I think we would start to see significant environmental impacts, decreasing marginal crop yields and mitigation policies become more justified.

your unsubstantiated opinion is noted. The history of the planet has nothing to do with the relatively current increased warming... no matter how many times you keep repeating it.

With respect to understanding the environmental impacts of increasing atmospheric CO2, it is important to understand the geological and evolutionary history of the planet. The reason I refer to 500 million years ago is because 500 million years ago corresponds to the cambrian explosion where multicellular life started to flourish.

again, you refuse to explain what significance CO2/temperature over the last 500 million years has to today's relatively recent warming and attribution. I already called your Concern Troll act out... seeing you link to the anti-science WTFIUWT web site is gold Jerry, real gold!

[waldo]

I'll double post this graph because it completely pwns the arguments of the climate alarmists who continuously deny science and the Earth's history.

you can post it a brazillion times... perhaps in just one of those posts you might actually speak to, again, what significance this has to today's relatively recent warming and attribution.

.

[TimG]

I'll double post this graph because it completely pwns the arguments of the climate alarmists who continuously deny science and the Earth's history.

This is a old graph and alarmists have been busy fudging the data in order to get to conform to their CO2 is the climate controller theory. i.e. there is at least one paper that claims the high CO2 low temps period during Ordovican never occurred. Of course the data from such a long time ago requires numerous inferences and assumptions and it is difficult to claim that the set of inferences and assumptions that went into your graph is necessarily better than the inferences and assumptions that went into the new paper but the fact that they can change history like that shows how malleable the historical record is and how ideologically driven scientists can selectively manipulate history to shore up their pet theories.

[waldo]

In just about every country, state, province and city, the media looks for - and pounces on political scandals, corruption, incompetence and "ideology".....yet when it comes to Climate Change, Kyoto, Gore, Suzuki, the IPCC, etc., they can find no wrong, no ulterior motives, no ideology, no agendas. There's a huge story yet to be told.

ya ya, everyone is conspiring to keep the poor denier man down! We've had this sham play of yours before. The media, at large, has a long established history of pushing the loudest wails and foot stomping coming from the denialsphere... of forever touting the latest and greatest "AGW killer"... the next one... the next denier's silver bullet that will unravel the whole AGW theory. Talk about False Balance!

[waldo]

This is a old graph and alarmists have been busy fudging the data in order to get to conform to their CO2 is the climate controller theory. i.e. there is at least one paper that claims the high CO2 low temps period during Ordovican never occurred. Of course the data from such a long time ago requires numerous inferences and assumptions and it is difficult to claim that the set of inferences and assumptions that went into your graph is necessarily better than the inferences and assumptions that went into the new paper but the fact that they can change history like that shows how malleable the historical record is and how ideologically driven scientists can selectively manipulate history to shore up their pet theories.

step up and state what relevance this has to today's relatively recent warming and attribution.

[Wilber]

I don't think we have enough nukes to do this.

On the bright side, if global warming gets too large, we can always cause a nuclear winter to reduce the Earth's temperature! (just kidding)

But seriously though, I like how you referenced a study that explains how global warming and a new ice age would be really really bad. Maybe you can see why I think some warming can be good?

You don't think so. That's nice.

Because one is bad, the other must be good. That is the extent of your logic?

Not really true. The primary driver of weather events is the global temperature gradient, not the average temperature. Global warming will have greatest effect in the polar regions and therefore reduce the global temperature gradient between polar and equatorial regions. In fact, more climate models have the frequency and severity of tornadoes in tornado-ally reducing with increasing global temperatures. Maybe it would help if you learn some basic physics on heat engines (you know, the physics that operates a steam engine or a refrigerator):

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

The climate is a heat engine. The more heat, the more power can be generated. That power would be, weather.

We have had the capability for decades. We just don't want to spend the money.

Right,and as soon as we are spending a ton of money to cope with climate change, we will have lots left over to do what was too expensive before.

How is engineering the earth by increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, such that the earth becomes more habitable for humans, screwing up?

Engineering has a specific purpose in mind, not throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks.

