UN scientists warn time is running out to tackle global warming

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by DOconTEX, May 4, 2015.

  1. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    294
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Anthropomorphic climate change is real. Where I disagree with some of the more alarmist scenarios is in over reliance upon incomplete climate modeling.

    There is a process called Global Dimming...basically low level pollution reduces the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface It is thought global dimming has a cooling effect and could counter-act the warming caused by CO2 emmissions. Studies indicate a reduction in global dimming since the 1990s..however with more recent economic development in China and India, areas of the World with little to no pollution reguation...global dimming is becoming a factor again over certain areas as low level smog blocks/reflects some of the Sun's radiation from warming the surface. What this means is less water evaporation...more drought.....

    Howver we're seeing polar sheet ice melting, and glacier melting and this contributes to the water evaporation process.

    It's a mixture of positive and negative feedbacks...and it complicates global climate models to accurately predict anything. There are lags in these effects...today's glacier melting might not reverberate into a noticeable climate change right away.

    It wasn't that long ago, the cover of Time magazine, or maybe it was Newsweek, had "Global Cooling" "The Next Ice Age" as their covers. In the 80's and 90's climate models predicted global cooling as the particulate matter from pollution reflected the Sun's radiation back into space...thus cooling the Earth. Since the beginning of this Century, virtually all climate models now predict extensive warming, some going so far as to predict run-away warming that will turn Earth into a Venus like oven.

    Frankly, I think climate modeling is an imperfect Science...alarmism tends to attract more grant money.
     
  2. jc456

    jc456 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and yet mother nature doesn't agree with you. The hiatus has the UNIPCC at odds with its own self for the moment. And you have a fail on your hand.

    Oh and rainbows exist. Put a little moisture in the air on a sunny day.
     
  3. Defender of Freedom

    Defender of Freedom Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    He also got a Nobel Peace Prize....over a woman who saved 2500 Jews from a concentration camp, she died a year later. That's why I am not a fan of the judges of the peace prize.
     
  4. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,807
    Likes Received:
    1,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If there is any Global Warming it is probably occurring over the high density population areas like Liberal NY, Liberal CA. Wherever liberals gather, they sh@! in their own backyards. Then they blame everyone else.
     
  5. bobgnote

    bobgnote New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :bored:Aw, snap. The volcanic ash albedo effect is wearing off, and the cooling, from melting perennial ice will not be enough.

    It's gonna be a hot 2015 Summer, now and then.

    Set your alarm, Hoosier 8. You want to be awake, for some of this.
     
  6. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    95,466
    Likes Received:
    26,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't worry. The meeting in Paris is this year and I am sure there will be more reports of more heat, whether it exists or not, like the recent Kant et al paper from the NOAA where they again, adjust past temps cooler and recent temps warmer. They have an agenda to prove.

    Like the last claim of the warmest year where the warmest year is a hundredths of a degree based on continually adjusted past data and is smaller than the uncertainty band, which you will repeat as fact. They need useful idiots for this.
     
  7. bobgnote

    bobgnote New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How many hosers does it take, to screw in a thermometer?

    Why don't you peat this, and I'll REpeat it?

    Link is missing, here, isn't it? Hire an Indian, next time. Maybe you need a dusky, clever helper, to get you, to a link or a defined temperature area, which I must assume is in your secreted media.

    Shucks, quit hiding it. Give us the poop. Which temp area do you poop in, for my T-dog to get on, afterward?:clapping:
     
  8. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    95,466
    Likes Received:
    26,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just as I thought, you have nothing.
     
  9. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,232
    Likes Received:
    7,713
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I am not a republican, nor conservative. I am a FDR liberal.

    I do not deny climate change. It is natural, and no doubt co2 speeds it up, as we continue out of the last ice age.

    If growing season are longer due to warming, this means lands now in the north, will extend northward all around the globe which opens up new farm lands. That is just the fact. No need for the hysteria, for higher co2 is something plants love, which means with more land to farm and more co2 and a little warmer climate, perhaps we will be able to feed the 10 billion we will have, not that far into the future.

    No evidence that higher co2 affects plant health and yields? We pump co2 in many of our greenhouses sir. You are taking to a guy raised on a farm, go and use your exclamations on city boys.

    Freeman Dyson, said the first thing we should do is to involved land management world wide, to increase the number of plants an trees. But the hysterical don't want that, which is why I think they have an agenda other than actually addressing this co2 they think is cyanide gas.

    AND my position on this has not changed since day one, here. I am not moving on some ladder. And that is on you.

    If I had to bet money, I would place my bets on someone who thinks like me, instead of on someone who thinks like you. Too many games being played with your side, added to what I see as unnecessary hysterics.
     
  10. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,232
    Likes Received:
    1,440
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And you're talking to someone with common sense, and who goes by actual research instead of wishful thinking. A greenhouse is not the real world. In a greenhouse, plants are given every nutrient they need, and CO2 can be the limiting factor in growth. Outside of a greenhouse, CO2 is not the limiting factor, so increasing CO2 leads to highly variable results. Many studies done in the real world show that. Here, let me show you a few. One interesting thing is that CO2 tends to make weeds grow faster, but not crops, reducing crop yields. And CO2 tends to make vines grow faster, but not so much the trees, meaning vines choke the trees. I've personally noticed the poison ivy getting more vigorous.

    In Ranchers Vs. Weeds, Climate Change Gives Weeds An Edge
    http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...or-weed-invasion-as-climate-change-takes-hold
    ---
    The warming and CO2 weren't set at doomsday levels, but rather conservative levels Blumenthal says the Plains could see within a century. Under those conditions, Dalmatian toadflax flourished, growing in size 13-fold and producing more seeds.

    Similar field studies across the country have shown other nasty weeds do well in warmer, more CO2-heavy conditions
    ---

    Biomass and toxicity responses of poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) to elevated atmospheric CO2
    http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/9086.full.pdf
    ---
    In this 6-year study at the Duke University Free-Air CO2 Enrichment experiment, we show that elevated atmospheric CO2 in an intact forest ecosystem increases photosynthesis, water use efficiency, growth, and population biomass of poison ivy. The CO2 growth stimulation exceeds that of most other woody species.
    ---

    Increasing dominance of large lianas in Amazonian forests
    http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4071&method=full
    ---
    Over the last two decades of the twentieth century the dominance of large lianas relative to trees has increased by 1.7–4.6% a year. Lianas enhance tree mortality and suppress tree growth
    ---

    In Deep Shade, Elevated CO2 Increases the Vigour of Tropical Climbing Plants.
    https://www.pik-potsdam.de/avec/peyresq2003/talks/0918/koerner/background_literature/GCB2002.pdf

    Climate change surprise: High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals
    http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html

    High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...rition-climate-change-carbon-dioxide-science/

    Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
    http://www.newscientist.com/article...l-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html

    Freeman Dyson sounds senile now. He shows no understanding of the science on the global warming issue. Instead, he gives emotional "I feel this must be right" speeches. We here in the reason-based community reject such irrational claims, no matter who they come from.
     
  11. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,232
    Likes Received:
    7,713
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess you need to write those greenhouse growers who pipe in additional co2, for healthier food crops. If it was not advantageous, they would not do it. Half the stuff I learned in college when it came to owning a business, didn't work out either. Same with these growers. For a grower will only do something when it makes him more money, after he subtracts the added expense of co2.

    Now, if co2 produces better food crops in a greenhouse, it will do the same if the co2 was higher outside. BUT you will reach a point where the saturation of co2 is too great. But 4 to 600 parts per million is not too great. What was the count on the ppm in that study? Do you even know? My bet is that it was far higher than what I mentioned.

    I garden every year, outside. My veggies do better now than they did in the 1950s, and I am using the same seeds today as then, except for corn which is hybrid. Of course I know this is anecdotal and has no value to you, but it is the real world, from real gardeners. And gardeners my age who are using the same seedstock as 60 years ago will tell you the same as I am telling you.

    There is a study out there by real scientists that using nasa satellite photos shows the earth is greening up, and not from damned vines and ivy. Of course that would be so inconvenient for you, that you would dismiss it.

    You are just a true believer, that's all. I really got no dog in this hunt, but I do notice the hysterics and the hype, and being a college graduate, I am not some uneducated yokel. I understand science enough, so that when it comes to the climate and climate change, what they think they know today,will not be what they think they know in 50 years. There is so much uncertainty involved in climate, and knowledge is still vastly limited....in other words, you, nor they, know what they claim to know. And this has always been a problem in the soft sciences. And that is what climatology is, at least today.

    Dyson? I would put him up against any climatologist, for at least he has something missing today. Integrity. And the honestly to tell you when he does not know something. Apparently you do not have that problem, nor many of these climatologists.


    But try as you might want to dodge, what happens if you increase the flora by 25 percent all over the earth, by land management private and public? What effect on this dangerous co2 gas will that have? I hope you understand basic botany.


    I hope you are young. 20s 30s. I am as old as dirt. And 50 years from now, your envisoned nightmare about climate change will not come to pass. And when that is the fact, you just remember back when this old dumb son of a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) told you it was hype, hysterics. I will not be here, so your ego will not get bruised by me, saying, see?
     
  12. bobgnote

    bobgnote New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just as I thought. You have as much conversational ability as some life-form I have not encountered, yet, but debate?

    You don't. A premise might help you, but you don't do logic.
     
  13. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    95,466
    Likes Received:
    26,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you think you know what you are talking about then you would already have the information but that is not something you seem to be interested in.
     
  14. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,232
    Likes Received:
    1,440
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I guess you need to read again the part where a greenhouse does not represent the outside world.

    Greenhouses are artificial environments. The plants are given plentiful water, nutrients and sunlight at the proper temperature. In such a case, CO2 can be the bottleneck, so increasing CO2 breaks that bottleneck and increases growth.

    Outside? Much more complicated. Plants are usually limited by nitrogen, or phosphorous, or water, or sunlight, so adding CO2 doesn't matter much. When it does help, it helps differently plants differently. Trees and crops, CO2 doesn't do much for. Weeds and vines, the CO2 helps them a lot. Hence, the weeds choke the crops, the vines choke the trees, and yields decline.

    Absolutely wrong, as all the real world evidence showed. Therefore, you ignored that evidence. And that's why the world ignores you. The world wants hard evidence, not your emotional feelgood claims about what you wish was true.
     
  15. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    95,466
    Likes Received:
    26,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
  16. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,232
    Likes Received:
    1,440
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So tea party suckup Bob Woodruff on the very the conservative ABC network made up stupid stories about the science. Nobody ever accused conservative journalists of good science. The more interesting thing is how as soon as Drudge pushes some nonsense, all the drones rush to every message boards to repeat it.

    Now, back to some actual science, instead of hoosier's precious media hype. This just in, a new study. Field studies in grassland, forest and cropland habitats show that for all habitats, elevated CO2 levels decrease nitrogen uptake in plants, decreasing growth and nutrition.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12938/abstract
     
  17. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We left the last ice age 6000 years ago, and natural climate change has been cooling the planet since then. The warmth we're experiencing now is 100% man made.
    [​IMG]

    It also means desert zones move farther north too, reducing farm lands by similar amounts. We're already seeing that happen in southern Europe and the southern US.

    Greenhouses are not found in the natural world. In greenhouses, there are never shortages of water, never shortages of phosphates, and never shortages of nitrates. Those three things form the most common bottlenecks to plant growth in nature. Only after all three of those bottlenecks have been removed does increased carbon aid plant growth. There are some places on earth where those conditions are met, but not many.

    Oh really? Perhaps you can cite someone, anyone, who is against reforestation. Because that's sounding a lot like a strawman argument to me.

    So you're proud of the fact that you've learned nothing? Do your kids know that?

    And that's a bet you would lose. In fact, let me just say this: If you can answer just two questions convincingly, I'll abandon my position and adopt yours. You win. No more arguments from me. Two simple questions based on two simple graphs.

    Here's the first graph, first question:

    [​IMG]

    At What Point Will This Trend Stop?

    Second graph, second question:

    [​IMG]

    How Hot Will It Be Then?

    So here's your golden opportunity to convince me that there's nothing to worry about.
     
  18. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    95,466
    Likes Received:
    26,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL, a study that did no experimentation but relied on 4 other papers and 'suggests', not finds. It is a meta-study, not an original experimental scheme.

    Here you go for some actual field work.

    Soil Nitrogen Cycling under Elevated CO2: A Synthesis of Forest Face Experiments
     
  19. Drawn a Blank

    Drawn a Blank Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2015
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Not sure where I stand on climate change at the moment, but Antartica at one point had pretty fertile soil, and additionally still supports some plant life. You may very well point out that it isn't fertile currently, but what about with the addition of artificial fertilizer?

    I've supported using Antarctic land as a possible frontier for some time now. :p
     
  20. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh right. And it would only cost us 70 meters of sea level rise to make that happen.

    Sheesh.
     

Share This Page