Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem

[jbg]

Perhaps his suspension is still underway.

I've seen him around, on the "Board Improvement" thread, I think.

[waldo]

Created a new thread here:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23461-effectsimplications-of-climate-change-on-jetstreams/

Where's Waldo?

You know, you never did respond to my post regarding jetstreams and Rossby waves. I was hoping that we would come to an understanding about the physical mechanism and the expected effects.

given your past pattern of making claims and refusing to substantiate them (eg. overall positive global impacts of CO2), I have little inclination to discuss anything with you. This latter 'extreme weather/jet-stream issue' is a classic; comedy relief if nothing else... you come back on the subject after 4 months and lay down your most ridiculous "7800 word (by your count)... uhhh... manifesto" ... and then you wonder why it was ignored! You wonder to the point that you replicate (and extend) upon your "manifesto" by creating an outright new thread with it... and your wonderment continues as it's also, effectively, ignored. TL;DR??? Ya think? Yes, you did think... so you attempted a scaled summary... and still, nobody bit! And yes, I did notice your several attempts to get me to engage your unsubstantiated claims. Of course, I was most content to ignore you...

I certainly did ignore your ridiculously long "manifesto"... in finally looking at your summation... and trying to make some sense of it, it would seem that after all your ridiculous "manifesting", for all intents and purposes, the only relevant aspect you disagree with is the duration of resonance - the so-called stalling out aspect. I note, whether you associate it with a blocking affect, or a stalling result, most particularly in relation to the heat waves in Europe-2003, Russia-2010, and North America-2011 that were the focus of the original article/associated study I put forward, I can't recall you ever reconciling the lengthy duration of those (or like) extreme events. As for the physical mechanism you appear so "manifestly" infactuated with, that original study I referenced, provided a possible one to account for the 'stalling' factor... a mechanism the study authors themselves apply caveats to. As I'm aware, the only challenge to that study hasn't been in terms of the physics; rather, it's been in regards to a statistics aspect. A challenge that, essentially, plays right into an acknowledged observed occurence caveat provided by the study authors.

as I said, I have no inclination to discuss anything with you... my suggestion to you would be for you to apply your zeal/manifesto towards a challenge to the Pottsdam Institute scientists and their suggested possible causal physical mechanism as put forward within that study I referenced... challenge them on the physics level.

[waldo]

moved to this thread where both derailing topics originate... since you refused to take the repeated hints/requests to stop derailing the other thread:

You initiated the 'derailing' (if you want to call it that) on page 4...

no - it was you on page 6. See how easy it is to be vague. Ultimately it was you that went on an extended verbose trip with your usual nothingness... and I've subsequently been highlighting the need for you to quit derailing the thread... to either start a new one or pick up in the prior thread that concerns this discussion - and in that vein, I even provided you the relevant start/end links in that thread. But somehow, you feel a need to keep derailing this thread.
.

If your above 'argument' is valid, then how is the below not valid:

"What I have said is that when it's the sole basis for your absolute and definitive claim...and it's to the exclusion of all real-world physics factors... that sir, is absurd. You're tailoring an isolated controlled environment for maximum collision of large hadrons, without regard to limiting influences. It's bloody amazing you even attempt to keep your charade up/active. Therefore, collisions at the LHC is not evidence for the existence of Higgs Bosons."

.
again, you're ploying your same jackass move where you continue to state I don't accept the "CO2 fertilization effect"..... because when it comes down to the actual definition (which you're truly not following) it's you that stated "This will help increase crop yields globally." A claim which you have never supported. Oh wait... did you mean it will help increase crop yields globally in controlled enclosure/hood experiments in artificial greenhouse environments globally... where you control to eliminate the effects of any growth limiting influences? Is that what you're saying?
.

I guess it is very hard for you to understand the difference between the CO2 fertilization effect and the effect of CO2 levels on crop levels.

not at all, particularly when you bastardized your use of the term by attaching your claim that, again, "This will help increase crop yields globally." You went away from the strictest definition of the natural sequestration of increased anthropogenic sourced atmospheric CO2 (via the conversion of CO2 to O2)... and within the focused context of climate change, a presumptive negative feedback effect to offset longer term increases in that anthropogenic sourced atmospheric CO2. You went from there and made your extended claim that, again, "This will help increase crop yields globally"... and you made that claim in the overlying context that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a good thing and will realize this positive gain - globally. Of course, what you didn't do was, again, factor in limiting growth influences on that presumed productivity global growth gain...
.

It is you who has difficulty reading. I never claimed that you did not give the source. I claimed that you did not explain the methodology or theoretical model used to arrive at the conclusions. Do you not understand the difference? Probably not since you seem to only understand dogma...

oh my! And that was me giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually know how the IPCC process works and arrives at the conclusions and findings presented within its various target reports. Here's a clue genius, the IPCC itself doesn't "do the science"... aligned with its well publicized review cut-off dates, it moves to include all subject related material published between its last related iterative report and before those cut-off dates for subject matter review (in this case between the prior 2007 report and the cut-off date to meet this latest 2014 report). That "methodology" you speak to is well documented and fully transparent within the supportive process that arrives at the report findings... the reports themselves include citation notice of all publications included in the review, within the reports directly within the subject area being covered, and then collectively in the same reports as citation groupings, and then at large for a comprehensive accounting of all publications reviewed.

talk about you only understanding dogma... your apparent anti-IPCC dogma rules! I've provided the latest IPCC findings on the effects of climate change/increasing CO2 on global crop growth yields... you've provided bupkis... other than controlled conditions within artificial non-real world enclosure/hood greenhouse experiments while excluding all manner of real-world growth limiting factors.
.

Sorry, I made a minor error with regards to misreading the text. I apologize. Oh look, I can admit I was wrong. Too bad you cannot do that...

good on ya for admiting your error... does that also mean you rescind the insults you attached while making that error?
.

Also, it is all moot because of none of the results are statistically significant. You do understand what that means, right?

that's a rather bold statement for you to make particularly when you're just whining about a lack of detail provided!!! You're on a roll.

