Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Keepitsimple

A stormy Forecast for Climate Change Reporting

Recommended Posts

Modern Humans have existed for about a 1/4 million years so it covers us and some of our ancestors. And yes in the past it has been higher than 300PPM and much hotter than it is now.
Most modern humans spend their days in environments with CO2 at 800ppm or more. Mammals first evolved when CO2 levels were at 2000ppm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

Most modern humans spend their days in environments with CO2 at 800ppm or more. Mammals first evolved when CO2 levels were at 2000ppm.

Humans have come a long way since the first mammals, you can't use that as a baseline as we have all evolved to live in a world with less CO2. (and oxygen) You also can't use the amount people breath in at an office building because it ignores all the other effects increased CO2 has.

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because if they do, their funding could be cut. This is the political aspect of it. If your data does not support the official model then you will get your funding cut. That is not how science is done. If real science is getting rejected because of some political influence where many are screaming nothing but DENIER,... this is where the whole AGW believer crowd is being decieved.

Has it been higher than 300PPM before then? If so, when and how high? 650,000 years is not a very long time considering the overal lenght of time life has existed on this planet. That time frame might cover just homo-sapiens.

Waldo really doesn't understand how things work, other than copying and pasting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You also can't use the amount people breath in at an office building because it ignores all the other effects increased CO2 has.
Other effects? Increased plant growth? Reduction in water requirements for crops (i.e. less need for irrigation)?

There is absolutely no basis for your claim that higher CO2 levels in themselves are bad for humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

Other effects? Increased plant growth? Reduction in water requirements for crops (i.e. less need for irrigation)?

There is absolutely no basis for your claim that higher CO2 levels in themselves are bad for humans.

Increased plant growth but less nutritious ones. Increased temperature leading to smaller yields. Warming temperature being better for pest than they are for crops. And obviously whats true for crops is true for weeds, increased CO2 will lead to weeds growing much faster. So is there still "absolutely no basis for [my] claim that higher CO2 levels in themselves are bad for humans"? For a change try looking at both sides, yes plant growth will increase, whether that's offset by decreased yields, more pests, less nutrition, and more weeds is up for debate.

Less Nutrition.

Decreased yields.

Increased pests.

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutely no basis for your claim that higher CO2 levels in themselves are bad for humans.

we've been over this before, any gas out of it's normal environmental range becomes a toxin...CO2 at 1000ppm will make you ill...5000PPM is dangerous...

and indirectly CO2 at lower levels is extremely harmful to humans, it is very damaging to the oceans which if humans are to survive is absolutely essential they remain healthy....if the oceans die, we die...

Edited by wyly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we've been over this before, any gas out of it's normal environmental range becomes a toxin...CO2 at 1000ppm will make you ill...5000PPM is dangerous...

This is not true for all gases in the environment, especailly inert gases. The partial pressures can vary greatly from "norm" without ill effects, especially in the case of oxygen levels, which is sometimes desired. Submarine crews manage their atmosphere in submerged hulls in just this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clearly, your labeling them as ECONOMIC models (your repeated caps highlighted emphasis) is a distortion, at best. The overall grouping of 40 SRES scenarios includes many models, of many types… certainly, inclusive of ‘macro-economic’ models… but not to the exclusion of so-called ‘systems-engineering’ types.
So what? The track record of these kinds of models is horrible. They are no better than astrology.

so what? So you have no difficulty with your blatant distortion - even acknowledging it? Other than your continued vacuous unsupported statements, perhaps you might be interested in either of these graphic representations that compare observed CO2 concentration levels to the actual scenarios… the bar graph pic clearly showing recent omissions near/above the top end of the SRES scenarios: here & here. Of course, you quite easily dismiss the scenarios with a curt summary hand-wave... just the same as I would expect you to dismiss the isolated AOGCM's run against defined incremental CO2 concentration level projections.

