DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Catastrophic Climate Change
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3788--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: guest17 Date: September 15, 2015, 4:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert wrote:
[img width=640
height=360]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-170415130136.png[/img]
...............................
I pledge my allegiance
To the Federal Reserve, the CFR and Exxon/Mobil,
And to the Bilderberg Group, for which they stand,
One nation, under plutocracy and the fascist Patriot Act,
with snooping and injustice for all.
Amen.
:D
(time out for fun this afternoon!)
#Post#: 3789--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: September 15, 2015, 6:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sure Alan, it's just "hilarious". I'm waiting for you to pull
out your "counterfeit coin". [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.png[/img]<br
/> [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
Doubt really is your product, isn't?
[img width=640
height=400]
HTML http://www.mercuryexposure.inf
o/images/stories/logos/doubt-product-book.jpg[/img]
The above book, though not part of the book below, is relevant
because it details the use of the SAME unethical strategy
pioneered by the Tobacco bastards that HAS BEEN, AND CONTINUES
TO BE, USED by the dirty energy producers for the last 40 years.
>:(
Agnotology: Part four of six parts
[img width=640
height=700]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-180315185814.png[/img]
HTML http://www.kenjacobs.com/lawyer3ag.jpg
I am amazed you don't know what biosphere math is. The short
version is that the biosphere operates in a band of temperature,
pressure, pH and a trophic (stuff we are nourished by) web of
species interconnections. All species have slightly varying
requirements, but the bottom line is that they must remain
within a "goldilocks" type band to survive extinction.
The stability of the composition of those bands constitutes a
plus in biosphere math. The instability born of radical
departures from those bands constitutes a negative in biosphere
math.
For example, we require a certain population of gut bacteria in
a certain proportion of bacterial species. A slight departure
will kill us (e. g. E.coli food poisoning) even though we have a
lot of the SAME bacteria that will kill us if it spoils food we
are about to eat living happily in our intestines extracting
vitamins, minerals and other nutrients from the food.
Nature is the same way. You DO NOT have to have this obvious
giant threat out there to be in danger of extinction. The
biosphere is EXTREMELY fine tuned. Our activities are
guaranteeing an unquestionable forced departure from the life
giving band of hundreds of thousands of species, including our
own.
But I have not been able to communicate to you how truly fragile
our existence is. It's a bit ironic, because I'm not going to be
here to see the really massive human die offs starting around
2050. But Ashvin will. and if you are young, so will you.
All that said, I do appreciate the fact the you believe I am
sincere, and not out to propagandize people for the jollies of
scaremongering.
Perhaps after I'm dead, God (or is it the "goddess" to you? ;))
will task me to sing "Henry the Eighth" (see the movie "Ghost)
to Ashvin when the Greenland ice sheet slides into the ocean and
the oceans jump 20 feet or so within a few months. That is,
right after he starts asking "Who coulda node?".
He was just being prudent about the "proper" application of the
precautionary principle, after all...
#Post#: 3790--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: September 15, 2015, 7:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I said to Ashvin ,[quote] Your assertion that a tiny group can
"overreact" to a tsunami of propaganda by TPTB to keep people
asleep is not a logical statement; it's ridiculous. But it is
based on your view that there IS NO massive propaganda effort to
put people to sleep (SEE: Endowment bias or Confirmation bias).
[/quote]
Ashvin said, [quote]No, I do believe there is a massive
propaganda effort to keep people ignorant, materialistic and
apathetic. Now your tone is dismissive.
I liked the way Alan put it - the Doom overreactions and the
propaganda spewing are two sides of a counterfeit coin. Neither
one reflect reality and are counter-productive to real progress.
[/quote]
That is a contradictory group of statements. I am not being
dismissive. I am merely stating the fact that you firmly believe
my firm view of a high probability of N.T.H.E. is illogical and
unreasonable, even though you haven't heard all the evidence.
You accuse me of exaggerating extreme outcomes with insufficient
evidence to claim a firm position.
Yet you FIRMLY refuse to take the possibility seriously without
evidence. The precautionary principle of science, which you
claim to agree with, does not require that level of FIRM proof
(that you are demanding is needed) to justify drastic, rather
than incremental measures. Do you understand that?
But let us say you have a point and I am "overreacting". The
precautionary principle of science DICTATES that the burning of
fossil fuels be stopped, like, YESTERDAY. All the evidence is
not in. It's an extrapolation, like the decision to pass all
those laws made after "Silent Spring" was published.
