Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And geologically speaking, we are at a period (i.e. since panama was created 22 million years ago) of the lowest CO2 levels and temperatures in the past 500 million years despite gradual increases in solar irradiance, which is why the C4 cycle has been evolved recently by plants.

I would argue that without human intervention, CO2 levels would continuously get dangerously low as more carbon is accumulated in fossil fuel reserves, making it harder for planet life to flourish (that's why the C4 cycle has evolved recently).

clarification request: are you associating the development of C4 carbon fixation with low CO2 levels? If so, citation request:

on edit: read additional related entry stating a direct C4 attribution to "Low CO2 levels"... accordingly, rescind clarification request; citation request stands:

Low C02 levels is one of the reasons why plants have recently evolved the C4 carbon fixation cycle (such as corn).

Edited by waldo
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

The thing is, CO2, is an odourless gas that is essential for life on this planet. It is not a pollutant.

in the context of impure, dirty, toxic contaminants, no; however, in the context of destabilizing an ecosystem, the environment, yes, CO2 is a pollutant...

what what its worth, in Canada, the Clean Air Act provides a regulatory framework distinction for air pollutants versus GHG emissions... in the U.S. their Clean Air Act recognizes CO2 and other GHG emissions as air pollutants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in AGW. If there is warming it is likely cyclical.

I think these people's agenda is to curb or limit democracy, to turn us, at best, into social democracies or at worst "people's republics."

likely cyclical? Citation request:

social democracy! The horror, the horror. :lol: Live Free Or Die, hey?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my lifetime we have seen at least three end of world scares (peak food, peak oil and Y2K) each of these scares had a plausible basis yet they simply disappeared with a whimper because humans don't stand still - they are constantly looking for ways to solve problems without some technocrat micromanaging their lives. The eventual solution made all of the "expert doomsayers" look like idiots because none of them predicted that events would have unfolded the way they did.

simply disappeared with a whimper? Y2K "disappeared" because of a world-wide concentrated effort to (successfully) modify software. Peak Food hasn't disappeared in the context of a burgeoning population, one still dependent on healthy ecosystems with sufficient/required land, nutrients and water... regardless of the projected "population peak" trend. Apparently, climate change is anticipated to have an affect on keeping ecosystems healthy - go figure. In the context of a non-sustainable resource, Peak Oil, is an obvious reality... the only things that extended it outward are technological innovation to recover previously designated unrecoverable reserves.

So my question for you: given the doomsayers 0 for 3 record why should the climate doomsayers be taken seriously? Keep in mind that the climate doomsayers already have a long list of failed predictions from temperature rise to hurricanes to drought. How many more failures do there have to be until you accept that the entire thing is going to disappear with a whimper like the scares that have come before?

notwithstanding your failed record count, you... and the new guy... have purposely set-up an elevated strawman around worst-case scenarios/doomsayers. Of course, this is nothing new for you, as you view anyone advocating solution strategies that include mitigation, as "doomsayers". It would be most helpful to have you provide a reference guide to your declared "failed predictions"... i.e., prediction by who/what, when and in what "predicted"/projected timeframe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a target is not the projection you spoke of; again, citation request

The results of a projection ultimately depend on both the model used and what Humans decide to do (with respect to curbing CO2 emissions). So there isn't just one model/target, there are many. But yes, 2C is the current goal of the UNFCCC (though it might be a bit unrealistic given governments' unwillingness to curb emissions). 2.5 C or 3 C goals are more reasonable. I'd rather not go through the entire UNFCCC data base and search through countless scientific articles till I find one that matches these projections. Will this link be sufficient for you to believe me? It's pretty clear from the link that the UNFCCC has a 2 C target, so unless you really want to argue that the UNFCCC doesn't know anything about climate science and hasn't examined countless climate models, I suggest that you believe me.

http://unfccc.int/focus/mitigation/items/7169.php#intro

Also, please note that these are 2-3 C increases from pre-industrial levels (so usually 1850-1880 as the baseline), which was during the little ice age. So the increase is based on global temperatures that were below the average for the past 2000 years.

clarification request: are you associating the development of C4 carbon fixation with low CO2 levels? If so, citation request:

on edit: read additional related entry stating a direct C4 attribution to "Low CO2 levels"... accordingly, rescind clarification request; citation request stands:

Well I'm sort of glad that you are finally asking reasonable questions about science. But seriously, how bad is your science education? Did you even pass high school? For one, there is no such thing as CO-squared, use a subscript not a superscript (CO2). I usually type CO2 cause i'm lazy, but CO2 is just retarded.

