Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Mar 24, 2011.
consensus isnt all that it was cracked up to be.
Fail to see where either study states that AGW is not occuring
the first link is to counter the nonsense that is being bandied about saying that warmer temps and extra CO2 is bad for plants. the second link is to show that much of the increased temps comes from natural variation in ocean currents and specifically that the current climate models failed to project them.
for an interesting climate lecture (only 30 minutes!) try Courtillot
he gives a nice overview of how solar cycles interact with other natural variabilities. and points out the drawbacks of climate models with do not account them.
Well if all this green is expanding to places that it wasn't before isn't necessarily a good thing. It proves that global warming is happening. It also will push animals out of their habitat when it becomes to warm for them or other animals moving up from the south increase the competition for food resources.
if your point is that you want the climate to stay exactly the same-- well that has never happened. your other point seems to be that more food is bad.
you do realize that global temp has gone up less than a degree, and shows little correlation to the increase of CO2, right? if it wasnt for climate models that are known to be wrong we wouldnt even be interested in CO2.
Of course, the present warming was very good for the crops in northeastern Australia, Russia, and Pakistan in the last year. Real bumper crops in those places.
do I really have to link to newspaper accounts of all those things in the last century? why do you continue to confuse weather with climate?
What (or should I say Watt?) is more interesting is that this last paragraph isn't a part of the paper your quote seems to be attributing it to? Where exactly does this quote, and presumably your understandings of the paper and its findings actually come from?
From my reading of the actual paper, there is very little unusual or surprizing about its findings, which seem generally in accord with Climate science understandings in general (and the portrayal of unfolding climate effects by the IPCC in particular) and its impacts upon the planet. If you can find any thing in climate science or the specific reports from the IPCC that you feel contradicts the actual findings of this paper, as they are actually portrayed in the paper, please present your evidences.
And you feel this is of especial significance, why?
It isn't about concensus, its about what the evidence supports. Concensus is merely a measure of how the relevent fields of specialty study assess and evaluate the current understandings and evidences.
Who is saying this and what qualifications are they using when they make such assertions?
CO2 and increasing temperatures lead to a mixed bag of harms and benefits for different plants, depending upon how rapidly changes occur, the degree and scale of the changes, what other changes accompany the changes in CO2 loading and temperature increases, and most importantly what types of plants we are talking about. For instance, under many generalized conditions of increased CO2 and Temperature, the plants we most commonly classify as "weeds," and many fungi thrive and prosper, whereas many of the plants we consider "crops," not so much so. Different plants and conditions generate different responses.
Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: six important lessons from FACE - Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: six important lessons from FACE
Rising CO2, Climate Change, and Public Health: Exploring the Links to Plant Biology - Rising CO2, Climate Change, and Public Health: Exploring the Links to Plant Biology
Elevated carbon dioxide concentrations indirectly affect plant fitness by altering plant tolerance to herbivory - SpringerLink - Oecologia, Volume 161, Number 2
Plantpathogen interactions and elevated CO2: morphological changes in favour of pathogens - Plant
The abstract you quoted, did not state what you assert, and nothing in AGW states or implies that there are not natural variations in climate, in fact, the vast majority of climate understanding comes from studying and investigating the causes, extents and impacts of natural climate variations.
Don't have 30 minutes right now, but I've saved the link, and will let you know on the "interesting" vs. "entertaining" aspects after reviewing it.
Separate names with a comma.