Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Discussion of anything you like. Sport, stamps, politics, religion, weather, world disasters, news articles - whatever. Things generally NOT stamp related belong in here. Please keep it CIVIL and polite though! We encourage lively discussion on all things.

Moderators: gmoney, Volunteer Moderator Team

Post Reply
User avatar
uncadonego
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 12061
Joined: 25 Sep 2010 14:36
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by uncadonego »

https://theconversation.com/the-ozone-hole-is-both-an-enviro ... eat-100524

The ozone hole is both an environmental success story and an enduring global threat
July 29, 2018

At Mauna Loa Observatory, perched high on a Hawaiian volcano, researchers measure unusual levels of CFC-11 in the atmosphere. The measurements baffle the scientific community: CFC-11, a potent ozone-depleting gas, has been carefully monitored since it was banned under the 1987 Montreal Protocol. But the measurements are soon confirmed by observing stations in Greenland, American Samoa and Antarctica. The evidence points to illegal production of the banned chemical, threatening the fragile recovery of Earth’s UV-shielding ozone layer. But the identity of the environmental super-villain remains a mystery.

Then, a breakthrough. By running global climate models backwards, a team of scientists in Boulder, Colorado, trace the source of CFC-11 to East Asia. The trail is picked up by the Environmental Investigation Agency, a tiny activist organisation based above a coffee shop in Islington, London. EIA dispatches investigators to China and uncovers rampant illegal production of CFC-11 for insulation foam used in the Chinese construction industry. “This is an environmental crime on a massive scale,” says Clare Perry, EIA’s climate campaign leader.
“Nothing is worth more than this day.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

User avatar
lsemmens
BLUE Shooting Star Posting GURU!!
BLUE Shooting Star Posting GURU!!
Posts: 886
Joined: 10 Dec 2018 20:15
Location: Riverton, South Australia

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by lsemmens »

The thing about all of this has me thinking of an old phrase "Never discuss: politics or religion", Maybe we should also include climate change in this.....

Seriously: I am a skeptic, and I'm willing to entertain the idea that I am wrong, however.... It appears that if the rest of the world chose my position and did nothing AND climate change is real, then we are all in the pooh! On the other hand if we (the deniers) are right and we've spent gigadollars trying to fix something that ain't broken, are we doing more harm than good? I don't think so. The best thing to come out of all of this is the reduction of our demand upon the limited natural resources that we have been using at an alarming rate. The worst is that we've spent some money....whoopie!

User avatar
gavin-h
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Posts: 33377
Joined: 01 Apr 2007 02:10
Location: West Coast of England

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by gavin-h »

locakart wrote:
gavin-h wrote:At least some of the zealots on this thread only sneer and condescend and name-call. :idea:

A few hundred years ago they'd've been torturing us with racks and red hot pokers and burning us at the stake for heresy. And probably enjoyed doing it... :shock:

PLEASE - calm down, this is a side-line discussion on a board about stamp collecting.

Let people have their opinions, they are opinions AS ARE YOURS. As in my earlier allusion to religion there is little VERIFIED fact on this subject (and won't be for, oh, a million years or so) and plenty of strongly-held views.

10 "hottest" years in the last 20 years proves nothing in a history of 4½ BILLION years. Yes, but the trend. Yes, but the trend. Yes but. Well, if you'd picked 10 cold years in a relatively short time, would you be telling us all the planet was cooling? No. That would be ridiculous. Wouldn't it?

As I've said before on this subject, the best verdict we can deliver at this stage is "Not proven".
Ah, the stick your fingers in your ears, keep your eyes firmly shut, sing la, la, la and none of the nasty things will ever happen approach.

Who needs facts when you can have blind faith as a comfort blanket?
I need facts. That’s who.

But all you give are opinions and insults.

You are the one who treats an important scientific issue as a matter of belief and acts as inquisitor to those who dare to question your belief.

Faith v Agnosticism. And I am the agnostic.

User avatar
uncadonego
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 12061
Joined: 25 Sep 2010 14:36
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Climate change- fact or fiction?

Post by uncadonego »

uncadonego wrote:Another point is that if we aren't affecting climate change, reducing emissions still makes for a cleaner planet.

If you naysayers are wrong and we do nothing, major problems.

Let's err on the side of caution and make fewer emissions. We will all be dead when the feces hits the fan, so let's not take a flip attitude about the hardships of future generations.
I agree lsemmens.


The Worst Climate Pollution Is Carbon Dioxide
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-worst-climate-pollution-is-carbon-dioxide/

David Suzuki: Is carbon dioxide a pollutant or plant food?
https://www.straight.com/news/795726/david-suzuki-carbon-dioxide-pollutant-or-plant-food
A Stanford University study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, illustrates the claim’s lack of scientific validity. After observing plants grown in California over 16 years, under altered CO2, nitrogen, temperature, and water levels, researchers concluded that only higher nitrogen levels increased plant growth, while higher temperatures hindered the plants.
A study in Nature Climate Change concluded that a 1C temperature increase will cause wheat yields to decrease by about five percent, and a French study found that higher temperatures negatively affected corn crops.

[..]
Recently, 375 U.S. National Academy of Sciences members, including 30 Nobel laureates, published an open letter stating: “We are certain beyond a reasonable doubt … that the problem of human-caused climate change is real, serious, and immediate, and that this problem poses significant risks to our ability to thrive and build a better future, to national security, to human health and food production, and to the interconnected web of living systems.”
“Nothing is worth more than this day.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

User avatar
mobbor
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 10792
Joined: 24 Jun 2007 19:10
Location: Northern N.S.W.

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by mobbor »

Climate change is in the news here every day.

For two days protesters have been trying to disrupt a mining conference in Melbourne. Several have been arrested. A spokesperson said that trying to reduce emissions was a topic being discussed at the meeting.

Other news includes the claim that in many areas houses will become uninsurable. In my area this includes the flood plain and Ballina, where even a 1 metre sea level rise would probably leave the sewerage system inoperable.
mobbor

User avatar
maszki
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
Posts: 4301
Joined: 06 Dec 2011 07:57
Location: Maszki, Poland

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by maszki »

mobbor wrote:Climate change is in the news here every day.

For two days protesters have been trying to disrupt a mining conference in Melbourne. Several have been arrested. A spokesperson said that trying to reduce emissions was a topic being discussed at the meeting.

Other news includes the claim that in many areas houses will become uninsurable. In my area this includes the flood plain and Ballina, where even a 1 metre sea level rise would probably leave the sewerage system inoperable.
"Based on the century-long tide gauge records at Fort Denison as well as; Fremantle, Western Australia (from 1897 to present), Auckland Harbour in New Zealand (1903 to present), and Pilot Station at Newcastle (1925 to present), the analysis finds there was a “consistent trend of weak deceleration” from 1940 to 2000."

I think your sewerage system is safe, unless it becomes clogged by climate advocates 'pissing in each others pockets' and it all leaks into Sydney harbour.

User avatar
maszki
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
Posts: 4301
Joined: 06 Dec 2011 07:57
Location: Maszki, Poland

Re: Climate change- fact or fiction?

Post by maszki »

uncadonego wrote:
uncadonego wrote:Another point is that if we aren't affecting climate change, reducing emissions still makes for a cleaner planet.

If you naysayers are wrong and we do nothing, major problems.

Let's err on the side of caution and make fewer emissions. We will all be dead when the feces hits the fan, so let's not take a flip attitude about the hardships of future generations.
I agree lsemmens.


The Worst Climate Pollution Is Carbon Dioxide
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-worst-climate-pollution-is-carbon-dioxide/

David Suzuki: Is carbon dioxide a pollutant or plant food?
https://www.straight.com/news/795726/david-suzuki-carbon-dioxide-pollutant-or-plant-food
A Stanford University study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, illustrates the claim’s lack of scientific validity. After observing plants grown in California over 16 years, under altered CO2, nitrogen, temperature, and water levels, researchers concluded that only higher nitrogen levels increased plant growth, while higher temperatures hindered the plants.
A study in Nature Climate Change concluded that a 1C temperature increase will cause wheat yields to decrease by about five percent, and a French study found that higher temperatures negatively affected corn crops.

