Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem

[Wilber]

Really? You think humans going extinct as result of warming is a possibility? This despite the development of human civilization in the past few thousand years (and evolutionary blink of the eye)? This despite the fact that humans evolved in hot equatorial conditions? This despite the fact that humans are the only species on the planet capable of spreading life to other planets?

I don't know and neither do you. Humans do have the capablilty to make themselves extinct. They've had it for 60 years. Its called the thermonuclear weapon. Just because it is much easier not to use atomic weapons than it is to curb our dumping of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and deforesting the planet, doesn't mean the inevitable result couldn't be the same.

Evolution takes millenia, it will not be a factor in adusting to changing conditions, neither will spreading life to other planets.

[waldo]

you repeatedly spoke of expected/projected warming @ 2°C... again, a goal, a target is not a projection, particularly one you would presume to use for your belittling alarmist benchmark level purposes. Again, citation request:

Sigh, it's the UNPCCC's own target, which are based upon various models (thus they think it is doable).But I'll find you some better citations later (don't have time right now). But again it is impossible to know what will happen when human activity can vary depending on how much is done to mitigate climate change.

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

considering you appear to have extreme difficulty with a fundamental question asking you to support your claimed expectation of, your projection on, your declared 2°C of anticipated warming, one is left to seriously question the foundation of your alarmist labeling. I mean... uhhh... what's your alarm, exaggeration and prophesied benchmark? Perhaps the first clue to your... uncertainty... is your resorting to a generalized broad-based textbook definition.

Hey, at least i'm using the UNPCCC's own projections. Unlike some climate alarmists that wont even quantify the amount of change and will instead pretend that if we do not do anything the world will be flooded and boil over.

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

.

[waldo]

I was under the impression that biology was required to pass high school and that the C4 cycle was taught in most high schools. I guess I was wrong.

Sigh, what are you talking about? The wikipedia page entry discusses the time period during which C4 plants evolved & became significant & explains the selective pressures that caused it. Yes C4 plants are particularly adapt to high temperatures, high light intensities and dryness, because under these conditions CO2 becomes the dominant limiting factor of photosynthesis. The whole C4 cycle is to give plants a better way at obtaining CO2.

Sigh, why do I have to explain such well established science? I might as well be arguing with a flat earther...

Here maybe this will help:

"It is thought that the primary selective mechanism for the development of C4 photosynthesis is the low level of CO2 that has prevailed during the last 50 to 60 million years."

further insults - keep flapping your mouth... it suits your bluster well. "It is thought"... clearly, another of your low-bar references! Oh wait, you actually linked to the infamous denier Idso clan website! Oh my.

it is thought... a low abundant C₄ pathway has existed for much of the past 12 million years... some 6 million years prior to the selective pressures of high O2 and declining CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere... conditions that allowed C4 plants to gain a competitive advantage, one that allowed the C4 carbon cycle to evolve as an adaptation to high temps, high light intensities, dryness... and improved water and nutrient use efficiency.

[waldo]

your two references speak to deserts and arid environments... of "green foliage"... and not "crops".

the abstract of one of your references includes the very succinct and telling statement: "The role in this greening of the “CO2 fertilization” effect—the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels—is yet to be established".

the abstract of your other reference includes the following statements: "On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example," Dr Donohue said. "Ongoing research is required if we are to fully comprehend the potential extent and severity of such secondary effects."

from these types of poorly sourced reference, apparently, you allow yourself extreme liberties in extrapolating to the definitive assertion that, as you stated, "crop yields will increase globally".

Plants are plants. Increased CO2 levels increases the rate of photosynthesis in all plants be it an apple tree, a dandelion or grass.

You are making a strawman argument. I claimed that the effect of CO2 fertilization will increase crops globally. However, other effects of increases in CO2 levels (changes in temperature, weather patterns) may offset this effect. Science is inherently skeptical and that is why the paper mentions the secondary effects.

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

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

citation request: most particularly, with respect to global yields; CO2 levels; distinctions between experimental enclosure studies/model simulations versus FACE results; stressed versus unstressed conditions, particularly with regard to weeds, pests, soil quality, water availability/quality, air quality, acclimation considerations, resource competition, etc.

