An MSc dissertation survey - takes 10 mins max

Leafsdude wrote:
Alright, I'll ask.

Why is global warming not bad?

Today there are 70% more leaves as a result of increased CO2. This is due to it being plant food.

The increase in temperatures expected (but not actually happening as yet) by the IPCC et al would make huge parts of the world much more fertile due to the much longer growing seasons and the increased rainfall associated with increased temperatures.

The increase in rainfall over the dry bits of the world is likely to make the sea levels drop a little rather than rise a little. Either way the cost to any nation of building the sea defences needed to easily cope with this will be less than they will be spending on traffic lights. It's tiny.

Today as a result of the bad science of global warming bullshit we use vast amonuts of food as fuel. This has raised basic food prices by 70%. This is killing at least 10 million people per year. They are the world's poor and as a result are dying quitely off camera but I cannot see how it is at all possible for this figure not to be 50 million people per year at least. Just use the poorest 2 billion people and do some sums.

From January 2005 until June 2008, maize prices almost tripled, wheat increased 127 percent, and rice rose 170 percent. The increase in grain prices was followed by increases in fats and oil prices in mid-2006. On the other hand, the study found that sugar cane production has increased rapidly, and it was large enough to keep sugar price increases small except for 2005 and early 2006. The paper concluded that biofuels produced from grains have raised food prices in combination with other related factors between 70 to 75 percent, but ethanol produced from sugar cane has not contributed significantly to the recent increase in food commodities prices.[20][21][22]

Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatise to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilisation effect diminishes over time.

Farmers who use greenhouses often have generators working to produce CO2 the electricity they sell to the grid as a byproduct

When the paper says that the increase in fertility is temperary they mean that the level of increase is lower for each additional CO2 rise.

We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25 to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change and land cover change (LCC) (4%)

The Sahara is slowly greening

The plants can grow more when they do have water.

I have shown you evidence that the claims I have made are backed by strongly reported stuff. If you need scientific papers to consider anything evidence then you are denying reality.

In email discussions with Marie Durmont the figure of a 27 Gt per year melt rate was changed to a -2.9Gt/yr then with the involvement of Gishlain Picard to 2.7Gt/yr2 then an acceleration of 12.9Gt/yr. At this point the link tothe Nature paper stopped working.

That it is back will cause me to again email the authors to try to get a figure of the maximum amount of energy the ice can absorb from sunshine per square meter. I have very little faith that this will get such an answer.

You accuse me of dishonesty.

The most bad thing you have been able to fire back at me that the warmer climate could produce is that West Texas has had a period of drougt.

This is of course not at all out of it usual variability and this area has had much more sever droughts in ths past in both warmer and colder periods.

You have said that the paper which says that there has been an increase in world plant fertility and which then goes on to make the claim that this will level off is reason to say that there will be no long term effect on plant growth.

Plainly the effect we have today will not go away

and given that farmers use much higher levels of CO2 to promote plant growth when they can the second claim is bogus. Your critical thinking has left the building.

Leafsdude wrote:

In email discussions with Marie Durmont the figure of a 27 Gt per year melt rate was changed to a -2.9Gt/yr then with the involvement of Gishlain Picard to 2.7Gt/yr2 then an acceleration of 12.9Gt/yr. At this point the link tothe Nature paper stopped working.

Whose e-mail discussions? And why did the number change?

And maybe it was your end, not Nature's.

That it is back will cause me to again email the authors to try to get a figure of the maximum amount of energy the ice can absorb from sunshine per square meter. I have very little faith that this will get such an answer.

And if you do...?

You accuse me of dishonesty.

I did no such thing... *shrug*

And, for the record, my main aim in this debate is to expose the lack of critical thinking and dishonest tactics of the anti-ACC crowd. The fact that you think a warmer climate results in generally good things, even though every source you've used to defend that so far completely disagrees with that, suggests you're basing that claim on a preconceived notion, not on reality or facts.