What definition of manifesto are you using, because yours does not seem to fit any definitions that I have encountered.

From wiki: "A manifesto is a published verbal declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer, be it an individual, group, political party or government."

sorry, no - it's a great definition for your own counted, "7800 word" blustering blowhardiness... because as a "future actions intent" (i.e., manifesto), directly or indirectly, you as much express an intent to play it as some countering reference to, as you call them, "climate alarmists" making claims concerning the impact of the jet-stream on extreme weather events. I quite willingly extend on that by somewhat mocking what must be your greater intent as concerns the underlying physical mechanism basis for your claims. I mean, after all, c'mon - you simply chose to ignore the original article/study I referenced (with its own proposed possible physical mechanism; one which really counters your overall claim concerning the duration of an extreme weather event). Surely your (greater) intent is to seek to publish a counter to those scientists and their proposed possible physical mechanism... surely, you can't/won't be satisified with simply dropping your blustering "manifesto" into the multiple MLW posts/threads, as you've done. Surely you have greater aspirations, greater designs, greater intent... for your "manifesto"! Surely!
.

Your statement, even if true, does not mean that you cannot use past evidence to validate the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect.

again with your jackass statement concerning the existence.
.

Sorry but could you rephrase this in non-incoherent Waldo-speak?

I relish every time you state this. It simply reflects that you haven't a counter!
.

[GostHacked]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27907399

Large condensation trails in the sky caused by aircraft could be eliminated by re-routing flight paths, say scientists.

Researchers are concerned about the climate change potential of these wispy, man-made clouds.

But a new study suggests that making changes to existing flight routes could curb their warming impact.

Avoiding a major contrail on a flight to New York from London would only add 22km to the journey, experts say.

Contrails are formed when planes fly through very cold, moist air and the exhausts from their engines condense into a visible vapour.

Double-edged cloud

These can be very large in size: they can be up to 150km in length and can last up to 24 hours.

Scientists have been arguing about the climate impact of contrails for many years, as the clouds that they form impact both cooling and warming.

I think this really needs to be considered when talking about climate change. Again, the CO2 bit is only addressing a portion of the overall perceived problem.

[-1=e^ipi]

again, you're ploying your same jackass move where you continue to state I don't accept the "CO2 fertilization effect"..... because when it comes down to the actual definition (which you're truly not following) it's you that stated "This will help increase crop yields globally." A claim which you have never supported. Oh wait... did you mean it will help increase crop yields globally in controlled enclosure/hood experiments in artificial greenhouse environments globally... where you control to eliminate the effects of any growth limiting influences? Is that what you're saying?

Showing that someone's argument is not valid is not a 'jackass move' it is just using logic. Your position of ignoring data of how plant growth is affected by CO2 because the plants grew in enclosed environments (which is sort of needed to control for CO2...) is as ridiculous as ignoring data of the existence of Higgs Bosons because the Large Hadrons that are collided in the LHC are in an enclosed environment.

Not to mention, I provided historical evidence (tree ring data & fossilized pollen data) to verify this effect, provided links to various reputable scientific organizations showing that they agree with the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect, provided evolutionary evidence that the CO2 fertilization effect exists such as the recent evolution of the C4 cycle in plants like corn, and have explained that the CO2 fertilization effect is easily understood if you passed high school and know what photosynthesis is.

But apparently non of that matters to you! Your worse than a creationist...

Your denial tactics consist on confusing claims about the CO2 fertilization effect with claims about the overall effect of climate change on plant growth, using nonsense confusing language to distract from previous evidence, or make the ridiculous assertion that experimental evidence can never be used because it is not real world.

Also, one of the articles referenced by Icebound in the other thread references a scientific paper that does an open air study on CO2 fertilization on wheat. As expected, the study finds that crop yields increase if you increase atmospheric CO2? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1438-8677.2009.00230.x/abstract

Do you now agree with the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect? Or are you going to do something else like claim that Icebound is a concern troll, or that the study was not 'real world' enough for you?

not at all, particularly when you bastardized your use of the term by attaching your claim that, again, "This will help increase crop yields globally."

'This' is a pronoun. In the context of when I used that sentence, 'this' meant 'the CO2 fertilization effect'. But what you are doing is you are taking my 'this' and performing a strawman argument (yet again) by replacing it with a noun that I did not intent it to represent.

Also, why can't you write plainly? Do you think using cryptic grammar, word-choice and paragraph form makes you sound smarter or something? Because it doesn't.

oh my! ... blah blah blah Waldo-Speak... real-world growth limiting factors.

None of what you wrote refuted my request for you to explain the theoretical model and methodology used to arrive at the 'conclusions' that you posted out of context. In science, theory and methodology are sort of important, especially when trying to understand the relevance of the conclusions.

that's a rather bold statement for you to make particularly when you're just whining about a lack of detail provided!!! You're on a roll

It's not a bold statement because they give the percentiles in the graph. The results in the graph are not statistically significant.

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

sorry, no - it's a great definition for your own counted, "7800 word" blustering blowhardiness... blah blah blah Wald-Speak..."manifesto"! Surely!

What I wrote wasn't a 'manifesto' by any reasonable definition. It is closer to an essay or scientific report. Do you consider all essays to be manifestos now?

I relish every time you state this. It simply reflects that you haven't a counter!

Of course there is no counter. Because you make no points or arguments to counter and address nothing I wrote in the 'expected effects on jetstreams' thread.

[waldo]

Showing that someone's argument is not valid is not a 'jackass move' it is just using logic.