notwithstanding the scenarios assume no formal climate change policies will be introduced, and recognize demographic, social, economic, technological, and environmental developments - you know, projecting against anticipated/possible real world changes. Uhhh, ya - about that BAU claim you previously made - still waiting…

of course, coupled to that you’ve (purposely?) misrepresented the temperature rise aspects within those scenarios as being arrived at based on “ECONOMICS”… and that was the point I was highlighting in my point of clarification to you – i.e., the temperature rise aspects within the respective SRES scenarios are based on established AOGCM climate models (19 of them) inclusive of effective climate sensitivity across the 1.9°C to 5.9°C. range. Which, of course, brings us back to the physical science and the same unanswered challenge you’ve been given previously… offer substantiation to your claim that climate sensitivity is at the low end… or rather, lower than the low end, in your case. I will look it up if pressed – at this point I seem to recall you suggesting you’d accept climate sensitivity at 1.0°C. Please feel free to correct me…

the temperature rises modeled within the scenarios are simply that… modeled within the scenarios - based upon the respective emission results associated with each scenario. Obviously, those same climate models have been run separately from the formal scenarios to provide temperature rise versus emission level results. So, really… isn’t your beef with the scenarios themselves… don’t you simply have trouble accepting attempts to model eventualities (scenarios) based upon your favoured, no actual climate action being taken? (/snarc)

The flatline in temps for the last 10 years and the flatline in OHC over the last 6 is what tells me sensitivity is likely at the lower end. I know many climate scientists are 'data deniers' and refuse to accept data that contradicts their precious models. In any case, the bigger elephant in the room are the economic assumptions that are built into the projections. If those economic assumption are wrong the temperature rise will be lower than expected too.

no - even in the best denier cherry-picked short-term timeframes, surface temperature & ocean heat content have not, as you state, 'flat-lined'... back in your Riverwind glory days, I posted several GISS graph presentations over that short-term cherry-picked timeframe... 7 years, 9 years, 11 years… didn’t matter; all warming trends. I can quite easily round them up for you again. As for OHC, this Lyman 2010 paper is the most recent update I’ve found – one that shows a statistically significant linear warming trend for 1993–2008 of 0.64 W m-2 (to the 700 m depth). Even within that most ridiculous short-term 6 year reference you make, a lesser warming rate (from 0.64 W m-2 to 0.54 W m-2) is accompanied with indications that substantial warming may be occurring below the 700m depth (to 2000 m).

in any case, I'll make a mental note that you've attributed your claim of a 'lower than low' sensitivity level (what... less than 1.0°C???), based upon ridiculously low short-term time frames (that don't even offer you up your stated "flatline"). That's quite a stretch particularly given denier wonder-boy Lindzen's recent significantly rebuked paper tried to also peg sensitivity to a 1.0°C level... and he used all those high-faluting science based thingees to rationalize his claim... one can only wonder why he didn't just use your temp & OHC short-term trending time frames - hey?

More importantly. We have plenty of precedents where economic doomsayers are proven wrong. Reality is NEVER as bad as it was claimed before hand. For that reason, I am extremely certain that BAU emissions will never reach the levels claimed in the SRES which means the temperature rise will lower than claimed.

of course, in your denier world, “BAU emissions” means ever increasing emissions since you favour no efforts/policy to reduce fossil-fuel dependency/emissions. But you’re certain… wait… you’re “extremely” certain that SRES emission levels will never be reached… in your BAU world of ever increasing fossil-fuel use and emission output. And we’ll take that TimG extreme certainty to the bank – cause… TimG says so! Of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: so... scientists are afraid to go against consensus science...
Because if they do, their funding could be cut. This is the political aspect of it. If your data does not support the official model then you will get your funding cut. That is not how science is done. If real science is getting rejected because of some political influence where many are screaming nothing but DENIER,... this is where the whole AGW believer crowd is being deceived.

didn't take you long to cross into casting unfounded accusations with ethical implications... I expect if we pressed this harder, your full-blown conspiratorial side would blossom forward - hey?

speaking of CO2 emission levels/atmospheric concentration: ... for 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 has never been above the 300 ppm level - until now!
Has it been higher than 300PPM before then? If so, when and how high? 650,000 years is not a very long time considering the overal lenght of time life has existed on this planet. That time frame might cover just homo-sapiens.

why yes, it crossed back from the 300 ppm level some 3.5 - 4 million years ago. What? No actual comment on the linked graph? (in case you were wondering about that 650K time line... it simply reflects on the more prominent ice-core studies). No comment on the linked graph itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Total BS. Scientists are paid big bucks to support what lobbyists want. That's why many scientists are afraid to come out against AGW. If they do , they'll get their funding cut.