[..]
Recently, 375 U.S. National Academy of Sciences members, including 30 Nobel laureates, published an open letter stating: “We are certain beyond a reasonable doubt … that the problem of human-caused climate change is real, serious, and immediate, and that this problem poses significant risks to our ability to thrive and build a better future, to national security, to human health and food production, and to the interconnected web of living systems.”
The usual selective quoting.

Read the article in its entirety uncadonego

According to the article under ideal conditions the plant growth rate can improve by 80%

Under the worst conditions exhibited when CO2 levels increase the growth rate plummets...to only 40% GAIN.

As if scientists have not already investigated and ruled on CO2 saturation. Of course there is a maximum CO2 level beyond which increased CO2 has no or negative effects on growth rates. Are you not aware of the 'settled science' in regard to CO2 saturation?

Shock..horror...the plants are going to die..we will all starve..only a 40% improvement in plant growth rate under the WORST possible climate conditions.

CO2 is NOT the major culprit. Water vapour is the major barrier to heat radiation from the earth. The science is settled about water vapour being the most significant GHG with the major impact upon heat radiation.

There is NO Plan B

User avatar
uncadonego
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 12061
Joined: 25 Sep 2010 14:36
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by uncadonego »

Here is the whole article:
Life evolved to live within limits. It’s a delicate balance. Humans need oxygen, but too much can kill us. Plants need nitrogen, but excess nitrogen harms them and pollutes rivers, lakes and oceans.

Ecosystems are complex. Our health and survival depend on intricate interactions that ensure we get the right amounts of clean air, water, food from productive soils, and energy from the sun.

Climate-change deniers either wilfully ignore or fail to understand this complexity—as shown in their simplistic argument that carbon dioxide is a beneficial gas that helps plants grow and is therefore good for humans. Industry propagandist Tom Harris of the misnamed International Climate Science Coalition writes: “Grade school students know CO2 is not pollution; it is aerial fertilizer.”


He adds: “Increasing CO2 levels pose no direct hazard to human health.” The unscientific Heartland Institute-ICSC study he references claims, against all evidence: “Carbon dioxide has not caused weather to become more extreme, polar ice and sea ice to melt, or sea level rise to accelerate.”

It’s a facile argument, designed to downplay the seriousness of global warming and its connection to CO2 emissions and to promote continued fossil-fuel use. Deniers like Harris and Patrick Moore in Canada extoll the virtues of burning coal, oil, and gas.

It’s deliberate deception, rather than an outright lie, as most plants do require CO2 to grow. But overwhelming scientific evidence shows that, along with other greenhouse gases, CO2 causes ocean acidification and fuels climate change, putting humans and other life at risk.

Even its benefit to plants is more complicated than deniers let on. As the website Skeptical Science states: “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.”

A Stanford University study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, illustrates the claim’s lack of scientific validity. After observing plants grown in California over 16 years, under altered CO2, nitrogen, temperature, and water levels, researchers concluded that only higher nitrogen levels increased plant growth, while higher temperatures hindered the plants.

A study in Nature Climate Change concluded that a 1C temperature increase will cause wheat yields to decrease by about five percent, and a French study found that higher temperatures negatively affected corn crops.

Another study, published in Science, examined the complexity of CO2 uptake by plants. It found only those associated with particular types of fungi in their roots can take advantage of increased CO2, because the fungi regulate nitrogen that plants obtain from soils. Plants, such as coniferous trees, that associate with ectomycorrhizal fungi can derive benefits from higher carbon-dioxide levels, but plants associated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, such as grassland vegetation, can’t.

The Imperial College London researchers cautioned that even plants that can take advantage of higher CO2 levels could be harmed by other climate-change impacts, such as increased temperature and ozone concentration. Climate change–related droughts and flooding also hinder plant growth.

Burning fossil fuels, creating emissions through industrial agriculture, and destroying “carbon sinks” like wetlands and forests that sequester carbon are already affecting the planet in many ways detrimental to the health and survival of humans and other life.

No matter what inconsistent, contradictory and easily debunked nonsense deniers spread, there’s no denying that climate change is real, humans are contributing substantially to it, and it will be catastrophic for all life if we do little or nothing to address it immediately.

Recently, 375 U.S. National Academy of Sciences members, including 30 Nobel laureates, published an open letter stating: “We are certain beyond a reasonable doubt … that the problem of human-caused climate change is real, serious, and immediate, and that this problem poses significant risks to our ability to thrive and build a better future, to national security, to human health and food production, and to the interconnected web of living systems.”

The evidence is clear and overwhelming: rapid increases in CO2 emissions are not beneficial. It’s past time we started conserving energy and shifting to cleaner sources.
“Nothing is worth more than this day.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

User avatar
maszki
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
Posts: 4301
Joined: 06 Dec 2011 07:57
Location: Maszki, Poland

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by maszki »

uncadonego..I did not read a summary of the studies, I read the studies themselves.

Time for you to do likewise.

User avatar
uncadonego
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 12061
Joined: 25 Sep 2010 14:36
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by uncadonego »

Here is the whole other article:
CO2 outranks soot, methane and even hydrofluorocarbons in terms of long-term global warming

By Gayathri Vaidyanathan, ClimateWire on November 4, 2014

Soot from car exhaust and cookstoves, sulfates from coal-fired power plants, methane leaked during oil and gas production, and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) from air conditioning are all greenhouse gases that trap heat within the Earth's atmosphere for a short while before decaying into less virulent chemicals.

Cutting emissions of such "short-lived climate pollutants," or SLCPs, will not have much impact on long-term climate change, finds a new study published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences.

The study reaffirms strongly that, as far as climate change goes, the gas that truly matters is carbon dioxide. Unlike its shorter-lived cousins, CO2 sticks around in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, wreaking climate havoc.

"It has become very clear that if you want to stabilize warming at any level, you have to start talking about phasing out CO2," said Joeri Rogelj, a research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and lead author of the study. "Reducing other climate pollution can help in different ways and for different things, but in climate stabilization terms, it's noise on the fact that you have to phase out CO2."

The study comes at a time when nations are discussing a global climate treaty to be signed in Paris next year. An emphasis during the talks has been the mitigation of CO2 as well as a basket of SLCP gases. There is a broad belief in policy spheres that tackling SLCPs in the short run would create a time buffer for nations to begin tackling CO2 in the future.

The study suggests that is not strictly true. Using modeling of the interactions between CO2 and SLCPs, Rogelj and colleagues showed that reducing SCLP emissions would help limit global temperature rise up to 2030 but would have little impact beyond that.

Focus on CO2 has to be immediate
To have a sustained, long-term effect on climate change up to 2100, nations would have to focus on CO2 beginning immediately, the study finds. This would limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels by 2100.

"There is a huge energy system infrastructure behind CO2 emissions," Rogelj said. "Any period that you delay these [CO2] emissions reductions will result in a further lock-in of this infrastructure that is very CO2-intensive."

Targeting CO2 would, at the same time, reduce SLCP emissions, since both are emitted by similar sources: cars, energy extraction and power plants.

"So if you were to phase out coal-fired power generation, then you by default also phase out the air pollution emissions that would have come from that plant," Rogelj said.

The study is unlikely to be the final say on the topic. Piers Forster, a professor of physical climate change at the University of Leeds who is unaffiliated with the scientists, praised the study, saying, "I think its science is very good."


At the same time, Forster said that SLCP mitigation would be beneficial for other reasons. For instance, reducing soot and black carbon would benefit the health of women in poorer nations who use cookstoves.

"As far as climate mitigation goes, it doesn't have to be either/or," Forster said via email. "Everything helps."


Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, was skeptical of the study's findings. Given the present gridlock over climate action, all victories ought to be pursued, he said.

"Addressing climate change requires that you do the pieces you can do politically as fast as you can possibly do them," he said. "Countries are preserving their economic positions by going slow on CO2, but they don't have that same challenge on HFCs, or methane or black carbon. Those are all pieces that can be done, and no one will even notice that they've been done."
“Nothing is worth more than this day.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

User avatar
uncadonego
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 12061
Joined: 25 Sep 2010 14:36
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by uncadonego »

Where is my selective quoting? I read the whole article. Where does it say what you said?


