[_ Old Earth _] Climate change

[Mike S]

Oh, so your are actual claim about the Gulf states is increased and more severe storms? That is absolutely false, even the IPCC admits that. Your other claims are just guesses. There has been a huge amount of snow in the past few years, maybe you missed that.
Do you have any true claims?

The truth is, the effects of global warming will probably be a net positive for us. Certainly plant life enjoys the increase in CO2, we have a greener world because of it. 18,000 years ago there was a mile thick layer of ice over where I now live. Thank God for global warming.

 

[Barbarian]

The truth is, the effects of global warming will probably be a net positive for us. Certainly plant life enjoys the increase in CO2, we have a greener world because of it.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work so well:


Increasing CO2 threatens human nutritio
Samuel S. Myers,Antonella Zanobetti,Peter Huybers,Andrew D. B. Leakey,
Arnold J. Bloom, Eli Carlisle, Lee H. Dietterich, Glenn Fitzgerald, Toshihiro Hasegawa, N. Michele Holbrook, Randall L. Nelson, Michael J. Ottman, Victor Raboy, Hidemitsu Sakai, Karla A. Sartor, Joel Schwartz, Saman Seneweera, Michael Tausz & Yasuhiro Usui
Dietary deficiencies of zinc and iron are a substantial global public health problem. An estimated two billion people suffer these deficiencies1, causing a loss of 63million life-years annually2, 3. Most of these people depend on C3 grains and legumes as their primary dietary source of zinc and iron. Here we report that C3 grains and legumes have lower concentrations of zinc and iron when grown under field conditions at the elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration predicted for the middle of this century. C3 crops other than legumes also have lower concentrations of protein, whereas C4 crops seem to be less affected. Differences between cultivars of a single crop suggest that breeding for decreased sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentration could partly address these new challenges to global health.Nature
Nature 510,139–142 (05 June 2014)
Which may be the most people I've ever included in a cite. Elevated CO2 threatens to undo the green revolution.

 

[Mike S]

Unfortunately, it doesn't work so well:


Increasing CO2 threatens human nutritio
Samuel S. Myers,Antonella Zanobetti,Peter Huybers,Andrew D. B. Leakey,
Arnold J. Bloom, Eli Carlisle, Lee H. Dietterich, Glenn Fitzgerald, Toshihiro Hasegawa, N. Michele Holbrook, Randall L. Nelson, Michael J. Ottman, Victor Raboy, Hidemitsu Sakai, Karla A. Sartor, Joel Schwartz, Saman Seneweera, Michael Tausz & Yasuhiro Usui
Dietary deficiencies of zinc and iron are a substantial global public health problem. An estimated two billion people suffer these deficiencies1, causing a loss of 63million life-years annually2, 3. Most of these people depend on C3 grains and legumes as their primary dietary source of zinc and iron. Here we report that C3 grains and legumes have lower concentrations of zinc and iron when grown under field conditions at the elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration predicted for the middle of this century. C3 crops other than legumes also have lower concentrations of protein, whereas C4 crops seem to be less affected. Differences between cultivars of a single crop suggest that breeding for decreased sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentration could partly address these new challenges to global health.Nature
Nature 510,139–142 (05 June 2014)
Which may be the most people I've ever included in a cite. Elevated CO2 threatens to undo the green revolution.

Greenhouse operators disagree with you. Oh, wait...I thought the science was settled!

Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouse - http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.


Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

 

[turnorburn]

Radionuclides give off heat by a process of radioactive decay. This is the reason that spent fuel rods have to be submerged in water, to keep them cool, so they don’t melt down. According to Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates:

Radioactive byproducts produce heat.


During the normal operation of a nuclear reactor, there is an accumulation of many man-made radioactive materials such as iodine-131, cesium-137, strontium-90, plutonium-239, and many others.

These radioactive byproducts continue to produce a lot of heat, even after the reactor is shut down, because radioactivity cannot be stopped. This unstoppable heat is called “decay heat.”