:lol: so... scientists are afraid to go against consensus science... but you state they're also 'convincing' writers - hey? Buddy... why don't they just write a little less convincingly! Like I said previously in the following re-quoted post, "Why can’t your denier side just find better, more convincing writers (scientists) - why not just acknowledge your denier side’s scientists are shitty, unconvincing writers… at least start there – hey?"

The Green Lobby is powerful. Billions of dollars have been given to scientists from governments to write convincingly that ghgs are causing climate change. These scientists either find what they are told to find, or they have their funding cut.

ya, ya – the “Green Lobby” fits well with your earlier “Green Agenda” MLW thread/ramblings. But wait… it seems that thread went a bit cold – you sort of disappeared from it… apparently… your premise wasn’t well received, you had great difficulty in supporting it… and you opted for “Greener Pastures”.

in that same thread, your “Green Agenda” thread, various tangential discussions arose concerning funding sources/avenues… apparently, you took exception to reading all those accounts of the brazillions of dollars Big Oil, the Koch Brothers, the myriad of right-wing think tanks, etc., bring forward to combat the, uhhh… “Green Lobby” engaged in the “Green Agenda”. But you are consistent… for you, it’s simply enough to suggest “governments are purposely funding scientists” to, uhhh… as you say, “write convincingly”.

just “write convincingly”! That’s it… that’s all it takes! Well buddy, your denier side just needs to get better writers (scientists)… you know… more convincing ones. You would think that would be the biggest priority for the channelling of all that brazillions of denier funding - what’s your problem?… other than, as you say, the more convincing writers (scientists) are presenting the more convincing/actual prevailing science – go figure! Why can’t your denier side just find better, more convincing writers (scientists) - why not just acknowledge your denier side’s scientists are shitty, unconvincing writers… at least start there – hey? :lol:

hey lukin... perhaps you could refer your favoured denying, shitty, unconvincing writers/scientists to the following:

-
&

-

you're welcome - carry on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Increased plant growth but less nutritious ones.
Not really. What the science says is the increase plant matter may dilute the concentration of essential nutriants but the total amount of nutriants would not change.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N49/B3.php

It also says nitrogen levels may decline but this can be easily addressed by better farming techniques (techniques already widely used in greenhouses where they deliberatly enrich the air with CO2).

Your claims about 'reduced yields' is not credible because it depends entirely on the region where the plants are grown. In some regions higher temps will increase yields. More importantly, farmers will obviously need to change the mix of crops they grow as the climate changes.

The latter is a good example of the climate fear mongers misrepresent the risk because they assume that humans will not adapt to changing conditions.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
of course, in your denier world, “BAU emissions” means ever increasing emissions since you favour no efforts/policy to reduce fossil-fuel dependency/emissions.
Not at all. Society and technology will evolve even without any special climate policies. The price of oil will be one of the biggest drivers in the short term. In the long term the global population decline will reduce emissions.

The belief that nothing changes for the better unless the government makes a 'policy' is the biggest delusion of left leaning eco-scare mongers.

And we’ll take that TimG extreme certainty to the bank – cause… TimG says so! Of course.
It is my opinion based on past experience with scaremongers. The same script has been played out over and over again. i.e. scaremongers predict doom unless government does X. government does nothing yet doom never materializes.

The bigger question is why should anyone take the current crop of scaremongers more seriously given that track record?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

Not really. What the science says is the increase plant matter may dilute the concentration of essential nutriants but the total amount of nutriants would not change.

That's semantics you still have to eat more to get the same amount of nutrients hence less nutritious.

