Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

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.

ya, that's right... why didn't people see your clear "first and second derivative" delineation!!! :lol:

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

ya, that's right... why didn't people see your clear "first and second derivative" delineation!!! :lol:

.

He was talking about the distinction between the partial and total derivative, not first and second. The point he was making is clear to anyone who has encountered partial derivatives in a math class.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Occam's razor is too straightforward for some posters (pun intended).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was talking about the distinction between the partial and total derivative, not first and second. The point he was making is clear to anyone who has encountered partial derivatives in a math class.

my bad... had no time earlier today and was skimming; meant to say partial/full... either that or: :D

I've been suffering from a concussion the past week (was mugged and assaulted) so please forgive me

for, as you say, "something clear to everyone", within the proper following context, perhaps you can speak to the supposed clearness:

context:

- the guy posits that there is a, "a net benefit overall for climate change"... and he wonders why "so many people are against climate change"

- the guy posits that the, "benefits of climate change outweigh the costs"

- in response to a challenge on the net benefit of climate change, an offered example has the guy posit that, "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"

- in regards his repeated claims of a "global increase in crop yields", the guy steadfastly continues to ignore the following many times repeated citation request to support the claim in regards:

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.

- the guy proceeds to ignore all manner of growth limiting factors that can/will affect crop yields. The guy steadfastly continues to, post after post after post..., focus his complete "argument" (as it is) on the artificial non-real world controlled greenhouse enclosure environment, one isolated from all outside influences... isolated from the real world growth limiting factors (some themselves amplified due to rising CO2).

- in the face of constant challenges to enter the real world, the guy persists in fronting his claimed "net benefit of climate change" example... doing so without regard to the real world. In the real world, the guy hasn't... and can't (based on his non-real world greenhouse bubble)... support/substantiate his claim that "increased atmospheric CO2 will result in an increase in global crop yields".

- under continuing waldo pressure/peppering to "join the real world", the guy begins his back-pedal routine... claiming to be "strawmaned and mispresented! In spite of his over-riding claims of a climate change net benefit and that the benefits of climate change outweigh the costs, the guy persists in repeatedly claiming he's being misrepresented, repeatedly being strawmaned! And in his latest, the guy tops it off by ploying his partial/full derivative delineation analogy!

now drive-by member Bonam, in the aforementioned proper context, with the guy providing the "CO2 fertilization" example he chose, and keying on the derivatives analogy that pulled you into the thread, perhaps you could offer comment:

- since you suggest a clearness of point intent, does ignoring the full derivative in favour of isolating totally on the partial derivative allow one to make the grandiose claims of "a net benefit to climate change... that the benefits of climate change outweigh the costs"? Since you suggest it's so clear, can one make those grandiose claims based on the, uhhh... partial derivative?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now drive-by member Bonam, in the aforementioned proper context, with the guy providing the "CO2 fertilization" example he chose, and keying on the derivatives analogy that pulled you into the thread, perhaps you could offer comment:

- since you suggest a clearness of point intent, does ignoring the full derivative in favour of isolating totally on the partial derivative allow one to make the grandiose claims of "a net benefit to climate change... that the benefits of climate change outweigh the costs"? Since you suggest it's so clear, can one make those grandiose claims based on the, uhhh... partial derivative?

.

I do not pretend to know the overall effect of climate change on global systems enough to ascertain the costs and benefits. My only general thoughts on the topic are that the costs are likely less than the worst predictions make them out to be, since mankind's adaptability and ingenuity is often significantly underestimated, and the benefits are perhaps more than they are generally thought to be (most people don't realize there might be any benefits at all) since most of the conversation/research/debate focuses around the negative impacts. That being said, the way one would go about such a calculation is to attempt to isolate all the individual effects, quantify their impacts individually, and then add them all up in a sensible way. That is the way one goes about answering complex questions... break them down into smaller parts, answer each part individually, and see if with all the individual answers in hand you can make a more educated answer to the whole problem.

In this regard, looking at the CO2 fertilization effect as one of the factors and quantifying what impact it might have is an important and valid part of the process, although it by itself says nothing about the overall effects of climate change.