I didn't call your so-called argument a "jackass move"... as I've now stated multiple times (and you keep ignoring it), I labeled you continuing to state I don't believe in the CO2 fertilization effect a "jackass move". And yet you persist in repeating that... your repeating it then is also another jackass move. Well done!

your so-called argument is flawed and one you haven't substantiated

Your position of ignoring data of how plant growth is affected by CO2 because the plants grew in enclosed environments (which is sort of needed to control for CO2...) is as ridiculous as ignoring data of the existence of Higgs Bosons because the Large Hadrons that are collided in the LHC are in an enclosed environment.

perfect! Control for CO2? Yes, representative real-world experiments do this - it's called FACE (Free Air CO2 Enrichment).... as compared to your simplistic non-real world artifical controlled enclosure/hood experiments in a greenhouse. Way back... way, way back... a brazillion posts ago, in the very first post where I reply to your "global increase in crop yields claim", I challenged you in regards this very point... in regards distinctions between experimental enclosure studies/model simulations versus FACE results. Let me repost that exchange as it pointedly highlights what you did... to the exclusion of what you should have done; that very first post exchange:

1. Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere has a fertilizer effect on plants and makes it easier for plants to perform photosynthesis. This will help increase crop yields globally.

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.

like I said, perfect! Feeling just a tad silly given all your focus on artifical non-real world greenhouse enclosure/hood studies, hey!

yes... FACE - something you completely ignored (well, at least you did until MLW member Icebound did just a couple of days back!

FACE studies are fully open air and have many benefits over controlled environment and open-top chamber (OTC) experiments. FACE allows the investigation of an undisturbed ecosystem and does not modify the vegetation’s interaction with light, temperature, wind, precipitation, pathogens and insects.

This, in combination with the large size of FACE plots, allows the integrated measurement of many plant and ecosystem processes simultaneously in the same plot, avoids many of the problems associated with edge effects prevalent in OTCs, enables significantly more plant material to be harvested without compromising the experiment, and allows plants to be studied throughout their life cycle, including trees that have enough space to develop to canopy closure.

.

Not to mention, I provided historical evidence (tree ring data & fossilized pollen data) to verify this effect, provided links to various reputable scientific organizations showing that they agree with the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect, provided evolutionary evidence that the CO2 fertilization effect exists such as the recent evolution of the C4 cycle in plants like corn, and have explained that the CO2 fertilization effect is easily understood if you passed high school and know what photosynthesis is.

But apparently non of that matters to you! Your worse than a creationist...

more of your continued "jackass move"... I've never denied the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect. Quit your jackass move in saying so and quit your jackass move in repeating it in the face of me saying I didn't/don't deny it... in the face of me repeatedly labeling what you're doing a "jackass move". Oh wait... I get it - this is you trolling! Well played sir.

.

[waldo]

Your denial tactics consist on confusing claims about the CO2 fertilization effect with claims about the overall effect of climate change on plant growth, using nonsense confusing language to distract from previous evidence, or make the ridiculous assertion that experimental evidence can never be used because it is not real world.

more of your continued "jackass move"... no denial here. I've not confused anything and in my last post I clearly state you have bastardized what the CO2 fertilization effect is, Again, as follows, what I wrote, showing you haven't a clue... but you sure can bluster!:

not at all, particularly when you bastardized your use of the term by attaching your claim that, again, "This will help increase crop yields globally." You went away from the strictest definition of the natural sequestration of increased anthropogenic sourced atmospheric CO2 (via the conversion of CO2 to O2)... and within the focused context of climate change, a presumptive negative feedback effect to offset longer term increases in that anthropogenic sourced atmospheric CO2. You went from there and made your extended claim that, again, "This will help increase crop yields globally"... and you made that claim in the overlying context that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a good thing and will realize this positive gain - globally. Of course, what you didn't do was, again, factor in limiting growth influences on that presumed productivity global growth gain...

.

Also, one of the articles referenced by Icebound in the other thread references a scientific paper that does an open air study on CO2 fertilization on wheat. As expected, the study finds that crop yields increase if you increase atmospheric CO2? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1438-8677.2009.00230.x/abstract

yes! As I mentioned in my last post, FACE... the experimental method I challenged you on eons back in the very first post where I requested you provide a citation inclusive of FACE versus enclosure studies. So weeee... you're finally enlightened about FACE - that only took you how many months? Of course, I also put up FACE related references previously... one's you simply ignored.

let's look at that study and your self-serving summation of it: the experiments occured within a farm field site (15 circular field plots (2-m diameter)) located south of Stuttgart (Germany)... a single location/geographic area within a single country. Of course, with your self-proclaimed science prowess, this would have you extending that to a "GLOBAL" reach! In any case, you have a most selective summation of that study; somehow, you manage to overlook the following - go figure!

However, adverse effects were predominantly observed on wholegrain quality characteristics. Although the thousand-grain weight remained unchanged, size distribution was significantly shifted towards smaller grains, which may directly relate to lower market value. Total grain protein concentration decreased significantly by 7.4% under elevated CO2, and protein and amino acid composition were altered.

of course, in regards to that IPCC graphic I put forward... the one speaking to a global decrease in crop yields... the one you had exteme difficulty with, the IPCC (also) factors in world-wide FACE studies to aid in it's collective global findings. Since that graphic is in the other thread (given your persistent derailing of that thread), let me add it into this thread for reference; as follows, a partial extract from that prior post:

--- per the latest IPCC AR5 WG II report:

Based on observed and projected impacts to crops, mean yields are expected to decline (i.e., all the median estimates (dark horizontal lines) and most of the interquartile ranges (blue columns) all fall below zero. Although adaptation could mitigate some of the impacts, the changes are still likely to be negative. Demand for crops is projected to increase by 14 percent per decade through 2050 (dotted line at top of graph), which could exacerbate the consequences of declining productivity.

.

.

Do you now agree with the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect? Or are you going to do something else like claim that Icebound is a concern troll, or that the study was not 'real world' enough for you?

again, more of your repeated jackass move! Again, I've never denied it... quit saying I did/do. Again, in spite of me repeatedly correcting you on this, you persist in repeating that statement/claim. In so doing, repeatedly, your repeated jackass moves are simply you trolling! I've addressed the study above... I've highlighted your self-serving summation and what you most conveniently and selectively left out.

.

