Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Swampgator]

Says the guy who has never put up any honest defense in this thread. When called out, it's "just having fun."

This thread is filled with solid evidence, you just have to pick through the people who don't understand science and disagree with climate change to find it.

Ohm you are tiring. I don't disagree with "climate change" you already know that.
The earths climate is never in long term energy "balance". This is a fictional notion. It always is changing. It gets warmer and then it gets colder. Mostly large regime changes too. Has for 4 billion years.
You also know that I disagree with the hypothesis/theory that the amount of warming from aCO2 inputs is so big as to constitute an immediate crisis. That is not the same thing as science denial.
Good on you though for not going straight to "denier" as most on this thread do.
You are always a Gentleman.

 

[mspohr]

The 8 scientists with 70 references who wrote the 2018 peer reviewed paper might disagree with you, but you know how flaky scientists can be.

What paper?

 

[JRP3]

First link did not work.

First link is more recent than any of your sources, some of which are more than 10 years old.

Second is garbage written by (again) a vegan activist group that claims to be a physicians committee when only 5% of it's members are physicians.

Irrelevant who wrote the article since it included links to studies.
Anyway this is all off topic for this thread so I won't continue.

 

[CrayZ1]

What paper?

All of them. There are dozens. It's not a new theory, it's ag science.

 

[ohmman]

All of them. There are dozens. It's not a new theory, it's ag science.

You referenced a 2018 paper. I think a link to that reference makes sense as a response to @mspohr’s query.

 

[wjax]

Your conclusion is typical of the kind of junk, no science, that gets tossed around by people who don't do any research. People trying to profit from faster growing plants in a green house don't care at all that the plants are less nutritious, or more susceptible to weather fluctuations and disease because they are protected from both in the green house.


High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious

You point me to an opinion article in National Geographic as "science" rather than a peer reviewed study supporting your dubious claims that higher CO2 levels are not good for plants. Even if there *may* be some deleterious effects of higher CO2 on plant enzymes there is zero evidence that they offset the hugely beneficial increase in photosynthesis spurred by higher levels of CO2. Again to state the obvious, greenhouse operators would not pump CO2 into their buildings if the overall effect of CO2 was negative on plants.

 

[JRP3]

I explained exactly why greenhouse operators would not be at all concerned with the negative effects of elevated CO2. Read it again.

 

[eevee-fan]

You point me to an opinion article in National Geographic as "science" rather than a peer reviewed study supporting your dubious claims that higher CO2 levels are not good for plants. Even if there *may* be some deleterious effects of higher CO2 on plant enzymes there is zero evidence that they offset the hugely beneficial increase in photosynthesis spurred by higher levels of CO2. Again to state the obvious, greenhouse operators would not pump CO2 into their buildings if the overall effect of CO2 was negative on plants.

Farmers care only about weight, not nutrition or health of the plant or livestock. You should see some of the videos of actual farms and how they treat the animals (chicken, cows, pigs)... if that gives you any indication. CO2 and fertilizer may help plants grow fast (building bulk) without nutrition.

Simple search yields...

Climate change surprise: High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals : 12/02

Does Global Warming Make Food Less Nutritious?

Higher Carbon Dioxide Levels Prompt More Plant Growth, But Fewer Nutrients

 

[cpa]

Farmers care only about weight, not nutrition or health of the plant or livestock. You should see some of the videos of actual farms and how they treat the animals (chicken, cows, pigs)... if that gives you any indication. CO2 and fertilizer may help plants grow fast (building bulk) without nutrition.

Simple search yields...

Climate change surprise: High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals : 12/02

Does Global Warming Make Food Less Nutritious?

Higher Carbon Dioxide Levels Prompt More Plant Growth, But Fewer Nutrients

Actually, it more about yield (which may or may not equate to weight, depending upon the crop.) Furthermore with most produce items, the consumer wants nice pretty things; small, misshapen, or otherwise blemished produce is culled and sold for juice, byproducts like pectin, or sold to dairies to supplement their normal diet. Some is donated to food banks and charities.