Last week it was Urban Heat Islands. Today it's water vapour again. Yesterday the science was not settled. Today, the science is settled.
“Nothing is worth more than this day.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

User avatar
pickwickian
GOLD Star Super Posting Stampboarder!
GOLD Star Super Posting Stampboarder!
Posts: 311
Joined: 05 Aug 2019 18:47
Location: Gundaroo, NSW, Australia

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by pickwickian »

There is a well-known tactic, used in debates by creationists called the “Gish Gallop”, named after creationist Duane Gish. It involves firing off a stream of creationist talking points very rapidly. When the biologist starts to answer the first point Gish fires off some more. And again and again. The time taken to seriously and carefully each point is swamped by the large number of points spewed out. The listener/reader is left with the impression that there are a many points that the biologist “couldn’t answer”.

Climate change deniers have long adopted the same tactic. On this thread we could call it the “Maszki Meander”.

So, let’s have a look at a couple of the recent meanderings. Water vapour is indeed a factor in global warming. But the amount of water vapour increases with warming, so this is a feedback mechanism. In fact water vapour in the air doubles the direct effect of the CO2, so this is bad news.

Also worth noting that the water cycle produces a rapid turnover of water vapour in the atmosphere, a matter of days. So we can have humid days and dry days and cloudy days and clear days all alternating rapidly. CO2 however stays in the atmosphere for many years, a much more long-term effect.

And yes, indeed, different tide gauges give different results. Does maszki seriously think no one was aware of this? Sea level is rising as a result of two effects - melting land ice run-off, and water expanding with increasing temperature.

But unlike CO2 which quickly mixes in the atmosphere, the effects on oceans, divided up as they are by continents and various ocean currents, is much more variable - some parts of the ocean are rising in level faster than others. There are also local effects on water temperature resulting from the El Nino-La Nina cycles, and changes in water density as salinity changes.

In addition, tide gauges are sited on land. And land can be rising or falling depending on a range of geologic factors (eg the loss of ice caps, tectonic movements). These changes are well,understood and can be allowed for. In addition we now have satellite measurements of sea level which don’t depend on fixed tide gauges and can be used to calibrate them.

As always, cherry-picking a small number of examples tells you nothing about overall patters. Another trick the deniers have learned from creationists.

User avatar
muruk
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
Posts: 7465
Joined: 30 Apr 2010 22:02
Location: Bright, Victoria, Australia

Re: Climate change- fact or fiction?

Post by muruk »

maszki wrote:There is NO Plan B
There doesn't appear to be a Plan A either.
A man might as well marry ... if he finds a good wife he will be happy ... if not, he will become a philosopher.
Collecting Greater New Guinea & Macropods (Kangaroos & Wallabies).

User avatar
muruk
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
Posts: 7465
Joined: 30 Apr 2010 22:02
Location: Bright, Victoria, Australia

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by muruk »

I am concerned that a small number of people can have a very large influence on others. I am reminded of Hitler and Goebbels convincing a whole nation of people that Jews were inherently evil and should be exterminated.

I recently saw the results of a poll indicating that 50% of the people polled were climate change deniers. Then I found this:
More than half of America's 115th Congress are climate change deniers, according to a Motherboard survey of their personal testimonies and voting records. The majority of climate scientists—at least 97 percent —agree that climate change is happening, and is a consequence of human activity.
So, three percent of climatologist have convinced half of the population. Scary. Particularly when these three percent are probably those whose job depends on supporting their employers' viewpoints (burning coal is good, economy must prevail over community).

Try this scientific method:

Rank all the reports by climatologists in order from "nothing to see here" to "the world will end tomorrow".

Disregard the top and bottom 5%.

Average out the remaining 90%, and you will get a good idea of the general consensus.


That consensus will show the experts agree that CO2 levels are increasing as a result of human activity. This is resulting in global warming that is at variance with the Malenkovich cycles and solar intensity cycles. That global warming is producing and will continue to produce more frequent and more extreme weather events.

Yes, there are other things that come into play, but they do not detract from the above overall picture.

Meteorologist A might predict "it will rain in Tasmania next year" and will be 100% correct. Meteorologist B might predict "25mm of rain will fall in the Tarkine Wilderness on 25 June 2020" and will be totally wrong. B's wrong prediction does not mean all meteorologists everywhere are wrong, yet I see people arguing that case about climatologists. The fact that a few alarmists are proven wrong does not invalidate the bulk of the scientific opinion.
A man might as well marry ... if he finds a good wife he will be happy ... if not, he will become a philosopher.
Collecting Greater New Guinea & Macropods (Kangaroos & Wallabies).

User avatar
mobbor
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 10792
Joined: 24 Jun 2007 19:10
Location: Northern N.S.W.

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by mobbor »

maszki wrote:
mobbor wrote:Climate change is in the news here every day.

For two days protesters have been trying to disrupt a mining conference in Melbourne. Several have been arrested. A spokesperson said that trying to reduce emissions was a topic being discussed at the meeting.

Other news includes the claim that in many areas houses will become uninsurable. In my area this includes the flood plain and Ballina, where even a 1 metre sea level rise would probably leave the sewerage system inoperable.
"Based on the century-long tide gauge records at Fort Denison as well as; Fremantle, Western Australia (from 1897 to present), Auckland Harbour in New Zealand (1903 to present), and Pilot Station at Newcastle (1925 to present), the analysis finds there was a “consistent trend of weak deceleration” from 1940 to 2000."

I think your sewerage system is safe, unless it becomes clogged by climate advocates 'pissing in each others pockets' and it all leaks into Sydney harbour.
The concern about rising sea levels above was expressed by insurance companies, who are only concerned above keeping money in their pockets.

I don't dispute the fact that in Australia at the places you mention, there does not seem currently to be a concern. It is perplexing that in other areas there is concern...……."Sea level rises at specific locations may be more or less than the global average, due to natural processes such as land subsidence and withdrawal of groundwater and fossil fuels, changes in regional ocean currents and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers." I would add tectonic change. Sydney, like most of the world's best harbours is a ria- a drowned river valley.

And Muruk, couldn't agree more- there is no plan A.
mobbor

User avatar
pickwickian
GOLD Star Super Posting Stampboarder!
GOLD Star Super Posting Stampboarder!
Posts: 311
Joined: 05 Aug 2019 18:47
Location: Gundaroo, NSW, Australia

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by pickwickian »

Muruk there is no problem of “alarmists” among climatologists. The really scary thing is that the predictions you see are all based on the bottom end of the range of possibilities. Precisely to avoid accusations of “alarmism” - trouble is the deniers still do make those accusations so people think things are nowhere near as serious as predicted. Over the coming years and decades the reality is going to be much grimmer than those conservative predictions as more and more feedback mechanisms (release of methane, loss of sea and land ice, loss of essential species) start to kick in.

User avatar
uncadonego
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 12061
Joined: 25 Sep 2010 14:36
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by uncadonego »

Tipping points....

Tipping points merit only a few mentions in the IPCC report. Durwood Zaelke, founder of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, said: “The IPCC report fails to focus on the weakest link in the climate chain: the self-reinforcing feedbacks which, if allowed to continue, will accelerate warming and risk cascading climate tipping points and runaway warming.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/tipping- ... tists-fear
“Nothing is worth more than this day.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

User avatar
maszki
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
Posts: 4301
Joined: 06 Dec 2011 07:57
Location: Maszki, Poland

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by maszki »

uncadonego wrote:Where is my selective quoting? I read the whole article. Where does it say what you said?


Last week it was Urban Heat Islands. Today it's water vapour again. Yesterday the science was not settled. Today, the science is settled.

See uncadonego, there you go again with the selective pinpricking.

What part of my opinion do you not understand?

My scepticism about climate change boils down to one simple opinion....CO2 is not the major culprit, that honour rests with water vapour which controls 75-90% of the Greenhouse effect

What would be the impact on climate change/global warming of stabilising CO2 levels in the atmosphere at 400 ppm? In practical terms?....nothing? Water vapour would still dominate the greenhouse effect, an impact that currently we have no plans to control, negate or, as far as I can ascertain, recognise or understand.

There is no plan B.

In response to several posters.

Pickwickian, the 'Maszki meander' is a straight line journey advocating further investigations, consideration of options and development of a sustainable plan of action that addresses the real issues.