.

Edited November 19, 2013 by waldo

[waldo]

and if they were to destabilize, then yes, they to would be pollutants. Clearly, you have a most sensitive reaction to the word.

Water is a pollutant? What utter nonsense.

oh really... under the destabilizing proviso given, it could be; for example, see the ecological affects that can result from hot & cold thermal impacts of varying temperature on water quality... for example, see water (vapour) as a key airborne pollutant associated with possible physical deterioration, one subject to incorrect or excessive fluctuating relative humidity levels...

in any case, you're (purposely) ignoring the focused emphasis on GHGs, particularly CO2

.

[socialist]

My comment adds nothing to this one-sided debate, but I am absolutely amazed by the knowledge Waldo displays on this subject. I learn a lot readingwhat you type waldo. Keep making fools of your weak opponents.

[eyeball]

Right so at the rate in which we are degrading the planets ability to handle CO2 could classify humans as pollutants. It fits your definition.

Actually we fit the definition of an invasive species, which is generally regarded as the 2nd leading cause of extinctions after habitat loss.

We're also one of the weediest species on the planet, we can make a go of it just about anywhere we go but that said our success has been due to living in a world filled with bio-diverse landscapes, animals, plants and an abundance of relatively easily accessed natural resources. Of course we're changing all that now. We no longer have the planet for the taking that we've all too often taken for granted.

Edited November 20, 2013 by eyeball

[ReeferMadness]

Actually we fit the definition of an invasive species, which is generally regarded as the 2nd leading cause of extinctions after habitat loss.

We're also one of the weediest species on the planet, we can make a go of it just about anywhere we go but that said our success has been due to living in a world filled with bio-diverse landscapes, animals, plants and an abundance of relatively easily accessed natural resources. Of course we're changing all that now. We no longer have the planet for the taking that we've all too often taken for granted.

Exactly. So far, we've just taken out other species; but hacking away at the biosphere is like hacking away at our own roots. Eventually, we will find that the most fragile population left is the billions of homo sapiens who have undermined their own existence.

[GostHacked]

I don't know and neither do you. Humans do have the capablilty to make themselves extinct.

Read his post again. He was referring specifically to global warming killing us, not nuke weapons.

Evolution takes millenia, it will not be a factor in adusting to changing conditions, neither will spreading life to other planets.

Evolution can take place at a much faster rate if the situation demands it. We learn to adapt or die. But we no longer adapt, we humans make the world adapt to us.

We can get to Mars tomorrow if the citizens of Earth can get their crap together and stop all this damn fighting.

[Wilber]

Read his post again. He was referring specifically to global warming killing us, not nuke weapons.

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

Evolution can take place at a much faster rate if the situation demands it. We learn to adapt or die. But we no longer adapt, we humans make the world adapt to us.

We can get to Mars tomorrow if the citizens of Earth can get their crap together and stop all this damn fighting.

Yes, we learn to adapt or die. Too bad the or die part isn't taken more seriously.

Do you honestly think going to Mars is some kind of solution to this? Even if we could get to Mars tomorrow, it will be decades before any settlement there could be self sufficient, if ever. Besides, if we can't get our act together here, what makes you think we could do it somewhere else? For all we know, this may be most hospitable planet in our galaxy. What chance will we have somewhere else if we screw this one up.

[GostHacked]

I was referring to mankind's ability to do itself in.

Right we know we can blow the damn planet up, but that was not what the person you quoted was talking about. You are not using the context of his post properly for your argument.

He doesn't know and neither do I but simple logic tells me that if we continue dumping ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere while simultaneously degrading the planets ability to deal with them, something is going to happen and it probably won't be good.

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

The pesticides we use, the toxic pollution from industry, vehicles ect.

It is such a narrow view simply just dealing with CO2 as the end all be all of all future possible catastrophes. Many more things on our immediate horizon that will kill us long before Co2 ever has a chance.

Yes, we learn to adapt or die. Too bad the or die part isn't taken more seriously.

We no longer adapt to the environment. We make the environment adapt to us.

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

I did not offer it as a solution. Just hinting that if we can all work together, we can accomplish some fantastic things as a species.