[waldo]

Of course there is no counter. Because you make no points or arguments to counter and address nothing I wrote in the 'expected effects on jetstreams' thread.

no - the points are there; again, as stated previously, I provided a summation on what I interpret as your single point of departure from anything... anything... brought forward. Yes, after all that discussion, all that back and forth, all your blustering best within your "7800 word manifesto", the only thing it appears you don't agree with is the duration of an exteme weather event. I challenged you to reconcile those extreme events that, quite literally, "stall out" and don't move on... resulting in extended negative impacts from an extreme weather event. You ignore all this - of course you do. You also conveniently ignore me pointing out your ignoring of that original post/reference where I introduce the study that offers a possible physical mechanism to account for that 'stalling out' of extreme weather events. You ignored this from day one! Of course you did.

in any case, we've once again arrived at the same point where you're offering nothing new... nothing of value/interest. You're more boring now than you usually are. There's really no point in continuing with your nonsense.

[-1=e^ipi]

as I've now stated multiple times (and you keep ignoring it), I labeled you continuing to state I don't believe in the CO2 fertilization effect a "jackass move".

Because you've continually claimed that the CO2 fertilization effect doesn't exist. Do I need to start quoting you?

perfect! Control for CO2? Yes, representative real-world experiments do this - it's called FACE (Free Air CO2 Enrichment).... as compared to your simplistic non-real world artifical controlled enclosure/hood experiments in a greenhouse. Way back... way, way back... a brazillion posts ago, in the very first post where I reply to your "global increase in crop yields claim", I challenged you in regards this very point... in regards distinctions between experimental enclosure studies/model simulations versus FACE results. Let me repost that exchange as it pointedly highlights what you did... to the exclusion of what you should have done; that very first post exchange:

Dude look. Science follows the principle of occam's razor. If I have the position that the CO2 fertilization effect exists, and you have the position that the CO2 fertilization effect does not exist, under no evidence the position that it does not exist is the default position. Thus the burden of evidence would be on me to provide evidence that supports the position that the CO2 fertilization effect exists. If I provide studies of plant growth in enclosed environments that show that plant growth is higher if atmospheric CO2 is increased (as well as a theoretical explanation as to why it occurs, such as the fact that CO2 is used in photosynthesis), that is evidence for the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect and now the more reasonable of the two positions is that the CO2 fertilization effect does exist.

If you then insist that the CO2 fertilization effect doesn't exist and that the reason one gets increased plant growth is because the plants are in enclosed settings, the burden of evidence now shifts to you to provide evidence that the CO2 fertilization effect doesn't exist in the 'real world' and to provide a theoretical explanation for why this is the case. If you don't provide evidence that the CO2 fertilization effect doesn't exist 'in the real world' and don't provide a theoretical explanation as to how enclosing an environment magically makes a result which seems to confirm the CO2 fertilization effect, yet insist on your ridiculous position, then you are violating the principle of occam's razor. Your position becomes as ridiculous as insisting that the results at the LHC do not confirm the existence of the Higgs Boson because it is in an enclosed setting.

Occam's razor is what allows science to be asymptotically truth approaching, so please respect it.

And also this 'reasoning' of you highlights my point that you approach the issue of climate change dogmatically, not scientifically. You don't follow the principle of occam's razor and do not understand the burden of proof/evidence. Despite all the other evidence I provided (tree ring data, fossilized pollen data, 'FACE' studies) none of that was necessary to justify the belief in the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect over the lack of a belief in the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect since I already provided a theoretical explanation + the 'enclosed CO2 studies' so the burden of evidence was now on you, and you provided no evidence to counter the belief in the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect.

more of your continued "jackass move"... I've never denied the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect. Quit your jackass move in saying so and quit your jackass move in repeating it in the face of me saying I didn't/don't deny it... in the face of me repeatedly labeling what you're doing a "jackass move". Oh wait... I get it - this is you trolling! Well played sir.

Yes you did deny the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect since you denied that the effect of CO2 fertilization is the increase plant growth as CO2 levels increase.

Anyway, it is a bit sad to see that your 'argument techniques' have now devolved into calling whatever argument I make 'a jackass move', whatever that means.

[-1=e^ipi]

more of your continued "jackass move"... no denial here. I've not confused anything and in my last post I clearly state you have bastardized what the CO2 fertilization effect is, Again, as follows, what I wrote, showing you haven't a clue... but you sure can bluster!:

You really lack the ability to write coherently, don't you? There isn't anything to respond to here because you say nothing of value. Anyway, I'll restate what I meant by 'this will help to increase crop yields globally', because you are taking what I read out of context.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 on earth will effect plant growth in many different ways:

- It will effect plant growth by affecting temperature.

- It will effect plant growth by changing rainfall patterns.

- It will effect plant growth by changing available sunlight (from the solar dimming effect & cloud cover)

- It will effect plant growth by changing wind patterns

- It will effect plant growth via the CO2 fertilization effect (i.e. what you get when other factors are held constant)

- etc.

What I said is that the effect of the CO2 fertilization effect on plant growth is purely positive. The CO2 fertilization effect will help plant growth since you are increasing the availability of CO2 to be used for photosynthesis.

How hard is that for you to comprehend? Are you going to try to strawman that as well?

yes! As I mentioned in my last post, FACE... the experimental method I challenged you on eons back in the very first post where I requested you provide a citation inclusive of FACE versus enclosure studies. So weeee... you're finally enlightened about FACE - that only took you how many months? Of course, I also put up FACE related references previously... one's you simply ignored.

let's look at that study and your self-serving summation of it: the experiments occured within a farm field site (15 circular field plots (2-m diameter)) located south of Stuttgart (Germany)... a single location/geographic area within a single country. Of course, with your self-proclaimed science prowess, this would have you extending that to a "GLOBAL" reach! In any case, you have a most selective summation of that study; somehow, you manage to overlook the following - go figure!

As explained earlier, the 'FACE' study isn't even necessary because the burden of evidence was on you to explain why the CO2 fertilization effect won't help to increase crop yields. And similarly, your 'criticism' that the data does not justify a belief in the CO2 fertilization effect because it only takes place in 1 location also flies in the face of occam's razor and the burden of evidence is on you to justify that somehow the results would be vastly different in say Canada over Germany. It would be like saying that the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 does not justify a belief that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames because it only took place in Cleveland, Ohio.