Furthermore, I did not make any claims regarding the correctness of -1= e^ipi's overall position, only to the clarity of his explanation regarding his points about the CO2 fertilization effects, and that it is only that effect in isolation which he claims to have a purely positive contribution to crop yield. In fact, he has been very clear and precise with all of his statements in this regard. Unfortunately, clear and precise claims on a political board are very commonly taken and made into red herrings and then it is those herrings that are debated, because they are more interesting. That is one reason that I have only a very limited participation in these threads that attempt to discuss the science of climate change... this is simply not anywhere close to the right medium for such discussions, despite your efforts to frequently post extensive links on the topic, TimG's comments on the realities of the scientific process and on the humanity of climate scientists, and -1= e^ipi's technical contributions and original research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this regard, looking at the CO2 fertilization effect as one of the factors and quantifying what impact it might have is an important and valid part of the process, although it by itself says nothing about the overall effects of climate change.

in a non-real world environment that controls for growth limiting factors, it says nothing about anything in the real world... it says nothing about a presumed increase in global crop yields.

Furthermore, I did not make any claims regarding the correctness of -1= e^ipi's overall position, only to the clarity of his explanation regarding his points about the CO2 fertilization effects, and that it is only that effect in isolation which he claims to have a purely positive contribution to crop yield. In fact, he has been very clear and precise with all of his statements in this regard. Unfortunately, clear and precise claims on a political board are very commonly taken and made into red herrings and then it is those herrings that are debated, because they are more interesting.

isolation? You can't make the claim of a "global increase in crop yields" in isolation! You simply can't... you can't presume to extrapolate the results of controlled experiments within a greenhouse to a global level of representative crop yield growth. You can't make that claim as an example to support your over-riding claims of "a net benefit to climate change"... that "the benefits of climate change outweigh the costs". You can't clearly and precisely make those claims concerning a global increase in crop yields and use that as an example to support your overiding claims of net benefit and benefits outweighing costs. Clearly and precisely, you simply can't!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- the guy posits that there is a, "a net benefit overall for climate change"... and he wonders why "so many people are against climate change"

- the guy posits that the, "benefits of climate change outweigh the costs"

- in response to a challenge on the net benefit of climate change, an offered example has the guy posit that, "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"

- in regards his repeated claims of a "global increase in crop yields", the guy steadfastly continues to ignore the following many times repeated citation request to support the claim in regards:

Oh look, you are taking what I say out of context. That is such a new tactic... *sarcasm*

- the guy proceeds to ignore all manner of growth limiting factors that can/will affect crop yields. The guy steadfastly continues to, post after post after post..., focus his complete "argument" (as it is) on the artificial non-real world controlled greenhouse enclosure environment, one isolated from all outside influences... isolated from the real world growth limiting factors (some themselves amplified due to rising CO2).

- in the face of constant challenges to enter the real world, the guy persists in fronting his claimed "net benefit of climate change" example... doing so without regard to the real world. In the real world, the guy hasn't... and can't (based on his non-real world greenhouse bubble)... support/substantiate his claim that "increased atmospheric CO2 will result in an increase in global crop yields".

- under continuing waldo pressure/peppering to "join the real world", the guy begins his back-pedal routine... claiming to be "strawmaned and mispresented! In spite of his over-riding claims of a climate change net benefit and that the benefits of climate change outweigh the costs, the guy persists in repeatedly claiming he's being misrepresented, repeatedly being strawmaned! And in his latest, the guy tops it off by ploying his partial/full derivative delineation analogy!

Oh look, more misrepresentation...

And it isn't really an analogy, so much as the CO2 fertilization effect is basically the partial derivative of crop yields with respect to CO2 levels.

And yes I have been clear about my claims regarding the CO2 fertilization effect. On my second post (on page 7) I wrote:

"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."

You've been misrepresenting and strawmaning me ever since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh look, you are taking what I say out of context. That is such a new tactic... *sarcasm*

Oh look, more misrepresentation...

And yes I have been clear about my claims regarding the CO2 fertilization effect.

"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."

You've been misrepresenting and strawmaning me ever since.

nothing has been taken out of context on my part. You have not been misrepresented. You have not been 'strawmaned'.

in a direct reply to my request for you to explain how "climate change is a net benefit overall", you provided that example... you claimed your example, an example of the "net benefit overall for climate change", would result in a global crop yield increase.

however, context liberties have been taken... by you! You have applied your claim to the real world, based upon your non-real world, isolated, artificial, controlled experiments within greenhouse enclosures... controlled to prevent the influence of real-world crop growth limiting factors. You have simply and wildly (without substantiation) extrapolated your non-real world 'greenhouse bubble' results to a real world global level! From day 1, I challenged you, multiple times, to cite support for your claim... support that included results from real-world representative FACE experiments (vs. experimental enclosure studies/model simulations). After months of you ignoring the citation request, you increduously made a statement about needing to rely upon your non-real world greenhouse environment... to be able to control for CO2 levels. Oh my, that's right... you had absolutely no idea what FACE was! But when has that ever stopped your fevered blustering... while you bark out "climate alarmist this, climate alarmist that"! Yes, you completely ignored the citation request made of you... the same citation request made of you, several times. This citation request:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nothing has been taken out of context on my part. You have not been misrepresented. You have not been 'strawmaned'.

