Debate Now Maybe We Need More CO2 and Not Less?

[Derideo_Te]

it was funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, i.e. federal government agencies who don't fund anything that do not support the AGW theory

Really?

How was it determined that they "don't fund anything that" does "not support the AGW theory"?

Considerable research over the past several years. I have yet to find any group who have received government funding who have not concluded that CO2 is a significant hazard to humankind. Those presenting a different opinion are not getting any government money.

Thank you for admitting that was your opinion only based upon your limited ability to determine who is and isn't obtaining government funding.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I didn't compare 2 years to anything. I simply made a very reasonable statement of fact.

You responded to this statment of mine;

Then there is the reality of the documented past couple of thousand years where low CO2 levels were more than sufficient for the human race to not only survive but also to thrive and become the dominant species on the planet.

With this "statement of fact" of yours in response to my statement above;

But humans seem to be quite healthy and robust and are suffering no known ill effects in CO2 levels that passed that 400ppm milestone two years ago

That is a direct comparison of thousands of years to just 2 years.

 

[Foxfyre]

12,750 years ago when CO2 may have reached up to 425 ppm. . .

What was it that happened back then when CO2 levels exceeded 400 ppm?

Wasn't that when the last ice age retreated because of global warming and the sea levels rose?

Only we are not currently in an ice age and the CO2 levels rising. So what is happening? The glaciers are melting and the sea levels are rising.

Too bad we don't have the benefit of an ice age to offset man made CO2 level rises.

I believe the last ice age ended about 20,000 years ago. Humankind obviously survived that as well as many other periods of extreme climate shifts on Planet Earth. And we'll certainly survive those in the future unless some catastrophy wipes out all life on planet Earth. (I personally would feel a lot better if they would be focusing on that rather than climate change as what threatens us most.)

However, if those who are profiting from this whole AGW/climate change schtick do run out of all credibility on the global warming thing, I'm pretty sure they'll look for some way to start alarming us about the impending ice age.

 

[Foxfyre]

I didn't compare 2 years to anything. I simply made a very reasonable statement of fact.

You responded to this statment of mine;

Then there is the reality of the documented past couple of thousand years where low CO2 levels were more than sufficient for the human race to not only survive but also to thrive and become the dominant species on the planet.

With this "statement of fact" of yours in response to my statement above;

But humans seem to be quite healthy and robust and are suffering no known ill effects in CO2 levels that passed that 400ppm milestone two years ago

That is a direct comparison of thousands of years to just 2 years.

I wasn't responding to anything you wrote. I was providing information I believe addresses the thread topic. Dispute my statement if you can, but I will ask you yet again to stop speculating on what I am doing when I post it. Ad hominem is not permitted in this discussion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I believe the last ice age ended about 20,000 years ago.

Last glacial period - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years ago.[1]

 

[Derideo_Te]

I didn't compare 2 years to anything. I simply made a very reasonable statement of fact.

You responded to this statment of mine;

Then there is the reality of the documented past couple of thousand years where low CO2 levels were more than sufficient for the human race to not only survive but also to thrive and become the dominant species on the planet.

With this "statement of fact" of yours in response to my statement above;

But humans seem to be quite healthy and robust and are suffering no known ill effects in CO2 levels that passed that 400ppm milestone two years ago

That is a direct comparison of thousands of years to just 2 years.

I wasn't responding to anything you wrote. I was providing information I believe addresses the thread topic. Dispute my statement if you can, but I will ask you yet again to stop speculating on what I am doing when I post it. Ad hominem is not permitted in this discussion.

You responded directly to my post so I am not speculating.

Quoting exactly what you posted does not constitute an ad hom.

Report it if you believe that to be an ad hom and I will just have to bother CK again to get yet another ruling from him that directly quoting the OP does not constitute an ad hom.

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe the last ice age ended about 20,000 years ago.

Last glacial period - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years ago.[1]

Note that I am now quoting your statement. THIS is a direct response to your post. If I do not quote your statement, then you can safely assume that my comments are not directed at you specifically and whether or not you assume my comments apply to you is your assumption only.

I did misspeak. Glacial periods occur within ice ages and are not precisely the same thing. The peak of the last glacial period was approximatley 20,000 years ago. Humans were here and survived it.

From a non-Wiki source:

Excerpt:

. . .The world's most recent glacial period began about 110,000 years ago and ended around 12,500 years ago. The maximum extent of this glacial period was the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and it occurred around 20,000 years ago. . . .The Last Glaciation - An Overview​

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Actually, the preferred method of the AGW supporters requires the expenditure of 76 trillion dollars to reduce the global temperature by one degree in one hundred years.....maybe.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

I can positively assure you that that 76 trillion dollars could be far better spent developing methods to mitigate any deleterious effect that global warming would have. Because, you have to remember, not all of the effects are going to be bad. There will most likely be more benefits to a warmer world than there are negatives.

Can you list some of them ?

I am curious to know what they might be.

I am all for warmer weather (in summer).