As for the issue of decreased protein content, I acknowledged and addressed that, and I explained why the net effect of CO2 fertilization remains positive:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23716-northern-gateway-pipeline-approved/page-13

of course, in regards to that IPCC graphic I put forward... the one speaking to a global decrease in crop yields... the one you had exteme difficulty with, the IPCC (also) factors in world-wide FACE studies to aid in it's collective global findings. Since that graphic is in the other thread (given your persistent derailing of that thread), let me add it into this thread for reference; as follows, a partial extract from that prior post:

Again, the results of your out-of-context IPCC graphic are not statistically significant by any reasonable definition. And even if they were, you've provided no methodology or theoretical model that were used to arrive at these results, meaning that the results are useless because we cannot examine the way by which these results were obtained. That's why when people publish in scientific journals they need to explain their methodology & theoretical model used.

again, more of your repeated jackass move! Again, I've never denied it... quit saying I did/do. Again, in spite of me repeatedly correcting you on this, you persist in repeating that statement/claim. In so doing, repeatedly, your repeated jackass moves are simply you trolling! I've addressed the study above... I've highlighted your self-serving summation and what you most conveniently and selectively left out.

You have repeatedly denied that the effect of CO2 fertilization is to increase plant growth.

no - the points are there; again, as stated previously, I provided a summation on what I interpret as your single point

That's the problem, your 'interpretation' is wrong because you can't understand science. Now if you made claims such as 'my differential equation to derive Rossby waves is no good' or 'the data you used to estimate expected change is unreasonable' and explained why you think that is the case, I would be able to respond to that. But just calling the entire post 'a manifesto' and ignoring it doesn't merit a response and there is nothing to respond to.

Yes, after all that discussion, all that back and forth, all your blustering best within your "7800 word manifesto"

Your definition of 'manifesto' is wrong. What I wrote isn't a 'manifesto' by any reasonable definition. Much like you aren't a 'coffee mug' by any reasonable definition. Could you call it an essay? Sure. Could you call it a review of the scientific principles behind Rossby waves? Sure. But a manifesto? No.

the only thing it appears you don't agree with is the duration of an exteme weather event. I challenged you to reconcile those extreme events that, quite literally, "stall out" and don't move on... resulting in extended negative impacts from an extreme weather event. You ignore all this - of course you do.

Actually, if you read and comprehended what I wrote, you would know that:

The density of states is proportional to v_x ^-1.5[where v_x is the speed of the jetstream, which is proportional to the square root of the temperature gradient]; a slower velocity will lead to a larger of density of states. This means we should expect an increase in the frequency of resonance phenomena. Note that the true changes to resonance phenomena are extremely chaotic and to fully understand the effects one has to take into account the Earth's exact topology, variation in wind speeds over time, etc. For the jet streams, this is especially true since the perimeter around the earth at the jetstream's latitude divided by its wavelength is often on the order of a single digit number.

It is estimated that under no/little CO₂ mitigation policies and using more ambitious warming predictions that by 2100 it is expected that ... the frequency of resonance phenomena should increase by 67%.

So I get that we should expect the frequency of resonance phenomena to increase by 67% by 2100 under a no mitigation scenario and somehow you claim that my post does not reconcile with those extreme weather events that 'stall out'?

You also conveniently ignore me pointing out your ignoring of that original post/reference where I introduce the study that offers a possible physical mechanism to account for that 'stalling out' of extreme weather events. You ignored this from day one! Of course you did.

I didn't ignore you pointing to references that explain the physical mechanism. I checked the 'references' that you provided and explained to you that they did not adequately explain the physical mechanism. I then asked for a theoretical model that explains how increasing atmospheric CO2 increases the frequency of these events, which you ignored, and then you ran away from the thread. Of course, not having a theoretical explanation for something doesn't seem to bother you since you approach the issue of climate change dogmatically, which is why you only post out of context statements or graphs from conclusions of scientific papers and don't give a damn about the theoretical model or the methodology used.

Furthermore, the lack of explanation was one of the reasons I did my own research and made that 7800 word post, because I wanted to explain the mechanism to other posters to elevate the discussion on climate change. The link between atmospheric CO2 and the frequency of this northern mid-latitude resonance phenomena is not obvious (regardless of what alarmists self-delude themselves into thinking) and the full explanation requires an understanding of graduate-level climate science.

Edited June 23, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

re: global crop yields claim (aka, don't worry, be happy... CO2 is a good thing)

again, you're adding nothing new here! I didn't bother to read most of what you wrote... why bother! You simply continue your same "jackass move" that I've been repeatedly emphasizing in these most recent posts. Again, I deny your denial claim concerning my "belief" in the "CO2 fertilization effect"... the understanding of which, again, particularly within a climate change context, you've bastardized. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. It's quite humourous to read you now speaking of "helping plant growth", whereas before, you were so all about that "global crop yield increase"! I suggest you keep sheltered within the confines of your cozy lil' greenhouse bubble and your non-real world enclosure/hood controlled experiments... don't venture out into that real world and all those nasty growth limiting factors! You simply projecting further upon the "CO2 is simply plant food" meme clearly fits within a/any concern-troll's perogative.

through all of your nonsense we did realize a gain... we were able to extend upon your simplistic rationale for incessantly keying on your non-real world controlled greenhouse experiments... that you needed to "control for CO2 levels". We've now moved you into the real-world of FACE experiments that control for CO2... but not for growth limiting factors! Welcome to the real world.

