Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

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.

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

no - high(er) sensitivity to varying fast and longer-term positive feedbacks implies greater warming overall, implies a greater enhancing influence of those longer-term positive feedbacks on warming --- greater warming overall, relative to quick warming associated with fast feedbacks and protracted resultant warming associated with longer-term feedbacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

no - again, they are scenarios with underlying storylines... they are not models... notwithstanding your mistaken full implication that they were climate 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:

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.

yes, you did! You accepted 800 as the upper limit for the particular scenario you unknowingly referenced... you did so, because I informed you of that upper limit. Whereupon you decided to subsequently refer to it, the 800, as if you arrived at it... telling me, "if I didn't believe you"! Like I said, poser! You then doubled-down on your failure by associating that 800 level as the upper limit for all 6 scenarios... which it isn't. As I stated to you, the upper limit is ~ 1000 (actually 970). So yes, in fact you did absolutely equate, incorrectly equate, the 800 upper limit of the single scenario to the overall upper limit of the scenario grouping. You clearly don't know the storylines associated with the respective scenarios. And, again, it makes absolutely no sense to average the storyline emission projections... absolutely none!

.

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.

no - taking a mean/standard deviation across the scenarios has absolutely no place in any discussion of, effectively, disparate emission scenarios, each with their own unique and distinct storylines. Again, you don't know what you're talking about... but what else is new!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

What would you argue is a good solution, wind (link to thread on its serious environmental drawbacks) or solar? Or is your solution throwing rocks at posters on boards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would you argue is a good solution, wind (link to thread on its serious environmental drawbacks) or solar? Or is your solution throwing rocks at posters on boards?

ya ya, already saw your new thread... was inclined to give it a pass, since you could have simply resurrected your earlier thread... the one you specifically called me out on:

or another MLW member's thread, where you flogged your same thread's article... where I summarized my earlier responses to you: here

your new thread includes an article with little substance... other than a couple of quotes speaking to noise and construction impact. I could play fetch and actually find related Massachusetts site placement process/approval documents... or see if there's an enforceable MOU between the developer and state authorities; one that might speak to enforceable restoration measures. In a quick googly I easily found a state sponsored noise study. I could do all that, but, uhhh... why don't you step-up this time and actually support your ongoing wedge plays. I mean, c'mon... anyone can cut & paste a superficial article like you just did in your new thread... in your earlier thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

ROTFL. You are so wrapped up in your own self delusion that you admit you reject any argument that comes from an "unapproved" source. IOW - you have created a filter that ensures you never have to face a challenge to your fantasy world.

Well, a scientific argument on a blog is just as valid as one in a scientific paper. The main difference is you have to be able to understand science in order to know which blogs are full of crap and which ones know what they are talking about. I realize this is a challenge for someone like you who has no understanding of the science and can only repeat talking points found elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROTFL. You are so wrapped up in your own self delusion that you admit you reject any argument that comes from an "unapproved" source. IOW - you have created a filter that ensures you never have to face a challenge to your fantasy world.

Well, a scientific argument on a blog is just as valid as one in a scientific paper. The main difference is you have to be able to understand science in order to know which blogs are full of crap and which ones know what they are talking about. I realize this is a challenge for someone like you who has no understanding of the science and can only repeat talking points found elsewhere.

sure timg56, sure! Ya ya, your kind of "blog scientists"... guys who somehow can never quite get over that insurmountable publishing hurdle!!! :lol: Blog level isolation is so comforting to them... to you, hey? Or... your kind of most selectively chosen political science and economic "expert" bloggers... guys who live and breath your Adapt-R-Us (only) mantra!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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?

Unsurprisingly, you completely ignore my occum's razor argument.

and you ignore the only real significance looking at the long distant past has; i.e., climate sensitivity.

The geological past is significant in terms of understanding how life evolved on this planet, how life performed under different climactic conditions, and what we can expect life to do in response to climate change. Even the pro-350ppm paper that I linked to earlier uses the geological record and the glaciation of Antarctica 34 million years ago to justify it's position. Your refusal to recognize the importance of evolution and the geological record is bizarre. Out of curiosity, are you a creationist?

while you purposely ignore all manner of climate change related impacts to warming and related positive feedback mechanisms enhancing on that warming.

This is a straw man argument. What feedback mechanisms am I ignoring?

Okay I watched your silly CO2 is plant food video and it has a number of errors/misleading claims:

- The majority of the video tries to connect specific recent weather events (floods, droughts) with climate change. This is wrong and unscientific. We cannot link specific weather events which are within year to year climate variability with longer term climate change. We can talk about the change in the frequency over time of various weather events as a result of climate change, but trying to link specific weather events is silly. The majority of the video is like "Oh look at these floods and droughts! How awful! Therefore, climate change is bad."

- The video picks and chooses single sentences from scientific papers and presents them out of context to support its climate alarmist dogma. It doesn't present any theoretical models that explain its thesis.

- "We get more extremes of flooding as a consequence and at the same time, in the places where it is not raining, things are drying out so we get droughts that are more extensive and longer lived." Typical climate alarmist nonsense. Places that are wet will get even wetter and places that are dry will get even drier? Why? Well it fits with the climate alarmist dogma and makes climate change seem bad so it must be true! The truth is, some places will get more dry and some places will get more wet with climate change, but some places that are wet will get more dry and some places that are dry will get more wet. The whole climate change will make everything more extreme nonsense has no scientific basis and in many cases the opposite is true (decrease in temperature gradient between poles and equator, decrease in temperature gradient between upper atmosphere and ocean).