[Wilber]

Right we know we can blow the damn planet up, but that was not what the person you quoted was talking about. You are not using the context of his post properly for your argument.

I'm saying we can and have created the ability to destroy ourselves. In the end, whether we do it intentionally or unintentionally matters little.

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

The pesticides we use, the toxic pollution from industry, vehicles ect.

That to. And we are. We are recycling more and more. We have limits on toxic materials and vehicle polution is much lower than 30 years ago even though there are far more vehicles on the roads.

It is such a narrow view simply just dealing with CO2 as the end all be all of all future possible catastrophes. Many more things on our immediate horizon that will kill us long before Co2 ever has a chance.

It's not a narrow view if it is an issue that can make all the other issues moot.

We no longer adapt to the environment. We make the environment adapt to us.

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

I did not offer it as a solution. Just hinting that if we can all work together, we can accomplish some fantastic things as a species.

Accomplish what, wait until we have no other options other than hope we can adapt to whatever we ourselves have created?

Edited November 20, 2013 by Wilber

[GostHacked]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24994209

Toxic waste 'major global threat'

More than 200 million people around the world are at risk of exposure to toxic waste, a report has concluded.

The authors say the large number of people at risk places toxic waste in a similar league to public health threats such as malaria and tuberculosis.

The study from the Blacksmith Institute and Green Cross calls for greater efforts to be made to control the problem.

The study carried out in more than 3,000 sites in over 49 countries.

"It's a serious public health issue that hasn't really been quantified," Dr Jack Caravanos, director of research at the Blacksmith Institute and professor of public health at the City University of New York told the BBC's Tamil Service.

The study identified the Agbobloshie dumping yard in Ghana's capital Accra as the place which poses the highest toxic threat to human life.

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

As the second largest e-waste processing area in West Africa, Ghana annually imports around 215,000 tonnes of second hand consumer electronics from abroad, particularly from Western Europe, and generates another 129,000 tons of e-waste every year.

The study warns that that Ghana's e-waste imports will double by 2020.

At the Agbobloshie site, the study found the presence of lead in soil at very high levels, posing serious potential health and environment hazards to more than 250,000 people in the vicinity.

Edited November 20, 2013 by GostHacked

[Wilber]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24994209

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

These are problems that should be easy to rectify compared to screwing up our climate but the cause is the same. Out of sight, out of mind. It's not a problem until it effects the right people, personally.

[GostHacked]

These are problems that should be easy to rectify compared to screwing up our climate but the cause is the same. Out of sight, out of mind. It's not a problem until it effects the right people, personally.

I could see the direct effects of toxic pollution. I grew up next to two large mining conglomerates. It's a little better now but overall still quite horrific.

[Argus]

A good mass extinction of humans will get our consumption of fossil fuels under control. That is the way nature has always worked. Arrogant humans somehow think they are immune. Fools.

Yeah, well, that's not going to happen. Climate change is not going to have any affect on human population growth.

[Argus]

to you, what's a climate alarmist?

How about people who talk about human extinction as a result of climate change... ?

Edited November 24, 2013 by Argus

[bleeding heart]

We no longer adapt to the environment. We make the environment adapt to us.

Yup. I didn't scrape frost off my windshield this morning....the frost came in and vacuumed my rug.

[Argus]

Yup. I didn't scrape frost off my windshield this morning....the frost came in and vacuumed my rug.

Funny.

However, along that theme and the them of the thread -- I got tired of scraping frost and snow and ice off my windshield, so I built a garage. Now my car its (relatively) warm and dry and I don't have to scrape it off. That's adapting to climate change.

[waldo]

Funny.

However, along that theme and the them of the thread -- I got tired of scraping frost and snow and ice off my windshield, so I built a garage. Now my car its (relatively) warm and dry and I don't have to scrape it off. That's adapting to climate change.

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

[eyeball]

How about people who talk about human extinction as a result of climate change... ?

I don't know about extinction per se, like dandelions we're to weedy for that, but some serious die-back(s) could definitely be in the cards.

[bleeding heart]

Funny.

