Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem

[waldo]

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

maybe? Is that the extent you're prepared to pull-back on your false charge/claim/label? And again, what's your reference increased temperature benchmark where you designate someone an alarmist?

[-1=e^ipi]

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

And get your thermodynamics right.

The amount of work that a heat engine can perform depends on the differences in temperature between the hot reservoir and the cold reservoir, not 'the more heat, the more power'. In fact, as the temperature of the system gets higher (with the temperature gradient constant), Tc/Th approaches 1 which means that the efficiency of the heat engine approaches zero. So the converse of what you claim is actually true (a colder heat engine will generally have greater efficiency).

[-1=e^ipi]

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.

Yes, when have I said that humans cannot affect the global climate by increasing atmospheric levels of CO2? We've been discussing this for pages.

maybe? Is that the extent you're prepared to pull-back on your false charge/claim/label? And again, what's your reference increased temperature benchmark where you designate someone an alarmist?

If the person makes unscientific/unjustified claims about the amount of temperature increase that is expected for the expected increase in CO2 levels that are much higher than what should be expected. Particularly if they think the earth will boil over, if we will have a mass extinction event comparable to the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event or if they think humans will go extinct.

[waldo]

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.

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

6CO[/size]₂ + 6H[/size]₂O + Energy --> C[/size]₆H[/size]₁₂O[/size]₆ + 6O[/size]₂

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

you made the most blanket claims of increased global crop yields... you did not (initially) apply any caveats to that blanket claim. Only when you began to backpedal did you start to make a regional versus global distinction. Notwithstanding, you've yet to address the salient points of this discussion, regardless of any global versus regional backpedal you've actually been forced to make. Again, regardless of any regional or latitude specific focus, you continue to ignore the following... the following which is simply a small snapshot of caveats/influences/factors that can... that will... affect any presumption of increased 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.

Edited November 25, 2013 by waldo

[waldo]

Yes, when have I said that humans cannot affect the global climate by increasing atmospheric levels of CO2? We've been discussing this for pages.

no - your repeated references to the distant past climate have been made to apply "some correlation" to today... a correlation you're somewhat reticent to actually speak to... other than you making another blanket suggestion that a long past high CO2/temperature environment will be a good one for mankind today!!! As I said, your repeated reference to the long distant past climate is a direct implication on the strong sensitivity of today's climate to the CO2 forcing associated with anthropogenic sourced CO2. Clearly, climate sensitivity is just another facet you fail around, big time!

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.

.

If the person makes unscientific/unjustified claims about the amount of temperature increase that is expected for the expected increase in CO2 levels that are much higher than what should be expected. Particularly if they think the earth will boil over, if we will have a mass extinction event comparable to the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event or if they think humans will go extinct.

a non-answer... you were the one that started down the specific temperature projection path. You were the one that failed that projection path, repeatedly now. So, of course, you do the shuffle-dance to avoid answering the question/request put to you repeatedly... state the exact temperature increase level at which point you begin to label someone an alarmist. After all, you so liberally throw that label... you should have a number, hey!

[-1=e^ipi]

you made the most blanket claims of increased global crop yields... you did not (initially) apply any caveats to that blanket claim. Only when you began to backpedal did you start to make a regional versus global distinction. Notwithstanding, you've yet to address the salient points of this discussion, regardless of any global versus regional backpedal you've actually been forced to make. Again, regardless of any regional or latitude specific focus, you continue to ignore the following... the following which is simply a small snapshot of caveats/influences/factors that can... that will... affect any presumption of increased crop yields:

This claim is false. I have been consistent in my position with respect to the CO2 fertilization effect.

no - your repeated references to the distant past climate have been made to apply "some correlation" to today... a correlation you're somewhat reticent to actually speak to... other than you making another blanket suggestion that a long past high CO2/temperature environment will be a good one for mankind today!!! As I said, your repeated reference to the long distant past climate is a direct implication on the strong sensitivity of today's climate to the CO2 forcing associated with anthropogenic sourced CO2. Clearly, climate sensitivity is just another facet you fail around, big time!

I have never used the word sensitivity. I was talking about optimal climate conditions for life on this planet, particularly for humans but also for plant life.

a non-answer... you were the one that started down the specific temperature projection path. You were the one that failed that projection path, repeatedly now. So, of course, you do the shuffle-dance to avoid answering the question/request put to you repeatedly... state the exact temperature increase level at which point you begin to label someone an alarmist. After all, you so liberally throw that label... you should have a number, hey!

You are asking for an answer to a question without an answer. Being a climate alarmist or not isn't something that is binary, it is a continuum. Furthermore, the amount of warming depends on the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. So if someone claims that an increase of CO2 levels by 10 ppm will cause global temperature increases of 2 degrees then I will call them an alarmist. However, if someone claims that an increase of CO2 levels by 300 ppm will cause global temperatures to increase by 3 degrees then I will not call them an alarmist.

[waldo]

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

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."

I'm quite versed in temperature gradient influences on the jet stream... I've put forward many MLW posts that speak to the shifting jet-stream relative to today's North American weather and the increase in extreme weather events... where the cause of this shift is actively being studied/researched - where a prevailing line of understanding has that shift associated with Arctic ice melting and the so-called "Arctic/Polar amplification". Your claim was that the gradient will decrease with increased global warming... your associated implication is that extreme events will, in turn, diminish... decrease in frequency/intensity. Of course, it's just another of your unsubstantiated blanket claims!

you were asked for a citation to support your claim... you have not provided one. I've red-colored bold highlighted your insult - well done.

[waldo]

you made the most blanket claims of increased global crop yields... you did not (initially) apply any caveats to that blanket claim. Only when you began to backpedal did you start to make a regional versus global distinction. Notwithstanding, you've yet to address the salient points of this discussion, regardless of any global versus regional backpedal you've actually been forced to make. Again, regardless of any regional or latitude specific focus, you continue to ignore the following... the following which is simply a small snapshot of caveats/influences/factors that can... that will... affect any presumption of increased 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.

This claim is false. I have been consistent in my position with respect to the CO2 fertilization effect.

no - the only consistency you have shown is in having made a blanket unsupported claim to increased global crop yields... well, along with your other consistency in focusing on non-real world growing scenarios that avoid any attachment to caveats/influences/factors that can... that will... affect any presumption on increased crop yields, regardless of region, regardless of latitude. Yes... you're very consistent in these regards!

.

I have never used the word sensitivity. I was talking about optimal climate conditions for life on this planet, particularly for humans but also for plant life.

bloody hell! You're casting back over the past 500 million years and declaring "optimal climate conditions for human/plant life"! Just what are those "optimal climate conditions", particularly in regards to today? Citation request. The fact you haven't used the word sensitivity is a testament to how little you know about climate responses to forcings... about past climate implications you presume to draw upon... about making interpretations of that past climate towards today's climate. Like I said, you pwned yourself, scoring an 'own goal' each and every time you continue to reference the distant historical past.

.

You are asking for an answer to a question without an answer. Being a climate alarmist or not isn't something that is binary, it is a continuum. Furthermore, the amount of warming depends on the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. So if someone claims that an increase of CO2 levels by 10 ppm will cause global temperature increases of 2 degrees then I will call them an alarmist. However, if someone claims that an increase of CO2 levels by 300 ppm will cause global temperatures to increase by 3 degrees then I will not call them an alarmist.

in this specific instance it became a, as you say, 'binary focus', given your emphasis on temperature projection and alarmist labeling... and your repeated fails in supporting your own (presumed) projection claim. Of course, I will point out, once again, you referenced and presumed to support your projection claim by linking to a graphic based on an emission scenario with a year 2100 CO2 ppm projection level of 800 ppm with a high-end temperature increase projection of ~ 5°C. I guess by your own statement, now flushed out, we can/should label you an alarmist! Well done.

.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm quite versed in temperature gradient influences on the jet stream... I've put forward many MLW posts that speak to the shifting jet-stream relative to today's North American weather and the increase in extreme weather events... where the cause of this shift is actively being studied/researched - where a prevailing line of understanding has that shift associated with Arctic ice melting and the so-called "Arctic/Polar amplification".

Could you provide more elaboration on the Arctic/Polar amplification?

Your claim was that the gradient will decrease with increased global warming... your associated implication is that extreme events will, in turn, diminish... decrease in frequency/intensity. Of course, it's just another of your unsubstantiated blanket claims!

Temperature gradients create pressure gradients which in turn causes wind which causes weather events. The relationship between temperature gradients and frequency/severity of weather events is well known and is true on Earth, Jupiter and other planets/moons with atmospheres.

Sigh, anyway I'll provide you with more evidence until you accept that temperature gradients are the ultimate cause of weather events.

Article explaining that tornadoes are common in tornado alley due to a large temperature gradient between warm air from the Gulf of Mexico and cold air from Canada. http://theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/404/

Article explaining that hurricanes are heat engines caused by a temperature gradient. http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_spring2011.web.dir/Levi_Cowan/formation.html

no - the only consistency you have shown is in having made a blanket unsupported claim to increased global crop yields... well, along with your other consistency in focusing on non-real world growing scenarios that avoid any attachment to caveats/influences/factors that can... that will... affect any presumption on increased crop yields, regardless of region, regardless of latitude. Yes... you're very consistent in these regards!

Look my position has been consistent:

- 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.

bloody hell! You're casting back over the past 500 million years and declaring "optimal climate conditions for human/plant life"! Just what are those "optimal climate conditions", particularly in regards to today? Citation request. The fact you haven't used the word sensitivity is a testament to how little you know about climate responses to forcings... about past climate implications you presume to draw upon... about making interpretations of that past climate towards today's climate. Like I said, you pwned yourself, scoring an 'own goal' each and every time you continue to reference the distant historical past.

I need a citation to prove that room temperature of 21-25 C, which is most comfortable for humans, is higher than the current global average temperature of 14 C? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_temperature https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/what-average-global-temperature-now

Do I need a citation to prove that to prove that humans originated from east africa? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans

I've also found yet another wiki reference to the CO2 fertilization effect on a previous link I provided. The beginning of human agriculture during the current Holocene epoch may have been strongly connected to the atmospheric CO₂ increase after the last ice age ended, a fertilization effect raising plant biomass growth and reducing stomatal conductance requirements for CO₂ intake, consequently reducing transpiration water losses and increasing water usage efficiency."

And here is a link the the scientific paper it is referencing: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/boyd/AgOrigins.pdf

With respect to plant life flourishing under conditions of higher temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations, I have already provided plenty of evidence / explanations (Cambrian explosion, age of dinosaurs, end of last ice age leading to human civilization). But I suggest, if you are really interested, to go to the wikipedia page and look at each of the geological periods. It gives a detailed explanation of how well life performed during that period, which kind of new evolutionary developments occurred during that period, the average temperature and CO2 levels during the period, the positioning of the continents and mass extinction events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian

And the reason I haven't used the word sensitivity yet is because I'm not a gaia worshiping climate alarmist who believes that life on earth is so 'sensitive' that an increase in CO2 levels by a few hundred ppm will cause a mass extinction event. Life is resilient because it evolved to be that way and has survived numerous mass extinction events far greater than what we are doing by increasing CO2 levels slightly and making the planet more habitable for plant life.

in this specific instance it became a, as you say, 'binary focus', given your emphasis on temperature projection and alarmist labeling... and your repeated fails in supporting your own (presumed) projection claim. Of course, I will point out, once again, you referenced and presumed to support your projection claim by linking to a graphic based on an emission scenario with a year 2100 CO2 ppm projection level of 800 ppm with a high-end temperature increase projection of ~ 5°C. I guess by your own statement, now flushed out, we can/should label you an alarmist! Well done.

What? I say that saying an increase in CO2 levels by 300 ppm will cause a global temperature increase of 3 degrees will not make one an alarmist and somehow you think that saying an increase in CO2 levels by 450 ppm will cause a global temperature increase of 5 degrees will make one an alarmist? That makes no sense.

Edited November 26, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[TimG]

Could you provide more elaboration on the Arctic/Polar amplification?

He is basically saying the same thing as you: the poles warm faster than the equator which means the temperature gradient decreases which reduces the likely-hood of storms forming. That said, the intensity of storms is proportional to sea surface temperature so we should expect larger storms. The last effect is the storms when they do form will likely form further out to sea which means they are less likely to hit land. The net effect should be a decrease in storm damage but in the worst case it will be the same. The chances of storm damage increasing with AGW is pretty small. Edited November 26, 2013 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

That said, the intensity of storms is proportional to sea surface temperature so we should expect larger storms.

Could you provide me with a reference or theoretical model that explains this? I quite curious about such a relationship.

[TimG]

Could you provide me with a reference or theoretical model that explains this? I quite curious about such a relationship.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/

[Accountability Now]

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/

Great presentation. I really like the calming presence that Landsea has put on a lot of the hurricane chatter.

To be honest, I can't believe there is still a lot of noise from the alarmists considering the most recent IPCC report states they have low confidence in most extreme weather and their relationship to global warming. Landsea reiterates this in the presentation you posted.

[-1=e^ipi]

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/

Thanks for the link but i'm skeptical it supports your claim.

The article notes that the upper atmosphere will warm faster than the ocean temperatures which will decrease the temperature gradient between the hot reservoir and the cold reservoir of the hurricane (which is a heat engine)... so I'm not sure how strongly it supports your claim.

In addition, verticle wind shear is supposed to increase, which will decrease hurricane frequency and intensity (the reference that was given from the article you provided is http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cms-filesystem-action/user_files/gav/publications/vs_07_shears.pdf ).

After the article admits these things, it then somehow claims that "The bottom line is that nearly all of the theoretical and computer modeling work suggest that hurricanes may be slightly stronger (by a few percent) by the end of the 21st Century, even presuming that a large global warming will occur". Yet it provides no justification, only a reference to Morris Bender and colleagues, 2010, Science., which it doesn't provide a link for.

So temperature gradient between the air near the ocean and the upper atmosphere decreases, and vertical wind shear increases (which decreases the severity and intensity of hurricanes) and somehow you think this supports your claim that 'the intensity of storms is proportional to sea surface temperature'?

Furthermore, you use the word 'proportional' which is a very, very strong claim in physics. Maybe you want to reword your claim (to positive correlation)?

Edit: thanks a lot for the article though, it has given me more information to use when arguing against climate alarmists.

Edited November 26, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

Could you provide more elaboration on the Arctic/Polar amplification?

no - given your blatant insults I have no time for you... other than showing you haven't a clue & don't know what you're talking about. Try a googly, hey!

.

[waldo]

your claim was that the gradient will decrease with increased global warming... your associated implication is that extreme events will, in turn, diminish... decrease in frequency/intensity. Of course, it's just another of your unsubstantiated blanket claims!

you were asked for a citation to support your claim... you have not provided one.

Temperature gradients create pressure gradients which in turn causes wind which causes weather events. The relationship between temperature gradients and frequency/severity of weather events is well known and is true on Earth, Jupiter and other planets/moons with atmospheres.

Sigh, anyway I'll provide you with more evidence until you accept that temperature gradients are the ultimate cause of weather events.

Article explaining that tornadoes are common in tornado alley due to a large temperature gradient between warm air from the Gulf of Mexico and cold air from Canada. http://theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/404/

Article explaining that hurricanes are heat engines caused by a temperature gradient. http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_spring2011.web.dir/Levi_Cowan/formation.html

so what? None of this supports your claim; the claim where you stated that, "the gradient will decrease with increased global warming... your associated implication is that extreme events will, in turn, diminish... decrease in frequency/intensity."

.

[waldo]

no - the only consistency you have shown is in having made a blanket unsupported claim to increased global crop yields... well, along with your other consistency in focusing on non-real world growing scenarios that avoid any attachment to caveats/influences/factors that can... that will... affect any presumption on increased crop yields, regardless of region, regardless of latitude. Yes... you're very consistent in these regards!

Look my position has been consistent:

- The CO2 fertilization effect will cause increases in crop yields everywhere.

no - I've already outlined your negative consistencies... your continued blanket unsupported claim to increased global crop yields... your consistency in ignoring real-world growing scenarios/conditions. And now, you continue with this latest post! No, as you claim, there absolutely will not be increases in crop yields everywhere! Notwithstanding growth factor caveats/influences/factors repeatedly outlined to you, possible increases in select crops, in select regions/latitudes IS NOT a global increase in crop yields everywhere!

.

[waldo]

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.

I was talking about optimal climate conditions for life on this planet, particularly for humans but also for plant life.

bloody hell! You're casting back over the past 500 million years and declaring "optimal climate conditions for human/plant life"! Just what are those "optimal climate conditions", particularly in regards to today? Citation request. The fact you haven't used the word sensitivity is a testament to how little you know about climate responses to forcings... about past climate implications you presume to draw upon... about making interpretations of that past climate towards today's climate. Like I said, you pwned yourself, scoring an 'own goal' each and every time you continue to reference the distant historical past.

I need a citation to prove that room temperature of 21-25 C, which is most comfortable for humans, is higher than the current global average temperature of 14 C?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_temperature https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/what-average-global-temperature-now

Do I need a citation to prove that to prove that humans originated from east africa?

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

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

.

[waldo]

I've also found yet another wiki reference to the CO2 fertilization effect on a previous link I provided. The beginning of human agriculture during the current Holocene epoch may have been strongly connected to the atmospheric CO[/size]₂ increase after the last ice age ended, a fertilization effect raising plant biomass growth and reducing [/size]stomatal conductance requirements for CO[/size]₂ intake, consequently reducing transpiration water losses and increasing water usage efficiency.[/size]"

And here is a link the the scientific paper it is referencing: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/boyd/AgOrigins.pdf

With respect to plant life flourishing under conditions of higher temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations, I have already provided plenty of evidence / explanations (Cambrian explosion, age of dinosaurs, end of last ice age leading to human civilization). But I suggest, if you are really interested, to go to the wikipedia page and look at each of the geological periods. It gives a detailed explanation of how well life performed during that period, which kind of new evolutionary developments occurred during that period, the average temperature and CO2 levels during the period, the positioning of the continents and mass extinction events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian

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

.

[waldo]

And the reason I haven't used the word sensitivity yet is because I'm not a gaia worshiping climate alarmist who believes that life on earth is so 'sensitive' that an increase in CO2 levels by a few hundred ppm will cause a mass extinction event. Life is resilient because it evolved to be that way and has survived numerous mass extinction events far greater than what we are doing by increasing CO2 levels slightly and making the planet more habitable for plant life.

gaia worshipping climate alarmist? Nice one... clearly, you're an anti-science Watts devotee and lapdog! And again, you spout off with your fabricated doomsday mass extinction strawman. Right! I pretty much had you pegged as a Concern Troll denier after reading a few of your nonsense posts. Nice to see you coming around to the "CO2 is simply plant food" meme!

.

[waldo]

in this specific instance it became a, as you say, 'binary focus', given your emphasis on temperature projection and alarmist labeling... and your repeated fails in supporting your own (presumed) projection claim. Of course, I will point out, once again, you referenced and presumed to support your projection claim by linking to a graphic based on an emission scenario with a year 2100 CO2 ppm projection level of 800 ppm with a high-end temperature increase projection of ~ 5°C. I guess by your own statement, now flushed out, we can/should label you an alarmist! Well done.

What? I say that saying an increase in CO2 levels by 300 ppm will cause a global temperature increase of 3 degrees will not make one an alarmist and somehow you think that saying an increase in CO2 levels by 450 ppm will cause a global temperature increase of 5 degrees will make one an alarmist? That makes no sense.

again, your comprehension difficulty rises to the top! For what little your personal assessment is worth, you finally defined your alarmist labelling benchmark reference point. I'm simply pointing out your big-time fail in previously linking to and attempting to leverage a study/graphic that showcased an emissions scenario's CO2/temperature projection that actually exceeds your expressed benchmark. Ergo, by your statement, that linked reference you provided was an expression of your own alarmism! Well done.

.

[-1=e^ipi]

no - given your blatant insults I have no time for you... other than showing you haven't a clue & don't know what you're talking about. Try a googly, hey!

It is interesting that when I ask you for elaboration/evidence/links I go to great lengths to provide it, but when I ask you for the same, you don't provide anything and dismiss my request...

no - I've already outlined your negative consistencies... your continued blanket unsupported claim to increased global crop yields... your consistency in ignoring real-world growing scenarios/conditions. And now, you continue with this latest post! No, as you claim, there absolutely will not be increases in crop yields everywhere! Notwithstanding growth factor caveats/influences/factors repeatedly outlined to you, possible increases in select crops, in select regions/latitudes IS NOT a global increase in crop yields everywhere!

You want to continue well established science despite all the evidence I continually provide? CO2 fertilization is beneficial to all plants because it makes it easier for them to perform photo-synthesis. If you want to explain how the converse is true then please do so.

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

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

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

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

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

- The CO2 fertilization effect will cause increases in crop yields everywhere.

- Other effects such as changes to temperature, precipitation, cloud cover, wind and other weather effects will have varying effects on crop yields depending on location.

- If we do not change our geographical distribution of crops (our current crop distribution is roughly optimized for current climatic conditions) then the overall effect of climate change will have a slight negative impact on crop yields. Most climate studies that measure climate effects on crop yields assume that humans will not adapt to the new climate, which is nonsense.

- However, if we are reasonable and change our crop growing patterns such that we grow crops that are better suited to a warmer climate (and the amount of climate change is reasonable such as 3 C global temperature increase & 400 ppm CO2 increase) then crop yields will overall increase.

Which of the above statements do you disagree with?

gaia worshipping climate alarmist? Nice one... clearly, you're an anti-science Watts devotee and lapdog! And again, you spout off with your fabricated doomsday mass extinction strawman. Right! I pretty much had you pegged as a Concern Troll denier after reading a few of your nonsense posts. Nice to see you coming around to the "CO2 is simply plant food" meme!

I do not know what a Watts devotee or a Concern Troll denier are. Could you define them for me?

[-1=e^ipi]

again, your comprehension difficulty rises to the top! For what little your personal assessment is worth, you finally defined your alarmist labelling benchmark reference point. I'm simply pointing out your big-time fail in previously linking to and attempting to leverage a study/graphic that showcased an emissions scenario's CO2/temperature projection that actually exceeds your expressed benchmark. Ergo, by your statement, that linked reference you provided was an expression of your own alarmism! Well done.

What is my 'expressed benchmark' that you claim exists, even though I stated that whether someone is an alarmist or not isn't a binary it is a continuum? Some people are more alarmist than others.

Edited November 26, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

He is basically saying the same thing as you: the poles warm faster than the equator which means the temperature gradient decreases which reduces the likely-hood of storms forming.

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

That said, the intensity of storms is proportional to sea surface temperature so we should expect larger storms. The last effect is the storms when they do form will likely form further out to sea which means they are less likely to hit land. The net effect should be a decrease in storm damage but in the worst case it will be the same. The chances of storm damage increasing with AGW is pretty small.

no - the intensity of storms is predicted to increase... along with an increase in the frequency of these more intense storms ("in some basins"). The issue of the number of hurricanes hitting landfall is one under study... one line of investigation shows evidence that the number of landfall hurricanes has shown a decrease in recent years, with some scientific research/study attributing that landfall decrease to increased water temperature and related wind sheer effects.

from the latest IPCC AR5 report:

Projections for the 21st century indicate that it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed and rain rates. The influence of future climate change on tropical cyclones is likely to vary by region, but there is low confidence in region-specific projections. The frequency of the most intense storms will more likely than not increase substantially in some basins. More extreme precipitation near the centers of tropical cyclones making landfall are likely in North and Central America, East Africa, West, East, South and Southeast Asia as well as in Australia and many Pacific islands

.

[waldo]

It is interesting that when I ask you for elaboration/evidence/links I go to great lengths to provide it, but when I ask you for the same, you don't provide anything and dismiss my request...

try that sentence again, hey! Your provided links have been shown to either be nonsensical, unrelated or lacking actual support for your claims. In this specific instance, you asked me for information that is quite readily available to you with a simple search... again, given your most overt insults, I most certainly won't be making any effort to accommodate your requests for help/assistance.