Secondly, you really have never heard of the C4 cycle? Sigh, let's try the wikipedia cycle which I already linked previously. Oh look, they even have a paragraph on the evolution of the C4 cycle with references at the bottom!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation#The_evolution_and_advantages_of_the_C4_pathway

"C4 plants have a competitive advantage over plants possessing the more common C3 carbon fixation pathway under conditions of drought, high temperatures, and nitrogen or CO2 limitation. When grown in the same environment, at 30°C, C3 grasses lose approximately 833 molecules of water per CO2 molecule that is fixed, whereas C4 grasses lose only 277. This increased water use efficiency of C4 grasses means that soil moisture is conserved, allowing them to grow for longer in arid environments.[10]

C4 carbon fixation has evolved on up to 40 independent occasions in different families of plants, making it a prime example of convergent evolution.[11] This convergence may have been facilitated by the fact that many potential evolutionary pathways to a C4phenotype exist, many of which involve initial evolutionary steps not directly related to photosynthesis.[12] C4 plants arose around 25 to 32 million years ago[11] during the Oligocene (precisely when is difficult to determine) and did not become ecologically significant until around 6 to 7 million years ago, in the Miocene Period.[11] C4 metabolism originated when grasses migrated from the shady forest undercanopy to more open environments,[13] where the high sunlight gave it an advantage over the C3 pathway.[14] Drought was not necessary for its innovation; rather, the increased resistance to water stress was a by-product of the pathway and allowed C4 plants to more readily colonise arid environments.[14]

Today, C4 plants represent about 5% of Earth's plant biomass and 3% of its known plant species.[10][15] Despite this scarcity, they account for about 30% of terrestrial carbon fixation.[11] Increasing the proportion of C4 plants on earth could assist biosequestration of CO2 and represent an important climate change avoidance strategy. Present-day C4 plants are concentrated in the tropics and subtropics (below latitudes of 45°) where the high air temperature contributes to higher possible levels of oxygenase activity by RuBisCO, which increases rates of photorespiration in C3plants."

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.

Sigh, do I really need to hold your hand every step of the way? Just try using the key words 'CO2 fertilization' in google. Here is the first paper that comes up:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract

Here is an article discussing the results of the paper: http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx

Also, with your request about global yields, increased CO2 levels will make it easier for plants to perform photosynthesis everywhere. Of course this will be largest in dry arid conditions where CO2 is usually the limiting factor. There are other things that affect crop yields including temperature, rainfall, cloud cover, etc. which complicate trying to determine the changes to crop yields as a result of climate change, but the CO2 fertilization effect is purely positive.

in the context of impure, dirty, toxic contaminants, no; however, in the context of destabilizing an ecosystem, the environment, yes, CO2 is a pollutant...

In that case you might as well consider O2, N2 and H2O as pollutants since they can also destabilize the ecosystem. Heck pretty much anything can destabilize the ecosystem. But good luck trying to convince people that water is a pollutant.

in the U.S. their Clean Air Act recognizes CO2 and other GHG emissions as air pollutants.

The Clean Air act can define CO2 as a pollutant as much as they like. It will not change the fact that it isn't a pollutant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

to you, what's a climate alarmist?

Definition of climate: the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.

Definition of alarmist: a person who tends to raise alarms, especially without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities.

These aren't my definitions, they are taken from dictionary.reference.org.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "denier"is the ultimate application of Godwin's Law.

no - as conveyed to you each and every time you play the "denier Holocaust" card, the word denier is not exclusively co-opted by any single group, any single interest. In the AGW/CC context, denier is simply a label, one that is not an insult, one that is not name-calling, one that is simply a matter-of-fact categorization of non-belief in the prevailing understandings within science. The label denier is a quite matter-of-fact part of the understood lexicon within the discussion/debate surrounding AGW/CC.