Muruk, There is a Plan A but it has little to do with climate change. In my opinion it has more to do with egos, money and power. The current planned course of action will have little if any impact on global warming/climate change...in my opinion of course.

uncadonego, regarding Urban Heat Islands...."‘Any hard-won victories over climate change on a global scale could be wiped out by the effects of uncontrolled urban heat islands’" and " “Between 1950 and 2015, 27 per cent of cities and 65 per cent of the urban population warmed more than the world average (about 0.6C). " and "The researchers concluded the heat-island effect could add 2C to warming for the most populated cities by 2050." So Urban Heat Islands are a reality, are increasing and cannot be lightly dismissed as an irrelevance, or how did you describe it..."Ooh! anomalous trend! Ooh.....detectable! My goodness! "Not particularly worth worrying about"!

User avatar
uncadonego
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 12061
Joined: 25 Sep 2010 14:36
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Climate change- fact or fiction?

Post by uncadonego »

maszki wrote:See uncadonego, there you go again with the selective pinpricking.

What part of my opinion do you not understand?
Not selective pinpricking maszki. Not at all.

maszki wrote:
The usual selective quoting.

Read the article in its entirety uncadonego

According to the article under ideal conditions the plant growth rate can improve by 80%

Under the worst conditions exhibited when CO2 levels increase the growth rate plummets...to only 40% GAIN.
I did read the article in its entirety. YOU said the article said plant growth rates can improve 80%. Where in this article? Where? You accuse me of selective quoting, show me how I selectively quoted, and where your point is in this article.

If you want to get into whether CO2 is the main driver of climate change or water vapour, we can go around all over again. I have no problem with that maszki. All anyone has to do is start reading this thread from the beginning to see your vacillations on this subject.

When I told you that quoting Worstall was a bad idea because he was a whackjob who says we should iron fertilize the ocean to make a phytoplankton bloom to draw down CO2, YOU were the one who said maybe they should. YOU are the one who said we should take all the money away from the IPCC and spend it on machines to suck out the CO2 from the atmosphere.

NASA and NOAA know better about what is responsible for radiative forcing than YOU.
“Nothing is worth more than this day.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

User avatar
maszki
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
Posts: 4301
Joined: 06 Dec 2011 07:57
Location: Maszki, Poland

Re: Climate change- fact or fiction?

Post by maszki »

uncadonego wrote:
maszki wrote:See uncadonego, there you go again with the selective pinpricking.

What part of my opinion do you not understand?
Not selective pinpricking maszki. Not at all.

maszki wrote:
The usual selective quoting.

Read the article in its entirety uncadonego

According to the article under ideal conditions the plant growth rate can improve by 80%

Under the worst conditions exhibited when CO2 levels increase the growth rate plummets...to only 40% GAIN.
I did read the article in its entirety. YOU said the article said plant growth rates can improve 80%. Where in this article? Where? You accuse me of selective quoting, show me how I selectively quoted, and where your point is in this article.

If you want to get into whether CO2 is the main driver of climate change or water vapour, we can go around all over again. I have no problem with that maszki. All anyone has to do is start reading this thread from the beginning to see your vacillations on this subject.

When I told you that quoting Worstall was a bad idea because he was a whackjob who says we should iron fertilize the ocean to make a phytoplankton bloom to draw down CO2, YOU were the one who said maybe they should. YOU are the one who said we should take all the money away from the IPCC and spend it on machines to suck out the CO2 from the atmosphere.

NASA and NOAA know better about what is responsible for radiative forcing than YOU.
If you read the article uncadonego then you clearly missed, or was not able to comprehend this...“The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding CO2 reduced this to 40 percent,” Shaw and her colleagues wrote." (I offer my sincere apologies for misquoting the article...I referred to an 80% increase when in fact it was 84%...me bad)

As to whether NASA and NOAA know better than ME (in capitals) depends upon the subject matter, the agenda being worked, and the context. I have no agenda where climate change is concerned- I simply do not accept that the 'science is settled'.

There are others sceptical of NASA's data...."

"From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

When you add the IPCC penchant for speaking in terms of 'corrected data' and 'probabilities' who indeed are we to believe?

User avatar
uncadonego
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 12061
Joined: 25 Sep 2010 14:36
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by uncadonego »

First of all, if you have proper a proper combination, then add CO2 and see that benefit screwed by 44%, that is a growth retardant.
But results from the third year of the experiment revealed a more complex scenario. While treatments involving increased temperature, nitrogen deposition or precipitation -- alone or in combination -- promoted plant growth, the addition of elevated carbon dioxide consistently dampened those increases.
Everyone knows CO2 is plant food, the "surprise" of the study is that too much CO2 can retard plant growth.

High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals that's the title of the Stanford Article, right?



Did they draw the conclusion you are thinking I should draw?

I don't think so, the final section, Policy Implications, concludes:
"In the past, people have argued that perhaps we don't really need to worry about fossil fuel emissions, because increased plant growth will effectively pull elevated CO2 concentrations out of the atmosphere and keep the world at the appropriate equilibrium," he added. "But our experiment shows that we can't count on the natural world, the unmanaged world, to save us by pulling down all the atmospheric CO2."

Added Mooney: "Our study demonstrates that there is still a lot to learn about the factors that regulate global climate change. But we also know a lot already, more than enough to engage in a serious discussion about action to reduce CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels and clearing forests."
The opposite conclusion you would have us come to......


NASA

Ewert didn't make an unbelievable discovery, maszki. Data adjustments are clearly available on the NASA website, and they themselves published articles on it! Have you seen the old and adjusted graphs?

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/nasa-did-not-create- ... n-goddard/

And it's kind of ironic that you are still harping about Urban Heat Islands, because since 1999, part of the sinister adjustments to temperature records was to adjust urban temperature readings to not show a false warming trend.
“Nothing is worth more than this day.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

User avatar
uncadonego
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 12061
Joined: 25 Sep 2010 14:36
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by uncadonego »

Otto West : Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda : Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.
“Nothing is worth more than this day.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

User avatar
pickwickian
GOLD Star Super Posting Stampboarder!
GOLD Star Super Posting Stampboarder!
Posts: 311
Joined: 05 Aug 2019 18:47
Location: Gundaroo, NSW, Australia

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by pickwickian »

Australian farmers would be amused at the concept that increasing CO2 levels are going to boost their production as they battle a terrible drought, record high temperatures, strong wind, fires, and the occasional catastrophic flood.

And the maszki meander goes on “after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed”. So like other denialists maszki has gone the full cycle from “there is no warming”, to “there might be warming but it’s natural” to “well even if it is warming it is good for us” and now back to “there is no warming”.

In the meantime, all over the world, people are experiencing for themselves the endless breaking of high temperature records and the climatic consequences of that. And seeing ice caps and glaciers melting and animal and plant distributions change. Are we going to believe our own experience or listen to climate deniers telling us that nothing is happening, all a figment of our imaginations?

What a pity we haven’t got organisations that could scientifically measure the pattern of global warming, to confirm what everyone already knows, and predict its future path in order to advise how to prevent disaster. Oh, wait....

User avatar
muruk
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
Posts: 7465
Joined: 30 Apr 2010 22:02
Location: Bright, Victoria, Australia

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by muruk »

maszki wrote:Muruk, There is a Plan A but it has little to do with climate change. In my opinion it has more to do with egos, money and power. The current planned course of action will have little if any impact on global warming/climate change...in my opinion of course.
I agree totally, but I call that "no plan".
A man might as well marry ... if he finds a good wife he will be happy ... if not, he will become a philosopher.
Collecting Greater New Guinea & Macropods (Kangaroos & Wallabies).

User avatar
muruk
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
I was online for Post Number 3 MILLION!
Posts: 7465
Joined: 30 Apr 2010 22:02
Location: Bright, Victoria, Australia

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by muruk »

uncadonego wrote:Everyone knows CO2 is plant food, the "surprise" of the study is that too much CO2 can retard plant growth.
Plants use carbon dioxide in their growth process, it is essential, but it does not determine the RATE of growth.

Growth RATE is determined by Nitrogen (from the soil), Potassium, and Phosphorous; and water to transport them through the plant's structure, as well as the amount of sunlight.
A man might as well marry ... if he finds a good wife he will be happy ... if not, he will become a philosopher.
Collecting Greater New Guinea & Macropods (Kangaroos & Wallabies).