- "But higher levels of warming often negatively affect growth and yields" "Weeds benefit from warming and a higher carbon dioxide concentration" So the plants that we consider crops will be negatively affected by global warming, but the plants that we consider weeds will be positively affected by global warming? Despite the fact that both crops and weeds share common ancestors, have the same biological processes that perform photosynthesis and the distinction between weeds and crops is somewhat arbitrary? What nonsense. But as long as it fits with the climate alarmist dogma that global warming from higher CO2 concentrations is bad it must be correct, right?

- "Rice, a staple for billions of people, is especially vulnerable to global warming, for reasons not yet clear." Lol, for reasons not yet clear. Anyway, I tracked down the paper it based this claim on and the video doesn't give the whole story:

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/33/14562.full

"Higher minimum temperature reduced yield, whereas higher maximum temperature raised it" "Diurnal temperature variation must be considered when investigating the impacts of climate change on irrigated rice in Asia" So the relationship between warming & rice crop yields is complex and is more to do with diurnal temperature variation than it has to do with the average temperature? Furthermore, the regression study doesn't take into account changes in CO2 concentrations (which will have a positive effect on crop yields due to CO2 fertilization), only changes in temperature.

Also, why does the video only reference studies about the effect on rice yields? Why not wheat, corn or potatoes? Perhaps the video is only picking and choosing facts/studies that support its dogmatic, climate-alarmist thesis?

Finally, the whole idea that we will continue to grow crops in the places that we currently grow them is flawed. Obviously, the crops we grow across the world are roughly optimized to the current climate. But if the climate changes, then it will make sense to change our crop growing patterns to the new climate. So we might grow corn or rice where we used to grow wheat, bananas where we used to grow rice, etc. If a place became unsuitable to grow rice, you wouldn't continue to grow rice there, would you?

- "on the only planet we will ever have" Wrong, humans will start to colonize Mars this century.

Also, this video reminds me that you have yet to fulfill my request for you to explain how a reduction in the global temperature gradient enhances the pressure resonance effect for the mid latitudes of the northern hemisphere.

As for the second video:

- "Previous research suggested that warmer temperatures and higher levels of precipitation, factors associated with climate change, were generally good for plant growth." Thanks for agreeing with me video! "But it is possible that we've had too much of a good thing" Oh noes!

- "MODIS indicates a net decrease in primary production from 2000 through 2009." Firstly, there has been a lull in warming for the past 13 years, so a decrease during this period cannot be attributed to warming. Secondly, the time scale of a decade isn't sufficient to make significant conclusions about the effect of climate change. Decade to decade variability in primary production can be attributed to climate variability & cyclic effects. We would need a longer time line to conclude that it is due to increases in CO2 & climate change. If you want to argue that climate variability & cyclic effects are not sufficient enough to explain this then you will also have to explain how the lull in warming for the past 13 years is not due to climate variability & cyclic effects.

- "Higher temperatures led to longer growing seasons and increased amounts of water and sun light in the northern hemisphere. Causing a net increase in atmospheric primary production" Wow, thanks for agreeing with me yet again video!

- "65% increase in primary production in the northern hemisphere, 70% decrease in primary production in the southern hemisphere" Somehow the video concludes that the net result is a decrease in primary production, even though the majority of the earth's land mass and the majority of the earth's population lives in the northern hemisphere. 65% increase in primary production in the Northern Hemisphere and a 70% decrease in primary production in the southern hemisphere seems like a good thing. Also, the results seem to be explained by climate variability, not because of long term climate change. If anything, we should be more concerned with deforestation in Brazil than the effects of increased CO2 concentrations on primary production.

waldo, on 30 Nov 2013 - 07:11 AM, said:

no - high(er) sensitivity to varying fast and longer-term positive feedbacks implies greater warming overall, implies a greater enhancing influence of those longer-term positive feedbacks on warming --- greater warming overall, relative to quick warming associated with fast feedbacks and protracted resultant warming associated with longer-term feedbacks.

I don't understand why you are disagreeing with me here. Some feedbacks (like melting of glacial ice) have a longer response time than other feedbacks (like release of CO2 and methane from the oceans).

waldo, on 30 Nov 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

notwithstanding your mistaken full implication that they were climate models.

That is a lie, I never said that they were climate models.

waldo, on 30 Nov 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

yes, you did! You accepted 800 as the upper limit for the particular scenario you unknowingly referenced... you did so, because I informed you of that upper limit. Whereupon you decided to subsequently refer to it, the 800, as if you arrived at it... telling me, "if I didn't believe you"! Like I said, poser! You then doubled-down on your failure by associating that 800 level as the upper limit for all 6 scenarios... which it isn't. As I stated to you, the upper limit is ~ 1000 (actually 970). So yes, in fact you did absolutely equate, incorrectly equate, the 800 upper limit of the single scenario to the overall upper limit of the scenario grouping.

Clearly your reading comprehension is poor and you do not understand what 'roughly' means and the difference between little mitigation and no mitigation.

waldo, on 30 Nov 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

no - taking a mean/standard deviation across the scenarios has absolutely no place in any discussion of, effectively, disparate emission scenarios, each with their own unique and distinct storylines. Again, you don't know what you're talking about... but what else is new!

I know for a fact that taking the mean of various models was not uncommon in physics when they were trying to determine the mass of neutrinos. I'll try to find a graphic for you.

Anyway, taking the mean is no worse than only taking the most extreme climate projection/model cause it fits your climate alarmist dogma.

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

"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?

Unsurprisingly, you completely ignore my occum's razor argument.

unsurprisingly, you didn't answer my questions. So you extend your strawman (your statement that, "climate alarmists hold the premise that pre-industrial CO2 levels are optimal"), into a trumped up occum razor proposal... and you feign surprise that I wouldn't give it any more merit/significance? I don't accept your strawman no matter how hard you try to futz with it... you know, the strawman you couldn't support after 3 tries.

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.

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?