Still, the term "denier" comes from the "Holocaust denier" terminology. I am solidly against laws proscribing Holocaust denial since if someone wants to hold or speak an idiotic view, let them.

When it comes to climate the term is offensive. It is name calling and is not "matter-of-fact." I am not someone who finds Jew-haters around every corner. But I think the misuse of Holocaust-related terms does trivialize the Shoah.

no - a denier is... a person who denies. In the context of AGW/CC, (as quoted above), I previously stated the meaning/intent of the label.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The results of a projection ultimately depend on both the model used and what Humans decide to do (with respect to curbing CO2 emissions). So there isn't just one model/target, there are many. But yes, 2C is the current goal of the UNFCCC (though it might be a bit unrealistic given governments' unwillingness to curb emissions). 2.5 C or 3 C goals are more reasonable. I'd rather not go through the entire UNFCCC data base and search through countless scientific articles till I find one that matches these projections. Will this link be sufficient for you to believe me? It's pretty clear from the link that the UNFCCC has a 2 C target, so unless you really want to argue that the UNFCCC doesn't know anything about climate science and hasn't examined countless climate models, I suggest that you believe me.

http://unfccc.int/focus/mitigation/items/7169.php#intro

Also, please note that these are 2-3 C increases from pre-industrial levels (so usually 1850-1880 as the baseline), which was during the little ice age. So the increase is based on global temperatures that were below the average for the past 2000 years.

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:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm sort of glad that you are finally asking reasonable questions about science. But seriously, how bad is your science education? Did you even pass high school? For one, there is no such thing as CO-squared, use a subscript not a superscript (CO2). I usually type CO2 cause i'm lazy, but CO2 is just retarded.

only as your insults warrant attention: this board's editing software 'messes' with the proper sized subscript leveling - try it... bring it in externally; a preview/post turns it into your described 'lazy' CO2. The intent was/is simply to delineate a number of oxygen atoms. In that we've not had any prior exchange, I find it quite illuminating that your first inclination is to insult. Notwithstanding no one would/should infer a mathematical exponent within a basic chemical compound designation, as you did, nice to read you giving yourself a self-acknowledged lazy pass on your way to anal retentive insult disparagement.

.

Secondly, you really have never heard of the C4 cycle? Sigh, let's try the wikipedia cycle which I already linked previously. Oh look, they even have a paragraph on the evolution of the C4 cycle with references at the bottom!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation#The_evolution_and_advantages_of_the_C4_pathway

"C[/size]4 plants have a competitive advantage over plants possessing the more common [/size]C3 carbon fixation pathway under conditions of [/size]drought, high [/size]temperatures, and [/size]nitrogen or CO[/size]2 limitation. When grown in the same environment, at 30°C, C[/size]3 grasses lose approximately 833 molecules of water per CO[/size]2 molecule that is fixed, whereas C[/size]4 grasses lose only 277. This increased [/size]water use efficiency of C[/size]4 grasses means that soil moisture is conserved, allowing them to grow for longer in arid environments.[/size]%5B10%5D

C4 carbon fixation has evolved on up to 40 independent occasions in different families of plants, making it a prime example of convergent evolution.%5B11%5D This convergence may have been facilitated by the fact that many potential evolutionary pathways to a C4phenotype exist, many of which involve initial evolutionary steps not directly related to photosynthesis.%5B12%5D C4 plants arose around 25 to 32 million years ago%5B11%5D during the Oligocene (precisely when is difficult to determine) and did not become ecologically significant until around 6 to 7 million years ago, in the Miocene Period.%5B11%5D C4 metabolism originated when grasses migrated from the shady forest undercanopy to more open environments,%5B13%5D where the high sunlight gave it an advantage over the C3 pathway.%5B14%5D Drought was not necessary for its innovation; rather, the increased resistance to water stress was a by-product of the pathway and allowed C4 plants to more readily colonise arid environments.%5B14%5D