This decay heat occurs whether the radionuclides are in a reactor, in a spent fuel pool, or leaked into the sea. So it stands to reason that ocean temperatures would be extraordinarily high.

http://optimalprediction.com/wp/fuk...on-is-rapidly-warming-north-pacific-seawater/

 

[Barbarian]

Greenhouse operators disagree with you.

They did a decade ago, before someone actually investigated the situation and were alarmed to find that crops grown in high CO2 levels are, as you now see, less nutritious. Your cite is a good deal older than the more recent research, investigating the nutritional value of such crops. If you thought about it, I'm sure you would realize why they have fewer nutrients.

Oh, wait...I thought the science was settled!

Pretty much. Plants really do grow faster in higher CO2 levels. And (not surprisingly) they do produce more sugars. That is the consequence of the catalysis of water and CO2 by chlorophyll. However, the levels of other critical nutrients, like minerals, are not as great. There is some evidence that amino acids might actually be increased, and as the researchers suggested, it might also be possible to breed new varieties that would not have lower nutritional content.

So it's race between CO2 levels and plant breeders. And as you suggested, the lives of tens of millions of people are at stake.

 

[Mike S]

So, what is your point? Do animals and plants adapt to climate changes or not? Is the earth greener with rising atmospheric CO2 levels or not? You seem to change your tune from day to day. At least you now admit that global warming will benefit humans in some parts of the globe, that's a start. So now maybe you can try to justify totalitarian policies, the expenditure of trillions of dollars, and trapping millions of poor in permanent poverty, to accomplish almost nothing.

 

[Mike S]

 

[brewmama]

Why should we believe anything these "scientists" say??

“On one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.”

“On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination.”

“That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.”

“Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” Dr. Stephen Schneider, former IPCC Coordinating Lead Author, APS Online, Aug./Sep. 1996

“Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve.”


” ‘Wolves deceive their prey, don’t they?’ one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change.”
emeritus professor Daniel Botkin, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology at the University of California, Wall St Journal 17 Oct 2007

Lots more http://climatechangepredictions.org/category/in_their_own_words

 

[brewmama]

And these are always fun!

A Global Warming Treaty’s Last Chance. That teetering edifice that is the Kyoto Protocol gets some emergency repair work this week as delegates from 180 countries gather in Bonn to work out problems that threaten to scuttle the deal altogether.
Time Magazine, 16 Jul 2001

“I’m scared. For 15 years I’ve watched international progress on climate change get slower and slower, even while the pace of global warming seems to get ever more rapid. With time running out for the global climate, your meeting in Montreal represents a last chance for action.”
The Independent, 28 Nov 2005

World leaders will converge on Bali today for the start of negotiations which experts say could be the last chance to save the Earth from catastrophic climate change. Bali could be the last chance to avoid the worst effect of global warming, said Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth.
The New Zealand Herald, 3 Dec 2007

Philip Clapp:“The framework for such an agreement must come out of the Bali meeting. The scientists are telling us that this is the world’s last shot at avoiding the worst consequences of global warming.”
The Independent, 2 Dec 2007

“Resistance is a suicidal tactic,” the former Australian of the year, scientist and author told reporters in Poland. “This round of negotiations is likely to be our last chance as a species to deal with the problem.”
The Age, 9 Dec 2008

"Humanity is approaching the last chance to prevent catastrophic climate change, according to WWF’s analysis of the latest climate science.The warning comes during UN climate talks in Poznan, Poland.Governments in Poznan must agree to peak and decline global emissions well before 2020 to give people reasonable hope that global warming can still be kept within limits that prevent the worst,” said Kim Carstensen, leader of WWF’s global climate initiative.
WWF, “Poznan provides last chance to curb climate change” 5 Dec 2008

"It is now 12 years since Kyoto was created. This makes Copenhagen the world’s last chance to stop climate change before it passes the point of no return, European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told a climate conference in Budapest on Friday."
Reuters, Feb 27 2009

“No one said the road to Copenhagen would be easy. But the agreement we all hope to reach in Copenhagen next year represents the last chance to bring climate change under control before it is too late."
Speech by Stavros Dimas, European Commissioner responsible for environment at a Climate Change Conference, 31 October 2008, Prague