The laws were a good try. They haven't worked enough. But
corporate TOES were stepped on to get those laws passed. The
corporations learned the wrong lesson from those laws that cost
them some profits.
That's why people like the Koch brothers and MKing do what they
do. They have an agenda and they have a LOT of financial
backing. Cui bono from branding warnings about N.T.H.E. as
hyperbole and sky is falling bullshit, HUH? WHO would lose a lot
of money if most people listened to Doomer Warnings about
N.T.H.E.? Propaganda works. That 's why they finance a tsunami
of it.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
The statement by Alan about two sides of a counterfeit coin is a
false equivalence. You agree that there is a massive propaganda
effort to keep people ignorant, materialistic and apathetic.
Then you calmly state that a tiny group of awake people,
outraged by the environmental degradation unprecedented in human
history, evidenced by extinction rates (that are also
unprecedented and accelerating, NOT becoming less frequent) are
"overreacting"?
What does your coin look like, a cone with a tiny flat point
0.00001% of the size of the base? THAT's a "coin"?
No, that is a false equivalence.
[center]
HTML http://image.architonic.com/img_pro2-2/106/0301/cone-ceiling_sq.jpg[/center]
[center]Alan's counterfeit coin.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp[/center]
#Post#: 3791--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: September 15, 2015, 7:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I said.
[quote]
The precautionary principle of science dictated that we STOP
using DDT.
The precautionary principle of science dictates that we STOP
using fossil fuels. The science is much clearer than it was for
DDT!
But the point is, at the time the book was written, MANY PEOPLE
said it was "ABSURD" to believe DDT could cause the extinction
of several thousand Monotreme species (mammals that lay eggs).
They did not want people shouting from the rooftops that: WE
were in danger, along with the Monotremes, because if DDT did
that to egg shells, WHAT ELSE MIGHT IT DO?
Alan and Ashvin provide sad evidence that History repeats
itself. :([/quote]
Ashvin said,
[quote]Yes, THAT is what the precautionary principle is:
"The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk
management states that if an action or policy has a suspected
risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the
absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not
harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on
those taking an action"
I am not arguing that you need to meet a certain burden of proof
for NTHE before denouncing actions which cause environmental
problems or promoting drastic actions to combat environmental
problems. In fact, no one has argued that. Once again, you are
ascribing this view to us because it makes us seem apathetic and
your position more reasonable.
The PP does NOT state that you should ascribe more certainty to
an outcome (NTHE) than the evidence warrants, and that is what I
am claiming you are doing until you convince me otherwise.
[/quote]
So, the evidence does not "warrant" my premise. Yet I have
repeatedly stated that Ashvin does not want to give any
importance to the evidence I present.
How about you, Alan? Do you think the deforestation and
extinction data (a tiny part of the overall degradation picture)
I have so far presented does not "warrant" my premise?
Shall we now dance over to defining what "is" (see Clinton).
This is getting absolutely ridiculous in the level of denial.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
But at least Ashvin CLAIMS that (see: "I am not arguing that you
need to meet a certain burden of proof for NTHE before
denouncing actions which cause environmental problems or
promoting drastic actions to combat environmental problems.")
that he is not demanding an impossibly high burden of proof.
You, Alan, are. You claim drastic measures are not warranted at
all.
I'm not sure I buy Ashvin's assurances about backing drastic
measures. Claiming the evidence doesn't warrant my premise while
claiming his standard for agreeing with my premise is not high
is okay. But WITHOUT telling me what evidence standard he would
accept (see: he states he doesn't know that much about climate
science and the biosphere = DOUBT) is illogical. It's erring on
the side of the incremental measures status quo that I have
already proven isn't doing enough.
It's wrong. The precautionary principle requires that, if we are
to err, it is on the side of doing more than may be necessary to
eliminate the threat of N.T.H.E.
But I know I'm talking to a wall. so it goes. :(
#Post#: 3796--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: September 16, 2015, 2:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ashvin,
If you think I cherry pick, rather than summarize, then do the
work of going to the links I clearly present to the reader to
peruse, rather than throwing out deliberate barbs for the
purpose of undermining my credibility.
And asking me for more data to support my views when you have
just questioned my methodology for obtaining and publishing data
that supports my premise is illogical.