User avatar
Gordon
Senior Member Advanced Posting Guru
Senior Member Advanced Posting Guru
Posts: 240
Joined: 21 May 2013 20:47
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by Gordon »

There is a simple answer, perhaps. Australia's climate is determined by the Indian Ocean dipole - the temperature of the Indian Ocean. Therefore nothing we do in Australia will affect this temperature unless we reverse the direction of the earth's rotation.

User avatar
pickwickian
GOLD Star Super Posting Stampboarder!
GOLD Star Super Posting Stampboarder!
Posts: 311
Joined: 05 Aug 2019 18:47
Location: Gundaroo, NSW, Australia

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by pickwickian »

Yes, and by the Southern Oscillation. Both it and the Dipole will probably be (have already been) affected by global warming. But in addition the warming will affect ground and air temperatures in Australia, and of course will also affect ocean acidity, ocean temperature, and sea levels.

All parts of the world have local influences on climate, which is climate varies so much across the world. In all parts of the world those local influences (eg the Gulf Stream, the Arctic ice cap) will be altered by global warming, and in addition they will be affected by the general warming.

No country can do much by itself. All countries have to contribute.

User avatar
RobRoyH
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 8506
Joined: 19 May 2011 13:12
Location: Mansfield, Texas USA
Contact:

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by RobRoyH »

muruk wrote:
uncadonego wrote:Everyone knows CO2 is plant food, the "surprise" of the study is that too much CO2 can retard plant growth.
Plants use carbon dioxide in their growth process, it is essential, but it does not determine the RATE of growth.

Growth RATE is determined by Nitrogen (from the soil), Potassium, and Phosphorous; and water to transport them through the plant's structure, as well as the amount of sunlight.
Muruk - AHA... typed your name properly this time.... sorry about last time.

In any case you are correct about limiting factors on growth given a stable environment.... which is of course what we hope the Earth is.... whether it is or not is kind of the point of this discussion.

As it happens, another hobby of mine is fish keeping... and I spent about a decade playing with accelerated freshwater plant growth with both High-intensity lighting AND CO2 injection.

BOTH are necessary for this kind of set up.... if you increase one and not the other growth rate will not change.... the basic input nutrients are well supplied by the fish of course and getting your plants to grow fast enough allows you to keep more fish without poisoning the entire system.

Here is a nice beginner's article....
Beginner's Guide to CO2 Injection in the Planted Tank
I assure you this works amazingly well... so well that I was able to successfully propagate a number of species like Crypocoryne varieties that I had never had much luck with before the CO2 system. I had a lot of trouble keeping the fastest growing species like Water Sprite under control and it was impossible to eliminate them without complete disassembly.

Captive environments are fascinating to play with and experiment with but hard to keep in balance.

Ultimately it became too much work to keep the tank weeded and trimmed such that I could still see the fish. I dismantled and sold off the entire setup and moved on to experiment with a saltwater reef tank... also a lot of work. :lol:

Facebook occasionally puts up some of those old pictures and I'll go looking for them when I get a chance.

If light increases then CO2 does indeed become a limiting factor is my point... but I agree not relevant to this discussion. (although Dyson level engineering projects in orbit COULD put the reigns of even that in our control.... certainly not this century).

A corollary of course... if cloud cover diminishes light intensity materially then photosynthesis slows.
"You say grace before meals. All right. But I say grace… before I dip the pen in the ink."
G. K. Chesterton

User avatar
uncadonego
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 12061
Joined: 25 Sep 2010 14:36
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by uncadonego »

RobRoyH wrote: I assure you this works amazingly well... so well that I was able to successfully propagate a number of species like Crypocoryne varieties that I had never had much luck with before the CO2 system. I had a lot of trouble keeping the fastest growing species like Water Sprite under control and it was impossible to eliminate them without complete disassembly.
Since CO2 dissolves in water 200 times more easily than oxygen, this part of your description is sort of the nightmare in the back of my mind if they ever go ahead and decide to iron fertilize the ocean. Not just phytoplankton, but see plants etc. So thick you can't see the fish, can't keep it trimmed fast enough....God...in the whole ocean.

gavin-h is right, remember the cane toad.
“Nothing is worth more than this day.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

User avatar
maszki
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
Posts: 4301
Joined: 06 Dec 2011 07:57
Location: Maszki, Poland

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by maszki »

pickwickian wrote: What a pity we haven’t got organisations that could scientifically measure the pattern of global warming, to confirm what everyone already knows, and predict its future path in order to advise how to prevent disaster. Oh, wait....
Which is essentially what I am advocating...an unbiased, open Terms of Referenced scientific organisation that could measure the pattern of global warming and predict its future path in order to advise how to prevent disaster...Oh, wait. You mean the IPCC?

The IPCC that simply peer reviews papers presented to them but carries out no measurements or testing; and is funded by the UN- which given recent events is NOT unbiased? Who selects the papers the IPCC peer reviews?

As to 'confirm what everyone already knows'? Why not read through this topic. I suspect that you may find a few posters who disagree with your comment; and if you widen your field of view to the general public you may identify a considerable number of equally sceptical people.

User avatar
maszki
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
Posts: 4301
Joined: 06 Dec 2011 07:57
Location: Maszki, Poland

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by maszki »

uncadonego

Several of your recent comments.

'First of all, if you have proper a proper combination, then add CO2 and see that benefit screwed by 44%, that is a growth retardant.'

'Everyone knows CO2 is plant food, the "surprise" of the study is that too much CO2 can retard plant growth.'

'High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals[/b] that's the title of the Stanford Article, right?'

Good to see that you are finally catching up with reality. Yes, there is an upper limit beyond which plant growth is impacted and this has been known for decades. But at what CO2 levels? If you talk to the global warming crowd, carbon dioxide -- CO2 --at any level, is the enemy of mankind. Any and all creation of CO2 is bad for the planet, we're told, and its production must be strictly limited in order to save the world

This article has part of the answer https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-018-1243-3

"We found very strong CO2 fertilization effects on the aboveground and total biomass of the three species. The optimal CO2 levels for the aboveground biomass were 945, 915, and 1151 ppm, and for the total biomass were 915, 1178, and 1386 ppm for tall fescue, perennial ryegrass, and Kentucky bluegrass, respectively," and

"Thus, we quantified the relationship between CO2 and WUE of perennial ryegrass through quadratic models and found that the optimal CO2 for WUE would occur at about 2700 ppm, which was much higher than those of the other two species"

Of course these levels must be related to the factors such as water, sunlight (both light and heat), nitrogen and the other items referred to in the Stanford Report; but the optimum levels Of CO2 for the plants examined in these studies are well beyond the levels predicted by the IPCC et al.

Also there is one other line of study which is that as plant growth is stimulated by an increase in CO2 levels, then those plants absorb even more CO2; and that the additional CO2 consumption is similar to errors identified in climate modelling. "Not coincidently, the researchers note, their research showed that when plants were exposed to the same higher levels of CO2 as actually occurred over the past century, they were able to absorb on average 16 percent more CO2, which very nearly coincides with the 17 percent error difference earth scientists have found with their climate models."

"The research team suggests their results indicate that climate models need to be modified to take proper account of the behavior of plants as CO2 levels rise."

You quoted but I will add an additional emphasis "Our study demonstrates that there is still a lot to learn about the factors that regulate global climate change. But we also know a lot already, more than enough to engage in a serious discussion about action to reduce CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels and clearing forests."[/quote]

And it's kind of ironic that you are still harping about Urban Heat Islands, because since 1999, part of the sinister adjustments to temperature records was to adjust urban temperature readings to not show a false warming trend.[/quote]

You are still dismissive of the Urban Heat Island effect yet the studies I referred to claims that a temperature rise of 2 degrees C (from UHI alone) is predicted by 2050...FOUR times higher than the IPCC has 'high confidence' will occur by a similar time frame (they said the next 'two or three decades).

Keep them coming uncadonego..all we are doing is confirming the phrase I highlighted above..."there is still a lot to learn about the factors that regulate global climate change."

There is no plan B.