The most bad thing you have been able to fire back at me that the warmer climate could produce is that West Texas has had a period of drougt.

Uh, no. The most bad thing I've offered that a warmer climate could produce is loss of vegetation due to changing environments that they cannot adapt to.

This is of course not at all out of it usual variability and this area has had much more sever droughts in ths past in both warmer and colder periods.

Two things you've got wrong here:

1) All of Texas and California have been in droughts, not just West Texas.

2) Droughts are based on irregular water deficiency. In other words, even West Texas, which is normally dry, has seen even dryer conditions than normal. If it was normally dry, it wouldn't be classified as a drought. As well, a drought would never be classified as "common", as that would be a contradiction.

Which is hardly the point. Remember, you brought up the Sahara supposedly increasing in vegetation as evidence that climate change was positive. A localized effect of climate change doesn't mean climate change is good. The fact that there are areas that are both seeing increase in life and decrease in life is expected even in a relatively unchanging climate.

You have said that the paper which says that there has been an increase in world plant fertility and which then goes on to make the claim that this will level off is reason to say that there will be no long term effect on plant growth.

Not quite what I said. Though, it needs to be pointed out that I'm not making the claim, scientists are. What they are saying is that the "fertility" (as you call it) is temporary, as in eventually the increase in fertility will drop. Whether that drop will return to levels seen before the increase depends on the levels of both CO2 and the increase in temperature. If we can level off both, then yes, there will probably be no long term effect. If we cannot, the long term effect will almost certainly be negative long term effects on plant growth as temperatures increase beyond the maximum hardiness levels of native plants in different areas.

Plainly the effect we have today will not go away

Based on what, exactly?

and given that farmers use much higher levels of CO2 to promote plant growth when they can the second claim is bogus. Your critical thinking has left the building.

Typical transference. Try thinking critically about how greenhouses work and compare that to the natural environment of this planet. I'll point you in the right direction again: greenhouses have artificial temperature and moisture control which keeps both constant even as CO2 increases. Earth's natural environment doesn't have such a control. Maybe then you'll realize why your comparison of the two is completely faulty.

In discussion with the lead aurthor of the paper in Nature she repeatedly changed the numbers. Totally incoherant and innumerate.

I have, no answer, no surprise.

You have accused me of dishonesty. That you can deny this only a day later shows your separation from truth.

And, for the record, my main aim in this debate is to expose the lack of critical thinking and dishonest tactics of the anti-ACC crowd. The fact that you think a warmer climate results in generally good things, even though every source you've used to defend that so far completely disagrees with that, suggests you're basing that claim on a preconceived notion, not on reality or facts.

Do you think that warmer places with the same rain fall produce less food???

Hell's teeth it's hard work. Yes, local randomness, within the expected level of such randomness is neither evidence for or against CAGW. Both the droughts in some places in America and the increased rain fall in Austrailia and other places are within the expected deviation from average conditions that these places often have. The increas in plant life around the Sahara without increased rain fall is not though.

Given that the temperature is expected to increase a bit and the rainfall will generally respond in kind the net effect will be a larger increase in plant growth than just the CO2 effect. Obviously!!!

If the conditions of earth move a bit closer to those in a greenhouse where the conditions are controled for perfect growing then the world will grow more. Not hard.

Leafsdude wrote:

In discussion with the lead aurthor of the paper in Nature she repeatedly changed the numbers. Totally incoherant and innumerate.

Whose discussion?

I have, no answer, no surprise.

Oh, you're the one sending the e-mails? *laugh*

Well, that just makes me have to take your word for it, doesn't it? I'm rather skeptical that you even understood the responses to your e-mails, even if you aren't completely misrepresenting them (or making them up).

And I'm sure she has things of higher priority than answering an amateur skeptics e-mails, especially within 36 hours. *laugh*

You have accused me of dishonesty. That you can deny this only a day later shows your separation from truth.

Lets see that quote again:

And, for the record, my main aim in this debate is to expose the lack of critical thinking and dishonest tactics of the anti-ACC crowd. The fact that you think a warmer climate results in generally good things, even though every source you've used to defend that so far completely disagrees with that, suggests you're basing that claim on a preconceived notion, not on reality or facts.

Mmmhmm.

Though I'd like to clarify that the reason I debate, beyond exposing lies, misrepresentation and deceit, is also to learn, as debating always manages to introduce me to questions and answers via research I would otherwise have never found.

Do you think that warmer places with the same rain fall produce less food???

Of course not. Do you think warmer places will maintain the same rainfall?

Hell's teeth it's hard work. Yes, local randomness, within the expected level of such randomness is neither evidence for or against CAGW. Both the droughts in some places in America and the increased rain fall in Austrailia and other places are within the expected deviation from average conditions that these places often have. The increas in plant life around the Sahara without increased rain fall is not though.

Actually, the Sahara, and the area in question in particular, has seen a significant increase in rainfall over the last 20-30 years.

Given that the temperature is expected to increase a bit and the rainfall will generally respond in kind the net effect will be a larger increase in plant growth than just the CO2 effect. Obviously!!!

Only if you live in ideal conditions. The Earth is too complex to simply say "CO+H2O increase = more plants!" There's too many other factors, including plant sensitivity to changing levels of warmth and water, to be able to state that.

If the conditions of earth move a bit closer to those in a greenhouse where the conditions are controled for perfect growing then the world will grow more. Not hard.

Well, yes, but to say more CO2 and more H2O means you're getting closer to greenhouse conditions is erroneous, considering adding those two will cause higher temperatures than what are typical in human-made greenhouses.

I can post the email trail if you wish. At first she encoraged me to ask questions and responded quickly. Not so now.

If your intention was not to say that I am being dishonest what the hell was it?

I think that the climate getting warmer will cause more rainfall. That these areas will get wetter more often than not. Generally this is a good thing.

More CO2 and more H2O and hotter conditions will cause more plant growth. This will be limited by the avialibility of other nitrients. It is very right and easy to state that.

Have you ever been in a greenhouse??????? It is vertually always significantly warmer than outside it. They do not build greenhouses in hot humid places because the conditions outside are good already!! Hot and wet is what they are built to cause!!! Then if they are big comercial growers they add CO2.

What is it with the religious that they seem to conpete to hold the most outrageously wrong ideas???

Leafsdude wrote:

I can post the email trail if you wish. At first she encoraged me to ask questions and responded quickly. Not so now.

If she gives you permission to do so, go ahead.

If your intention was not to say that I am being dishonest what the hell was it?

To state why I debate? Like I explicitly stated?

I think that the climate getting warmer will cause more rainfall. That these areas will get wetter more often than not. Generally this is a good thing.

Once again, that's not true. Look up hardiness zones. Plants, in general, do not react well to temperature and precipitation changes.

More CO2 and more H2O and hotter conditions will cause more plant growth. This will be limited by the avialibility of other nitrients. It is very right and easy to state that.

Only if you live in an idealized world.

In reality, plants react poorly to change on a large scale, even if those changes theoretically should result in an increase in plant growth.

Have you ever been in a greenhouse??????? It is vertually always significantly warmer than outside it. They do not build greenhouses in hot humid places because the conditions outside are good already!! Hot and wet is what they are built to cause!!! Then if they are big comercial growers they add CO2.

And they control temperature. Again, you're focused completely on absolute values, when what you should be paying attention to is variation, or lack thereof.

For the record, though, most greenhouses are usually controlled to around 20-25*C (72-85*F) during the day and about 3-4*C lower at night.

As well, greenhouses do exist in Florida, for example. The reason, of course, is that greenhouses, again, allow for controlled environments. Weather is unpredictable, and even in temperate climates, having such variation makes growing crops somewhat risky.

What is it with the religious that they seem to conpete to hold the most outrageously wrong ideas???

I know, right?

If I thought you would not instantly call them fake I would. In fact how about you send me your email and I will forward them to you?

Generally when somebody talks about dishonesty in reply to anothers post it's aimed at them. You are being totally dishonest in trying to avoid the fact that you strongly implied that I was dishonest.

Again, which world do you come from???? If you take a plant and put it into a warm wet greenhouse it will generally thrive!!!

Given the very slow rate of change of climate there will not be any such problems. Perhaps farmers will change some of their crops. Maybe.

Do you think that greenhouses have air-con???

No you think that plants die it there is a warm, wet summer, that they will grow more quickly in today's CO2 rich air than 100 years ago but that this effect will vanish because of ..... And that for some reason you have yet to say we should all panic about any change in the world at all.

Leafsdude wrote:

If I thought you would not instantly call them fake I would. In fact how about you send me your email and I will forward them to you?

It makes no sense for you to e-mail them to me. Why not just PM, if you don't want to put them here?

I'd like to see an e-mail from the person in question first stating you sharing the e-mails is okay before I read any of them, though, anyway.

Generally when somebody talks about dishonesty in reply to anothers post it's aimed at them. You are being totally dishonest in trying to avoid the fact that you strongly implied that I was dishonest.

Saying I did say it to you directly is completely different from saying I implied it was directed at you. And, as I noted, I was replying to your statement of why you debate, so in context it's clear I wasn't necessarily talking about you.

I think the fact that you inferred I was talking about you specifically suggests you have a guilty conscience, though.

Again, which world do you come from???? If you take a plant and put it into a warm wet greenhouse it will generally thrive!!!

When you state them in such generalities, sure. But you put, say, a guava, in constant 30*C conditions, it will not thrive as well as in its ideal 27*C temperature. If you put it in constant 40*C temperatures, it will probably fail to grow the majority of the time.

Again, generalizing plants as "warm good, cold bad" is faulty. In general, they're not very adaptive. Most of life is not. It's why 90+% of species to have ever existed have died out.

Given the very slow rate of change of climate there will not be any such problems. Perhaps farmers will change some of their crops. Maybe.

Do you not understand that 2*C of change in 100 years is not slow? 2*C of change over 1000 years is not slow. Such severe change usually happens on a timescale of 10 000+ years. Sometimes even over millions of years. Evolution, especially on plants, does not work quickly enough to correct for changes over that length of time.

Do you think that greenhouses have air-con???

Yup.

Diverse and unusual situations are not new to us as we have made installations in the arid deserts of the Middle East, the humid conditions of the tropics

No you think that plants die it there is a warm, wet summer, that they will grow more quickly in today's CO2 rich air than 100 years ago but that this effect will vanish because of ..... And that for some reason you have yet to say we should all panic about any change in the world at all.

I've yet to say so because I'm not debating in the climate policy or climate politics forum. I'm currently in the climate debate in general subforum, where I prefer to debate the facts of climate rather than the politics, since it's useless to debate the politics when there's no agreement on the facts.

Given that she will not talk to any more that's not going to work, which is why you specify it.

You are dishonest both with the world and yourself. You are deliberatly self delusional.

That is a clear and honest statement. You should try making some you will find it refreshing.

Oh, dear, the guava will not be quite so good in a very tiny range of already tropical climates where other species of food plants will do even better but it will be far more growable in most places.

The food you can produce in a hot wet place is more than in a cold dry one. Always. Different food but so what?

The longest temperature record we have shows a change of that degree over less time.

The central England temperature record had one and there was no vast die back of vegitation. Although the great food shortages did go away.

Such a slow rate of change may be unimaginable for those who have never done anything but for anybody with a practicle life it's not a problem. Then again if you are somebody who has to have it explained to you that the effect of increased CO2 increasing plant growth will not go away unless the CO2 drops because you are so committed to the cause any information will be twisted to fit your naritive.

OK, if you are growing stuff in a greenhouse in Arabia and the outside temperature is 50c or you want to have a restaurant in it then yes you will need to cool the thing.