The geological past is significant in terms of understanding how life evolved on this planet, how life performed under different climactic conditions, and what we can expect life to do in response to climate change. Even the pro-350ppm paper that I linked to earlier uses the geological record and the glaciation of Antarctica 34 million years ago to justify it's position. Your refusal to recognize the importance of evolution and the geological record is bizarre. Out of curiosity, are you a creationist?

so... you now come back and line up with my emphasis on leveraging the distant past in terms of climate sensitivity. Good on ya! :lol: And... that paper you linked to... it's all about climate sensitivity! Oh, by the by, is 350 ppm the same as your pre-industrial 270? You know, the pre-industrial level you keep babbling about? How do you equate those numbers/levels?

like I said, you're a unique Concern Troll... usually you guys go for the extreme worst case scenarios to target your alarmist labeling. That paper gives you that opportunity at the high-end... somehow you keep on, keeping on, with your pre-industrial nonsense. Yes, indeed, your concern is very unique!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I watched your silly CO2 is plant food video and it has a number of errors/misleading claims:

so, you're concerned over a linkage between an increase... or perceived increase... in certain extreme weather events and climate change. The video does reference NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth; comments from an interview:

For every one degree Fahrenheit increase in sea temperature, the water holding capacity for the atmosphere goes up by 4%. And since the 1970′s on average there’s about a 4% increase in water vapor over the Atlantic Ocean and when that gets caught into a storm, it invigorates the storm so the storm itself changes, and that can easily double the influence of that water vapor and so you can get up to an 8% increase, straight from the amount of water vapor that’s sort of hanging around in the atmosphere. This is reasonably well established.

.

.

I find it systematically tends to get underplayed and it often gets underplayed by my fellow scientists. Because one of the opening statements, which I’m sure you’ve probably heard is “Well you can’t attribute a single event to climate change.” But there is a systematic influence on all of these weather events now-a-days because of the fact that there is this extra water vapor lurking around in the atmosphere than there used to be say 30 years ago. It’s about a 4% extra amount, it invigorates the storms, it provides plenty of moisture for these storms and it’s unfortunate that the public is not associating these with the fact that this is one manifestation of climate change. And the prospects are that these kinds of things will only get bigger and worse in the future.

and in line with his future prospects reference, I earlier put up the following from the latest IPCC AR5:

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

if nothing else the video has finally focused you on real-world considerations on your claimed 'global increase in crop yields' and your isolation/fixation with non-real world enclosure studies. Your concern over weed versus crop growth seems to have you perplexed. You do understand what noxious weeds are, right? Uhhh... you do understand the high dispersal nature of weeds, right... you do understand the high adaptive nature of weeds right... you do understand that noxious weeds significantly compete with native/staple crops... that they can cause real harm to livestock. What's that about a raised negative effect of CO2 on the efficacy of pesticides? You know all that, right? And somehow, you're perplexed... when you're taken outside the confines of your cozy non-real world enclosure mediums! Oh my!

and yes, that PNAS study (that the video references), does speak to the negative effects of warming on rice yields... the PNAS study that was undertaken within a real-world environment. But hey, thanks for finally acknowledging an impact on your claimed 'increase in global crop yields'. We're slowly bringing you around, hey! You were most selective in pulling statements from the study abstract... self-serving statements you isolated on. Somehow you missed these emphasized summary statements:

Higher minimum temperature reduced yield, whereas higher maximum temperature raised it; radiation impact varied by growth phase. Combined, these effects imply that yield at most sites would have grown more rapidly during the high-yielding season but less rapidly during the low-yielding season if observed temperature and radiation trends at the end of the 20th century had not occurred, with temperature trends being more influential. Looking ahead, they imply a net negative impact on yield from moderate warming in coming decades. Beyond that, the impact would likely become more negative, because prior research indicates that the impact of maximum temperature becomes negative at higher levels.

you state, "So the relationship between warming & rice crop yields is complex and is more to do with diurnal temperature variation than it has to do with the average temperature?"... or are you stating it... does your question mark suggest... you're simply postulating? Please tell me that you're going to attribute the last ~ 50-100 years reduction in the diurnal temperature range to... natural variability! Is that the position you hold in regards this study's findings? :lol: But wait, you have more! You now want to double-down and blindly, without substantiation, state an increase in CO2 levels would override, would usurp, the negative growth yield finding/future implications stated within the aforementioned study..... your unsubstantiated opinion is noted!

I guess you just must have missed that same study's following reference; a reference that even speaks to your own emphasis on "greenhouse experiments". But wait... it speaks to 'can reduce yield'. Oh my... that runs right up against your 'global crop yield increase' claim, hey!

The impacts of temperature and solar radiation on rice yield remain imperfectly understood, despite decades of agronomic research. Current knowledge is based primarily on field trials and greenhouse experiments. These experimental studies indicate that increased temperature (14) and decreased radiation (1, 3, 5) can reduce yield, with the impacts varying across the plant's three growth phases (vegetative, establishment to panicle initiation; reproductive, panicle initiation to flowering; ripening, flowering to mature grain).

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, this video reminds me that you have yet to fulfill my request for you to explain how a reduction in the global temperature gradient enhances the pressure resonance effect for the mid latitudes of the northern hemisphere.

your comment reminds me you haven't substantiated your initial claim/implication... "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".

on the other hand I certainly do remember schooling you on the article/study you couldn't associate to the jet-stream... or it's attachment as the (possible) underlying physical mechanism behind the "stalling out of the shifted jet stream"; you know, the shift being attributed to melting Arctic sea ice (re: Arctic/Polar amplification)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, you're concerned over a linkage between an increase... or perceived increase... in certain extreme weather events and climate change.

.