You can repeat these lies all you want. The posts in this thread suggest otherwise.

in a direct reply to my request for you to explain how "climate change is a net benefit overall", you provided that example... you claimed your example, an example of the "net benefit overall for climate change", would result in a global crop yield increase.

Again, you are misrepresenting my claims. In the first post in the thread (page 7) I said:

"It seems to be of net benefit overall"

See the word, 'seems'? I never claimed that increasing CO2 levels slightly is definitely without doubt of net benefit. Rather the implication was that I saw more reason to believe that the net benefit would be positive rather than negative. You asked me to justify my claim, so I did in my next post. In the next post I gave 6 reasons in support of my claim, referenced some cost-benefit studies, and also talked about the effect of reducing global temperature gradient on heat engines and 'extreme weather events'.

Yet somehow you continue misinterpret all this to be that I was using the CO2 fertilization effect alone as PROOF of a claim that is far stronger than anything I have claimed.

You have applied your claim to the real world, based upon your non-real world, isolated, artificial, controlled experiments within greenhouse enclosures... controlled to prevent the influence of real-world crop growth limiting factors. You have simply and wildly (without substantiation) extrapolated your non-real world 'greenhouse bubble' results to a real world global level!

Again, same 'argument' where you misrepresent what I say. Please understand the difference between a partial derivative and full derivative. And better yet, understand the concept of occam's razor.

Saying that the net effect of CO2 fertilization is positive is no more unreasonable than saying that the net effect of increasing sea levels is negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your weasel word "seems" appears once... from that point forward the context is always the definitive "net benefit overall"... that's what you've directly replied to, as quoted, many, many times over... would you like me to string all the quotes together for you? I'm particularly taken with the time you again whine for someone to respond to you... and it "seems" you quote the definitive "net benefit overall"! :lol: ... your adding the "Church of Climate Alarmism" was a nice touch too!

Here, I'll keep reposting this until I get a response from one of the members of the Church of Climate Alarmism.

how is climate change a "net benefit" overall... and especially to Canada/Russia?



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.
.
.
.

quit misrepresenting me... I've referred to your claim as an example, one of the examples you provided in an attempt to support your claim as to the net benefit overall of climate change. I didn't bother with your other examples because they're just as inane as the one I chose to focus on.

Saying that the net effect of CO2 fertilization is positive is no more unreasonable than saying that the net effect of increasing sea levels is negative.


of course, that's not what you said... what you said is "This will help increase crop yields globally". As for your claimed reasonableness, the following quote of your statements fairly and accurately positions exactly where you're coming from... one you offered in relation to your referenced optimal CO2 concentation in greenhouses:

...

So does 1200 ppm seem reasonable now?

Edit: actually, if anything we should subsidize CO2 emissions (rather than tax) to get to 1200 ppm faster.


to get to 1200 ppm... faster! That's right - from the industrial age on through to the relatively recent accelerated CO2 emissions, we're now dealing with the consequences of the elevated ~402 ppm level. So, of course, based on your non-real world isolated greenhouse bubble..... you're all for tripling atmospheric CO2 concentrations - tripling!!!... and the sooner the better. What could possibly be unreasonable about that? :lol:
.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your weasel word "seems" appears once...

Not making overly ambitious claims is 'weasel words' now? Can you prove this claim? And if you can prove this claim, why does it matter?

Anyway, what matters is if you actually understand the claims I make and I would prefer you do not misinterpret me.

from that point forward the context is always the definitive "net benefit overall"... that's what you've directly replied to, as quoted, many, many times over... would you like me to string all the quotes together for you?

Again, that had different context. You are confusing what I said with respect to the net effect of CO2 fertilization and with the net effect of climate change over all.

You are creating a red herring because your continued attempts at trying to strawman me are failing. Why not actually challenge or accept the points I make?

quit misrepresenting me... I've referred to your claim as an example, one of the examples you provided in an attempt to support your claim as to the net benefit overall of climate change. I didn't bother with your other examples because they're just as inane as the one I chose to focus on.