 

[brewmama]

The Copenhagen summit is the world’s last chance to save the planet from “catastrophic” global warming, according to a major study led by Lord Stern of Brentford, the country’s leading authority on climate change.
Without an international agreement to limit global warming, temperatures are likely to rise by 9F (5C) by the end of the century – triggering mass migration, warfare and world hunger, according to the report.
The Telegraph, 2 Dec 2009

A sense of foreboding is one of the few points of general agreement among the 15,000 participants congregating for the next two weeks on this long thin strip of land, marooned between a wide lagoon and the Caribbean Sea. Jairem Ramesh, the Indian environment minister, sees it as the “last chance” for climate change talks to succeed; Connie Hedegaard, the EU’s climate chief, believes a disappointing outcome would “put the whole process in danger”.
The Telegraph (UK), 29 Nov 2010

Rev. Dr. Olav Fyske Tveit, who leads the World Council of Churches, says the upcoming climate conference in South Africa is mankind’s ‘last opportunity’ to address climate change. This week the World Council of Churches general secretary, Reverend Dr Olav Fykse Tveit, called the United Nations UNFCCC COP 17 meeting a “last opportunity for the international community to be responsible in addressing climate change”, and called on the meeting to “act now for climate justice.”
Spero News, 27 Nov 2011

Durban climate change meeting is “the last chance”. Attended by over 200 countries, this week’s major UN conference has been described by many experts as humanity’s last chance to avert the disastrous effects of climate change.
Together with around 20 000 delegates from nearly 200 countries, Ferrial Adam, the climate change and energy campaigner for Greenpeace Africa, will be attending the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which gets under way in Durban in the next two weeks, towards negotiating a new climate regime.
UCANews, 28 Nov 2011

Tomorrow: the earth’s last chance with climate change? Tomorrow, the whole world talks about irreversible global warming as this year’s international climate change summit begins. Participating are 195 countries (almost all of the United Nations).
There are two concurrent meetings: the 8th Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol; and the 18th session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. They will take place from Monday, November 26, 2012 to Friday, December 7, 2012 at the Qatar National Convention Centre in Doha, Qatar.
The Examiner, 25 Nov 2012

Is the Warsaw Climate Change Conference a last-chance summit? The Warsaw Climate Change Conference opened on Monday 11th November. After the 2012 failure of Doha, this summit could represent a turning point in the fight against global warming.
“Global greenhouse gas emissions need to peak this decade, and get to zero net emissions by the second half of this century,” announced Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC in a press release dated 8th November. “We have the money and technology, the knowledge and the new economic models to get the job done in time,” she confirmed before describing the next two years as “a critical period to act faster on climate.”
Sustainable Mobility, 14 Nov 2013

Last chance: Change needed for climate negotiations in Lima 2014. WWF issued the following statement today from Samantha Smith, Leader of WWF’s Global Climate and Energy Initiative, as the UN climate talks drew to a conclusion:
“A repeat performance next year would be disastrous, not just for the progress of these negotiations, but more importantly for vulnerable communities everywhere and the natural world on which we all depend…By the time we get to next year’s meeting in Lima, we urgently need to have political will, real commitments, and a clear path to a comprehensive and fair agreement in Paris 2015, where a new global agreement on climate change has to be signed.”
WWF Global, 23 Nov 2013

Scientists are calling on world leaders to sign up to an eight-point plan of action at landmark talks in Paris. The key element is the goal to limit global warming to below 2C by moving to zero carbon emissions by 2050. The UN meeting in December is “the last chance” to avert dangerous climate change, according to the Earth League.
BBC News 22 Apr 2015

 

[Barbarian]

So, what is your point? Do animals and plants adapt to climate changes or not?

Of course. It's the mechanism that has me concerned. In any fundamental shift in environment, such as we see beginning now, affected populations have a great die-off, with a few that managed to adapt, surviving and repopulating the ecosystem when it finally reaches a new equilibrium. Doesn't sound like a fun time, does it?

Is the earth greener with rising atmospheric CO2 levels or not?