User avatar
uncadonego
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 12061
Joined: 25 Sep 2010 14:36
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by uncadonego »

Grown under 21 degrees C day, 18 degrees night. Study also said for some plants, the benefit declines or vanishes past certain limits. Says birch benefitted, but the biomass of 5 other species barely had any benefit. etc. etc. A mixed bag where temperature was regulated, ignoring the part about:
However, it should be noted that in the future, continuously rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations may substantially lower the CO2 fertilization effect when the atmospheric CO2 concentration rises beyond the optimal CO2 level . As a result, many current climate change models based on earlier results of the doubling-CO2 experiments may overestimate the CO2 fertilization effect and underestimate the potential risks that climate change poses on global grasslands when the atmospheric CO2 concentration goes beyond the optimal CO2 level.
With increased temperatures the experiment goes out the window, unless you think the whole world will maintain all of these conditions:
Three grass species, tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.), were collected using a golf-hole cutter (10 cm diameter × 20 cm long) to ensure the same aboveground and belowground biomass of each species from field plots in the research farm at Rutgers University (Adelphia, NJ, USA). These grasses were irrigated with groundwater once a week in the field research farm to maintain a 10-cm soil surface moisture of about 40% (% volume) during the growing season. Then the collected plants were transplanted into pots (10 cm diameter × 40 cm long) filled with fritted clay and maintained in a greenhouse with an average temperature of 21/16 °C (day/night) and about 800 μmol photon m− 2 s− 1 Photosynthetic Active Radiation (PAR) in natural sun light, and 65% relative humidity for 70 d (May–June 2012) to establish canopy and root system. During the establishment period, grasses were irrigated daily to water-holding capacity and fertilized twice per week with half-strength Hoagland’s solution [51]. We trimmed grasses once a week to maintain a canopy height of 5 cm during the canopy development and root establishment period. Then the plants were trimmed to a 2-cm canopy height and moved to growth chambers (Environmental Growth Chamber) with temperatures set at 21/18 °C (day/night), 60–70% Relative Humidity (RH), light level at grass canopy of 1000 μmol m− 2 s− 1 PAR, and a 12-h photoperiod for 2 weeks prior to the CO2 treatment. During the eight weeks of the CO2 treatment, these grasses were maintained under the same environmental factors as before the start of CO2 treatment, such as chamber temperature of 21/18 °C (day/night), relative humidity of 60–70%, light level at the grass canopy of 1000 μmol m− 2 s− 1 PAR, and 12-h photoperiod (6:00–18:00). In addition, the grasses were also well-watered with daily irrigation and fertilized with half-strength Hoagland’s solution twice a week.
So I guess if CO2 levels rise, but somehow the temperature stays the same during the day and during the night, everyone's soil is always irrigated to water holding capacity every day, we can all live off of eating Kentucky Bluegrass.

Short term study as well. Did you read this part?
Previous studies have found that beyond certain thresholds, high CO2 concentration cause diminishing returns of CO2 fertilization effect on plants. Several studies found that the stimulation of An induced by elevated CO2 decreased or even diminished if exposed for a longer time period, because plants acclimate to elevated CO2 concentrations through a process known as down-regulation
It is well documented that stomatal conductance (gs) declines when exposed to elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration, and a doubling of CO2 from the present ambient concentration generally results in a reduction in gs of 10–70% depending on species or functional groups [58]. In the current study, we also found that the gs of all three grasses were dramatically decreased with elevated CO2 concentrations, which may be partly due to the down-regulation of An caused by CO2. Moreover, the reduced gs under high CO2 concentrations might result in a decline in leaf transpiration and thus reduced nutrient availability, as observed in many previous studies
“Nothing is worth more than this day.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

User avatar
maszki
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
Posts: 4301
Joined: 06 Dec 2011 07:57
Location: Maszki, Poland

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by maszki »

uncadonego...here is another link that may interest you https://climatechangedispatch.com/nasa-natural-causes-behind ... LP4l1kqTQk

Multiple NASA Studies Confirm Bedrock Heat Flow Behind Melting Polar Ice, Not Global Warming
In what amounts to dissension from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) climate change policy, a series of just-released studies by working-level scientists prove that geological and not atmospheric forces are responsible for melting of Earth’s polar ice sheets.

I really must congratulate you on highlighting this masterpiece of logical thinking...

"However, it should be noted that in the future, continuously rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations may substantially lower the CO2 fertilization effect when the atmospheric CO2 concentration rises beyond the optimal CO2 level .

So when the optimal level is reached the fertilization effect lowers.....who would have thought that would happen?

As I wrote earlier today, this to-ing and fro-ing simply reinforces that we as in you and I and the consensus of scientists, all 97% of them (peer reviewed of course) and described in IPCC terms have a low probability that we understand global warming/climate change....and that comment has a 'high probability' of accuracy.

There is no Plan B....nor is there any sign that a Plan B is being thought about apart from by the sceptics and the movers and shakers do not seem interested in listening to 'THEM'.

Perhaps there isn't any profits in developing Plan B.

User avatar
uncadonego
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 12061
Joined: 25 Sep 2010 14:36
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by uncadonego »

Also, this was an 8 week experiment, compared to the other which studied all of these factors for 16 years.

“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.”

"The Imperial College London researchers cautioned that even plants that can take advantage of higher CO2 levels could be harmed by other climate-change impacts, such as increased temperature and ozone concentration. Climate change–related droughts and flooding also hinder plant growth."
“Nothing is worth more than this day.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

User avatar
Brit-Col
RED Shooting Star Posting LEGEND!
RED Shooting Star Posting LEGEND!
Posts: 1963
Joined: 01 Nov 2012 17:48
Location: North Texas, USA

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by Brit-Col »

maszki wrote:There is no Plan B....
So you’ve said — many times. Perhaps, just for the sake of variety, you could describe what such a Plan B would consist of and how it’s benefits would be measured?

Signed,

Someone who cares enough to drive a hybrid car but not enough to stop flying in airplanes.
Good judgment is gained from experience. Experience is gained from poor judgment.

User avatar
gavin-h
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Posts: 33377
Joined: 01 Apr 2007 02:10
Location: West Coast of England

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by gavin-h »

Someone who cares enough to drive a hybrid car but not enough to stop flying in airplanes.
A general observation, hence I've removed the attribution from the quote:

"Hybrid" cars and even "all-electric" ones for those of us who live in countries small enough for them to be a partially-practicable option are in no way "zero emission" vehicles.

Hybrids, obviously from the name are partially-electric and so still rely on an internal combustion engine. Still better in many ways than petrol alone measured by some criteria.

"All-electric" in many ways simply moves the problem from the exhaust pipe to the power station. Arguably that is "cleaner" but does not take account of the damage to the environment due to extraction of rare elements and the pollution "cost" of producing the battery packs.

Me? I still drive a "dirty diesel" which uses probably 20% less fuel than a petrol hybrid. The latest Euro-6 category diesels are strangled by cleaning apparatus which largely reduces particulate emissions and gas emissions below the level of petrol engines. Mine, for instance generates about 190bhp maximum and returns 45-50 miles per (Imperial) gallon even around town making use of start-stop and mild re-gen / hybrid assistance under braking. As an aside, unrestricted by "cleaning" such an engine could generate about twice the power (not that I'd suggest such a thing, just pointing out the efficiency of modern power units).

At the moment, I believe it's the best option in spite of political interference in such matters, if only because it uses less of the earth's resources than the alternatives.

Long term of course we can't keep relying on a non-renewable source and hydrocarbons will be replaced; in the meantime making them ever-more efficient will continue. Compare my current car with similar-sized gas-guzzlers from the 1970s where 20mpg would have been seen as impressive.

I think the future may lie with hydrogen fuel cells or the like, if only because getting sufficient range and quick-enough recharge out of all-electric is still a quantum leap from what we have today.

User avatar
Brit-Col
RED Shooting Star Posting LEGEND!
RED Shooting Star Posting LEGEND!
Posts: 1963
Joined: 01 Nov 2012 17:48
Location: North Texas, USA

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by Brit-Col »

gavin-h wrote:in the meantime making them ever-more efficient will continue. Compare my current car with similar-sized gas-guzzlers from the 1970s where 20mpg would have been seen as impressive.
Exactly!

Different consumers may make different choices but overall technology is driving (pun intended) us toward greater efficiency.