What is your definition of 'example'? Because what you write makes no sense in this context. A claim isn't an example, and what you are referring to is better described as 'supporting evidence' not an 'example'.

of course, that's not what you said... what you said is "This will help increase crop yields globally".

...It follows from 'increasing crop yields globally' that in the absence of significant negative impacts from CO2 fertilization in other areas of the economy, that this will be of 'net benefit' to society... There is no inconsistency in my position.

to get to 1200 ppm... faster! That's right - from the industrial age on through to the relatively recent accelerated CO2 emissions, we're now dealing with the consequences of the elevated ~402 ppm level. So, of course, based on your non-real world isolated greenhouse bubble..... you're all for tripling atmospheric CO2 concentrations - tripling!!!... and the sooner the better. What could possibly be unreasonable about that? :lol:

Your representation of my position above is again incorrect. Adding smiley faces doesn't change that.

The context of the quotation is that I was asked to give a somewhat reasonable guess for the optimal level of atmospheric CO2 based on what we know about plant growth at different levels of CO2 and on historical data over the past 600 million years. 1200 ppm was reasonable based upon the evidence I provided in that context and reasonable in the absence of opposing evidence. The main purpose of that post and on similar posts was to shed doubt on the belief that many people have that somehow per-industrial (meaning like 1800s) levels of atmospheric CO2 were somehow optimal for life on Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

again, you're not being misrepresented; you're not being taken out of context. Stand up for your statements/views man... don't try to weasel out of them - loud & proud man, be loud & proud of your concernTroll best!

I quoted your words, verbatim! There's no weaselly 'out of context' reach for you to play upon... Your words, your exact words: "actually, if anything we should subsidize CO2 emissions (rather than tax) to get to 1200 ppm faster." Clearly, you take that "net benefits overall for climate change" to heart! Hee haw, giddyup - all aboard the 1200 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration express!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

again, you're not being misrepresented; you're not being taken out of context. Stand up for your statements/views man... don't try to weasel out of them - loud & proud man, be loud & proud of your concernTroll best!

I quoted your words, verbatim! There's no weaselly 'out of context' reach for you to play upon... Your words, your exact words: "actually, if anything we should subsidize CO2 emissions (rather than tax) to get to 1200 ppm faster." Clearly, you take that "net benefits overall for climate change" to heart! Hee haw, giddyup - all aboard the 1200 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration express!

This tactic is too ridiculous.

If I don't let you strawman or misrepresent what I write then I am 'weaseling my way out'. So you want to be able to either strawman me or accuse me of 'weasel words' (which isn't even a fallacy)?

And now that you've been backed into a 'corner' regarding the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect and it's net effect on crop yields, you are trying to red herring your way out using a out of context quote from several months ago?

Let me know when you want to discuss the issue of climate change like a reasonable adult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

great! Your 'jackass move' returns - you can keep saying it a brazillion times, but again as I've stated now many times in response to your continued jackass move, I deny your denial charge! For you to continue to play out your unsupported, unsubstantiated claim concerning a "global increase in crop yields", simply shows you've got nothing left to offer... not that you really had anything in the first place. There is no point... well, there's never any point... in discussing anything with you. You've not been misrepresented, you've not been taken out of context. This has simply been another exercise in peeling away at your concernTroll wrapper.

whatever weasel 'out of context' claim you want to make for the latest comment I've highlighted, your statement is in the 'here and now'! Your statement, if anything we should subsidize CO2 emissions (rather than tax) to get to 1200 ppm faster, is in the 'here and now'... with you stating emissions should be subsidized... to get to 1200 ppm... faster! Of course, this is simply you following in step with your other claims... at 1200 ppm, you're simply after more of those overall benefits you claim that climate change has - 1200 ppm (faster!), to you, means more benefits, and according to your other claim the cost of those 1200 ppm (faster!) "benefits, will outweigh the costs of climate change"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

great! Your 'jackass move' returns

Could you define what 'jackass move' means to you? Anything that might hurt your feelings or pride such as pointing out the fallacies in the 'arguments' that you make?

For you to continue to play out your unsupported, unsubstantiated claim concerning a "global increase in crop yields", simply shows you've got nothing left to offer... not that you really had anything in the first place. There is no point... well, there's never any point... in discussing anything with you. You've not been misrepresented, you've not been taken out of context. This has simply been another exercise in peeling away at your concernTroll wrapper.