Your claims about 'reduced yields' is not credible because it depends entirely on the region where the plants are grown. In some regions higher temps will increase yields. More importantly, farmers will obviously need to change the mix of crops they grow as the climate changes.

And when you find those places let me know, the problem is the places the most crops are grown are seeing decreased yields. If you had read the study you would know that the current reduced yields are contributed to hotter nighttime's, which will effect everywhere.

And of course if you had read the link you would have noticed this little problem.

However, if temperatures continue to rise as computer models of climate project, Mr Welch says hotter days will eventually begin to bring yields down.

Not to mention you are completely ignoring the increased pest and weeds problem. So to recap hot nights = bad. To hot day = bad. More pest and weeds = bad.

The latter is a good example of the climate fear mongers misrepresent the risk because they assume that humans will not adapt to changing conditions.

Every time the climate change has happened this rapidly and radically there have been mass extinctions with the dominate lifeforms dying out. So forgive me if I'm not as convinced as you are that we can adapt, because even if we can most of the species we rely on can't. I'm not a fear monger I'm just not so arrogant as to assume humans can adapt to everything when history shows just how frail life on this planet really is.

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's semantics you still have to eat more to get the same amount of nutrients hence less nutritious.
So? Thanks to CO2 people will have more to eat.
If you had read the study you would know that the current reduced yields are contributed to hotter nighttime's, which will effect everywhere.
We have productive agriculture in almost every climate zone today where the differences between climate zones greatly exceeds the expected change from AGW. There is no evidence today that agriculture in the south is less productive than in the north (if it was there would be a lot fewer people living in hot climates).

IOW, If you wish to make the argument that hotter temperatures are bad for agriculture then you will need to explain why the most populated areas are in hot climates.

Not to mention you are completely ignoring the increased pest and weeds problem. So to recap hot nights = bad. To hot day = bad. More pest and weeds = bad.
Weed and pest problems are always an issue - AGW or not. It did not respond because I have seen the 'AGW is bad for plants and creatures we like but good for creatures we don't like' many times and do not take it seriously.

Basically, I see it as cherry picking. Some pests do better with heat. Others depend on cool and wet. It is rediculous to claim there would be a net increase in pest problems. Same with the weeds - they may increase but the balance between crops and weeds should not change on average although there will be some examples where a weed is better adapted to high CO2 that will be balanced by cases were the reverse is true.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Every time the climate change has happened this rapidly and radically there have been mass extinctions with the dominate lifeforms dying out.
Unsupported BS. There is nothing unusual about the current pace of climate change. The ice core records show that much greater shifts are extremely common and there are no associated extinctin events.
Rate of temperature change for the last 48 000 years, in °C/century, based on the analysis of oxygen isotope ratios from the GISP2 ice core (same dataset as Figure 7; after a slide by Andre Illarianov, 2004). Note that during the last 9000 years of the Holocene, temperature change occurred regularly at rates between +2.5° and -2.5°C/century. Earlier, during the last glaciation, rates of change as high as 15°C/century are indicated
.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

So? Thanks to CO2 people will have more to eat.

If you weren't so thick you'd realize that it is not that cut and dry.

We have productive agriculture in almost every climate zone today where the differences between climate zones greatly exceeds the expected change from AGW. There is no evidence today that agriculture in the south is less productive than in the north (if it was there would be a lot fewer people living in hot climates).

Are you high? What freaking wonderland do you live in? You do realize the world relies on a few high-yield varieties of crops for most of our food? There are harsh climate varieties but they don't come close to the yields of the high-yield version. And uh of course agriculture in the south is more productive that the north, there is actually enough sun there to produce food, that doesn't mean it's not declining.

Weed and pest problems are always an issue - AGW or not. It did not respond because I have seen the 'AGW is bad for plants and creatures we like but good for creatures we don't like' many times and do not take it seriously. Some pests do better with heat. Others depend on cool and wet. It is rediculous to claim there would be a net increase in pest problems. Same with the weeds - they may increase but the balance between crops and weeds should not change on average although there will be some examples where a weed is better adapted to high CO2 that will be balanced by cases were the reverse is true.