=======================================================================================

re: extreme weather events in lieu of jet-stream shifts

I summarized your 7800 word blathering/blustering manifesto into a single point... that you agree with everything scientists are stating except that you don't agree that the duration of extreme events can be protracted... causing increased amplified impact/damage. In that regard, I challenged you to reconcile current extreme weather events (in general... or the specific 3 I mentioned from the onset) that "stall out" for an extended period of time. You've completely ignored this repeated challenge. You seem to simply prefer to ignore the here and now... the focus on today... the impacts of extreme weather today; instead, you (and your manifesto!) seem to prefer projecting into 2100 (with a mitigation attachment (as in NO mitigation), no less). All the lead-up into this discussion centered around current extreme weather events or past (relatively recent) extreme weather events. You were all about "climate alarmists making this claim, climate alarmists making that claim"!

you simply saying (and repeating, and repeating) that by "2100" you project the "frequency of resonance" to increase... doesn't say diddly about today ..... you know., what was being discussed - suggestions that today's extreme weather events may be subject to and impacted by the shifting jet-stream pattern. And it doesn't say diddly about you continuing to ignore my challenge concerning the stalling out extreme weather events that do not move off in a matter of "the typical" shorter-term days duration. It means nothing that you state the possible physical mechanism put forward by the scientists in their published paper didn't meet your required "adequate explanation"... you know, the published paper dealing with the 'hear and now'... extreme weather events subject to the shifting jet-stream today!

again, you continue to add nothing new, nothing of value, of interest.

[-1=e^ipi]

re: global crop yields claim (aka, don't worry, be happy... CO2 is a good thing)

Oh look, the same strawman argument again. How predictable.

Anyway, I'll restate what I meant by 'this will help to increase crop yields globally', because you are taking what I read out of context.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 on earth will effect plant growth in many different ways:

- It will effect plant growth by affecting temperature.

- It will effect plant growth by changing rainfall patterns.

- It will effect plant growth by changing available sunlight (from the solar dimming effect & cloud cover)

- It will effect plant growth by changing wind patterns

- It will effect plant growth via the CO2 fertilization effect (i.e. what you get when other factors are held constant)

- etc.

What I said is that the effect of the CO2 fertilization effect on plant growth is purely positive. The CO2 fertilization effect will help plant growth since you are increasing the availability of CO2 to be used for photosynthesis.

How hard is that for you to comprehend? Are you going to try to strawman that as well?

Also, please respond to what I write rather than copy paste the same debunked posts. You did not respond to anything I wrote regarding the principle of occam's razor and the burden of evidence at all.

through all of your nonsense we did realize a gain... we were able to extend upon your simplistic rationale for incessantly keying on your non-real world controlled greenhouse experiments... that you needed to "control for CO2 levels". We've now moved you into the real-world of FACE experiments that control for CO2... but not for growth limiting factors! Welcome to the real world.

By the principle of occam's razor, given the amount of evidence I have provided in support of the CO2 fertilization effect, the burden of evidence is on you to justify your ridiculous assertions that the CO2 fertilization effect doesn't not help plant growth and global crop yields.

I summarized your 7800 word blathering/blustering manifesto into a single point...

Again, it isn't a manifesto by any reasonable definition. Repeating a lie enough times does not make it true. Also, you cannot summarize what I wrote into a single point, because many points were made and discussed. You can however summarize what I wrote into a summary as I provided at the end of the post. I even wrote a TL;DR to convey the main points of the post for the lazy and/or less scientifically inclined.

that you agree with everything scientists are stating except that you don't agree that the duration of extreme events can be protracted... causing increased amplified impact/damage.

I'm going to assume that in your incoherent waldo speak you are trying to make the claim that increasing atmospheric CO2 will prolong the duration of resonance phenomena (because that is the only thing that would make sense given the context).

I see little reason to believe that this is necessarily true based upon the physical mechanism of Rossby waves.The rate of change of the wavelength of the Rossby wave over time does decrease (proportional to the square root of the zenith wind speed), but the wavelength decreases by an equivalent amount (also proportional to the square root of the zenith wind speed) such that the net change is zero. One could argue that the group velocity of the wave decreases, which would lead to increased duration, but that would be mostly offset by the reduction in the wavelength, and the group velocity isn't what matters in the case of standing waves that form resonant wave patterns, the change in the wavelength over time is what matters (due to a change in zenith wind speed which occurs due to a change in temperature gradient).

So if you want to make these assertions, the burden of evidence is on you to provide evidence and give a theoretical explanation. The physics of Rossby waves as far as I can tell does not support your claim of increased duration of resonance phenomena.

I challenged you to reconcile current extreme weather events (in general... or the specific 3 I mentioned from the onset) that "stall out" for an extended period of time. You've completely ignored this repeated challenge.

What is to reconcile? The physics of Rossby waves allow for the possibility of forced standing waves to experience resonance phenomena under the right circumstances. You list 3 cases of resonance phenomena of the Northern Polar Jet Stream... What needs to be reconciled here? There is no contradiction.

the focus on today... the impacts of extreme weather today; instead, you seem to prefer projecting into 2100 (with a mitigation attachment (as in NO mitigation), no less). All the lead-up into this discussion centered around current extreme weather events or past (relatively recent) extreme weather events. You were all about "climate alarmists making this claim, climate alarmists making that claim"!

Wtf are you talking about? When discussing CO2 mitigation, the main question is 'should humans implement CO2 mitigation policies to reduce CO2 output in order to reduce future levels of atmospheric CO2?'. When evaluating that question, it is sort of necessary to discuss what is to be expected in the future under different scenarios that humans can choose from.

But somehow, the future no longer matters and you insist that I need to focus on today as I'm not focusing on today enough... I don't get it. What you write does not make sense.

doesn't say diddly about today ..... you know., what was being discussed - suggestions that today's extreme weather events may be subject to and impacted by the shifting jet-stream pattern.

Wtf does 'the shifting jet-stream pattern' mean? Please translate from Waldo-speak to coherent English. Are you trying to say that weather patterns will be impacted by changes to the jet-stream pattern over time? If yes then I would agree,but you seem to insist that it's all about 'today' and the future doesn't matter... There does not seem to be coherency or consistency with what you write.

And it doesn't say diddly about you continuing to ignore my challenge concerning the stalling out extreme weather events that do not move off in a matter of "the typical" shorter-term days duration.

That was a resonance phenomenon. They occur and are unusual. What's your point?