I'm an accountant. But I recall from years and years ago in a forgotten journal that messing with the CO2 does mess with some of the genetic material that transforms glucose into the myriad chemicals that plants manufacture and are contained within their roots, stems, shoots, leaves, and fruit. It may have been a trivial difference; this was some 30 years ago.

Farmers and ranchers are business people like all other business people. They are in the business to make money.

 

[eevee-fan]

 

[mspohr]

Let's abandon climate targets, and do something completely different

Let's abandon climate targets, and do something completely different | George Monbiot

But I think the problem runs deeper than this. It’s not just the target that’s wrong, but the very notion of setting targets in an emergency.

The appropriate response to the climate emergency is a legal duty to maximise climate action. The CCC’s board should be disbanded and replaced by people whose mandate is rigorously to explore every economic sector in search of the maximum possible cuts in greenhouse gases, and the maximum possible drawdown. We have arrived at the burning building. The only humane and reasonable aim is to rescue everyone inside.

The target has supplanted the ultimate objective, which is to respond appropriately to the climate emergency. This is a classic vindication of Goodhart’s law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”

The appropriate response to the climate emergency is a legal duty to maximise climate action. The CCC’s board should be disbanded and replaced by people whose mandate is rigorously to explore every economic sector in search of the maximum possible cuts in greenhouse gases, and the maximum possible drawdown. We have arrived at the burning building. The only humane and reasonable aim is to rescue everyone inside.

 

[eevee-fan]

Renewables Set to Overtake Natural Gas in US Power Mix, EIA Says

 

[mspohr]

Renewables Set to Overtake Natural Gas in US Power Mix, EIA Says

That's encouraging but why does coal stop declining? Why is NG increasing?
We need to stop all fossil fuels immediately. This will not do.

 

[iPlug]

That's encouraging but why does coal stop declining? Why is NG increasing?
We need to stop all fossil fuels immediately. This will not do.

EIA collects, organizes, and reports lots of very useful energy data. However, its medium to long term projections range from conservative to very conservative. It's been this way for them for as long as I remember.

In particular, their renewable energy predictions for growth have been way too low, even in the short to medium term.

 

[CrayZ1]

EIA collects, organizes, and reports lots of very useful energy data. However, its medium to long term projections range from conservative to very conservative. It's been this way for them for as long as I remember.

In particular, their renewable energy predictions for growth have been way too low, even in the short to medium term.

By portraying green adoption at lower levels, they ensure their survival as a bureaucracy. Bureaus are living creatures. They grow, reproduce, and die. Well... they are renamed.

 

[Norbert]

Global annual average for 2019 added.
Obviously no reason for relief.

 

[Norbert]

Temperatures have been at the high end consistently throughout the year:

 

[Norbert]

It gets warmer and then it gets colder..

It's not getting colder, it's getting warmer. I don't know if something in your life gets colder, but it's not the climate.

You also know that I disagree with the hypothesis/theory that the amount of warming from aCO2 inputs is so big as to constitute an immediate crisis.

It's not about warming from CO2 "inputs". CO2 is reducing the output, reducing heat dissipation from the planet into space. It doesn't sound like you understand the "theory" that you disagree with.

 

[Swampgator]

It's not getting colder, it's getting warmer. I don't know if something in your life gets colder, but it's not the climate.



It's not about warming from CO2 "inputs". CO2 is reducing the output, reducing heat dissipation from the planet into space. It doesn't sound like you understand the "theory" that you disagree with.

You are clearly letting your bias interfere with your brain function. Maybe it's a steady diet of soy and lack of meat?

As to your point #1. In the past 150 years it has indeed been getting warmer. Is your brain not able to comprehend that the Earths history is longer than 150 years?

As to point #2, the Co2 inputs I referenced are clearly the human inputs to the atmosphere. But your steady diet of Beyond meat has left you low on cholesterol and therefore unable to understand even the most basic of concepts.

 

[JRP3]

You acknowledge warming, you acknowledge human driven increase in CO2, yet you don't acknowledge that this is something unprecedented in all of Earth's history? Human produced CO2 has never happened before now.