And crops are now becoming less nutritious, precisely when the pressure for food is higher than ever. Not a problem for us, yet. But is it elsewhere, and as you may have noticed, dislocations elsewhere will harm us.

You seem to change your tune from day to day.

If you think so, you haven't been paying attention. Over a year ago, I mentioned that warming might actually benefit North Texas by prolonging the rainy season. (warmer Gulf water may mean the prevailing winds won't come in from the northern Mexico deserts as often) If you think that kind of thing compensates for regional aridity in the great plains or that it compensates for more hurricanes in New England, I'd say you were wrong.

At least you now admit that global warming will benefit humans in some parts of the globe

I told you that, a long time ago. It's not as though it's a secret. It's in the models, and they are well-known and published in numerous locations.

So now maybe you can try to justify totalitarian policies, the expenditure of trillions of dollars, and trapping millions of poor in permanent poverty, to accomplish almost nothing.

Two points:
1. The fact that it's coming and that it's going to make living in the United States less safe and prosperous is aside from the question of what, if anything we should do about it. Personally, I think we lack the will to make a sufficient effort until it becomes a disaster.

2. Millions won't be in permanent poverty. When mismanagement caused the Dust Bowl, there was tremendous pain, poverty, and economic loss. People died or moved away. Eventually, their descendants did well,again. If we let it get that way once more, the same thing will happen.

The point is, it doesn't have to happen, any more than the Dust Bowl had to happen. But I doubt if we'll have the character to stop it before it's too late.

 

[brewmama]

Shysters...

"A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.
Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/

http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/25/...andards-of-science-not-met-by-climate-models/

"Another week, another study showing that our official climate data gatekeepers have been exaggerating the extent of “global warming” to make it look more scary, more urgent, more desperately in need of extra funding for our official climate data gatekeepers…
This one, co-authored by meteorologist Anthony Watts (of Watts Up With That?fame) shows that at least half of the “global warming” in the US since 1979 has been fabricated by NOAA."
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/agu-poster-watts-website-release.pdf


"Now it’s NSIDC’s turn to be caught red-handed fiddling the data and cooking the books.

NSIDC – National Snow and Ice Data Center – is the US government agency which provides the official statistics on such matters as sea ice coverage in the Arctic.

Naturally its research is of paramount importance to the climate alarmists’ narrative that man-made global warming is causing the polar ice caps to melt. At least it was until those ice caps refused to play ball…

Where the alarmists have for years been doomily predicting ice free summers in the Arctic – according to Al Gore in 2007, 2008 and 2009 it would be gone by 2013 – the truth is that multi-year ice has been staging a recovery since 2009."...
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/28/icegate-now-nsidc-caught-tampering-with-climate-records/

"In 2012, I caught NSIDC cheating, just as Arctic sea ice extent was about to cross above the 1979-2000 average. They changed their measurement system using a completely bogus mathematical trick. NSIDC argued with me about it for a while, and eventually admitted that their nature trick was garbage.



NSIDC’s 2012 Nature Trick | Real Science

They have done a much bigger cheat this time, in order to generate this propaganda:

ice at least 5 years or older, is at its smallest level in the satellite record, representing only 3 percent of the total ice cover"


https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/nsidc-caught-cheating-yet-again/

 

[brewmama]

Honestly, environmentalists and cagwistas are the gift that just keeps on giving...

"...This is a scandal that goes to the heart of the relationship between science and public policy and the reliability of global warming doomsayers. The scandal was broken in a small town newspaper, the Free Press-Standard of Carroll County, Ohio and only gradually made its way to the national media via Jeff Stier of the National Center for Public Policy Research, Newsweek, and Jazz Shaw of Hot Air.

As Stier wrote at Newsweek:

Geologists at the University of Cincinnati just wrapped up a three-year investigation of hydraulic fracturing and its impact on local water supplies.

The result? There’s no evidence—zero, zilch, nada—that fracking contaminates drinking water. Researchers hoped to keep these findings secret.