Actually weeds have the same problems as crops, but since we don't eat them it doesn't really matter that hey are less nutritious. And what major pest relies on cool and wet? The vast majority of pests are adapted to warm and dry. They're bugs that what they're good at. Living in B.C. every year they talk about the damned pine beetle because it's so warm, there was never any winter equivalent.

Unsupported BS. There is nothing unusual about the current pace of climate change. The ice core records show that much greater shifts are extremely common and there are no associated extinctin events.

.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf

This is hilarious thanks I needed a laugh. First off where the hell was this published, when I get out of the report it looks like the website for an internet service provider. Second the bloody thing reads like an opinion article in a daily rag.

Though I'm done with you know I'm tired of the crap you're pedaling, that you can actual site a study where the author say this.

we find that there has been no significant increase in surface global temperature since the peak El Nino year of 1998 (Figure 8)

Shows that you have absolutely no interest in an actual debate. That this guy decides he can cherry pick a date and act like it has some relevance shows him for what he really is. He's also a liar (there has been hotter years since 1998) he admits that 1998 was an El Nino year which means it should have been hotter than the surrounding ones. The next years being La Nina should have cooled the earth but instead we see a stasis with 2005 and 2009 being the hottest and second hottest years on record respectively.

Good bye Timmy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you weren't so thick you'd realize that it is not that cut and dry.
If you weren't so thick you would not mindlessly insist that change must be bad or that adapting to changes will be difficult.
Are you high? What freaking wonderland do you live in? You do realize the world relies on a few high-yield varieties of crops for most of our food?
Do realize that most of the world lives in hot climates and if a 2-3 degC change in average temps had an significant effect on argicultural production we would see that effect in population distributions today?
Living in B.C. every year they talk about the damned pine beetle because it's so warm, there was never any winter equivalent.
Pine beetles do better in warmer weather but the biggest factor leading to their spread is a 100 years fire suppression practices which have created a perfect food supply. In fact, most of the northern boreal forests have an ecology that depends on regular fires. The fact is many things affect the relationship between pests and plants. It is naive to look at one factor in isolation. Especially since that one factor could cause other things to happen that counter act any negative effects.
This is hilarious thanks I needed a laugh. First off where the hell was this published, when I get out of the report it looks like the website for an internet service provider. Second the bloody thing reads like an opinion article in a daily rag.
This is a perfect example of why I don't bother providing links to buffoons like you. The text I quoted had an exact reference to source of the data including a reference to a paper. Yet instead of looking at the substance of the argument and data presented you whine about the website that happened to host the page I linked to. It is pathetic and one of the reasons I have little respect for arguments of CAGW believers.

In any case it does not change the facts: faster climate change HAS occurred in the recent past and there were NO mass extinction events associated. Your entire argument is baseless. Now I realize that actual data will not change your opinion because for you the belief that today is somehow unique is a matter of faith for you. You are no different than a person who believes the earth was only 6000 old.

That this guy decides he can cherry pick a date and act like it has some relevance shows him for what he really is.
I said 10 years - not 12. 10 years puts the start date in the middle of a La Nina - a date that actually goes against the point I want to make. I also said "flatline" which means there is no significant trend. The 'hottest year' stats do not change that. The only one being dishonest is you.

The problem with people like you is you don't actually read the arguments presented on either side. You simply assume that anything that supports your desired narrative must be true and anything that does not is false. I look at arguments and see if they make sense in the wider context. I have explained why I think your productivity claims are not credible because I look at what has been happening in the real world and the real world information contradicts those claims.

Why don't you answer the question: if heat is so bad for crops why are the most populous regions in the hottest climates?

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case it does not change the facts: faster climate change HAS occurred in the recent past and there were NO mass extinction events associated. Your entire argument is baseless. Now I realize that actual data will not change your opinion because for you the belief that today is somehow unique is a matter of faith for you. You are no different than a person who believes the earth was only 6000 old.

each ice age was accompanied with an extinction event, come across any mammoths lately? short faced bears? saber tooths? woolly rhinos? giant bison or elk? even humanity nearly disappeared 70,000 YBP...and that all happened with a temp change of a few degrees...

and not being able to see the forest for the all the trees, we are in the midst of a major extinction event now...it's been estimated we are losing 100 species per day...