It means nothing that you state the possible physical mechanism put forward by the scientists in their published paper didn't meet your required "adequate explanation"... you know, the published paper dealing with the 'hear and now'... extreme weather events subject to the shifting jet-stream today!

When people publish scientific papers, they omit the vast majority of the theory and theoretical explanations for 2 reasons: 1. They need to make there publication as short as possible so the journal will accept it since each page costs money. 2. The authors assume that the readers will be other scientists that have already studied in the field for years so they think that explaining physical mechanisms to the level of say a graduate student isn't necessary (let alone a member of the general public). The physical explanation you claim existed was non-existent in the references you provided.

Edited June 24, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

you're still not adding anything new/of value here!

By the principle of occam's razor, given the amount of evidence I have provided in support of the CO2 fertilization effect, the burden of evidence is on you to justify your ridiculous assertions that the CO2 fertilization effect doesn't not help plant growth and global crop yields.

you and that razor you keep falling back on!!! It was you... you... that made the claim that global crop yields would increase. You've not supported that GLOBAL claim... in the real-world... outside your artificial controlled greenhouse bubble... isolated from real-world growth limiting factors. And, once more you trot out your "jackass move".

like I said, you're not adding anything new/of value here.

======================================================================

however... thanks for acknowledging my point that your manifesto does only apply to the future world you somehow chose to divert the prior discussion away from... the prior discussion which was all about current and relatively recent extreme weather events. The prior discussion which had you on a tirade concerning "climate alarmist" extreme weather event "claims"... the prior discussion which aligned with my original linked reference concerning today in relation to today's extreme weather events subject to a shifting jet-stream... to the 3 specific relatively recent highlighted extreme weather events.

in your manifesto, you state "However, the frequency at which a jetstream passes over a region will increase arguably reduces the duration of extreme weather events". As I stated, this appeared to be the only point of departure... the only thing you seemed to be "arguably" at odds with concerning suggestions coming forward from scientists today; i.e., that some extreme weather events do last for extended periods of duration. So, of course, I asked you to reconcile the longer-term duration of these observed extreme events... the "stalling out" of these current/relatively recent events... you know, the today that was the focus, uhhh..... before you went on a manifesto clown show! In your latest post, you now state, "What is to reconcile? The physics of Rossby waves allow for the possibility of forced standing waves to experience resonance phenomena under the right circumstances.,, What needs to be reconciled here? There is no contradiction."

let me humbly correct myself! You are now saying that, in fact, you have no disagreement with suggestions from scientists concerning the observed duration of extreme weather events. And, of course, given the longer duration, the greater impact/damage associated with these events as the weather just keeps repeating on in the same relative location... over and over and over... with the weather not moving on in the typical shorter-term 'few days' duration. So, uhhh... just what was the point of your blustering 7800 word manifesto if you, apparently, have no disagreement with scientists and suggestions being offered/proposed concerning extreme weather events... of today and the relatively recent past? Oh my!

[eyeball]

Increasing atmospheric CO2 on earth will effect plant growth in many different ways:

- It will effect plant growth by affecting temperature.

- It will effect plant growth by changing rainfall patterns.

- It will effect plant growth by changing available sunlight (from the solar dimming effect & cloud cover)

- It will effect plant growth by changing wind patterns

- It will effect plant growth via the CO2 fertilization effect (i.e. what you get when other factors are held constant)

- etc.

What I said is that the effect of the CO2 fertilization effect on plant growth is purely positive.

What sort of timelines are you predicting for these effects/affects and will the changes they cause to our economy and society be purely positive and again, when? After an interregnum or just a business cycle or two?

[-1=e^ipi]

you and that razor you keep falling back on!!!

Cause apparently using scientific principles such as occam's razor when discussing issues of science is so wrong... *sarcasm*

that made the claim that global crop yields would increase. You've not supported that GLOBAL claim... in the real-world... outside your artificial controlled greenhouse bubble... isolated from real-world growth limiting factors. And, once more you trot out your "jackass move".

Again, the same strawman argument despite numerous attempts to explain this to you. I'll try a different method.

It's as simple as the difference between a partial derivative and a full derivative. When I say that the effect of CO2 fertilization on crop yields is positive, I am talking about the partial derivative of crop yields with respect to CO2 levels, not the full derivative.

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

however... thanks for acknowledging my point that your manifesto does only apply to the future world you somehow chose to divert the prior discussion away from... the prior discussion which was all about current and relatively recent extreme weather events. The prior discussion which had you on a tirade concerning "climate alarmist" extreme weather event "claims"... the prior discussion which aligned with my original linked reference concerning today in relation to today's extreme weather events subject to a shifting jet-stream... to the 3 specific relatively recent highlighted extreme weather events.

The above nonsense has so many faulty premises it is ridiculous. The 7800 word post isn't a manifesto, there is not '1 point' in the 7800 word post there are many, the physical mechanism described in the post applies to past, present and future, not just the future, and your claim that the model contradicts observed heat waves is nonsense since it allows for resonance phenomena.

in your manifesto, you state "However, the frequency at which a jetstream passes over a region will increase arguably reduces the duration of extreme weather events". As I stated, this appeared to be the only point of departure... the only thing you seemed to be "arguably" at odds with concerning suggestions coming forward from scientists today; i.e., that some extreme weather events do last for extended periods of duration. So, of course, I asked you to reconcile the longer-term duration of these observed extreme events... the "stalling out" of these current/relatively recent events... you know, the today that was the focus, uhhh..... before you went on a manifesto clown show! In your latest post, you now state, "What is to reconcile? The physics of Rossby waves allow for the possibility of forced standing waves to experience resonance phenomena under the right circumstances.,, What needs to be reconciled here? There is no contradiction."

'Arguably' was used because that change in duration only occurs if one considers changes in the group velocity of the wave relative to the wavelength; so that would be droughts or floods that result from a moving wave pattern. But if you are talking about a forced standing wave pattern that forms a resonance, then group velocity shouldn't be used and instead you should consider the rate of change of the wavelength of the forced standing wave pattern over time; if you do this then you get that both the wavelength and the change in the wavelength over time are both proportional to the square root of the zonal wind velocity, thus there should be no expected change in duration based upon the model used. So ultimately, it comes down to the definition of extreme weather events (and the lack of a clear definition is the fault of climate alarmists making their ridiculous claims, not mine). If by extreme weather events you mean resonance phenomena, then no. But if by extreme weather events you include droughts and floods that result from moving Rossby waves, then you can make a decent argument.