As Russell Cook, a citizen-journalist, has detailed, the global warming fraudsters inevitably revert to the charge that scientists who question their theory are in the pocket of the “fossil fuel industry,” a charge based on no substance at all and is actually 180 degrees different from reality. With billions of dollars annually spent of “global warming research” that hands to governments enormous power to tax and regulate all economic activity (that depends on energy), the gravy train is on the warmist side. Develop a computer program to explain away the embarrassing failure of data to conform to theory, and you will be lavished research funds, invited to conferences in exotic locales, and put up at five-star hotels."...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...om_fracking_because_funders_disappointed.html

 

[Barbarian]

"A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.
Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/

Gee, I'm a retired ergonomist. So I guess my opinion trumps his. Nice try, though. What happened was that NASA went back and found that the data actually show that the Earth was slightly warmer in the 40s than previously thought. Here's the old and new temps superimposed:

This is what professor Ework is claiming to have dramatically changed the trend from warming to cooling. I suppose I could do a regression analysis for you, but do you actually believe this is a significant change, one that shifts from warming to cooling?

Here's another clanker:

"Now it’s NSIDC’s turn to be caught red-handed fiddling the data and cooking the books.

NSIDC – National Snow and Ice Data Center – is the US government agency which provides the official statistics on such matters as sea ice coverage in the Arctic.

Naturally its research is of paramount importance to the climate alarmists’ narrative that man-made global warming is causing the polar ice caps to melt. At least it was until those ice caps refused to play ball…

Well let's take a look, and see what satellite photos say...

Hmmm....

Looks like the photos show a much bigger difference than the graph below. Which do you think is more trustworthy?


Lets look at the actual record using oranges and oranges....

This suggests what the scam was all about. There was a precipitous loss of ice in 2012, which recovered in 2013 (and of course, went down again in 2014. If, as the denier often do, one picks a few selected dates, you can show an increase over a few years time. There have been no less than 11 "recoveries" in that time. But somehow, the average ice extent continues to fall over the years. If you go out to longer periods, the trend (blue line is the trend line) is very clear. Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically in the last three decades.

No way to get around it.

 

[Mike S]

Of course. It's the mechanism that has me concerned. In any fundamental shift in environment, such as we see beginning now, affected populations have a great die-off, with a few that managed to adapt, surviving and repopulating the ecosystem when it finally reaches a new equilibrium. Doesn't sound like a fun time, does it?

Did someone guarantee you a fun time?

Regardless of what you think is fun or not fun, nothing the climate activists are demanding is going to do anything to effect climate change, despite costing trillions of dollars, saddling us with totalitarian regimes, and condemning poor people to perpetual poverty.

"Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task." - David Shearman, an IPCC Assessor for 3rd and 4th climate change reports

http://www.ebooksdownloads.xyz/search/the-climate-change-challenge-and-the-failure-of-democracy

 

[brewmama]

Gee, I'm a retired ergonomist. So I guess my opinion trumps his.

How in the world does an ergonomist trump a geologist/data computation expert??

 

[brewmama]

As for your other postfill, once again it becomes obvious that you didn't read the links and didn't even reply to the actual arguments and data presented.

 

[Barbarian]

How in the world does an ergonomist trump a geologist/data computation expert??

For one thing, I actually looked at the data. As you see, it hardly affects the graph. And it certainly does not reverse the obvious temperature rise. Even most deniers admit that there has been a considerable rise since that time. If you doubt this, consider hardiness zones:

Must be all those left-wing zinnias, um? Stupid plants, flowering earlier and earlier. Don't they know it's getting colder?

No,apparently, they don't. Maybe reality should mean more to you than political correctness?

 

[Barbarian]

Regardless of what you think is fun or not fun, nothing the climate activists are demanding is going to do anything to effect climate change,

As I said, the fact of anthropogenic warming is not the same thing as what to do about it. I'll let someone else handle that. I suspect that it won't happen until some real pain ensues.

 

[Mike S]

As I said, the fact of anthropogenic warming is not the same thing as what to do about it. I'll let someone else handle that. I suspect that it won't happen until some real pain ensues.

Or, until the climate cycles cold again...more likely. Then we'll hear all over again we have to urgently submit to a totalitarian world government to control our lives is order to stop the next glacier, for our own good, of course.