Why don't you answer the question: if heat is so bad for crops why are the most populous regions in the hottest climates?
rain...but a slight change in temp of only a couple degrees can change weather patterns(climate change) and those rains can stop or shift, the not that long ago once lush Sahara being the perfect example...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is absolutely no basis for your claim that higher CO2 levels in themselves are bad for humans.
Increased plant growth but less nutritious ones.

Less Nutrition.

Not really. What the science says is the increase plant matter may dilute the concentration of essential nutriants but the total amount of nutriants would not change.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N49/B3.php

It also says nitrogen levels may decline but this can be easily addressed by better farming techniques (techniques already widely used in greenhouses where they deliberately enrich the air with CO2).

geezaz! Did you even read TrueMetis' link reference? If you're going to jump to the Idso clan for support... at least recognize the difference between nutrition and plant nutrients! Notwithstanding you've taken liberty with the actual study results you linked to - the study that has nothing to do with "nutrition"... and... you made the leap to nitrogen in a study about micro-nutrients/trace elements, of which nitrogen is neither.

but to TrueMetis point about reduced nutrition with increased CO2 levels... there are many, many... points of confirmation - here's one:

Effects of elevated CO2 on the protein concentration of food crops: a meta-analysis

Meta-analysis techniques were used to examine the effect of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide [CO2] on the protein concentrations of major food crops, incorporating 228 experimental observations on barley, rice, wheat, soybean and potato. Each crop had lower protein concentrations when grown at elevated (540–958 μmol mol−1) compared with ambient (315–400 μmol mol−1) CO2. For wheat, barley and rice, the reduction in grain protein concentration was ∼10–15% of the value at ambient CO2. For potato, the reduction in tuber protein concentration was 14%. For soybean, there was a much smaller, although statistically significant reduction of protein concentration of 1.4%. The magnitude of the CO2 effect on wheat grains was smaller under high soil N conditions than under low soil N. Protein concentrations in potato tubers were reduced more for plants grown at high than at low concentrations of ozone. For soybean, the ozone effect was the reverse, as elevated CO2 increased the protein concentration of soybean grown at high ozone concentrations. The magnitude of the CO2 effect also varied depending on experimental methodology. For both wheat and soybean, studies performed in open-top chambers produced a larger CO2 effect than those performed using other types of experimental facilities. There was also indication of a possible pot artifact as, for both wheat and soybean, studies performed in open-top chambers showed a significantly greater CO2 effect when plants were rooted in pots rather than in the ground. Studies on wheat also showed a greater CO2 effect when protein concentration was measured in whole grains rather than flour. While the magnitude of the effect of elevated CO2 varied depending on the experimental procedures, a reduction in protein concentration was consistently found for most crops. These findings suggest that the increasing CO2 concentrations of the 21st century are likely to decrease the protein concentration of many human plant foods.

... a reduction in crop nutritional content: devastating for poorer countries/communities - populations that derive a high percentage of dietary protein from grains such as wheat and rice. No biggee though, hey TimG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
each ice age was accompanied with an extinction event, come across any mammoths lately?
1) The earth has been cycling in and out of ice ages for a million years or more. Mammoths survived everyone of those except the last one. Climate change is NOT a plausible explaination for their extinction. Same goes for most of the other mega fauna that disappeared.

2) There are plenty of times where the climate has changed faster than it is today and there are no associated extinction events. This pretty much eliminates climate change as a primary trigger for extinction events. It is, at best, a contributing factor.

and not being able to see the forest for the all the trees, we are in the midst of a major extinction event now...it's been estimated we are losing 100 species per day.
A pile of BS pulled from a single study using bogus method. Links to the supporting sources can be found here:

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/another-ipcc-train-wreck-species-extinction-part-1/.

rain...but a slight change in temp of only a couple degrees can change weather patterns(climate change) and those rains can stop or shift, the not that long ago once lush Sahara being the perfect example...
1) By using 'rain' as an explanation you are effectively agreeing with me that crop productivity is primarily determined by things other than temperature which means hypothetical studies about a decrease in productivity due to temp rises are irrelevant.