And again, your claims that I need somehow reconcile some recent heat waves with the physical mechanism described in the 7800 word post... There is no contradiction, so there is nothing to reconcile. It is like insisting that Isaac Newton must reconcile his theory of gravity with the fact that things fall down.

let me humbly correct myself! You are now saying that, in fact, you have no disagreement with suggestions from scientists concerning the observed duration of extreme weather events.

What are these 'suggestions' the scientists are making? Your claim is too vague & poorly defined for me to agree or disagree with.

So, uhhh... just what was the point of your blustering 7800 word manifesto if you, apparently, have no disagreement with scientists and suggestions being offered/proposed concerning extreme weather events... of today and the relatively recent past? Oh my!

There is not single point of the 7800 word post; your premise is wrong. And if you want to know the motivation for the post, I already answered that and it is also in the 7800 word post. So you could actually try reading it...

Edited June 24, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

What sort of timelines are you predicting for these effects/affects and will the changes they cause to our economy and society be purely positive and again, when? After an interregnum or just a business cycle or two?

Again, you are strawmaning what my claims were. But as for the timescale of how soon one expects the CO2 fertilization effect to kick in, this effect is basically immediate (or if you prefer, the timescale by which it takes CO2 to diffuse into the atmosphere, which is very quick). Indirect effects on crop yields that result from changes in atmospheric CO2 (changes in global temperatures due to the radiative green house effect or loss of albedo, changes in rainfall patterns, changes in wind speeds, etc.) would of course kick in on a later timescale.

[cybercoma]

Again, you are strawmaning what my claims were.

to have a strawman, you need to make an argument. Eyeball was asking you questions, not making an argument. You're so quick to call out logical fallacies that don't exist, it makes one wonder about the credibility of your position when you can't answer a couple very reasonable questions.

[-1=e^ipi]

to have a strawman, you need to make an argument. Eyeball was asking you questions, not making an argument. You're so quick to call out logical fallacies that don't exist, it makes one wonder about the credibility of your position when you can't answer a couple very reasonable questions.

Fair enough. He misrepresented my position, making the premise of the question flawed. Technically it is not a strawman, even though both involve misrepresentation. I apologize for the error. And no the question isn't reasonable since it misrepresents my claims.

[eyeball]

You're pretty clearly implying everything is going to be groovy are you not?

[-1=e^ipi]

You're pretty clearly implying everything is going to be groovy are you not?

I don't know what this means.

[cybercoma]

He misrepresented my position, making the premise of the question flawed. ... The question isn't reasonable since it misrepresents my claims.

I'm not sure why you would say that. Here's the exchange.

the effect of the CO2 fertilization effect on plant growth is purely positive.

What sort of timelines are you predicting for these effects/affects and will the changes they cause to our economy and society be purely positive and again, when? After an interregnum or just a business cycle or two?

Now you're responding with this.

You're pretty clearly implying everything is going to be groovy are you not?

I don't know what this means.

It's clear that you said, in your own words, that increased CO₂ concentrations is "purely positive." You don't know what "everything is going to be groovy" means in that context?

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm not sure why you would say that. Here's the exchange.

My apologies, after looking at the question another time I realize I misinterpreted it. I've been suffering from a concussion the past week (was mugged and assaulted) so please forgive me if I misread a question (especially given how many times I've been misrepresented in this thread).

To answer the question, since the net effect of the CO2 fertilization effect is positive on plant growth, that will lead to a positive net effect on the economy since agriculture makes up some of the economy.

It's clear that you said, in your own words, that increased CO₂ concentrations is "purely positive." You don't know what "everything is going to be groovy" means in that context?

Yeah, I don't know what 'everything is going to be groovy' means. How does one determine what is 'groovy' and if something satisfies 'grooviness'?

With respect to quoting me saying 'purely positive' I meant that the net effect of CO2 fertilization is positive everywhere on Earth.

[cybercoma]

To answer the question, since the net effect of the CO2 fertilization effect is positive on plant growth, that will lead to a positive net effect on the economy since agriculture makes up some of the economy.

But just because agriculture hypothetically increases that doesn't mean it will "lead to a positive net effect on the economy" that is I assume you mean the entire world economy since the environment is a global concern. For a net benefit, you would have to consider all the benefits against all the losses. As you said, agriculture is only part of the economy and it's not even established that it would be a net benefit agriculturally across the globe. You may see localized benefits, but you may also see localized losses with arable land becoming unusable due to covarying factors associated with increased concentrations of CO₂. Putting that aside, what about other areas of the economy that may be affected? You're just claiming that it's going to be a net benefit to the economy in general without any weighing the effects both within agriculture itself, but also amongst effects in other areas of the economy.

[cybercoma]

I'm not entirely interested in this topic to be honest. There are people far more knowledgeable than me about the subject, yourself included. I'm just confused by your arguments.

[-1=e^ipi]

But just because agriculture hypothetically increases that doesn't mean it will "lead to a positive net effect on the economy" that is I assume you mean the entire world economy since the environment is a global concern. For a net benefit, you would have to consider all the benefits against all the losses. As you said, agriculture is only part of the economy and it's not even established that it would be a net benefit agriculturally across the globe. You may see localized benefits, but you may also see localized losses with arable land becoming unusable due to covarying factors associated with increased concentrations of CO₂. Putting that aside, what about other areas of the economy that may be affected? You're just claiming that it's going to be a net benefit to the economy in general without any weighing the effects both within agriculture itself, but also amongst effects in other areas of the economy.

People keep misinterpreting me.

I said that the net effect of the CO2 fertilization effect is positive. Obviously there are other effects that will occur as a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. I'm not making as grand a claim as people are suggesting I am.