You are not convinced by my stream of posts. You make no effort
to connect them together. You continuously avoid putting them
all together. Any detective knows that what appears to be an
insignificant clue to a crime, when added to several other of
the same nature, constitutes circumstantial evidence. You just
flat refuse to do that.
We can argue until the cows come home if that is, or is not,
logical methodology or hairsplitting or endowment/confirmation
bias. That just keeps the substance of the data from being
discussed.
Sorry pal, this isn't about me or you. You are just trying to
make it about me. As Surly said, with some graphics, that's a
departure from substance and is off topic.
Ashvin, you can choose to keep all the dots I present totally
disconnected in regard to the INCREASE in the probability of
N.T.H.E. if you so desire.
Since I am pushing 70, I don't expect to be here when the
positive feedback loops are jacking each other up (picture one
ping pong ball thrown at a field of mouse traps, each with a
single ping pong ball ready to jump when disturbed). My rough
estimate is between 2040 and 2050.
You will be there, old chum. I'm trying to enlist your aid to
WRITE about the threat, rather than pretend it is "absurd". How
will you feel if my warnings turnout to be valid? Will you say
it was my fault because I didn't lay down the argument properly
in order to convince you? You probably will. Humans have a gift
for rationalizing, don't they? You claim I am doing exactly that
with my defense of my "overreaction". Perhaps.
But, your argument is weakened by the fact that I am not
threatened by N.T.H.E., you are.
The only justification for anyone that is old, like me, that you
can logically claim, is that "rooftop yelling alarmists" like to
"scare people". That's REALLY bullshit, especially if you
ascribe it to someone who has been publishing proposed solutions
and pushing various renewable energy technologies consistently.
Here's another DOT, Ashvin.
The following estimate of deaths caused by pollution is overly
conservative by several orders of magnitude. I reason that it is
overly conservative, and certainly not alarmist, by the fact
that it leaves out mortality estimates of all other life forms
in the biosphere that are affected equally by the deleterious
impact of pollution. It also leaves out several other types of
pollution caused positive feedback loop effects such as species
viability reduction from radionuclide caused degraded DNA,
habitat loss from desertification and deforestation, ocean
acidification and Carbon Dioxide atmospheric increase, among
several other mortality increasing effects now present in our
biosphere.
I submit this news as part of the evidence that incremental
measures are not enough to reduce the probability of N.T.H.E.
and that only massive, government sponsored, drastic measures to
stop all sources of pollutants NOW will reduce the probability
of N.T.H.E.
Air pollution could kill 6.6 million people a year by 2050
Air contaminated with pollutants such as ozone and tiny
particles could cause the premature death of about 6.6 million
people a year by 2050 if nothing is done to improve air quality,
scientists warned on Wednesday.
POSTED: 17 Sep 2015 01:40
LONDON: Air contaminated with pollutants such as ozone and tiny
particles could cause the premature death of about 6.6 million
people a year by 2050 if nothing is done to improve air quality,
scientists warned on Wednesday (Sep 16).
In a study published in the journal Nature, they found that
outdoor air pollution already kills about 3.3 million people a
year worldwide. The majority of those deaths are in Asia where
residential energy emissions, such as those from heating and
cooking, have a major impact.
And that toll could double over the next 35 years, the
researchers warned, unless clean-up measures are taken.
"This is an astounding number," said Jos Lelieveld of the Max
Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany, who led the research.
"In some countries air pollution is actually a leading cause of
death, and in many countries it is a major issue."
Air pollution deaths are most commonly from heart disease,
strokes or a lung disease called chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease (COPD). It is also linked to deaths from lung cancer and
acute respiratory infections.
Calculating the health and mortality effects of outdoor air
pollution on a global scale is not easy, partly because air
quality is not monitored in every region and the toxicity of
particles varies depending on their source.
So for this study, Lelieveld's team combined a global
atmospheric chemistry model with population data and health
statistics to estimate the relative contribution of different
kinds of outdoor air pollution, mainly from so-called fine
particulate matter, to premature deaths.
Their results show that in India and China, for example,
emissions from heating and cooking, have the largest death toll,
while in much of the United States and a few other countries,
emissions from traffic and power generation are crucial.
In the eastern United States and in Europe, Russia and East
Asia, agricultural emissions are the biggest source of the kind
of fine particulate matter that gets into people's lungs,
causing illness, disability and death.