There is no linkage. I have schooled you in this before and now the IPCC even outright said it in the AR5 report. Predictions are fun but reality sucks for the waldo camp!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the second video:

interesting... you won't accept the NASA Modis satellite data/findings that speak to a 2000-2009 period net decrease in primary growth production, because it's "too short a period of time, yet you have no problem with speaking to a (presumed) "lull in warming" over a short-term trending interval. Why... that's quite the self-serving selectivity you have there, hey! :lol:

of course, even if one accepts your claim on a "lull", that doesn't imply no warming... that simply implies a reduced rate of warming relative to an earlier decade. And, of course, it presumes on your ilk's favoured isolation game on surface temperature warming only... purposely avoiding the oceans where >90% of the warming goes. In any case, as I alluded to earlier, if the following study holds up you won't have "the paws" for your denial to fall back on!

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

So you are more concerned about the rate of change than the magnitude of change?

Both. We are putting carbon back into the atmosphere thousands of times quicker than it took nature to remove it while reducing its capacity to do so. You claim to know the consequences and how to deal with them. I don't think so.

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. :)

Maybe they will and maybe we won't like them and maybe they won't like us. Just indicates to me that you do have no idea and are blindly assuming that no matter what we do it will be a positive. Not comforting at all.

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

Technological advance requires motivation. In this area, you are not motivated, you are just depending on someone else to be in spite of your assurances that it is not necessary.

And yes I understand how economies of scale works.

Good, then you will understand that even if you cut the unit cost in half, your net gain will be zero if you end up having to remove twice as much.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both. We are putting carbon back into the atmosphere thousands of times quicker than it took nature to remove it while reducing its capacity to do so. You claim to know the consequences and how to deal with them. I don't think so.

Yet you claim we know how to deal with the costs associated with a rapid de-carbonization of the economy. Why do you assume that large scale mitigation will have no negative consequences?

Good, then you will understand that even if you cut the unit cost in half, your net gain will be zero if you end up having to remove twice as much.

Which is still cheaper in costs relative to GDP in the future.

The trouble is we are dealing with unknowns. We can estimate the costs of reducing CO2 today but we can't really estimate the future costs of climate change. If these costs are small and economic growth continues then the case for mitigation is weak. If the costs are large or economic growth stops the case for mitigation is better but there is a good chance that mitigation will be futile and we would end up paying to adapt anyways.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ya ya, already saw your new thread... was inclined to give it a pass, since you could have simply resurrected your earlier thread... the one you specifically called me out on:

or another MLW member's thread, where you flogged your same thread's article... where I summarized my earlier responses to you: here

your new thread includes an article with little substance... other than a couple of quotes speaking to noise and construction impact. I could play fetch and actually find related Massachusetts site placement process/approval documents... or see if there's an enforceable MOU between the developer and state authorities; one that might speak to enforceable restoration measures. In a quick googly I easily found a state sponsored noise study. I could do all that, but, uhhh... why don't you step-up this time and actually support your ongoing wedge plays. I mean, c'mon... anyone can cut & paste a superficial article like you just did in your new thread... in your earlier thread.

I repeat your response to my leading you to that thread two (2) years ago:

laugh.gif eerie? Really? I am heartened to realize you require validation through my comment!

in any case, your pitiful transparent attempt to strike a wedge issue hardly seemed worthy of more than my initial cursory review. And really, this is only your first bait attempt...

So, attack when you have no good answer?
I don't think that startign a new thread, with a new article, more than two (2) years later is out of line. You have certainly re-dredged up a lot of your "material."

In any event you don't address the issue; that wind power has its share of problems.

Oh, I forgot the frozen turbines in New Brunswick. At a time of the year when the winds are highest and the power most needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I repeat your response to my leading you to that thread two (2) years ago:

I don't think that startign a new thread, with a new article, more than two (2) years later is out of line. You have certainly re-dredged up a lot of your "material."

In any event you don't address the issue; that wind power has its share of problems.

Oh, I forgot the frozen turbines in New Brunswick. At a time of the year when the winds are highest and the power most needed.

you just quoted my response. You've added nothing new with your linking to a most superficial article. I suggested you actually do a little leg-work on your own this time... actually try to support your claims/position. Like I said, anyone can link to a most superficial article... as you've just done.

as for your other thread on that NB wind farm... gee, is there a theme here? I've not found anything since an update in Jan 2012... perhaps a technology based fix has been applied (as I speculated on in the following posts). Have you any updates yourself? Since you feel a need to strike up new thread, after new thread, let me play those related responses back to you... here:

what? ... apparently, you have nothing to say about all the world-wide successful wind farm deployments - go figure. Do you scour the interweeb for these type of nuggets, hey jbg?

in any case, project/location specific... engineering solution required - no biggee... many existing northerly climate locations exist, without problems. Imagine... technology advances in the face of challenges:

GE Energy’s 2.5xl Wind Turbine Now Offers Extreme Cold Weather Capabilities for Challenging Applications in North America and Europe

GE 2.5xl Wind Turbine Now Prepared for Extreme Cold WeatherE Energy’s most advanced wind turbine, the 2.5xl, is now available with a Cold Weather Extreme (CWE) package. The addition of the CWE package ensures that the 2.5xl wind turbine can operate in temperatures as low as -30°C, and in survival mode without operation, at temperatures as low as -40°C.

.

.

a quick search shows at least a dozen players with solutions for either a combination of ice detection and de-icing or ice detection alone ... solutions brought to market, as much to deal with concerns over lost efficiency due to ice impacting turbine blade aerodynamics, or concerns over safety and the 'launching' of ice projectiles off the blades. Significant solutions have been deployed in Scandinavian and Russian wind farms... also read a reference to what had been a problem location in the Swiss Alps adjacent to a ski resort area (re: safety concerns over 'flying ice' off the blades).

in this NB problem example, they needed to shut down for only a couple of days last year - this year, a significant shutdown that reflects the 'uniqueness' of this years Maritime weather, as Gwiz highlights... so, as I suggested, an engineering solution will be forthcoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, in calendar year 2013, as in now, not in 2011, NB's wind farms continue to under-perform:

New Brunswick's commercial wind farms came up woefully short of their electrical production targets last year, new documents reveal.