The moon is made of cheese.

See, I can make BS false claims without evidence too!

In the above quote you make 4 of these: the claim that my claim regarding a global increase in crop yields was unsupported, the claim that I have 'nothing left too offer', the claim that I have not been misrepresented or taken out of context, and the claim that I am a concern troll.

whatever weasel 'out of context' claim you want to make for the latest comment I've highlighted, your statement is in the 'here and now'! Your statement, if anything we should subsidize CO2 emissions (rather than tax) to get to 1200 ppm faster, is in the 'here and now'... with you stating emissions should be subsidized... to get to 1200 ppm... faster! Of course, this is simply you following in step with your other claims... at 1200 ppm, you're simply after more of those overall benefits you claim that climate change has - 1200 ppm (faster!), to you, means more benefits, and according to your other claim the cost of those 1200 ppm (faster!) "benefits, will outweigh the costs of climate change"!

^ Continued red herring to something that I've already responded to several times.

Anyway, I am not one to let people get away with BS arguments. So you can keep making your nonsense arguments consisting of fallacies, unsupported false clams and misrepresentation, and I will keep knocking them down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we're not going to discuss this net benefit thing? I don't care about this petty squabble. Increased CO2 concentrations may be better for plant life in some parts of the world, but the other effects of increased CO2 concentrations may offset those gains in other areas. Let's also consider the fact that carbon sinks are being destroyed at an increasing rate as well. Let's put the bickering aside and account for this idea that increased CO2 concentration will have a net agricultural benefit. Where will the benefits be? What negative effects might there be? How do those balance with each other. I'm interested in seeing a clear explanation of this from both sides. I'm not interested in the bickering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we're not going to discuss this net benefit thing? I don't care about this petty squabble. Increased CO2 concentrations may be better for plant life in some parts of the world, but the other effects of increased CO2 concentrations may offset those gains in other areas.

I don't mind discussing the net benefit thing, I mind when people misrepresent what I write. Particularly when I make claims regarding the CO2 fertilization effect and they interpret that to mean claims about the entire effect of increasing CO2 concentrations.

Let's also consider the fact that carbon sinks are being destroyed at an increasing rate as well.

Why is the sign of the second derivative particularly relevant?

Let's put the bickering aside and account for this idea that increased CO2 concentration will have a net agricultural benefit. Where will the benefits be? What negative effects might there be? How do those balance with each other. I'm interested in seeing a clear explanation of this from both sides. I'm not interested in the bickering.

What is 'both sides' to you? If you are talking about me and waldo, waldo position consists of misrepresenting what I write, not understanding occam's razor or the burden of evidence, fallacies, etc. If you are talking about climate change alarmism vs climate change denialism, I represent neither of these sides as they are both ridiculous.

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

I don't mind discussing the net benefit thing, I mind when people misrepresent what I write. Particularly when I make claims regarding the CO2 fertilization effect and they interpret that to mean claims about the entire effect of increasing CO2 concentrations.

again, you weren't misrepresented - you provided your example in support of your claim of the "net benefit overall for climate change"... you claimed it "will help increase crop yields globally". You have yet to provide support/substantiation for that claim, while you continue to ignore the citation request put to you... the request that reflects upon the real world you avoid within your isolated, artificial, controlled greenhouse enclosure bubble world. This citation request I quite readily trot out for you to continue to ignore:

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.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's put the bickering aside and account for this idea that increased CO2 concentration will have a net agricultural benefit. Where will the benefits be? What negative effects might there be?

net agricultural benefit? Oh my... that's going to burn the other guy. Not only has he not supported/substantiated his claim of a global increase in crop yields, now you're expecting him to open that up to the real-world influences (he's been avoiding any consideration of) and, pointedly, growth limiting factors (some of which themselves are further exacerbated by rising CO2 concentrations)?

as an example, I put the following forward way back in Dec 2013 - from the latest 2014 USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program report - National Climate Assessment)... it was draft at that time; as of May 2014 now published. The other guy ignored it, the same way he's ignored every reference I've brought forward. I'm not bothering to compare draft to published versions... points for your pointed agricultural emphasis appear first in the listing:

- 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. ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

again, you weren't misrepresented

Yes I was, many times. Anyone can verify that by reading this thread.

you provided your example

Your definition of example is not correct as I explained earlier. The CO2 fertilization effect is not a example in the context of the discussion.