Oliver Wild, an atmospheric scientist at Britain's Lancaster
University, said the study "really brings home the need for air
quality controls", particularly in heavily populated parts of
Asia.
- Reuters
HTML http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/air-pollution-could-kill/2131586.html
HTML http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/air-pollution-could-kill/2131586.html
Agelbert NOTE: For anyone that has the intestinal fortitude to
get the big picture, though it is still a somewhat conservative
one since it is based on government published stats, just go to
poodwaddle.
Here's the clock running on global warming. I don't see the
pollution picture improving. I don't see the pollution output
slowing down. But Alan thinks I am "misinterpreting" the data
::). So it goes.
You can adjust the clock for rate per hour, week, and so on. I
have it set at "YEAR TO DATE". I find that to be less alarming
to view and gives me a better sense of reality.
Global Warming Clock - CO2 Emissions (MT)
HTML http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock/env1/
#Post#: 3799--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: September 16, 2015, 5:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I present the following short video as additional scientific
evidence that the precautionary principle demands we engage in
drastic and massive efforts immediately to reduce the
probability of N.T.H.E.:
HTML https://youtu.be/_tVxloCKJN0
A brief explanation of why positive feedback loops are
uncontrollable, once they start. Incremental measures will not
stop positive feedback loops from starting. Therefore,
incremental measures will not work to reduce the high
probability of N.T.H.E. from a multiplicity of positive feedback
loops. This is why immediate and drastic action is warranted
now.
#Post#: 3800--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: September 16, 2015, 8:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Why positive feedback mechanisms will not be prevented by
incremental measures.
I present this as part of the evidence that the probability of
N.T.H.E. is increasing. This video is from 2007. YET, it
predicts an ice free arctic in the summer between 2015-20. He
was spot on. Current targets are around 2017-i9. Back in 2007,
the models didn't predict that happening until around 2050!
David Wasdell is a credentialed scientist. He was a reviewer in
IPCC studies. He explains how the SCIENCE was downplayed by
lawyers from various governments. This was done so the science
predicting catastrophe (i.e. NON-linearity of degradation
acceleration) WOULD NOT be made public. The only hard position
reached by the IPCC is that climate change is anthropogenic,
PERIOD. Since then things have improved somewhat on the truth
about the gravity of our situation, but the public is still
mostly in the dark about the existential threat calmly explained
here.
David Wasdell makes it clear that strategy geared to today's
symptoms is insufficient because causal elements have a 40 to 50
year lag. Incremental measures based on present observations
are, not just doomed to fail, they guarantee that they will fail
in the future. Only massive, government sponsored action NOW has
a chance (and even that is not a sure thing, as is stated in
this video) of somewhat ameliorating the probability of
catastrophe. He clearly states that a massive extinction event
destroying over 80% of life on earth will be triggered by about
30 positive feedback loops that credentialed climate scientists
agree will overwhelm the ability of our technology to stop them.
As he says, the observation of a "tipping point", if we have the
misfortune to view it, guarantees that any response is 40 to 50
years behind the baked in causative factors.
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/W_aMbM20mbg[/center]
[quote]David Wasdell, Director of the Meridian Programme, is a
world-renowned expert in the dynamics of climate change.
[size=12pt]He is also a reviewer of the International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports and the author of
numerous papers and presentations on climate change and related
topics.
HTML http://www.apollo-gaia.org
HTML http://www.apollo-gaia.org
[/size][/quote]
Here's video by Professor Kevin Anderson explaining why every
day that we delay increases the stupendous cost of the effort to
bring the situation under control.
It's a long video. That means that people like Ashvin will not
watch it, even though their life may depend on the knowledge
imparted in it.
Professor Anderson tears apart every argument presented by Alan
or Mking that defends the paltry incremental measures now used
to address the issue of catastrophic climate change.
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/G5cmAVxnQ3E[/center]
[center]
Climate Change: Going beyond the dangerous [/center]
[quote]
Ian McPherson Uploaded on Feb 9, 2012
Kevin Anderson, former Director of the Tyndall Centre (the UK's
top academic institute researching climate change) is a
depressing guy. Here, in his lecture "Beyond dangerous climate
change: emission scenarios for a new world", he lays out the
grim reality of climate change, and our inability to address it
globally.