It is the fifth year in a row wind has failed to produce as much power as expected in the province.

In filings with the Energy and Utilities Board earlier this month, NB Power, which buys 100 per cent of the power produced by the three privately-owned farms, says it was supplied just below 694,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of wind generated power last year.

That's about 210,000 MWh below output levels envisioned when the farms were agreed to.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/wind-power-falls-short-of-targets-1.1344214

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, in calendar year 2013, as in now, not in 2011, NB's wind farms continue to under-perform:

Thanks. I have not had time to do much research lately given personal matters. But I am not surprised by that posting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waldo, you really do not know how to debate on internet forums do you? You need to actually respond to what people write, rather than ignore what they write and straw man the few points that you actually decide to respond to.

In your replies to my last post for example, you:

- ignored occum's razor argument

- straw man what i write about the significance of the geological record and the paper about the glaciation of Antarctica 34 million years ago

- ignore my request to know if you are a creationist (which would explain your refusal to acknowledge any significance of evolution)

- Do not indicate which feedback mechanisms I am supposedly ignoring

- Downplay the fact that the first video tries to unscientifically link specific weather events in recent history to global warming

- Do not try to defend the claim that dry places will become drier and wet places will become more wet (i.e. everything will become more extreme).

- Do not defend your claim with evidence or theory that somehow weeds are so different than crops that they will be positively affected by climate change, while crops will be affected negatively.

- Do not address the fact that the rice study does not take into account changes in CO2 concentrations, only temperature changes, because it is a regression based on cross-sectional data. Again, rice will benefit from the CO2 fertilization effect like all plants.

- Do not address the fact that you could simply grow better suited crops to the new climate rather than growing the crops we do currently.

- Do not defend the "on the only planet we will ever have" claim.

- Do not address my re-request for an explanation as to how climate change results in an increase in the frequency of pressure resonance effects for the northern mid latitudes. You just link to an old post which I already explained was insufficient.

- Do not acknowledge the quotes from the video that support the idea that CO2 & warming are good for plant life. I especially liked this one: ""Higher temperatures led to longer growing seasons and increased amounts of water and sun light in the northern hemisphere. Causing a net increase in atmospheric primary production"

- Do not address the fact that the majority of the land mass and people are in the northern hemisphere, so a 65% increase in primary production in the northern hemisphere and a 70% decrease in primary production in the southern hemisphere is overall good.

- strawman what I say with respect to the 13 year lull in global temperatures and the supposed decrease in primary production from 2000-2009. You pretend that I have a double standard with respect to the significance of climate variability in explaining decade long trends.

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

See, you are so deluded in your climate alarmist dogma that you only see the parts of sentences or paragraphs you want to see. Oh look, I can play the let's bold text you like as well.

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet you claim we know how to deal with the costs associated with a rapid de-carbonization of the economy. Why do you assume that large scale mitigation will have no negative consequences?

I don't claim anything of the sort, I am just using the estimates in a link provided by -1=e^ipi

Our civilization is designed to operate in the climate that exists now. How or whether it can in radically different circumstances is speculation.

Which is still cheaper in costs relative to GDP in the future.

The trouble is we are dealing with unknowns. We can estimate the costs of reducing CO2 today but we can't really estimate the future costs of climate change. If these costs are small and economic growth continues then the case for mitigation is weak.

You know it is still cheaper but we can't really estimate the future cost of climate change. That is supposed to make sense to me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waldo, you really do not know how to debate on internet forums do you? You need to actually respond to what people write, rather than ignore what they write and straw man the few points that you actually decide to respond to.

:lol: apparently, your form of preferred debate is one where you state your unsubstantiated opinion and expect it to go unchallenged. You simply don't like and can't deal with the responses you're confronted with... clearly, messing with your Concern Troll act is most disconcerting to you! You so purposely ignore a brazillion points thrown your way... do you see me throwing a pissant whine-fest like this post of yours?

In your replies to my last post for example, you:

- ignored occum's razor argument [waldo: no - as I said, you didn't get a bite on your strawman claim, so you pompously decide to place it within the razor!!! Of course you do. As I said, you failed 3 times to even substantiate your claim... your trumped up claim, a claim no one on this board is making or has ever made (that I'm aware). Again, that claim, your claim was simply a means for you to wildly throw out the alarmist label... your problem is you can't actually find a target to associate your claim with and apply your want to throw the alarmist label against.]

- straw man what i write about the significance of the geological record and the paper about the glaciation of Antarctica 34 million years ago [waldo: no - there was no strawman applied or even offered. My position is clear, consistent and unwavering; again, the significance of the long distant past applied to today's climate is in terms of evaluating the sensitivity of climate. As I've repeated, your big time fail is in not recognizing your own incessant focus undercuts your own argument that warming will be "lower, less significant"... emphasizing the distant past shows that climate is highly sensitive, counter to your position. Like I said, you keep scoring "own goals"! I already spoke to that paper reference to Antarctica that you made... you know, the paper with a climate sensitivity focus... apparently, you missed that! But again, I suggested you missed your real chance as that paper's authors speak to a presumed worst-case high end outcome. In that regard, as I emphasized, your Concern is unique in focusing on the pre-industrial... you had a target at the other end of the spectrum and didn't even bite at it!]