2) The IPCC itself claims that water availability will INCREASE in most places as a result of climate change. This could actually increase agricultural productivity in many place (OMG - AGW might be a good thing! heresy!)

3) The Sahara is already showing signs of 'greening' as a result of this increased rain.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

Desertification, drought, and despair—that's what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear.

Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent.

Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall.

If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... a reduction in crop nutritional content: devastating for poorer countries/communities - populations that derive a high percentage of dietary protein from grains such as wheat and rice. No biggee though, hey TimG?
Only if you assume that is the entire story:

http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/co2-enrichment-and-plant-nutrition/

We will show from the literature the tremendous benefits of enhanced atmospheric CO2. The benefits are much more marked in crops that are subject to resource limitation. Under ideal conditions, where there is no shortage of water, light, nutrients, trace elements etc, the benefit of doubling atmospheric CO2 may be 40%. However, where plants are resource limited a doubling of CO2 can enhance growth of crops by over 100% in some cases. This is particularly important in regions of the world where the soil is poor for many reasons, since increasing atmospheric CO2 will enable crops to be grown efficiently where they currently cannot be grown without first improving the soil and irrigation. In this post we will briefly mention minerals and other essential nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, iron etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only if you assume that is the entire story:

let's recap: you fail to distinguish between nutrition and nutrients... and now follow-up with a link that speaks to yields and, again, nutrients. Thanks for acknowledging your earlier presumptive claim (and challenge to TrueMetis), that enhanced CO2 levels do not negatively impact plant nutrition, was without foundation, was baseless and unsubstantiated.

as for your next leap into claiming increased yields will offset the drastic impacts of elevated CO2, that was covered off in an earlier MLW thread: From the prestigious journal, 'Science'

Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations
Abstract: Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050, the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses. The CO2 fertilization factors used in models to project future yields were derived from enclosure studies conducted approximately 20 years ago. Free-air concentration enrichment (FACE) technology has now facilitated large-scale trials of the major grain crops at elevated [CO2] under fully open-air field conditions. In those trials, elevated [CO2] enhanced yield by ~50% less than in enclosure studies. This casts serious doubt on projections that rising [CO2] will fully offset losses due to climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
let's recap: you fail to distinguish between nutrition and nutrients.
The nutrition problem is easily remedies with a change in agriculture techniques:

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N42/EDIT.php

But what about the CO2-induced seed nitrogen content decreases reported by Jablonski et al. for barley and wheat? We do not deny that such decreases have been observed. However, it has been convincingly demonstrated by Rogers et al. (1996), Pleijel et al. (1999) and Kimball et al. (2001) that higher levels of nitrogen fertilizer application have the capacity to totally offset this negative impact of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, as we (Sherwood and Keith) discuss in some detail in our recent review of the subject (Idso and Idso, 2001), so that with proper crop husbandry there need be no reductions in either grain nitrogen or protein contents, or in the baking properties of flour derived from the grains of those crops. Hence, as noted in our paper, "it would appear that given sufficient water and nitrogen, atmospheric CO2 enrichment can significantly increase grain yield without sacrificing grain protein concentration in the process."

The problem with all these "studies" suggesting that bad things happen is they ASSUME that nothing else changes. This is necessary assumption when doing scientific study but it also means the results are largely irrelevant when it comes to assessing the true impact of climate change on society.

as for your next leap into claiming increased yields will offset the drastic impacts of elevated CO2, that was covered off in an earlier MLW thread: From the prestigious journal, 'Science'
Irrevelent if they did not adjust their fertilization techniques to adapt to the higher CO2 levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The nutrition problem is easily remedies with a change in agriculture techniques:

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N42/EDIT.php

Irrevelent if they did not adjust their fertilization techniques to adapt to the higher CO2 levels.