Today, C4 plants represent about 5% of Earth's plant biomass and 3% of its known plant species.%5B10%5D%5B15%5D Despite this scarcity, they account for about 30% of terrestrial carbon fixation.%5B11%5D Increasing the proportion of C4 plants on earth could assist biosequestration of CO2 and represent an important climate change avoidance strategy. Present-day C4 plants are concentrated in the tropics and subtropics (below latitudes of 45°) where the high air temperature contributes to higher possible levels of oxygenase activity by RuBisCO, which increases rates of photorespiration in C3plants."

when I ask you a question/request referencing C4 carbon fixation... why you would, somewhat belittlingly, ask me if I've not heard of the C4 cycle? Are you simply predisposed to insult by nature? In any case, you're simply repeating yourself... and not providing anything other than verbal bluster. Nothing you've provided supports your statement/claim that C4 carbon fixation developed as a result of low CO2 levels... you know, the C4 carbon cycle that evolved as an adaptation to high temps, high light intensities, and dryness. I trust this doesn't mess with your narrative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Sigh, do I really need to hold your hand every step of the way? Just try using the key words 'CO2 fertilization' in google. Here is the first paper that comes up:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract

Here is an article discussing the results of the paper: http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx

Also, with your request about global yields, increased CO2 levels will make it easier for plants to perform photosynthesis everywhere. Of course this will be largest in dry arid conditions where CO2 is usually the limiting factor. There are other things that affect crop yields including temperature, rainfall, cloud cover, etc. which complicate trying to determine the changes to crop yields as a result of climate change, but the CO2 fertilization effect is purely positive.

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".

in any case, you didn't address my specific request... and surely, I shouldn't need to re-emphasize your own highlighted crop emphasis, right? Again, the request you didn't address:

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 post
Share on other sites

In that case you might as well consider O2, N2 and H2O as pollutants since they can also destabilize the ecosystem. Heck pretty much anything can destabilize the ecosystem. But good luck trying to convince people that water is a pollutant.

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

.

The Clean Air act can define CO2 as a pollutant as much as they like. It will not change the fact that it isn't a pollutant.

well... in that referenced context, that definition of CO2 as a pollutant (ala the U.S. Supreme Court) allows the U.S. EPA to monitor and regulate CO2 emissions within the U.S. Clean Air Act.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

to you, what's a climate alarmist?

Definition of climate: the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.

Definition of alarmist: a person who tends to raise alarms, especially without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities.

These aren't my definitions, they are taken from dictionary.reference.org.

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.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

in the context of impure, dirty, toxic contaminants, no; however, in the context of destabilizing an ecosystem, the environment, yes, CO2 is a pollutant...

The destabilization of ecosystems is preceding the warming. By other toxic pollutions causing the environment to not handle taking in CO2 and giving back Oxygen. You lower CO2, you lower food for the plant life.

what what its worth, in Canada, the Clean Air Act provides a regulatory framework distinction for air pollutants versus GHG emissions... in the U.S. their Clean Air Act recognizes CO2 and other GHG emissions as air pollutants.

Well they are leading you down a wrong path by making people think CO2 is a pollutant. It is not. If the government classifies it as a pollutant, then I have to question how they qualify and quantify that.

Cancer is more of an immediate threat. Economic collapse is an immediate threat. Another world war is a very possible and immediate threat. Fukushima has been a threat for close to three years, causing more impact than any of this so called CO2 agenda. And it IS an agenda.

Deforestation of the Amazon this year, about 25%. What happens when I take 25% of your lung capacity away?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The destabilization of ecosystems is preceding the warming. By other toxic pollutions causing the environment to not handle taking in CO2 and giving back Oxygen. You lower CO2, you lower food for the plant life.

no - depending on how granular you speak, the atmosphere is a factor within representative ecosystems and integral within the carbon cycle... in this regard, destabilization speaks of an endangerment to public health/welfare... without specific dependency on traditional toxins.