... you claimed it "will help increase crop yields globally". You have yet to provide support/substantiation for that claim

I've provided plenty of substantiation for the CO2 fertilization effect including studies that show that plant growth increases if you increase CO2 concentrations, an evolutionary explanation as to why plants perform better with higher CO2 concentrations based on the past 600 million years during which multicellular life has flourished on Earth, the recent evolution of the C4 cycle in plants, tree ring data, fossilized pollen data, and basic freakin high school chemistry (the CO2 fertilization effect should be obvious to anyone that understands the photosynthesis equation).

the request that reflects upon the real world you avoid within your isolated, artificial, controlled greenhouse enclosure bubble world. This citation request I quite readily trot out for you to continue to ignore:

I provided you with a 'FACE' study, yet you still go on with this nonsense. And as I explained earlier, the other evidence is more than sufficient to justify the belief that the CO2 fertilization effect is positive on plant growth if you just apply basic scientific principles such as occam's razor.

But keep repeating the same BS over and over again if you want. I'll keep debunking it.

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

I provided you with a 'FACE' study, yet you still go on with this nonsense. And as I explained earlier, the other evidence is more than sufficient to justify the belief that the CO2 fertilization effect is positive on plant growth if you just apply basic scientific principles such as occam's razor.

But keep repeating the same BS over and over again if you want. I'll keep debunking it.

as of a few weeks ago, you didn't know what FACE was... you stated you needed to rely upon your non-real world greenhouse enclosure bubble world to be able to control for CO2 concentration!!! And... it was another member that brought that study forward... but nice of you to latch onto it and falsely posture that you actually knew what FACE was. Poser!

"belief"??? What, c'mon... now you're just... believing it... you're not claiming it anymore? "Positive on plant growth"??? What, c'mon... now it's just a positive... you're not claiming "a global increase in crop yields" anymore? :D You've provided nothing... nothing... that would allow you to extrapolate to a global level any experimental results from your non-real world, artificial, controlled greenhouse enclosure bubble world!

and again, you're bringing nothing new... you're offering nothing of value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as of a few weeks ago, you didn't know what FACE was... you stated you needed to rely upon your non-real world greenhouse enclosure bubble world to be able to control for CO2 concentration!!! And... it was another member that brought that study forward... but nice of you to latch onto it and falsely posture that you actually knew what FACE was. Poser!

Red herring tactic.

"belief"??? What, c'mon... now you're just... believing it... you're not claiming it anymore?

Sigh,

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

It is only sufficient to show that a belief is the most justified to act on that belief; it is not necessary to prove without doubt that a belief is true.
There has been no change in my position. You are just confused because people using skeptical language and thinking non-dogmatically is foreign to you.

"Positive on plant growth"??? What, c'mon... now it's just a positive... you're not claiming "a global increase in crop yields" anymore?

Both claims mean basically the same thing and the former (in the absence of contrary evidence) justifies the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

highlighting your poser BS is not a red herring! You've neither substantiated your claim... or justified your belief :DNow quit ignoring member cybercoma's request to speak to 'net benefits'... you know, where you stated climate change will have net benefits overall. Per member cybercoma, just start with agriculture... and don't forget to first substantiate/justify your "global increase in crop yields" statement! Just say, "yes you can"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind discussing the net benefit thing, I mind when people misrepresent what I write. Particularly when I make claims regarding the CO2 fertilization effect and they interpret that to mean claims about the entire effect of increasing CO2 concentrations.

Why is the sign of the second derivative particularly relevant?

What is 'both sides' to you? If you are talking about me and waldo, waldo position consists of misrepresenting what I write, not understanding occam's razor or the burden of evidence, fallacies, etc. If you are talking about climate change alarmism vs climate change denialism, I represent neither of these sides as they are both ridiculous.

Even after my post, you still don't layout the net benefits. You continue to go on about your arguments being misrepresented. I don't give a shit about the nature of the arguments here. I care about the substantial points you have to make. Like I said earlier, I'm not well versed on the subject and would like to see a comparison of the gains and losses.

So far neither of you have provided anything to substantiate either the benefits or losses associated with increased CO2 concentrations. Let's get a ledger up here with the pros and cons, so we can all be more informed and come to the conclusions for ourselves. This bickering about who's misrepresenting the other, yadda yadda yadda, I don't care. Post the facts. That's what I'm interested in. Then I can draw my own conclusions.

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
      10,742
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CrazyCanuck89
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

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