We are currently mitigating for 4 degrees C of warming and
planning for 2 degrees C. As Anderson points out, that's ass
backwards. Further, he sees absolutely no way we can meet those
targets, given the rapid industrialisation of China and the
emerging economies, and the current state of global political
inaction.
He points out, with brutal honesty, that "climate analysts
construct their scenarios not to avoid dangerous climate change
but to avoid threatening economic growth". There is, therefore,
almost no possibility that we are going to act, either in time
or at the scale necessary, to address the challenge facing us.
We pretend that 2 degrees C is our threshold. Yet the climate
scenarios and plans presented to policymakers do not actually
reflect that threshold. As Anderson says, "most policy advice is
to accept a high probability of extremely dangerous climate
change rather than propose radical and immediate emission
reductions."
Depressing stuff indeed...
--------------------------------------
Download the paper this lecture is based on (written by Anderson
and Alice Bows) here:
HTML http://ianmcpherson.com/blog/audio/Ke...
HTML http://ianmcpherson.com/blog/audio/Ke...
Read David Robert's thoughts about the paper in two articles at
Grist:
HTML http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-...
HTML http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-...
HTML http://grist.org/climate-policy/2011-...
HTML http://grist.org/climate-policy/2011-...
--------------------------------------
This lecture is part of the London School of Economics
Department of International Development Friday Lecture Series.
More information can be found here:
HTML http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/vi...
HTML http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/vi...
--------------------------------------
Speaker: Professor Kevin Anderson.
Recorded on 21 October 2011 in Hong Kong Theatre, Clement House,
London UK.
This lecture is part of the LSE Department of International
Development Friday Lecture Series. A question and answer session
follows the talk.
Kevin Anderson is professor of energy and climate change in the
School of Mechanical, Aeronautical and Civil Engineering at the
University of Manchester.
He has recently finished a two-year position as director of the
Tyndall Centre, the UK's leading academic climate change
research organisation, during which time he held a joint post
with the University of East Anglia.
[/quote]
#Post#: 3803--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: guest17 Date: September 16, 2015, 9:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]
HTML http://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html
[size=14pt]Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2
July 3, 2013
HTML http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2013/desertsgreen.png
Satellite data shows the per cent amount that foliage cover has
changed around the world from 1982 to 2010.
Read more at:
HTML http://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html#jCp
Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green
foliage across the world's arid regions over the past 30 years
through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO
research.
In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in
collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU),
found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent
increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the
arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East
and Africa, according to CSIRO research scientist, Dr Randall
Donohue.
"In Australia, our native vegetation is superbly adapted to
surviving in arid environments and it consequently uses water
very efficiently," Dr Donohue said. "Australian vegetation seems
quite sensitive to CO2 fertilisation.
This, along with the vast extents of arid landscapes, means
Australia featured prominently in our results."
"While a CO2 effect on foliage response has long been
speculated, until now it has been difficult to demonstrate,"
according to Dr Donohue.
"Our work was able to tease-out the CO2 fertilisation effect by
using mathematical modelling together with satellite data
adjusted to take out the observed effects of other influences
such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and
land-use changes."
The fertilisation effect occurs where elevated CO2 enables a
leaf during photosynthesis, the process by which green plants
convert sunlight into sugar, to extract more carbon from the air
or lose less water to the air, or both.
If elevated CO2 causes the water use of individual leaves to
drop, plants in arid environments will respond by increasing
their total numbers of leaves. These changes in leaf cover can
be detected by satellite, particularly in deserts and savannas
where the cover is less complete than in wet locations,
according to Dr Donohue.
"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."
This study was published in the Geophysical Research Letters
journal and was funded by CSIRO's Sustainable Agriculture
Flagship, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, the Australian
Research Council and Land & Water Australia.
[/quote]
Agelbert: Rather than just deleting this article, I'll just
respond here and in the next post: The article above is
erroneous. This video from NASA provides satellite evidence that
the increase in CO2, though once believed to increase greening
(since the 1980's) has now been shown to reduce greening. The
data presented in the video, unlike the above article, is
current.
[center]Global Warming reduces plant productivity.[/center]
[center]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er3iD5PIR00&feature=player_embedded[/center]
[quote]The enhancement of photosynthesis and growth (and, so,
carbon uptake) which occurs with higher temperatures has been
mentioned as a possible mitigating factor in climate change.
However, there are limits to how much additional growth can be
expected by warming.