- ignore my request to know if you are a creationist (which would explain your refusal to acknowledge any significance of evolution) [waldo: oh... you were serious? Oh my! Your failed premise is that "evolution" has some direct and immediate bearing on the relative warming of today, its related climate change and attributions therein. Like I said, will you be bringing forward Venus next/soon? Again, the only significant and directly applied facet the distant past brings to an attempt to correlate with today is the issue of just how sensitive climate is. You continue to fail to understand that you're arguing against yourself/your position, each and every time you grab onto the distant past.]

- Do not indicate which feedback mechanisms I am supposedly ignoring [waldo: no, when you spout your "CO2 is nothing more than plant food" nonsense, when you downplay expected warming, when you downplay/ignore negative impacts of warming/raised CO2, when you argue for lower climate sensitivity, you are ignoring the impacts of longer-term feedback mechanisms on warming]

- Downplay the fact that the first video tries to unscientifically link specific weather events in recent history to global warming [waldo: no need for a downplay... clearly, one wasn't given/tried. I quoted you a prominent scientists comments relative to the increased water vapour level now in the atmosphere and the increased impact that can have on weather... I re-quoted you a position statement from the latest IPCC AR5. Both of those give credence to the impact of climate change on an increase in respective frequency and/or respective intensity of particular, of some, extreme weather events.]

- Do not try to defend the claim that dry places will become drier and wet places will become more wet (i.e. everything will become more extreme). [waldo: if this sentence is what your initial statement intent was to say, that certainly doesn't come across in your most convoluted initial wording... I suggest you read it again; it's gibberish! In any case, along with it being gibberish, it's not clear where/how you arrived at it. Was it a statement you gleaned from the video? Apply context/association to your gibberish and I might give it another look.]

- Do not defend your claim with evidence or theory that somehow weeds are so different than crops that they will be positively affected by climate change, while crops will be affected negatively. [waldo: no - as stated, you choose to ignore the actual role of weeds and their negative impacts... you do so, while at the same time pompously and without substantiation making a claim that presumed growth yields from increased CO2 will rise above and usurp the negative impacts of weeds... and, I guess of pests, as well... and, I guess in that same vein, you also choose to ignore the reduced efficacy of pesticides in that overall mix. Yes, you clearly prefer the isolation and cozy confines of your non-real world enclosure greenhouse growth mediums... none of that weed, pest and incesticide stuff to deal with!]

- Do not address the fact that the rice study does not take into account changes in CO2 concentrations, only temperature changes, because it is a regression based on cross-sectional data. Again, rice will benefit from the CO2 fertilization effect like all plants. [waldo: no - by design, the studies emphasis was on evaluating temperature change on rice; more pointedly, change relative to the observed reduction in the diurnal temperature range. The study findings speak to growth impacts on increased warming and projected warming, in a real world environment; not your isolated enclosure bubble! Apparently, rising CO2 has been an influence on that past/present warming, and will be a further influence on future warming - go figure! In that regard, the study and it's warming forecast speak (indirectly) to CO2. Now, should I note you ignored my pointed question as to whether you associate the past 50-100 year changing diurnal temperature range to natural variability? You know, one of those brazillion points/questions that you choose to ignore! Now, as is your way, you blindly step forward and state, unequivocally and without reservation, that increased CO2 will simply usurp the results of the study! And, of course, you do so simply on your unsubstantiated opinion. Of course you do!]

- Do not address the fact that you could simply grow better suited crops to the new climate rather than growing the crops we do currently. [waldo: hey now! Why would you need to, as you say, "grow better suited crops to a new climate"??? Aren't you the guy who claims rising CO2 is the magic bullet to increased global crop yields, for existing plants? Why would you ever speak of the need for "better crops, better suited"... I thought you were the "CO2 is plant food" guy!] :lol:

- Do not defend the "on the only planet we will ever have" claim. [waldo: oh, again, you mean you were being serious with that? You mentioned human's will colonize Mars by the end of this century... apparently, this must be your justification for preferring/choosing to crap on the planet where we currently reside!]

- Do not address my re-request for an explanation as to how climate change results in an increase in the frequency of pressure resonance effects for the northern mid latitudes. You just link to an old post which I already explained was insufficient. [waldo: you can explain and claim a lacking... all you want. The only discussion I recall in this regard started off with another of your unsubstantiated claims... another one where you continue to ignore requests for you to provide support for it. Again, as I recall, your unsupported claim is that, "the temperature gradient will decrease with increased global warming... and that your associated implication is that extreme weather events will, in turn, diminish... decrease in frequency/intensity". Following your lead, I will now state that I've already explained your failure to support your claim is insufficient!]

- Do not acknowledge the quotes from the video that support the idea that CO2 & warming are good for plant life. I especially liked this one: "Higher temperatures led to longer growing seasons and increased amounts of water and sun light in the northern hemisphere. Causing a net increase in atmospheric primary production" [waldo: if I recall correctly, I believe the context of that statement was a pre-90s reference... wasn't that in line with your facetious comment about "the video saying something like... too much of good thing"? I note you also ignored the video's prominent reference to the United States Global Change Research Program - National Climate Assessment reports... of course, U.S. focused: the latest 2014 (still draft) report includes key points like:

- Many agricultural regions will experience declines in crop and livestock production from increased stress due to weeds, diseases, insect pests, and other climate change induced stresses.

- Climate disruptions to agricultural production have increased in the recent past and are projected to increase further over the next 25 years. By mid-century and beyond, these impacts will be increasingly negative on most crops and livestock.

- The rising incidence of weather extremes will have increasingly negative impacts on crop and livestock productivity because critical thresholds are already being exceeded.

- Current loss and degradation of critical agricultural soil and water assets by increasing extremes in precipitation will continue to challenge both rain-fed and irrigated agriculture unless innovative conservation methods are implemented.