[-1=e^ipi]

if you're referencing the last link you put up, you don't have a clue what you linked to... you 'dreamed up' a 300-to-600 ppm doubling reference! That doesn't appear on your linked page, or within the study associated to the graphic. As I said, the A2 scenario, on a 2100 projection trajectory, reaches ~ the 800 ppm level. One would think if you're going to throw up that link/graphic you should actually know what it means, hey!

Okay I made a mistake claiming that it was a doubling from 300 ppm to 600 ppm rather than 400 ppm to 800 ppm. But that doesn't hurt my conclusion at all, in fact it helps my conclusion about the increase in CO2 levels by a few hundred ppm corresponds to a temperature increase of a few degrees.

based on what? Certainly nothing you presented, certainly nothing you've referenced, supports that claim... an absolute claim. In fact, your very graphic (reference to A2) contradicts your claim. Like I said, when you don't know what you're talking about, google... is not your friend.

Based on well established climate science and the numerous sources I have established.

Why do you continually deny the scientific consensus on magnitude of temperature increases that will correspond to increases in CO2 levels from carbon emissions?

Here is a question I would like you to answer: What do you think the magnitude of climate change will be if we do not perform climate mitigation policies over the next century? Do you think the earth will 'boil' over and we will have a mass extinction event comparable to the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event? Or do you think a few hundred increase in the atmospheric ppm and a few degrees increase in global temperatures as more realistic/science-based?

as I said, you (and TimG) followed your Concern Troll playbook, to a tee. You've purposely set up the doomsday strawman. Should I ask you again to qualify your alarmist labeling... to specifically state what temperature level increase is your personal benchmark for labeling someone an alarmist? Why is this so difficult for you to respond to? Is there a problem?

Yet you keep claiming that climate change will cause the extinction of humans. If that isn't alarmism, I do not know what is. How about you try to quantify the amount of change we should expect from not performing climate mitigation policies? Because I do not see how we can discuss the benefits/costs of climate change if we cannot even roughly quantify the amount of change.

citation request

Seriously? I have to demonstrate that temperature gradient drives weather on Earth? Do I also need to prove diffusion and the thermodynamic laws for you? Like wtf? How much of an anti-science nutcase are you when you continually refute any well established scientific laws/theories/consensuses that I bring up?

Did you read my link on heat engines? Or was that too difficult for your deluded climate alarmist brain? Okay, try this link:

http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.tempgradient

"Winds around the globe are usually stronger in the winter, especially along fronts between highly contrasting air masses. There is a stronger temperature gradient between the poles and the equator during the winter months because the poles receive minimal sunlight at this time of year, while the tropics receive the same amount of solar energy year-round. This causes the jet stream to dip farther south and the winds to blow stronger on either side of the jet stream in winter. The jet stream separates the very cold air mass at higher latitudes from the warmer air mass equatorward."

your unsubstantiated opinion is noted. The history of the planet has nothing to do with the relatively current increased warming... no matter how many times you keep repeating it.

Unsubstantiated? A 5 degree increase will only bring us up to the mean of the average global temperatures for the past 600 million years during which multi-cellular life has flourished on this planet. It would still be below what is optimal for humans (there is a reason we find 22-25 degrees celcius as a comfortable room temperature) and historical evidence suggests that life on Earth has flourished when it has been warmer. But yes, 'unsubstantiated' (sarcasm).

What is unsubstantiated is the climate alarmist belief that somehow pre-industrial levels that correspond to the end of the little ice age during a geological period where atmospheric CO2 and temperatures are at there lowest point in the past 600 million years is somehow optimal.

again, you refuse to explain what significance CO2/temperature over the last 500 million years has to today's relatively recent warming and attribution.

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, so has how well life has faired. 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.

[waldo]

no... in the context being discussed, one subject to the stated conditions and influences, "plants are not plants"! Within a net benefit context, a blanket one, you spoke of a global increase in crop yields. And, of course, you ignored exactly that in your follow-up comments and your most immediate reference links... links that didn't speak to staple foods and their respective latitude growth regions; rather, your weak/failed links spoke to "green foliage" increases in desert/arid conditions. Notwithstanding, as I pointed out to you, your own links either directly contradicted your claim or they properly identified secondary effect concerns impacting on those presumed desert/arid "green foliage yields".

of course, what's sweetest is seeing your repeated bluster challenges to have this refuted! Again, you have not addressed the following citation request (note: highlighted particulars).

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.

Sigh, guess that link isn't good enough for you then. Your still a denier of the well established science on the CO2 fertilization effect?

clearly you have significant difficulty with reading/comprehension! I highlighted your overstep in claiming a blanket increase in global crop yields (versus regional latitude specific yields)... where I went to repeated steps to emphasize the caveats/influences/factors affecting presumed increases in crop yields (in any country/latitude)... does that read to you as denial? Your problem is you can't get your head out of the test-tube, the greenhouse enclosure, the sunlit chambers... you don't address, you haven't addressed real-world situations. I continued to emphasize those caveats/influences/factors - and you just ignored them. Of course you did!

.

Then how about this link? http://www.fao.org/docrep/w5183e/w5183e06.htm

Note that this study agrees with the scientific consensus on the CO2 fertilization effect. However, I will note that the study does suggest that if one takes into account temperature changes that are caused by the increase in CO2 levels then one finds that an increase in CO2 levels will cause a decrease in global crop yields. However, this is primarily because the study assumes that current crop distribution will remain the same (it even admits this in the conclusion and mentions further study is needed on this). So the result is expected because the crop distribution that we have right now is optimal for current global temperatures, not future global temperatures. If we simply adapt to the changing conditions and grow crops that are better suited to the new climate then I see no reason not to expect that global crop yields will not increase.

geezaz! Nice touch with the 1980s and early 90s references! In any case, did you actually read the study you linked to... I picked up on the key delineation in about 10 secs, literally! Although the dated references should have been your first clue as to this study lacking any semblance of real-world growing conditions, this sentence from your linked study would have saved you further embarrassment: "Findings from seven crop cycles of both soybean and rice grown in sunlit chambers at Gainesville, Florida, USA, will be emphasized ". Sunlit chambers! How... real world!

I'll keep repeating the following summary statements/post... the key summation... what you continue to ignore in your isolated, non-real world, bubble fixation with enclosure studies:

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.

.

[-1=e^ipi]

you can post it a brazillion times... perhaps in just one of those posts you might actually speak to, again, what significance this has to today's relatively recent warming and attribution.

I keep repeating why it is relevant. Perhaps you should re-read my earlier posts until you understand?

This is a old graph and alarmists have been busy fudging the data in order to get to conform to their CO2 is the climate controller theory. i.e. there is at least one paper that claims the high CO2 low temps period during Ordovican never occurred. Of course the data from such a long time ago requires numerous inferences and assumptions and it is difficult to claim that the set of inferences and assumptions that went into your graph is necessarily better than the inferences and assumptions that went into the new paper but the fact that they can change history like that shows how malleable the historical record is and how ideologically driven scientists can selectively manipulate history to shore up their pet theories.

Fair enough. There is large uncertainty in estimating the CO2 and temperature levels of earlier periods, but the fact that CO2 levels and temperatures have been higher for most of the past 500 million years remains valid. The points you bring up about climate alarmists distorting science are interesting.

[waldo]

as I said, you (and TimG) followed your Concern Troll playbook, to a tee. You've purposely set up the doomsday strawman. Should I ask you again to qualify your alarmist labeling... to specifically state what temperature level increase is your personal benchmark for labeling someone an alarmist? Why is this so difficult for you to respond to? Is there a problem?

Yet you keep claiming that climate change will cause the extinction of humans. If that isn't alarmism, I do not know what is.

BS! I made no such claims... quit making shyte up! And again, you refuse to qualify your increased temperature benchmark reference point at which you pull the "alarmist pin" labeling. Is there a problem why you refuse to answer this... refuse to provide quantification to your most liberal use of the alarmist tag? Is there a problem?

[-1=e^ipi]

Because one is bad, the other must be good. That is the extent of your logic?

No, I believe that there is an optimal global average temperature for life on this planet. Based upon the historical record as well as understanding the effects of climate change (CO2 fertilization effect, increased growing seasons, greater biodiversity currently exists in equatorial regions, most of the warming occurring in cold polar regions) I believe that this optimal is well above current levels (17-22 celcius might be optimal) and the amount of warming and CO2 increase we are talking about will bring us closer to these optimal conditions.

You on the other hand believe that somehow pre-industrial levels corresponding to the end of the little ice age are somehow optimal? Why is this?

The climate is a heat engine. The more heat, the more power can be generated. That power would be, weather.

How do you read what I wrote, go to the wikipedia heat engine link and conclude that?

Seriously, do you have to change the laws of physics just to fit your deluded climate alarmist religion? Seriously, I have a degree in physics and this basic understanding of thermodynamics is what allows things like refrigerators, steam engines and internal combustion engines to work.

But according to you, for heat engines "the more heat, the more power generated". Wow! So insightful. I guess you deserve the Nobel Prize for proving our understanding of thermodynamics to be false. *sarcasm*

Right,and as soon as we are spending a ton of money to cope with climate change, we will have lots left over to do what was too expensive before.

Yes. The global economy will continue to grow significantly over the next few decades, so there will be more economic resources to do both.

[-1=e^ipi]

clearly you have significant difficulty with reading/comprehension! I highlighted your overstep in claiming a blanket increase in global crop yields (versus regional latitude specific yields)... where I went to repeated steps to emphasize the caveats/influences/factors affecting presumed increases in crop yields (in any country/latitude)... does that read to you as denial? Your problem is you can't get your head out of the test-tube, the greenhouse enclosure, the sunlit chambers... you don't address, you haven't addressed real-world situations. I continued to emphasize those caveats/influences/factors - and you just ignored them. Of course you did!

Strawman argument. I said the fertilization effect will increase crop yields everywhere. However, the temperature effects and other indirect effects of increased levels of CO2 will vary depending on region. Therefore, the combined effect will vary depending on region.

But keep with your silly strawman argument that I somehow claimed that crop yields will increase everywhere.

geezaz! Nice touch with the 1980s and early 90s references! In any case, did you actually read the study you linked to... I picked up on the key delineation in about 10 secs, literally! Although the dated references should have been your first clue as to this study lacking any semblance of real-world growing conditions, this sentence from your linked study would have saved you further embarrassment: "Findings from seven crop cycles of both soybean and rice grown in sunlit chambers at Gainesville, Florida, USA, will be emphasized ". Sunlit chambers! How... real world!

I'll keep repeating the following summary statements/post... the key summation... what you continue to ignore in your isolated, non-real world, bubble fixation with enclosure studies:

The date of the study doesn't matter. The CO2 fertilization effect is well established and has been established for decades.

Seriously it comes down to basic chemistry. Why wouldn't the rate of photosynthesis

6CO₂ + 6H₂O + Energy --> C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂

Increase if you increase the amount of available CO2, especially under high light levels when CO2 is the limiting factor?

[-1=e^ipi]

BS! I made no such claims... quit making shyte up! And again, you refuse to qualify your increased temperature benchmark reference point at which you pull the "alarmist pin" labeling. Is there a problem why you refuse to answer this... refuse to provide quantification to your most liberal use of the alarmist tag? Is there a problem?

Maybe I confused you with the other 2-syllable, name-starts-with-W, anti-science climate alarmist in this thread.

[Wilber]

But according to you, for heat engines "the more heat, the more power generated". Wow! So insightful. I guess you deserve the Nobel Prize for proving our understanding of thermodynamics to be false. *sarcasm*

Get your quotes right. I said "the more heat the more power can be generated"

[waldo]

again, you refuse to explain what significance CO2/temperature over the last 500 million years has to today's relatively recent warming and attribution. I already called your Concern Troll act out... seeing you link to the anti-science WTFIUWT web site is gold Jerry, real gold!

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, so has how well life has faired. 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.

talk about (you being) pwned! When you reference the distant past climate change, particularly your emphasis, you're speaking to evidence of a strong response by the earth to increased heat buildup... of net positive influences on that past climate. That strong past historical response implies a large climate response/change to CO2 forcing... your continued references to distant past climate change are a direct implication indicating that humans (via anthropogenic sourced CO2) can significantly affect climate today.