[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... d-in-2036/

Seriously you're worried about something Michael (Hide the decline) Mann told you.

The one featured in this famous viral video?



Has he ever been right about anything?

Yeah I know ad hominem, but c'mon...Michael freakin Mann.

Basically though, he has another model. So what? Stop worrying until he gets one right.

Hey come to think of it here's something.

Lie-to-your-face, no-Nobel Mike says there is no pause. I assume he is talking about the fact, because there's been no statistically significant warming in 15 - 17 years (not even the IPCC says there has been) doesn't mean there possibly can't have been some sort of pretty much unmeasurable warming hidden in the error bars somewhere.

But I have a question. I don't know if the information is even out yet, but did the last IPCC report offer a graph for a model that shows the pause and then what will have to happen after that to get to catastrophe. If so, can I see it? Do you have a link? They didn't forecast the pause before, so they didn't have anything like this. They had models to forecast what they believed might happen if say emissions stopped, but they didn't have anything to say, "OK here's a twenty year pause, but we're still going to get to 3 degrees per doubling". At least I never saw anything like that.

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And yet, there is still the same trend . . .

Which doesn't fit the models for CO2 driven feedback magnified warming. In a few more years it should be clear one way or the other how the climate works.

What we are seeing is not what has been predicted. As such the potential harm that has been predicted by the rapid raise in temperature is incorrect.

That's the core of the argument, that slight CO2 warming is going to cause massive feedback warming that will change the climate so rapidly that it's going to destroy most of the biosphere. So we need to spend most of the world's GDP on 'reducing' CO2 emissions.

[Jabberwalker]

Boy, the Koch Brothers are pouring serious cash into this campaign. I wonder if they have any old "tobacco lobby doctors" on the payroll?

[Xort]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Boy, the Koch Brothers are pouring serious cash into this campaign. I wonder if they have any old "tobacco lobby doctors" on the payroll?

I feel like I'm back on /pol/.

Someone makes a rational argument that you don't agree with? Call'em a shill.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And yet, there is still the same trend . . .

Which doesn't fit the models for CO2 driven feedback magnified warming. In a few more years it should be clear one way or the other how the climate works.

What we are seeing is not what has been predicted. As such the potential harm that has been predicted by the rapid raise in temperature is incorrect.

That's the core of the argument, that slight CO2 warming is going to cause massive feedback warming that will change the climate so rapidly that it's going to destroy most of the biosphere. So we need to spend most of the world's GDP on 'reducing' CO2 emissions.

Actually, the core of the argument - and the models - is we don't know what effect C02 will have. Will it be slight? Will it be extreme? We don't know.

That was the whole point of the link that N_F ad hominemed.

$1:

You can try this exercise yourself. The text below explains the variables and steps involved. You can download the climate data here and the model code here. And you can compare your results with mine, which are here. You can also change the variables to see what other future scenarios are possible. One note: the model runs on MatLab software, which can be obtained here.

You can run the climate models for yourself! The point of which is; if we do nothing now, it will be much harder to do anything later if we find the effects are on the extreme side and not the moderate side. As always; what if we accidentally make a better world while we are cleaning things up?

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Actually, the core of the argument - and the models - is we don't know what effect C02 will have. Will it be slight? Will it be extreme? We don't know.

That's not what is being told to the public or even to the IPCC. What is being told is that CO2 will drive large positive feedback and cause rapid and large increases in temperature.

Do I need to go and dig up all the times it's been officially (official as in by government, the UN, climatologists, environmentalist groups...) stated that CO2 will cause large and dangerous temperature increases?

Here is something that we do know about raising the level of CO2. Plants fucking love it.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Actually, the core of the argument - and the models - is we don't know what effect C02 will have. Will it be slight? Will it be extreme? We don't know.

That's not what is being told to the public or even to the IPCC.

I can't help what the Koch brothers foundations release to the public.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

Here is something that we do know about raising the level of CO2. Plants fucking love it.

Studies of plants during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum showed that the excess Co2 caused excessive growth, which caused the plants to prematurely use up their available nutrients and die sooner. Leaving more Co2, and now methane from the rotting vegetation.

30 - love.

[Xort]

Oh no those higher levels of Cobalt.

I will assume you mean CO2, no Co2. '... the main counter argument put forward against the increased plant growth that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 exhibit are a higher demand for water and trace element nutrients. The larger structures of these plants would have to not scale their ability to extract nutrients from the environment for this conjecture to be true...'

Larger root structures, and more leafs allow larger plants to sustain larger demand. Unless you are of the opinion that available nutrients in the soil just magic up over time so a slower growing plant would have more access to nutrients.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

{/pedantic} Unless you are of the opinion that available nutrients in the soil just magic up over time so a slower growing plant would have more access to nutrients.

It's not opinion. As I said, it's the result of a study. Plants that grew too fast from too much carbon dioxide died quicker and end up releasing more greenhouse gasses.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1960

Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide also reduces nutrient absorption in many grains:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/899.abstract
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e1694.html

Plants do not like increased atmospheric carbon dioxide anymore than we do.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... 3/?no-ist=

They have adapted to a certain range, and adaptation to higher concentrations takes time. Time we don't have.

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

Plants do not like increased atmospheric carbon dioxide anymore than we do.

Really? Then why do professional hothouse growers all over the world use increased CO2 to enrich yield, quality, and resilience? They're not a smart as you maybe. There you go then. Get rich. Compete with them.

But yes there are all kinds of studies and counter-studies offering support or contradiction to any CO2 hypothesis using all sorts of small variables

As to the PETM. We've discussed the problem with pulling that one out the proverbial butt before.

There are a number of hypotheses used to explain the PETM catastrophes. For example there's the Methane Hydrate Hypothesis.

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/ ... esis-84473

I believe that's the one the Encyclopedia Brittanica uses. I've even seen studies that claim to show why CO2 was not the problem.

Another problem with suggesting we have infallible science that pinpoints CO2 as exact cause for PETM extinctions is the period was what? 58 million years ago, or something.

Exact date doesn't matter, because the problem there is the Ordovician period is more recent. The Ordovician presents a major problem for the warmism belief system.

In the Ordovician we have CO2 levels rising far above today's in the middle of cooling temperatures to a glacial ice age.

The warmist excuse there is the science of measurements can't be trusted, because it was too long ago (check out your SkepticalScience.com if you don't believe me). Very well then, why are you claiming this pinpoint precision and infallible diagnostic ability with the older PETM?

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

Plants do not like increased atmospheric carbon dioxide anymore than we do.

Really? Then why do professional hothouse growers all over the world use increased CO2 to enrich yield, quality, and resilience? They're not a smart as you maybe. There you go then. Get rich. Compete with them.

Because they also use fertilizer.

40 - love.

[PluggyRug]

Then you use Nitrogen fixing plants like most of the Legume family to offset the decrease in soil nitrogen.

40 - 15

I sprinkle clover seeds on the lawn (can't do crop rotation) to enrich nitrogen levels.
http://www.almanac.com/content/clover-comeback

[Zipperfish]

We're dealing with an ecosystem, not plants. Increased CO2 does increase plant growth. Increased CO2 has also likely contributed to the persistence of the recent pine beetle epidemic in BC. You have to use a systems analysis approach.

If you want a human analogy, oxygen increases mammalian cell growth (up to a certain level whereupon it becomes toxic). Hyperbaric oxygen is used therapeutically, but there is also evidence that cancer rates would increase if oxygen were, say, 30% of the air because the mitochondria in your cells are accustomed to current O2 levels. So if the air were 30% oxygen, it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing for humans.

Using a systems analysis approach changes ("forcing") forces a system in homeostasis to adapt. Adaptation (whether "good" or "bad" for humans) results in a net transformation cost to the system.

[PluggyRug]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Increased CO2 has also likely contributed to the persistence of the recent pine beetle epidemic in BC.

I thought it was the opposite, where the pine beetle infestation has caused the release of large quantities of CO2.