- Climate change is increasing the vulnerability of forests to ecosystem change and tree mortality through fire, insect infestations, drought, and disease outbreaks. Western U.S. forests are particularly vulnerable to increased wildfire and insect outbreaks; eastern forests have smaller disturbances but could be more sensitive to periodic drought.

- U.S. forests currently absorb about 13% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by fossil fuel burning in the U.S. Climate change, combined with current societal trends regarding land use and forest management, is projected to reduce forest CO2 uptake.

- Climate change impacts on ecosystems reduce their ability to improve water quality and regulate water flows.

- Climate change combined with other stressors is overwhelming the capacity of ecosystems to buffer the impacts from extreme events like fires, floods, and storms.

- Land- and sea-scapes are changing rapidly and species, including many iconic species, may disappear from regions where they have been prevalent, changing some regions so much that their mix of plant and animal life will become almost unrecognizable.

- Timing of critical biological events, such as spring bud burst, emergence from overwintering, and the start of migrations, will shift, leading to important impacts on species and habitats. ]

- Do not address the fact that the majority of the land mass and people are in the northern hemisphere, so a 65% increase in primary production in the northern hemisphere and a 70% decrease in primary production in the southern hemisphere is overall good. [waldo: clearly, you messed this one up, big time! Yes, the NASA originated video is speaking to a north versus south hemisphere production increase/decrease change differential... and applying percentage levels to it. In this particular context, the video emphasis is on CO2 absorption levels (re; source, sink) and is speaking to all manner of plant growth... not just staple crops; that includes moss, ferns, grasses, cotton, flax, shrubs, flowering plants, fruit, canes, trees, etc., ... essentially, anything that will photosynthesize! So, yes, apparently NASA determined and states that, overall, given the decrease in Southern Hemisphere production (of all plant growth) in the previous decade (2000-2009), there was a net increase in the overall level of atmospheric CO2. Of course, this video emphasis was on land, land plants, the source/sink between the atmosphere and terrestrial plants... and didn't speak at all to oceans.]

- strawman what I say with respect to the 13 year lull in global temperatures and the supposed decrease in primary production from 2000-2009. You pretend that I have a double standard with respect to the significance of climate variability in explaining decade long trends. [waldo: no - no strawman! Clearly you have a self-serving double-standard. You like, you accept, short-term trending periods to allow you to assert an isolated claim of a "supposed" reduced rate in global surface temperature... on the other hand, you take exception to a short period being used to determine climate change impacts! --- D O U B L E S T A N D A R D! Notwithstanding we now know you messed up in your understanding of the video's emphasis on ALL plant growth, source/sink processing, and resultant atmospheric CO2 levels.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: apparently, your form of preferred debate is one where you state your unsubstantiated opinion and expect it to go unchallenged. You simply don't like and can't deal with the responses you're confronted with...

Self reflection much?

waldo: no - as I said, you didn't get a bite on your strawman claim, so you pompously decide to place it within the razor!!! Of course you do. As I said, you failed 3 times to even substantiate your claim... your trumped up claim, a claim no one on this board is making or has ever made (that I'm aware). Again, that claim, your claim was simply a means for you to wildly throw out the alarmist label... your problem is you can't actually find a target to associate your claim with and apply your want to throw the alarmist label against

Oh look, you still do not respond to the occum's razor argument.

again, the significance of the long distant past applied to today's climate is in terms of evaluating the sensitivity of climate.

I guess you refuse to ever change from this dogmatic position despite evidence. Evolution does not matter & How life performed under different climactic conditions does not matter for you.

h... you were serious? Oh my! Your failed premise is that "evolution" has some direct and immediate bearing on the relative warming of today, its related climate change and attributions therein.

I guess you are a creationist then. That explains your refusal to acknowledge any significance of evolution.

no, when you spout your "CO2 is nothing more than plant food" nonsense, when you downplay expected warming, when you downplay/ignore negative impacts of warming/raised CO2

Oh look, you cannot name a single feedback mechanism which I have ignored and instead straw man my position as "CO2 is nothing more than plant food".

if this sentence is what your initial statement intent was to say, that certainly doesn't come across in your most convoluted initial wording... I suggest you read it again; it's gibberish! In any case, along with it being gibberish, it's not clear where/how you arrived at it. Was it a statement you gleaned from the video? Apply context/association to your gibberish and I might give it another look

I'm sorry to hear that your reading comprehension skills are poor. Here is your context:

- "We get more extremes of flooding as a consequence and at the same time, in the places where it is not raining, things are drying out so we get droughts that are more extensive and longer lived." Typical climate alarmist nonsense. Places that are wet will get even wetter and places that are dry will get even drier? Why? Well it fits with the climate alarmist dogma and makes climate change seem bad so it must be true! The truth is, some places will get more dry and some places will get more wet with climate change, but some places that are wet will get more dry and some places that are dry will get more wet. The whole climate change will make everything more extreme nonsense has no scientific basis and in many cases the opposite is true (decrease in temperature gradient between poles and equator, decrease in temperature gradient between upper atmosphere and ocean).

no - as stated, you choose to ignore the actual role of weeds and their negative impacts... you do so, while at the same time pompously and without substantiation making a claim that presumed growth yields from increased CO2 will rise above and usurp the negative impacts of weeds... and, I guess of pests, as well...

I do not ignore the role of weeds as you pretend. Though weeds and pests can always be countered with herbicides and pesticides. What is bizarre is how you pretend that increased CO2 is good for weeds, but bad for crops at the same time.

I guess in that same vein, you also choose to ignore the reduced efficacy of pesticides in that overall mix. Yes, you clearly prefer the isolation and cozy confines of your non-real world enclosure greenhouse growth mediums.