Most plants have either physiological or physical limits on
growth, and, also, as plants age, they grow more slowly and
consume less carbon dioxide.
HTML http://www.rainforestconservation.org/rainforest-primer/3-rainforests-in-peril-deforestation/f-consequences-of-deforestation/8-climate-change-and-increase-in-greenhouse-gases/[/quote]
#Post#: 3805--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: September 17, 2015, 12:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What part about the REDUCTION in photosynthetic efficiency from
INCREASED carbon dioxide caused HEAT do you not get? I posted
the science and the link beneath your article.
Here's the biosphere nuts and bolts of it (that your article
totally misses):
[quote]Climate Myth...
CO2 is plant food
Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390
parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the
air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to
greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all
plants. This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of
the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required
for photosynthesis. Hence, CO2 is actually the "food" that
sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as
well as those in the sea. And the more CO2 they "eat" (absorb
from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow.
(source: Plants Need CO2) [/quote]
[quote]An argument made by those who prefer to see a bright side
to climate change is that carbon dioxide (CO2) being released by
the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the
environment. This conjecture is based on simple and appealing
logic: if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it
should be better. We should expect our crops to become more
abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.
However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things
work in the real world. There is an old saying, "Too much of a
good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells
you to take one pill of a certain medicine, it does not follow
that taking four is likely to heal you four times faster or make
you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick.
It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2,
under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on
this, 'skeptics' make their claims of benefical botanical
effects in the world at large. Such claims fail to take into
account that increasing the availability of one substance that
plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to
accrue. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth
will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing
the area available for crops.
Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism
depends on a number of elements. It is a simple task to increase
water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed
greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout
the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone
in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier
person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for
deficiencies of other compounds and elements.
What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture
and plant growth in general?
1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain
their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater
moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come
from? In many places rainwater is not sufficient for current
agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry
throughout the Earth (1, 2).
On the other hand, as predicted by climate research, we are
experiencing more intense storms with increased rainfall rates
throughout much of the world. One would think that this should
be good for agriculture. Unfortunately when rain falls in short,
intense bursts it does not have time to soak into the ground.
Instead, it quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and
finally out into the ocean, often carrying away large amounts of
soil and fertilizer.
2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self-fertilize
by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead
we have to constantly add artificial fertilizers produced by
energy-intensive processes mostly fed by hydrocarbons,
particularly from natural gas which will eventually be depleted.
Increasing the need for such fertilizer competes for supplies of
natural gas and oil, creating competition between other needs
and the manufacture of fertilizer. This ultimately drives up the
price of food.
3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of
photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from
the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species
from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher
concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of
some staples, such as wheat.
4. As is confirmed by long-term experiments, plants with
exhorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability
of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while
some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon
initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau"
soon truncate this benefit
5. Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly
isolated from insects behave differently than if the same
approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example,
when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this
creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens
more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows (at
link).
Plant defenses go down as carbon dioxide levels go up, the
researchers found. Soybeans grown at elevated CO2 levels attract
many more adult Japanese beetles than plants grown at current
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Science Daily; March 25,
2008. (Credit: Photo courtesy of Evan Delucia)
More than 55 million years ago, the Earth experienced a rapid
jump in global Carbon Dioxide levels that raised temperatures
across the planet. Now, researchers studying plants from that
time have found that the rising temperatures may have boosted
the foraging of insects. As modern temperatures continue to
rise, the researchers believe the planet could see increasing
crop damage and forest devastation. Science Daily; Feb. 15,
2008[/quote]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/Er3iD5PIR00[/center]
[center][quote]Global Warming reduces plant productivity. As
Carbon Dioxide increases, vegetation in Northern Latitudes also
increases. However, this does not compensate for decreases of
vegetation in Southern Latitudes. The overall amount of
vegetation worldwide declines [/quote][/center]
[quote]6. Likely the worst problem is that increasing CO2 will
increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make
deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase
in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland
will try to migrate towards the poles. Unfortunately it does not
follow that soil conditions will necessarily favor their growth
even at optimum temperatures.
In conclusion, it would be reckless to keep adding CO2 to the
atmosphere. Assuming there are any positive impacts on
agriculture in the short term, they will be overwhelmed by the
negative impacts of climate change.
Added CO2 will likely shrink the range available to plants while
increasing the size of deserts. It will also increase the
requirements for water and soil fertility as well as plant
damage from insects.