Even maszki, and his ilk of skeptics and deniers, are making their contribution to a cleaner and less carbon intensive environment simply because the cars they buy are cleaner and more efficient than they used to be.

Regardless of one’s views on climate science does anyone really want to be buying fuel for a 20 mpg vehicle when they could be getting 40 mpg?

So maybe, rather than an endless, tedious, debate over “my study is better than your study” we could have a discussion about practical, affordable, economically feasible choices we can make.

The science may not ever be 100% settled but does it really require a PhD to conclude that spewing masses of substances into the environment that Mother Nature herself did not put there may not be the brightest idea?

BC
Good judgment is gained from experience. Experience is gained from poor judgment.

User avatar
maszki
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
Posts: 4301
Joined: 06 Dec 2011 07:57
Location: Maszki, Poland

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by maszki »

Brit-Col wrote:
maszki wrote:There is no Plan B....
So you’ve said — many times. Perhaps, just for the sake of variety, you could describe what such a Plan B would consist of and how it’s benefits would be measured?

Signed,

Someone who cares enough to drive a hybrid car but not enough to stop flying in airplanes.
I'm not ignoring you Brit-Col and I will respond however this is such a complex issue and involves such politically sensitive issues such as population control and re-distribution that I'm wary of opening the Pandora's box.

Also the plan I think needs to be addressed also relates to this comment "The science may not ever be 100% settled but does it really require a PhD to conclude that spewing masses of substances into the environment that Mother Nature herself did not put there may not be the brightest idea?"

User avatar
maszki
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
Posts: 4301
Joined: 06 Dec 2011 07:57
Location: Maszki, Poland

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by maszki »

Ok Brit-Col...you asked for my opinion, so here it is.

I speak (write) solely for myself as a sceptic regarding the current concentration on CO2 as the primary 'culprit'.

Please keep your comments within the normal bounds of politeness'

So in my opinion the heat increase is the result of concentration of an ever-increasing over-population compounded by rising water vapour and CO2 in the atmosphere

What to do?

There are 3 major variables. Population. Human activities, greenhouse gases. Solar, planetary and historical climate data all need to be factored in to plan to reduce the impacts of increases in the variables. ( I can give you the three or four pages of ramblings that led to that conclusion)

The current plan (Plan A) addresses only a minor part of one of those variables.

So Plan B needs first to determine whether the current perceived global warming is a reality or do we have a planet that is basically stable but local temperature increases are corrupting the data. For example the impact of Urban Heat Islands is predicted to cause a 10 degree rise in the Northern Polar regions but over time this heat will dissipate throughout the globe through ocean and wind currents. Does ‘averaging’ out of local temperature variations give an accurate indication of overall global warming?

The second step is to ascertain whether this temperature increase- if any- is a benefit or an impending disaster. Plant life may well benefit from rises in heat, water vapour and CO2..if so what are those benefits and what are the limits of such rises before benefit turns to disadvantages. Increasing CO2 has little effect on humans and animals -again to a specific range beyond which it becomes a health danger.

Knowing those levels, the areas in which there are rises in heat, water vapour and CO2 levels and the rates of change then an assessment can be made as to whether plant and human life is at risk, whether humans can adapt to the changing environment and if not, the time frame in which remedial actions require implementation.

Then the cause of the local warming needs to be addressed. Is it as I suspect caused by human and human activities within over-populated areas creating Urban Heat Islands over mega-cities which then dissipates by wind flow towards the polar regions where the heat load is reduced by melting the ice cover. Does that elevated temperature (including the heat locked up in melting the ice cover) then seek equilibrium by moving that heat to the hot arid regions?

Then the options need to be addressed. If the rises remain within predicted ‘safe’ levels; and the predicted benefits are achieved then the ‘do nothing’ option exists.

If the heat islands continue to expand and generate additional heat ( I have seen articles predicting that rising heat island temperatures will increase planetary temperatures by 2 degrees C by 2050...four times the level predicted by the ‘CO2 is guilty’ advocates) then some form of population control and or relocation options need to be addressed (first variable), together with technological advances to reduce heat generation from machinery and processes (the second variable), and urban areas require redesign to create parklands and forested areas which provide shade and prevent ground water loss.

Population control has already been tried by China (the one child policy) and redistribution by the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and now Israel with its settlements on the West Bank; but these redistributions are/were for political reasons ( population control by demographic changes) and not climate abatement. Some form of population control will ultimately be implemented if not by political consensus then by famine and war which I predict will be the end result if we fail to address the adverse long term impacts of global warming

The third variable needs to be addressed by firstly accepting that water vapour is the primary driver of the greenhouse gas effect both by itself and its amplifying impact on rising CO2. Once that fact is accepted then reduction of water vapour in the atmosphere becomes the key target and subject to investigation. Without pre-judging the issue, I think the funds allocated to Carbon reduction schemes and renewable energy generation would be better spent on investigations and on major water infrastructure projects- dams, desalination plants and water diversion schemes to remove water from where it is not wanted (floods and run-off into the oceans) and shift it to where it is needed. Equally water use should be restricted to human consumption and the food chain and reafforestation to form canopies that enable ground water to be retained.

The importance of water control is highlighted by several past disasters. The construction of dams on the river has resulted in the (almost) disappearance of the Aral Sea and the Basra wetlands and caused the associated economic impact..for what? Cotton? A material that can be easily and economically replaced.

I am reminded also of the denuding of South West USA for crop production resulting in the economic disaster as the topsoil was sucked dry of moisture and high winds created massive dust storms.

The clear felling and failure to replace tree cover in denuded areas ( particularly the Amazon basin) fills me with dread.

The planet can repair itself as can be seen from past disasters (Chernobyl is a recent example) and can handle past climatic impacts (reforestation of desert lands -again Israel is an example of what can be done) but the planet cannot handle human stupidity.

All of these measures should overtake the current plan..there should be no ‘stop now’, change direction'..CO2 is a factor in this issue and any reduction in carbon emissions should be encouraged- but not to the exclusion of measures to address/mitigate the REAL problems.

Brit-Col, my apologies for the length of this rant, but allow me to conclude with 2 tales.

The first is that we are the only animal that does not accept that it is not in our interests to ‘s..t in our own nests’.

The second is the old tale of Indian Chief "Two Eagles" when asked by a white U.S. Government official, "You have observed the white man for 90 years . You've seen
his wars and his technological advances. You've seen his progress, and the
damage he's done."

The Chief nodded in agreement.

The official continued, "Considering all these events, in your
opinion, where did the white man go wrong?"

The Chief stared at the government official for over a minute and then
calmly replied:

"When white man find land, Indians running it, no taxes, no debt,
plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water. Women did all the work, Medicine man
free. Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing; All night having sex.'

Then the chief leaned back and smiled "Only white man stupid enough to
think he could improve system like that."

User avatar
gavin-h
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Posts: 33377
Joined: 01 Apr 2007 02:10
Location: West Coast of England

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by gavin-h »

Brit-Col wrote:So maybe, rather than an endless, tedious, debate over “my study is better than your study” we could have a discussion about practical, affordable, economically feasible choices we can make.
This I can COMPLETELY agree with!

It is in our interests to do exactly this, we all want to preserve our "disposable income" and I truly believe most of us want to preserve the planet for future generations.

What I am less certain about is the "Big Stick" approach of many legislators and even more Marxist-leaning climate activists, which seems to be "tax 'em to the hilt and call them names if they resist". Making things unaffordable is negative and only causes resentment to the many.

Technology is moving quickly in the right direction on this - over the last 20 years, we've seen huge leaps in fuel economy in vehicles, in kitchen appliances, in light bulbs, everything really. We have seen increasing efforts to recycle, to develop eco-friendly materials, to buy local produce.

All these things are a magnificent effort and will be judged as such by history.

We won't cut "consumerism", we still all want the latest gadgets, the latest time-saving devices, the latest communication tools, the latest in personal transport. None of those things will go away, however much some of the more extreme advocates might squeeze their eyes shut and wish them away.

The smart bit is to continue the pace of development, accelerate it where possible and embrace the "quantum leaps" when they happen....

The dumb bit is to keep banging the same old drum, accusing and vilifying when we should be encouraging and praising.