sorry, the 2008 meta study I linked (did you get that... meta study) trumps whatever the Idso clan presumes to state from a decade earlier references to a couple of isolated studies... notwithstanding the conclusions the Idso clan makes on their own (as in unsubstantiated).

geezaz! Did you even read TrueMetis' link reference? If you're going to jump to the Idso clan for support... at least recognize the difference between nutrition and plant nutrients! Notwithstanding you've taken liberty with the actual study results you linked to - the study that has nothing to do with "nutrition"... and... you made the leap to nitrogen in a study about micro-nutrients/trace elements, of which nitrogen is neither.

but to TrueMetis point about reduced nutrition with increased CO2 levels... there are many, many... points of confirmation - here's one:

Effects of elevated CO2 on the protein concentration of food crops: a meta-analysis

Meta-analysis techniques were used to examine the effect of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide [CO2] on the protein concentrations of major food crops, incorporating 228 experimental observations on barley, rice, wheat, soybean and potato. Each crop had lower protein concentrations when grown at elevated (540–958 μmol mol−1) compared with ambient (315–400 μmol mol−1) CO2. For wheat, barley and rice, the reduction in grain protein concentration was ∼10–15% of the value at ambient CO2. For potato, the reduction in tuber protein concentration was 14%. For soybean, there was a much smaller, although statistically significant reduction of protein concentration of 1.4%. The magnitude of the CO2 effect on wheat grains was smaller under high soil N conditions than under low soil N. Protein concentrations in potato tubers were reduced more for plants grown at high than at low concentrations of ozone. For soybean, the ozone effect was the reverse, as elevated CO2 increased the protein concentration of soybean grown at high ozone concentrations. The magnitude of the CO2 effect also varied depending on experimental methodology. For both wheat and soybean, studies performed in open-top chambers produced a larger CO2 effect than those performed using other types of experimental facilities. There was also indication of a possible pot artifact as, for both wheat and soybean, studies performed in open-top chambers showed a significantly greater CO2 effect when plants were rooted in pots rather than in the ground. Studies on wheat also showed a greater CO2 effect when protein concentration was measured in whole grains rather than flour. While the magnitude of the effect of elevated CO2 varied depending on the experimental procedures, a reduction in protein concentration was consistently found for most crops. These findings suggest that the increasing CO2 concentrations of the 21st century are likely to decrease the protein concentration of many human plant foods.

... a reduction in crop nutritional content: devastating for poorer countries/communities - populations that derive a high percentage of dietary protein from grains such as wheat and rice. No biggee though, hey TimG?

just adjust fertilization techniques - hey? That's all that's needed! :lol: Oh, by the by... what about that inconvenient point about higher levels of atmospheric CO2 causing increased levels of carbon in plant tissues... which simultaneously reduces the concentration of other elements - like nitrogen? Does your plan to adjust fertilization techniques also manage to take out the raised carbon... in order to facilitate the uptake of the (presumably) increased application of fertilizer? And... what about water? Since plants water use is decreased under higher atmospheric CO2 levels (re: stomatas more closed), just how will your planned fertilization adjustment technique manage to get the actual fertilizer into the plant (uptake) given a reduced water usage by the plants? So... ya, ya.. just adjust fertilization techniques!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nutrition problem is easily remedies with a change in agriculture techniques:

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N42/EDIT.php

The problem with all these "studies" suggesting that bad things happen is they ASSUME that nothing else changes. This is necessary assumption when doing scientific study but it also means the results are largely irrelevant when it comes to assessing the true impact of climate change on society.

Irrevelent if they did not adjust their fertilization techniques to adapt to the higher CO2 levels.

Amazing how the true believers simply have no room for rational debate.....CO2's agricultural impact is indeed an interesting area. Logic (common sense, actually) supports much of what you've raised but thanks for referencing some of the findings. You can bet that your posts will fall on the deaf ears and blind eyes of the usual suspects.....but the site stats will support that many passive readers are enjoying what you bring to the debate.

Edited by Keepitsimple

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...