Ironically, the claim that increased CO2 reduces the effectiveness of pesticides in the video was based on this so called 'isolated non-real world enclosure greenhouse growth mediums' that you seem to hate so much. But as long as it helps your dogma, consistency isn't necessary, is it? You still haven't explained how the CO2 fertilization effect magically stops working outside of indoor gardens (which it doesn't).

Apparently, rising CO2 has been an influence on that past/present warming, and will be a further influence on future warming - go figure! In that regard, the study and it's warming forecast speak (indirectly) to CO2.

Spin it how you want. A study that only takes into account temperature effects and not CO2 fertilization effects is going to be biased. Not to mention the sample data that the regression was based upon was biased. Why only south-east asia? Why not include rice growing regions such as China, Korea or Japan which are colder and could benefit from the warmth... cause the study is biased.

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

Now, should I note you ignored my pointed question as to whether you associate the past 50-100 year changing diurnal temperature range to natural variability?

I do not believe that long term trends (50-100 years) in diurnal temperature variation is a result of climate variability.

hey now! Why would you need to, as you say, "grow better suited crops to a new climate"??? Aren't you the guy who claims rising CO2 is the magic bullet to increased global crop yields, for existing plants? Why would you ever speak of the need for "better crops, better suited"... I thought you were the "CO2 is plant food" guy!

You will want to change the crops you grow when temperature, wind and precipitation patterns change as a result of the climate change from increased CO2 concentrations. While the CO2 fertilization effect is beneficial everywhere, it isn't always enough to offset the effects of climatic changes from the increased CO2 concentrations so adapting to the new climate makes sense. Your attempts to straw man my position as "CO2 is plant food" continue to fail.

your unsupported claim is that, "the temperature gradient will decrease with increased global warming... and that your associated implication is that extreme weather events will, in turn, diminish... decrease in frequency/intensity".

The radiative greenhouse effect occurs because our atmosphere is more opaque to black body radiation from the earth (~ 300K temperature) compared to the black body radiation from the sun ( ~6000K temperature). As a result, black body radiation from the earth is often absorbed by the atmosphere and re-emitted towards the earth. The earth will try to reach an equilibrium temperature such that the amount of solar energy coming from the sun is equal to the amount of black body radiation being radiated by earth into space. Because polar regions receive less energy from the sun per unit area than equatorial regions, and because the amount of radiation emitted by a black body is proportional to the temperature to the power of 4, increasing green house gases will cause polar regions to warm more than equatorial regions. That is the reason behind the claim that the temperature gradient will decrease with global warming. Furthermore, loss of glaciers and see ice in polar regions will decrease the albedo of polar regions, which will amplify the effect of a reduction in global temperature gradient.

Wind patterns which drive weather events are the result of trying the equalize pressure gradients which occur as a result of temperature gradients. Reducing the temperature gradient reduces the pressure gradient which in turn reduces the winds responsible for weather events. For example, a decrease in the temperature gradient between Canada and the Gulf of Mexico is expected to reduce the frequency and severity of tornadoes in tornado alley.

And you still haven't explained how climate change will increase the frequency of the resonance pressure effect for the mid northern latitudes. I would really like to see a theoretical model which explains this.

- Many agricultural regions will experience declines in crop and livestock production from increased stress due to weeds, diseases, insect pests, and other climate change induced stresses.
- Climate disruptions to agricultural production have increased in the recent past and are projected to increase further over the next 25 years. By mid-century and beyond, these impacts will be increasingly negative on most crops and livestock.

- The rising incidence of weather extremes will have increasingly negative impacts on crop and livestock productivity because critical thresholds are already being exceeded.

- Current loss and degradation of critical agricultural soil and water assets by increasing extremes in precipitation will continue to challenge both rain-fed and irrigated agriculture unless innovative conservation methods are implemented.

- Climate change is increasing the vulnerability of forests to ecosystem change and tree mortality through fire, insect infestations, drought, and disease outbreaks. Western U.S. forests are particularly vulnerable to increased wildfire and insect outbreaks; eastern forests have smaller disturbances but could be more sensitive to periodic drought.

- U.S. forests currently absorb about 13% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by fossil fuel burning in the U.S. Climate change, combined with current societal trends regarding land use and forest management, is projected to reduce forest CO2 uptake.

- Climate change impacts on ecosystems reduce their ability to improve water quality and regulate water flows.

- Climate change combined with other stressors is overwhelming the capacity of ecosystems to buffer the impacts from extreme events like fires, floods, and storms.

- Land- and sea-scapes are changing rapidly and species, including many iconic species, may disappear from regions where they have been prevalent, changing some regions so much that their mix of plant and animal life will become almost unrecognizable.


- Timing of critical biological events, such as spring bud burst, emergence from overwintering, and the start of migrations, will shift, leading to important impacts on species and habitats.

See, as a person with a strong science background, I need to see some models to explain why certain phenomenon will result from increasing CO2 concentrations. You can provide as many out of context quotations from conclusions as you want but I actually need a theoretical explanation or it is not sufficient.

In this particular context, the video emphasis is on CO2 absorption levels (re; source, sink) and is speaking to all manner of plant growth... not just staple crops; that includes moss, ferns, grasses, cotton, flax, shrubs, flowering plants, fruit, canes, trees, etc., ... essentially, anything that will photosynthesize!

This matters why? You keep insisting that crops are so biologically different from other plants that the effects of climate change is the opposite for crops compared to all other plants. Care to provide justification for your double standard?

You like, you accept, short-term trending periods to allow you to assert an isolated claim of a "supposed" reduced rate in global surface temperature... on the other hand, you take exception to a short period being used to determine climate change impacts!

This is untrue. Are you purposely failing at reading comprehension so you can straw man me?

Both the 13 year lull in global warming and a supposed reduction in global primary production from 2000-2009 can be explained by climate variation. Do you agree with this?

Edited by -1=e^ipi
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
      10,751
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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