User avatar
Brit-Col
RED Shooting Star Posting LEGEND!
RED Shooting Star Posting LEGEND!
Posts: 1963
Joined: 01 Nov 2012 17:48
Location: North Texas, USA

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by Brit-Col »

maszki wrote:Ok Brit-Col...you asked for my opinion, so here it is.
maszki,

Thanks for that. Well reasoned and well articulated. One of your all-time best posts.

BC
Good judgment is gained from experience. Experience is gained from poor judgment.

User avatar
mobbor
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 10792
Joined: 24 Jun 2007 19:10
Location: Northern N.S.W.

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by mobbor »

Gavin-h mentioned rapidly advancing technology, including light bulbs.

I moved into a house a couple of years ago that was then 10 years old. A couple of light bulbs stopped working so I went to a large store, was told they didn't stock them anymore and suggested a wholesaler. The wholesaler said lighting had gone a long way in 10 years and that I would have to replace them- all 22. The electrician didn't charge a great deal and they are 8 watts!

The same applies to electric cars. They will even be able to be used in much of Australia. The cost is coming down, the technology is improving and re-charging centres are beginning to appear. The time required for re-charging is also falling dramatically. As I said above, I have solar rooftop power, so I could recharge it at home in the middle of the day, and it would cost nothing.

Who knows? The future may see hybrid electric/solar cars. There has been a solar challenge in Australia from Darwin to Adelaide since 1987. The cars are made mostly by uni students, even some from high schools. Dramatic progress has been made. Now there are different classes, including one for normal family sized cars, capable of seating 4 or 5. And some of them can exceed the normal speed limit- 100kms/hr.
mobbor

User avatar
maszki
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
Posts: 4301
Joined: 06 Dec 2011 07:57
Location: Maszki, Poland

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by maszki »

This is the latest 'climate change' news https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/empowering-the-planet/scienti ... spartandhp

The key points....

We now move from 'global warming', through 'climate change' to 'climate emergency'...still a highly emotional attitude that, in my opinion, is not supported by the contents of the article, which talks about 'profoundly troubling' and a 'crisis' but outlines corrective actions that even the scientists should be aware will take years to implement and to have any discernible impact, assuming of course that the 'crisis' they refer to is not in fact 'beneficial' to the planet.

It is however an important addition to the discussion, referring as it does to population issues ("There is a need to stabilise, and "ideally gradually reduce", the world population"), energy usage (heat generation?) (and when combined giving credence to Urban Heat Islands), the need to re-afforestate and so on.

Personally I think the report overplays the impact of CO2 as it refers to " Replacing fossil fuels with low-carbon renewables……", and of the lesser greenhouse gases (there is not a single mention in the article of water vapour), however it is a step in the right direction. I would not expect these scientists to come out and say they got it wrong, but this is a recognition that there has been a misdirection of effort...

"Dr Newsome said that measuring global surface temperatures as a marker of climate change will remain important. But a "broader set of indicators should be monitored, including human population growth, meat consumption, tree-cover loss, energy consumption, fossil-fuel subsidies and annual economic losses to extreme weather events".

"The scientists warn that despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, people have largely failed to address the problem of global warming."

I stand by my hypothesis.

User avatar
mobbor
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 10792
Joined: 24 Jun 2007 19:10
Location: Northern N.S.W.

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by mobbor »

Perhaps the reason water vapour was not mentioned in your article is because it has no effect on global warming. I've asked you to explain this before.
mobbor

User avatar
Brit-Col
RED Shooting Star Posting LEGEND!
RED Shooting Star Posting LEGEND!
Posts: 1963
Joined: 01 Nov 2012 17:48
Location: North Texas, USA

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by Brit-Col »

I freely admit to not being a scientist nor to being any kind of expert on these matters.

With regard to water however I am puzzled. The amount of water the air can contain is capped at 99% humidity true? If it increases to 100% - it rains. This has been the case forever.

So... why the focus on water?

BC
Good judgment is gained from experience. Experience is gained from poor judgment.

User avatar
Brit-Col
RED Shooting Star Posting LEGEND!
RED Shooting Star Posting LEGEND!
Posts: 1963
Joined: 01 Nov 2012 17:48
Location: North Texas, USA

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by Brit-Col »

mobbor wrote:Gavin-h mentioned rapidly advancing technology, including light bulbs.
Last week one of the overhead incandescent bulbs in my office/stamp den burned out. I replaced it with an equivalent wattage (60w) LED bulb and was astounded at how much brighter the new bulb is.

I’ve lived in my house near 30 years. Over time I have replaced the air conditioning unit, water heater, most appliances, most lighting fixtures, added insulation in the attic, new windows. The collective beneficial reduction in my electricity consumption is remarkable.

I think that if the conversation would change from “save the planet” (wacko green new dealers) to “save money” - battle over.

BC
Good judgment is gained from experience. Experience is gained from poor judgment.

User avatar
mobbor
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
WINNER! Stampboards Poster Of The Month
Posts: 10792
Joined: 24 Jun 2007 19:10
Location: Northern N.S.W.

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by mobbor »

Brit-Col wrote:
With regard to water however I am puzzled. The amount of water the air can contain is capped at 99% humidity true? If it increases to 100% - it rains. This has been the case forever.

BC
I agree with most of your points, but that is not quite right. When it reaches 100%, (dew point) water vapor changes back to a liquid form and clouds form. To rain, the air must rise and cool further so the minute water droplets coalesce and get heavy enough to fall as rain. This is more difficult because the adiabatic lapse rate (the rate at which rising air cools) is reduced because of the release of latent heat. So, rain will only occur if the adiabatic lapse rate is higher than the environmental lapse rate (that refers to the air around the rising air) and the air containing the clouds keeps rising.

I'm sure you have summer thunderstorms in North Texas. Sit and watch the clouds rising. If they reach a certain point it won't just rain, you'll get hail.

But, as I've said, I agree that it has nothing to do with climate warming.
mobbor

User avatar
lsemmens
BLUE Shooting Star Posting GURU!!
BLUE Shooting Star Posting GURU!!
Posts: 886
Joined: 10 Dec 2018 20:15
Location: Riverton, South Australia

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by lsemmens »

Solar powered cars are great - only if you have sunlight. Not much help to those who must travel at night. Now if they can develop a stellar powered car, then, perhaps they will be more practical.

User avatar
maszki
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
2500 Stampboards Post - Senior Guru
Posts: 4301
Joined: 06 Dec 2011 07:57
Location: Maszki, Poland

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by maszki »

mobbor wrote:Perhaps the reason water vapour was not mentioned in your article is because it has no effect on global warming. I've asked you to explain this before.
Skepticalscience is a 'known' site which supports the 'CO2 is the guilty party' narrative so I will let that site have its say...

"How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback
.
How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C."

Let me rewrite that last paragraph in the reverse mode...WITHOUT water vapour the temperature increase might be only one third of that predicted.

"So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger."

This is what I wrote earlier.. "The third variable needs to be addressed by firstly accepting that water vapour is the primary driver of the greenhouse gas effect both by itself and its amplifying impact on rising CO2. Once that fact is accepted then reduction of water vapour in the atmosphere becomes the key target and subject to investigation.

Of course, as with this entire issue, it is not as simple as that.

Water vapour levels vary locally; held at differing levels...0% to 99%; and water vapour can be in air as cloud or as an invisible substance (clear skies). In each state and specific locations its impact varies hence the need for further study rather than just ignore the issue by kicking it into the 'too hard' basket as seems to be the situation at present

""The scientists warn that despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, people have largely failed to address the problem of global warming."

I am really surprised that after 9 pages and hundreds(?) of posts by all and sundry identifying many scientific links, that you should now question water vapour as a greenhouse gas and state an opinion that it has no effect on global warming.

User avatar
gavin-h
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Founder Member Joined April 2007
Posts: 33377
Joined: 01 Apr 2007 02:10
Location: West Coast of England

Re: Man Made Climate change - is it fact or fiction?

Post by gavin-h »

Brit-Col wrote:I think that if the conversation would change from “save the planet” (wacko green new dealers) to “save money” - battle over.
Yes - quite agree.

First get rid of the Marxists and other idiots who think punitive taxation is the way forward. :idea:

Post Reply

Return to “'The Water Cooler' - A relaxing and FUN place to let off some steam ......”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests