Remember me
▼ Content

An MSc dissertation survey - takes 10 mins max


An MSc dissertation survey - takes 10 mins max29-06-2016 14:06
carbonmaster
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Hi everyone,

I am a MSc masters student currently undertaking a dissertation to do with climate change communication. I am need participants to take part in my online survey which takes a maximum of 10 minutes to complete. I would be so grateful if you would take the time to complete it.

Thanks in advance

Link to the survey: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pPJ19KLL6ek5gecMN8QDMoIe7k4G1KdQqaN9afh4PYY/viewform
02-07-2016 18:25
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1154)
I got to question 10 and could go no further.

Your questions assume that global warming and climate change are the same thing.

Your questions assume that global warming is bad. It is not.

Edited on 02-07-2016 18:25
05-07-2016 09:32
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1154)
Well, I've replied to this thread, I've PMed you but still no answer.

Are you at all interested in actually finding people's views or is it just an excercise in getting the answer you wanted?

Edited on 05-07-2016 09:32
18-07-2016 19:29
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Alright, I'll ask.

Why is global warming not bad?
19-07-2016 15:07
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1154)
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.
19-07-2016 15:19
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
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.


Do you have sources for any of the claims above?
19-07-2016 17:15
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1154)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DSSrjAXK5pGw

This is a link for a simple video.

But for the world food problem;


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]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_vs._fuel

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/biofuelsAndWorldHunger.php

There are loads more just type in biofuel and world hunger and wander around.

And for the more leaves;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36130346

Edited on 19-07-2016 17:15
19-07-2016 17:49
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
What does the 97% consensus have to do with any of your claims?

Let me be more specific, though: can you cite papers that say:

1) Today there are 70% more leaves as a result of increased CO2
2) The increase in temperatures expected...would make huge parts of the world much more fertile
3) 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

Thanks.

Also worth noting that the biofuel/food prices problem is not a climate-driven one, but rather an economically driven one.

ETA: Just noticed the BBC link was in support of 1).

That said, this quote:

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


Kind of debunks your claim, wouldn't you say? *shrug*

For the record, the reason why CO2 effects are short-lived is because of hardiness zones, where some plants will temporarily gain food, as you say, but the temperature increases and changes in rainfall rates which eventually arise will decrease the productivity of the same plants.
Edited on 19-07-2016 17:58
19-07-2016 18:23
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1154)
Farmers who use greenhouses often have generators working to produce CO2 the electricity they sell to the grid as a byproduct. The level of CO2 they have in the greenhouses is so high that it will kill humans. They have to flush the greenhouse if they want to work in there. This is done to increase the plant growth rate.

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.

The Sahara is slowly greening;

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

The plants can grow more when they do have water. And they have more water because the climate is slightly closer to the climate of 7,000 years ago where it was a grassland with some woods and there was a lake bigger than England in it.

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.

Edited on 19-07-2016 18:23
19-07-2016 18:57
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Farmers who use greenhouses often have generators working to produce CO2 the electricity they sell to the grid as a byproduct


They also control temperature and water levels in those greenhouses.

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.


No, they don't. It's very clearly saying that the ability for plants to increase greening is reliant on more factors than CO2 levels and that CO2 increases are more likely to effect negative factors more significantly than the increase will effect them positively.

It's also worth pointing out that the increase is estimated at 25-50%, with 70% of that increase credited to increased CO2 levels:

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%)


Source: http://luc4c.eu/public_files/findings_and_downloads/publications/MS_with_figs_Pugh%202016.pdf

The Sahara is slowly greening


That's great.

Meanwhile, Texas and California are rapidly browning.

The plants can grow more when they do have water.


Sure, but they can also be adversely effected by too much water as well. And different plants have different tolerance levels. Most desert plants have low tolerance for extended periods of overwatering for obvious reasons.

In fact, that's the exact problem with climate change and why the generalizations of "water and CO2 is good for plants!" is faulty. Not all plants are created equal, and more importantly, not all plants can adapt to changing environments quickly enough to survive the predicted changes in climate.

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.


So I should trust the media reporting about scientific papers instead of reading the source material myself and seeing whether the media is misrepresenting or misunderstanding what's being claimed?

The media is notoriously poor at reporting science, especially media sources that are generally respected by the average person, such as National Geographic. Considering they make their buck on controversy and sensationalism, both of which are difficult to find legitimately in almost all scientific disciplines, it's not surprising. It's also worth noting that sources like these misrepresent climate change papers that do support the reality and the negative consequences of it. It's a flaw in science news reporting pretty much across the board, except for the handful of non-journal sources that are run by PhD scientists like LiveScience or Scientific America.

As such, I am absolutely not denying reality when I ask for scientific papers to consider scientific claims instead of media reports. Instead, I'm exercising proper skepticism and reasoning skills by doing so. Ironic, considering those labeling themselves as "skeptics" do no such thing.
Edited on 19-07-2016 19:12
19-07-2016 19:42
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1154)
The last time I asked for clarification of a paper in Nature it became abundantly clear that the author had no clue about the subject and the paper was withdrawn when the co-authors found out what the idiot was saying.

Scientific papers are not utterly reliable either.

You will find lots of skeptics that relentlessly link to scientific papers. I am not one. I hope it does warm up. I think that it will be very easy to cope with. My main aim in this debate is to stop the 10+million people per year dying from hunger due to the mis-use of bad science.

Edited on 19-07-2016 19:42
19-07-2016 20:29
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Beyond the fact that I'm not saying scientific papers are utterly reliable, can you source this Nature paper?

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 fact you refuse to actually debate against my arguments and instead assert claims also makes me believe you are aware of this and would rather believe a lie than try to understand the reality and perhaps find out you're wrong.
Edited on 19-07-2016 20:31
20-07-2016 09:55
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1154)
[color=blue]The paper has re-appeared;

http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2180.epdf?referrer_access_token=GRtH6G5-EXU55TPY1I-ApNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M9PGwIyKjSmktz08GZvRoP37INiMvzLVtRRDIv-MLPDppSJjfYeaMtooULYGxMj6vMyVw0ot_c282R1kchge37mzsWwDUI07sg8zRHptxyPUyHQORNuz5BXnQ96hrNj-zPqO3Ym6qJhSYy1XU6DhT02A5Iego-7XnOdBJJw2mNFRz0V2k9MgixCWG5kRSRfXl9tfTG3t3ArVM_wqJK-_zw&tracking_referrer=news.nationalgeographic.com

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.
[/color]
Edited on 20-07-2016 09:57
20-07-2016 16:26
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
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*

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.
Edited on 20-07-2016 16:28
20-07-2016 19:34
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Apparently I'm not able to edit my post anymore.

Anyway, when I said "And maybe it was your end, not Nature's", I'm talking about the link not working, just to clarify.
21-07-2016 10:38
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1154)
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.


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

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...?


I have, no answer, no surprise. If they/she was to answer the question it would be plain as to the maximum melt rate of Greenland which would, I expect, be a lot lower than the numbers presently thrown about for the net ice mass loss.

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.


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

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.


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

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.


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.

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?


Why the hell would they? A plant which was growing at x rate is now doing 1.4x because of increased CO2. Why would that change? Assuminbg the other factors stay the same??? Do you think that the biology of the plant will think to it's self "I'd better slow down a bit, I'm getting more than my fair share."????

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.


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.

Edited on 21-07-2016 10:40
24-07-2016 20:48
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
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.
Edited on 24-07-2016 20:51
25-07-2016 08:57
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1154)
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*


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


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.


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

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?


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.

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.


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.

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.


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??? Go into any greenhouse anywhere.
25-07-2016 13:11
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
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?
Edited on 25-07-2016 13:15
25-07-2016 15:36
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1154)
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 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?

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?


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.

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.


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.

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.


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

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.


Do you think that greenhouses have air-con??? If not, then how do they manage to lower the temperature inside them??? It's always warmer and generally wetter in a greenhouse than outside. That's why they have them!!!!

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


I know, right?


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.
25-07-2016 17:14
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
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.

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.
Edited on 25-07-2016 17:16
25-07-2016 21:34
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Just a correction, since I cannot edit the post anymore: guava's ideal growth temperature, per this is between 73-82*F, or 23-28*C, not the 27*C I cited.
26-07-2016 07:51
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1154)
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.


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

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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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


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.

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.


Facts; Olny those who willfully exagerate all the possible effects of increased CO2 are those who also willfully exagerate the problems and when challenged these problems turn out to be utterly minor.

The Green movement has become the sheep's cloathing for the communist party and all other human haters who want to have some sort of Maoist cultural revolution because they think that if they start again they might not be the utterly insignificant losers that they currently are.
26-07-2016 15:51
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Given that she will not talk to any more that's not going to work, which is why you specify it.


Or maybe I just have standards?

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.


Sounds like transference to me. It's pretty typical in the anti-science crowd.

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.


Nope, not a tiny range. The tiny range is the one it can grow in.

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


Nope. There's just as many sources of planted foods that you can grow in temperate climates as in frigid ones.

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


Source?

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


Central England <> Global. Try again.

And you accuse me of lying to myself? *laugh*

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.


Or maybe you're just too much of a simpleton to grasp that not everything is black and white, and that not every cause will always result in the same effect no matter the strength of that cause? *shrug*

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.


Those links were all in North America.

Though you've basically just agreed with my point here, so...

Edited on 26-07-2016 16:25




Join the debate An MSc dissertation survey - takes 10 mins max:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Survey on Climate Change for school super short please help!!!2603-06-2018 17:23
Participate climate change survey127-02-2018 18:09
How effective are the UK strategies to reduce global warming?(please complete survey)12708-02-2018 15:41
Barrow, Alaska: The Leading Edge Of Climate Change - 7 mins221-12-2017 18:56
The case against man made climate change, condensed - 23 mins121-12-2017 18:50
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact