How do you feel about global warming

[ScienceRocks]

I feel that earth has warmed up near .7c since 1900 because of global warming with .12 to .18c per decade the last 20 years, but I believe the forcing is far weaker then people like Hansen or IPCC believes and I believe it's likely near 1.2-1.5, while hansen 88 believed it to be 4+ and it is widely believed within the IPCC to be around 3,,,Which would work out to about as much warming as we're seeing now. This warming is without coming out of a little ice age and the highest solar output in 2,000 years to, so a far more impressive green house effect then what we seen in the 20th century either way, but nothing like the people at the ipcc believe.

I believe that 2100 will be .7-1.2c warmer today over the whole earth...That is still huge when you think about it...Getting us into a warmer regime then anytime in the last 2 million years. Life will be very favorable for feeding a population that will be knocking on 10 billion at the time and humanity should advance nicely within the more favorable global environment.

More food, less cold weather extremes, lower heating bills and a happier human race.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The true believers will be along to explain to you that the religion of Man made global warming disagrees with your assessment. They will at first try to convince you and failing that they will just label you a paid shill for the Oil Companies.

Enjoy their attacks.

 

[skookerasbil]

yeah bro..........Retired is right..........you got some real hyper-k00ks in this forum. They post the same 5 links up about 500 times/year!!!
Its hysterical because I come in for a cup of coffee here every couple of weeks and its always the same OCD stuff going on

 

[Granny]

I think the whole thing is a crock.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You can tell how full of shit it is because they're renamed it so many times, Global Cooling, Global Warming, Climate Change, GlobalWarmerCoolering, GlobalCoolerWarminering and they finally settled on:

It's The Great Climactic Googly Moogly, Charlie Brown

 

[Old Rocks]

I feel that earth has warmed up near .7c since 1900 because of global warming with .12 to .18c per decade the last 20 years, but I believe the forcing is far weaker then people like Hansen or IPCC believes and I believe it's likely near 1.2-1.5, while hansen 88 believed it to be 4+ and it is widely believed within the IPCC to be around 3,,,Which would work out to about as much warming as we're seeing now. This warming is without coming out of a little ice age and the highest solar output in 2,000 years to, so a far more impressive green house effect then what we seen in the 20th century either way, but nothing like the people at the ipcc believe.

I believe that 2100 will be .7-1.2c warmer today over the whole earth...That is still huge when you think about it...Getting us into a warmer regime then anytime in the last 2 million years. Life will be very favorable for feeding a population that will be knocking on 10 billion at the time and humanity should advance nicely within the more favorable global environment.

More food, less cold weather extremes, lower heating bills and a happier human race.

Totally wrong. Wrong on every count.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-response.pdf

Response from Dr. Peter Reich

The best evidence from state-of-the-art free-air carbon dioxide enrichment experiments is inconsistent with thenotion of major sustained increases in crop yield in a world of doubled atmospheric CO2. Quantitative analyses and syntheses of those experiments indicate that the direct effects of elevated CO2 will increase crop yields by 13%(on average for those with the C3 photosynthetic pathway, such as wheat, soybeans, rice) or 0% (on average for
those with the C4 photosynthetic pathway, such as corn, sugar cane, and sorghum); not the 40% Lord Monctonsuggests. Moreover, these estimates ignore (1) indirect effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas on future temperatures, precipitation, and their variability, and hence on future crop yields and (2) otherconsequences of fossil fuelburningsuch as rising ozone pollution that will reduce crop yields. The bottom line for crop yields: combined
effects of fossil-fuel burning (rising CO2, rising O3, climate change) are uncertain but at least as likely to be negative as positive, and shifting increasingly towards the negative the higher that CO2 concentrations rise.

Rising CO2 fertilization of productivity (and of carbon sequestration) of forests, grasslands, savannas of the world is also likely to be less than previously anticipated from overly simplistic models. This is because other limiting factors (such as soil fertility and soil water) and other vegetation changes (reduced vegetation diversity
and complexity) will increasingly constrain positive impacts of CO2 on productivity of non-agricultural systems. Moreover, as with crops, but likely more so (given that we can adaptively modify agriculture much more rapidly), the cascade of indirect effects of fossil-fuel burning are in aggregate likely to lead to loss of vitality, health, stability, diversity, and provisioning of ecosystem services from the world’s forests, savannas, and grasslands. The cascade of indirect effects includes increases in ozone pollution, droughts, floods, windstorms, wildfires, and native and invasive insect and disease outbreaks, that will accompany rising CO2 levels and associated climate change; and that will all have negative consequences for forests, savannas, and grasslands.

Dr. Peter Reich: Regents Professor and Distinguished McKnight University Professor, University of Minnesota’s Department of Forest Resources. His teaching and research focus on ecology, global change, and the sustainability of managed and unmanaged terrestrial ecosystems. Regionally, his interests lie in the forests and grasslands of mid-North America and globally on terrestrial ecosystems in aggregate.
About Us | Institute on the Environment | University of Minnesota

 

[IanC]

Rising CO2 fertilization of productivity (and of carbon sequestration) of forests, grasslands, savannas of the world is also likely to be less than previously anticipated from overly simplistic models.

that is toooooooo funny coming from your side! hahahahaha. I believe scientific consensus comes down on the side of CO2 as a fertilizer.

 

[Old Rocks]

Real scientists, actually engaged in research, not a bunch of goofs with no credential, no publication in peer reviewed journals in the subject, and no apparent knowledge in the field of climate research.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-response.pdf

Response from Dr. Michael MacCracken

Monckton’s discussion of the impacts of a continued rise in the level of CO2, which he limits to the possible increase in the yield of some crops, is extremely superficial. Just the rise in the CO2 concentration alone, independent of the impacts of climate change on the environment, is tending to acidify the oceans, and already leading to a shallowing of the depths at which the calcium carbonate making up fish skeletons, shells, and coral reefs dissolve. This is already starting to have impacts on Arctic marine systems (because the chemistry affects colder waters first) and a growing number of coastal aquaculture projects (including, for example, in the Pacific
Northwest). [See also responses to Assertion 4 below]

While climate change leads to a very wide range of environmental and societal impacts, those that will lead to costs likely becoming far greater than the costs of switching off of fossil fuels include the following: (a) a rise in
sea level of perhaps 1±0.5 meters by roughly 2100, which will require substantial construction of costly barriers and likely significant population relocation from many low-lying areas; (b) poleward shifts in storm track and upward shifts in the snowline that will alter the amount and timing of river waters in ways that, combined with
intensified evaporation and increasing societal needs, greatly limit available water resources; (c) create stresses on forests and other ecosystems that weaken them, making them much more susceptible to fires and pests; (d) human health and well-being are more greatly stressed by the rising heat index, the more frequent and intense occurrence of what have been relatively rare severe storm conditions, and a greater and spreading threat of pest and vectorborne infectious diseases—all requiring much more significant public health efforts; and (e) especially for those in currently marginal agricultural regions, more difficult conditions for farmers to deal with, including more frequent and faster onset of drought, rain coming in more intense events that overwhelms soil moisture capacity (causing
loss of needed water to flooding runoff), intensified pressure from pests and weeds, and altered timing of plant flowering and growth that is expected to be generally disruptive and require greater efforts and training of farmers.

Dr. Michael MacCracken:
Chief Scientist, Climate Change Programs with the Climate Institute in
Washington DC, a non-partisan, non-governmental organization established in 1986 to heighten national
and international awareness of climate change. Dr. MacCracken recently completed a four-year term as
president of the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences. For 25 years he wasan atmospheric physicist at the Physics Department of the University of California’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). His research included numerical modeling of various causes of climate change including study of the potential climatic effects of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and landcover change.

 

[Old Rocks]

Rising CO2 fertilization of productivity (and of carbon sequestration) of forests, grasslands, savannas of the world is also likely to be less than previously anticipated from overly simplistic models.

that is toooooooo funny coming from your side! hahahahaha. I believe scientific consensus comes down on the side of CO2 as a fertilizer.

I believe that a person holding a Phd in the field of ecology of forests and grasslands would know a great deal more about the subject than you do. What is funny is that you reject the knowledge of people who have spent a lifetime studying the subject, yet accept, without any research, those whose statements agree with your opinion, an opinion formed with absolutely no knowledge of the subject.

 

[IanC]

post up the non-pdf article so I can read it on my BB

 

[IanC]

Rising CO2 fertilization of productivity (and of carbon sequestration) of forests, grasslands, savannas of the world is also likely to be less than previously anticipated from overly simplistic models.

that is toooooooo funny coming from your side! hahahahaha. I believe scientific consensus comes down on the side of CO2 as a fertilizer.

I believe that a person holding a Phd in the field of ecology of forests and grasslands would know a great deal more about the subject than you do. What is funny is that you reject the knowledge of people who have spent a lifetime studying the subject, yet accept, without any research, those whose statements agree with your opinion, an opinion formed with absolutely no knowledge of the subject.

Dude! there have been hundreds of studies showing CO2 to be beneficial. Only recently has CO2 been found to be less than perfect, and those studies need a few more replications by scientists that won't get fame and fortune by being the first to find out "the AGW alarmist truth"

 

[The Infidel]

I think the whole thing is a crock.

Im with Granny

 

[Old Rocks]

The total affects of an increase in atmospheric CO2 are yet to be evaluated adaquetely. As you can see from this article, there are positive and negative effects. This is not as current as the previous citations, but the people quoted are scientists working with agriculture.

Article from Nature: Future crops: The other greenhouse effect - Victory Gasworks- Gasifiers and Wood Gasification

After his decades of work Kimball agrees that higher CO2 concentrations can lead to lower nutritional quality of crops. But he sees nothing in his FACE studies — or those of others — to cause alarm. Based on current knowledge, he says, the net effect of increasing CO2 is a good one: "As far as crops go, I think higher CO2 is a definite benefit. Yes, a little less nutrition than before, but we get more food."

The plants almost always deliver higher yields than controls, with more sugar and starch in their leaves. They also take up less nitrogen from the soil, because they are making less protein. A lot of the protein in leaves is involved in assimilating CO2 into sugars. At higher CO2 levels that becomes easier; less protein is needed, and so less protein is made. The major exception is in the 'C4 plants', which are better at photosynthesis in less favourable conditions and so are less susceptible to the effects of changing CO2 levels. C4 crops include maize, sorghum and sugar cane.

But while Kimball thinks that, in general, the gains in yield are the most important thing, he is not blind to the drop in protein levels. Talking of data from a cotton-leaf experiment, he finds himself struck by the size of the effect: "That is a big change," he says, wondering aloud what that might mean for lettuce, other plant leaves and grasslands. "Think of all the livestock that only eat leaves." Grass-grazing livestock in the 550 parts per million CO2 world that is likely, though not inevitable, by 2050 might be getting significantly less protein from their forage.

And it's not only livestock that eat plants — there's the rest of the ecosystem too. Kimball conducted side experiments in the 1990s when growing crops in his FACE systems. He describes the effects of a diet of high–CO2 cotton leaves on beet armyworms. "What we found is that their growth and reproductive capability was reduced," he says.

 

[skookerasbil]

that is toooooooo funny coming from your side! hahahahaha. I believe scientific consensus comes down on the side of CO2 as a fertilizer.

I believe that a person holding a Phd in the field of ecology of forests and grasslands would know a great deal more about the subject than you do. What is funny is that you reject the knowledge of people who have spent a lifetime studying the subject, yet accept, without any research, those whose statements agree with your opinion, an opinion formed with absolutely no knowledge of the subject.

Dude! there have been hundreds of studies showing CO2 to be beneficial. Only recently has CO2 been found to be less than perfect, and those studies need a few more replications by scientists that won't get fame and fortune by being the first to find out "the AGW alarmist truth"

Ian bro...........you analsys is sound and reasonable, but remember, you're dealing with the hyper-hysterical on this subject. For them, its not only a hobby.........its a way of life just like a person who's entire life is devoted to religion. They might as well have a tatoo stamped in the middle of their farheads "CO2 is the TRUE EVIL".


Ive been on this forum from time to time for about a year.......and the memebers like this guy Rocks regurgitates the same BS links in EVERY FCUKKING THREAD. Its the same 6 or 7 links.........as if they got dropped out of the sky directly to him by some superior being and he's gonna spread the word!!!

People without an OCD condition see this whole debate for what it is...........no proof and tons of uncertainty. We are at least decades if not centuries from knowing shit about shit about the effects of CO2 levels.

The bigger picture is though............that these k00ks will stop at nothing to be part of this green energy movement............indeed, a religious movement that cares not that it will destroy the middle class standard of living via the scam that is Cap and Trade. It is their OCD condition that will be responsible for a..........ready for this..........doubling of our electric bills ( Obama conceeded this himself in a speech last year............look it up) and put millions out of work. MILLIONS. For the 600,000 green jobs created, well over 2 million will lose their jobs in the coal industry and transportation industry............which is all fine and well with the progressives like Obama because thus there are more people dependent on the government for support.

 

[westwall]

Rising CO2 fertilization of productivity (and of carbon sequestration) of forests, grasslands, savannas of the world is also likely to be less than previously anticipated from overly simplistic models.

that is toooooooo funny coming from your side! hahahahaha. I believe scientific consensus comes down on the side of CO2 as a fertilizer.

I believe that a person holding a Phd in the field of ecology of forests and grasslands would know a great deal more about the subject than you do. What is funny is that you reject the knowledge of people who have spent a lifetime studying the subject, yet accept, without any research, those whose statements agree with your opinion, an opinion formed with absolutely no knowledge of the subject.

Even the New Scientist is forced to admit that CO2 is good for plants so in this case it would appear the PhD ecologist may be wrong.

Below is an excerpt....




Carbon dioxide may be bad for the climate, but it's good for the roses. Perhaps it's time we rehabilitated this gaseous villain

IT'S LIKE standing at the edge of a giant patchwork quilt. Stretching into the distance are broad bands of bright yellow alternated with patches of delicate white, all beneath a vast glass roof. This greenhouse full of flowers is just one of hundreds that dot the Dutch coast, where row after row of chrysanthemums, orchids and roses are fed carbon dioxide-enriched air, helping them to grow up to 30 per cent faster than normal.

While plenty of commercial greenhouses top up their air with extra CO2, what is unusual about this one is where its CO2 comes from. Until a few years ago, the greenhouse's operators used to burn natural gas for the sole purpose of generating CO2. Today it is piped from a nearby oil refinery. Each year, 400,000 tonnes of CO2 are captured and then piped to around 500 greenhouses between Rotterdam and The Hague, where it is absorbed by the growing plants before they are shipped for sale around the world (see "Cash for carbon").

As governments ramp up their efforts to cut carbon emissions, carbon capture is moving closer to the top of the agenda. The current plan to deal with all of our excess CO2 is to just pump the stuff underground - a kind of landfill for gases. Looking at this carpet of flowers, it is hard not to think that we are going about this in the wrong way. Shouldn't we look to pioneering schemes like the Dutch greenhouses to find ways to recycle the captured CO2 instead?



Emission control: Turning carbon trash into treasure - environment - 29 September 2010 - New Scientist

 

[westwall]

I believe my personal views are probably pretty well known by now but to reiterate, all evidence we have shows that when the planet is warmer it is better. Period. All the alarmists can do is postulate (and I use the term very loosely) about how bad it will be.

Sadly for them their computer models can't recreate what has occured so their prognostications are worthless as well. I know that in my case if the climate were to get cooler life here would be very difficult. The warmer it gets the better it is getting.
And yes the planet is warming, has been for the last 10,000 years. But man is not the proximal cause.

 

[waltky]

Armyworms eatin' up African crops...

Why are armyworms attacking Africa's crops?
Tue, 14 Feb 2017 - A new hungry caterpillar is threatening African crops already badly hit by record droughts.

The army worm burrows into cobs​

Scientists warn that parts of southern Africa already hit by record droughts now face another potential food crisis because the invasion of a crop-eating pest, known as the "fall armyworm". Global experts are meeting in the Zimbabwean capital Harare to come up with a plan to combat it.

What is the fall armyworm?

Armyworms can destroy entire fields​

The name is a bit misleading. It is not actually a worm, but a hungry caterpillar that eats crops before turning into a moth. It is a new pest, not to be confused with the similarly named "African armyworm", which has been present in the region for many years.

Where did it come from?

Scientists want a co-ordinated response to the invasion​

It is native to the Americas, but experts are not sure how it reached Africa. One theory is that the eggs or the caterpillars themselves hitched a ride in some imported produce, or even made it on board commercial flights.

Why is it such a threat to farming?

 

[OnePercenter]

You can tell how full of shit it is because they're renamed it so many times, Global Cooling, Global Warming, Climate Change, GlobalWarmerCoolering, GlobalCoolerWarminering and they finally settled on:

It's The Great Climactic Googly Moogly, Charlie Brown

Who cares what it's called, springtime in Vegas started January 29th, the week we were to historically receive snow.