However, along that theme and the them of the thread -- I got tired of scraping frost and snow and ice off my windshield, so I built a garage. Now my car its (relatively) warm and dry and I don't have to scrape it off. That's adapting to climate change.

So you too disagree with the points I was repudiating. Namely, "We no longer adapt to the environment. The environment adapts to us."

[-1=e^ipi]

I don't know and neither do you. Humans do have the capablilty to make themselves extinct. They've had it for 60 years. Its called the thermonuclear weapon. Just because it is much easier not to use atomic weapons than it is to curb our dumping of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and deforesting the planet, doesn't mean the inevitable result couldn't be the same.

Evolution takes millenia, it will not be a factor in adusting to changing conditions, neither will spreading life to other planets.

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

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

[-1=e^ipi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you satisfied now?

it is thought... a low abundant C₄ pathway has existed for much of the past 12 million years... some 6 million years prior to the selective pressures of high O2 and declining CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere... conditions that allowed C4 plants to gain a competitive advantage, one that allowed the C4 carbon cycle to evolve as an adaptation to high temps, high light intensities, dryness... and improved water and nutrient use efficiency.

No, CO2 levels have been gradually declining for the past 500 million years (actually they have been declining since before the great oxygenation event 2.4 billion years ago). But more recently they have been declining as plants get better and better at performing photosynthesis & adapting to new environments; not to mention as plants have been dying, more and more carbon has been stored in the Earth's crust via fossil fuels. And I have said that the current low period in CO2 dates back to the creating of panama some 22 million years ago, not to 6 million years ago. Anyway, the C4 cycle is an adaptation to low CO2 levels, but at the same time it has caused CO2 levels to drop even further. So you have positive feedback here.

Finally, the reason that C4 plants perform particularly well in high temp & high light intensity conditions is because that is where CO2 becomes the biggest limiting factor to photosynthesis (I have already stated this).

no... in the context being discussed, one subject to the stated conditions and influences, "plants are not plants"!

Plants are not plants? How very Orwellian of you.

Within a net benefit context, a blanket one, you spoke of a global increase in crop yields.

I said that the effect of CO2 fertilization increases crop yields. But the climate effects will vary depending on region. In places like Canada or Russia (two largest countries on the planet) there will be immense benefit due to an increased growing season.

And, of course, you ignored exactly that in your follow-up comments and your most immediate reference links... links that didn't speak to staple foods and their respective latitude growth regions; rather, your weak/failed links spoke to "green foliage" increases in desert/arid conditions.

Obviously, we would have to change the foods that we grow at different latitudes. Regions that currently grow wheat may be better suited to crow corn in the future for example.

rather, your weak/failed links spoke to "green foliage" increases in desert/arid conditions. Notwithstanding, as I pointed out to you, your own links either directly contradicted your claim or they properly identified secondary effect concerns impacting on those presumed desert/arid "green foliage yields".

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

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

http://www.fao.org/docrep/w5183e/w5183e06.htm

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

[-1=e^ipi]

My comment adds nothing to this one-sided debate, but I am absolutely amazed by the knowledge Waldo displays on this subject. I learn a lot readingwhat you type waldo. Keep making fools of your weak opponents.

The troll keeps on trolling...

Actually we fit the definition of an invasive species, which is generally regarded as the 2nd leading cause of extinctions after habitat loss.

We are invasive species, so what? Invasive species are part of nature/evolution and all organisms alive today are descendants of invasive species. Humans have evolved to become superior to other animals so we are replacing them/causing some of them to go extinct, as is the way of evolution and has been going on for millions of years.

We no longer have the planet for the taking that we've all too often taken for granted.

This sounds like gaia worshiping nonsense. The earth and life on earth is resilient and has survived many mass extinction events far greater than humans. Furthermore, we will soon have more than 1 planet with humans living on it.

Exactly. So far, we've just taken out other species; but hacking away at the biosphere is like hacking away at our own roots. Eventually, we will find that the most fragile population left is the billions of homo sapiens who have undermined their own existence.

Humans are not the 'most fragile' population. This is propaganda from the anti-human environmental radicals. Humans are one of the most resilient species on the planet, which is why we live in so many different conditions and can even travel to space.