Increasing CO2 levels would only be beneficial inside of highly
controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses.
Basic rebuttal written by doug_bostrom[/quote]
UPDATE July 2015:
[center]
The negative effects of climate change far outweigh any positive
effect from increased CO2 levels. [/center]
[center]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcDUaBO8T34&feature=player_embedded[/center]
HTML http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
The fossil fuel industry has been trying to push that STUPID,
"CO2 is great for plants" baloney for at least two decades.
Yeah, they use CO2. Yeah, they NEED CO2. Yeah, More CO2 means
they can absorb it better and grow faster.
HOWEVER, they don't do ANY of those things when they are forced
outside the BAND of temperature and other conditions that are
sine qua non for them. I tried to explain that to you and you
totally ignored it. It's BIOSHERE MATH 101.
The fossil fuel industry is pushing the CO2 happy talk TOTALLY
out of context, as you are trying to do. The desertification and
deforestation is NOT being counterbalanced by the greening of
colder areas now accessing more CO2 due to warming.
The data about ongoing desertification I have presented totally
defeats the claim that arid areas are "greening".
Some areas towards the poles will experience some greening. SO
WHAT? Are you planning on moving all the animals, insects and
other biota that DON"T migrate, along with the trees and crops
north or south thousands of miles? How breathtakingly naïve!
Alan, what part of this do you not understand?
[img width=640
height=760]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-150915151554.png[/img]
Here's another article from Phys.org. Do you think it's
"alarmist"? Do you think they are "overreacting"? Do you think
their science is bad?
Burning remaining fossil fuel could cause 60-meter sea level
rise
September 11, 2015
[quote]
"Our findings show that if we do not want to melt Antarctica, we
can't keep taking fossil fuel carbon out of the ground and just
dumping it into the atmosphere as CO2 like we've been doing,"
Caldeira said. "Most previous studies of Antarctic have focused
on loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Our study demonstrates
that burning coal, oil, and gas also risks loss of the much
larger East Antarctic Ice Sheet."[/quote]
HTML http://phys.org/news/2015-09-fossil-fuel-meter-sea.html#jCp
Here's a nice quote from another article in Phys.org:
[quote]
What is the NIPCC? Is it just like the IPCC, but with an "N"?
Well, no. The NIPCC is a group of climate change "skeptics",
bank rolled by the libertarian Heartland Institute to promote
doubt about climate change. This suits the Heartland Institute's
backers, including fossil fuel companies and those ideologically
opposed to government regulation.
The NIPCC promotes doubt via thousand-page reports, the latest
of which landed with a dull thud last week. These tomes try to
mimic the scientific reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), right down to the acronym. However,
unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC reports are works of partisan
pseudoscience[/quote].
HTML http://phys.org/news/2013-09-adversaries-zombies-nipcc-climate-pseudoscience.html#jCp
Oh, and Alan, I am puling the other article about "greening"
from CO2 increase. I will research it when I have the time. If I
find one of the Hoffman fossil fueler funded propagandists
behind it, it will not be reposted. It will be deleted as
disinformation.
But I will be happy to explain each deletion, when, or if, the
time comes.
Poodwaddle is firmly backed by data. WHY are you questioning it?
Did you go there and check the sources. Right. I didn't think
so. >:(
Have a nice day.
#Post#: 3806--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: September 17, 2015, 1:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Stay on track, Alan. Anthropogenic caused Climate Change is BAD
for life forms. That has already been established, even by the
conservative IPCC. SPARE me any more "increased CO2 is a good
deal" BALONEY!
As the last video in the above post states in the form of
analogy, humans may need calcium, but that doesn't mean we will
be happy with a diet of Ice Cream!
The band of biosphere life form requirements requires that we
get x amount of whatever we need. If we get too little, it is
life threatening, If we get TOO MUCH, it is ALSO life
threatening. Look up homeostasis. All the life forms in the
biosphere have their own homeostatic bands. Global warming is an
existential threat to most life forms (extremophiles excluded)
because they will be forced out of their sine qua non bands of
temperature, chemistry, pressure, etc.
Why can't you see that? why can't you understand how that
applies to plants? We need water, but you can die from drinking
too much at once. It's the same with all life forms.
Greedballs in the fossil fuel industry and the propagandists
they pay simply cannot get it through their heads that TOO much
of a vital substance is LETHAL.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page