Well they are leading you down a wrong path by making people think CO2 is a pollutant. It is not. If the government classifies it as a pollutant, then I have to question how they qualify and quantify that.

no - the other guy played a textbook definition earlier; in kind, a textbook definition of pollution is, "the addition of a solid, liquid or gaseous substance, or forms of energy (e.g. heat, radiation), into an environment at a faster rate than it can be rendered harmless".

no - within that (U.S.) Clean Air Act, the EPA extends upon it's more broad definition of pollution, in responsible anticipation to public health/welfare endangerment, to categorize certain air pollutant emissions that cause or contribute to air pollution.

in that regard, the U.S. EPA (subject to U.S. Supreme Court ruling/direction) concluded in an endangerment finding; one that found that, "greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare"...

with GHGs defined as, "well-mixed, long-lived and directly emitted greenhouse gases, inclusive of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)". The U.S. EPA determined its endangerment finding on, "the compelling body of scientific evidence, with primary scientific based support served within the major assessments of the, U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC)".

the quantification you speak of reflects upon U.S. EPA Cause or Contribute Findings; themselves a prerequisite for regulation... example: GHG emission standards for vehicles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no - the other guy played a textbook definition earlier; in kind, a textbook definition of pollution is, "the addition of a solid, liquid or gaseous substance, or forms of energy (e.g. heat, radiation), into an environment at a faster rate than it can be rendered harmless".

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

outcomes/results of certain human activities/actions, yes; humans proper, no. You're certainly twisting yourself into the proverbial pretzel - well done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please define what you mean by 'lowering daytime maximums'?

Mass extinction events & natural selection are part of nature. If it weren't for the mass extinction events in history, we would probably not exist here today to have this conversation.

Impossible. Ediacaranians would not have sufficient intelligence to agree with me. Heck, pretty much all species other than humans that have existed on this planet (well neanderthals might be an exception) lack the intelligence to agree or disagree with me.

What gets me is the huberis that assumes humanity could not be the victim or the author of such an extinction. Regarding your prophecies on the benifits of warming, you preach them as gospel while poo pooing any similar projections when it comes to the negative effects. How can I take you seriously?

Edited by Wilber
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they are leading you down a wrong path by making people think CO2 is a pollutant. It is not. If the government classifies it as a pollutant, then I have to question how they qualify and quantify that.

Are you familiar with vitamin toxicity or hypervitaminosis? Vitamin A for example is an essential nutrient (for humans) with a recommended daily intake of 600 micrograms. However, beyond 9000µg this nutrient, essential for vision, becomes a toxin causing headaches, nausea, bone and joint pains, skin problems, etc.

Similarly, carbon dioxide is a compound essential for plant life but when excess quantities are released into the atmosphere creating harmful effects, it also becomes a pollutant.

Edited by Mighty AC
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

when I ask you a question/request referencing C4 carbon fixation... why you would, somewhat belittlingly, ask me if I've not heard of the C4 cycle?

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.

Nothing you've provided supports your statement/claim that C4 carbon fixation developed as a result of low CO2 levels... you know, the C4 carbon cycle that evolved as an adaptation to high temps, high light intensities, and dryness. I trust this doesn't mess with your narrative.

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:

http://www.co2science.org/dictionary/define_c.php

"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."

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

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

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".

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.

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.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What gets me is the huberis that assumes humanity could not be the victim or the author of such an extinction. Regarding your prophecies on the benifits of warming, you preach them as gospel while poo pooing any similar projections when it comes to the negative effects. How can I take you seriously?

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?

Are you familiar with vitamin toxicity or hypervitaminosis? Vitamin A for example is an essential nutrient (for humans) with a recommended daily intake of 600 micrograms. However, beyond 9000µg this nutrient, essential for vision, becomes a toxin causing headaches, nausea, bone and joint pains, skin problems, etc.

Similarly, carbon dioxide is a compound essential for plant life but when excess quantities are released into the atmosphere creating harmful effects, it also becomes a pollutant.

You are talking about CO2 poisoning here? You would have to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40 times before you start to see even minor effects of CO2 poisoning. Also, for most of the past 500 million years, CO2 levels have been much higher and life did fine then. How did our ancestors survive CO2 levels such as 1200 ppm?

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.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...