 

[westwall]

Actually, the preferred method of the AGW supporters requires the expenditure of 76 trillion dollars to reduce the global temperature by one degree in one hundred years.....maybe.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

I can positively assure you that that 76 trillion dollars could be far better spent developing methods to mitigate any deleterious effect that global warming would have. Because, you have to remember, not all of the effects are going to be bad. There will most likely be more benefits to a warmer world than there are negatives.

Can you list some of them ?

I am curious to know what they might be.

I am all for warmer weather (in summer).

Warmer weather results in fewer deaths of old and infirm people. Multiple studies have shown that more people die during the winter than during the summer.

The Health Benefits of a Warmer Climate

Overall economic development increases when it is warmer. Numerous studies have shown this. It is estimated that globally the economy of the world has grown 1.4 percent due to the effects of global warming over the last century.

The Growing Benefits of a Warmer World


And, contrary to the hysterical bleatings of the AGW crowd, conflict DECREASES during warm periods. The Chinese published a study recently that traced their over 2000 year history and the evidence was clear, when it was warm conflict was reduced. Even Scientific American has had to step in and present an alternate viewpoint to the alarmist silliness...


"Problem One: In spite of the recent surge in violence in the Middle East, war-related casualties have fallen over the last half-century, as temperatures have risen, as illustrated by the two charts in this column. According to a 2014 report from the Human Security Report Project at Simon Fraser University, between 1950 and 2007 the annual combat-related mortality rate fell from 240 per million people to less than 10. Rates of homicide unrelated to war “are declining in every region of the developing world except Latin and Central America,” according to the Simon Fraser report."

Greens Should Stop Claiming More Warming Means More War Cross-Check Scientific American Blog Network

This is a small bit of what a warmer world is truly like.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Actually, the preferred method of the AGW supporters requires the expenditure of 76 trillion dollars to reduce the global temperature by one degree in one hundred years.....maybe.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

I can positively assure you that that 76 trillion dollars could be far better spent developing methods to mitigate any deleterious effect that global warming would have. Because, you have to remember, not all of the effects are going to be bad. There will most likely be more benefits to a warmer world than there are negatives.

Can you list some of them ?

I am curious to know what they might be.

I am all for warmer weather (in summer).

Warmer weather results in fewer deaths of old and infirm people. Multiple studies have shown that more people die during the winter than during the summer.

The Health Benefits of a Warmer Climate

Overall economic development increases when it is warmer. Numerous studies have shown this. It is estimated that globally the economy of the world has grown 1.4 percent due to the effects of global warming over the last century.

The Growing Benefits of a Warmer World


And, contrary to the hysterical bleatings of the AGW crowd, conflict DECREASES during warm periods. The Chinese published a study recently that traced their over 2000 year history and the evidence was clear, when it was warm conflict was reduced. Even Scientific American has had to step in and present an alternate viewpoint to the alarmist silliness...


"Problem One: In spite of the recent surge in violence in the Middle East, war-related casualties have fallen over the last half-century, as temperatures have risen, as illustrated by the two charts in this column. According to a 2014 report from the Human Security Report Project at Simon Fraser University, between 1950 and 2007 the annual combat-related mortality rate fell from 240 per million people to less than 10. Rates of homicide unrelated to war “are declining in every region of the developing world except Latin and Central America,” according to the Simon Fraser report."

Greens Should Stop Claiming More Warming Means More War Cross-Check Scientific American Blog Network

This is a small bit of what a warmer world is truly like.

I'm from the "Valley Of The Sun".

I like warm.

Thanks for the information.

 

[Foxfyre]

While I am one that believes all the opinions and data and interpretations of same should be included in the debate, and while I am not at all ready to say I am committed to any particular point of view on this topic, I do not find those arguing for strong anthropogenic climate change, most as a detrimental thing, are providing compelling unbiased data and evidence for that. There seems to me just as compelling opposing argument, and those arguments are mostly provided by those who have no dog in the fight.

So I do not believe the science is anywhere near settled and I do not believe that the consensus of scientists pushing AGW or Co2 driven climate change is anywhere near as strong as some believe it is.

 

[Foxfyre]

I did notice this in today's more obscure news releases that a new panel has been formed to investigate possible manipulation or misrepresentation of data re global warming:

London: 26 April 2015. The London-based think-tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation is today launching a major inquiry into the integrity of the official global surface temperature records.

An international team of eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians has been assembled under the chairmanship of Professor Terence Kealey, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham.

Questions have been raised about the reliability of the surface temperature data and the extent to which apparent warming trends may be artefacts of adjustments made after the data are collected. The inquiry will review the technical challenges in accurately measuring surface temperature, and will assess the extent of adjustments to the data, their integrity and whether they tend to increase or decrease the warming trend. . .

Inquiry Launched Into Global Temperature Data Integrity The Global Warming Policy Foundation GWPF ​

The people named to the panel:

Terence Kealey (chairman)
Professor Terence Kealey was until recently the vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. He trained initially in London as a doctor before specialising, at Oxford, in clinical biochemical research. He subsequently lectured at Cambridge for many years before moving to Buckingham, where he was appointed professor and where he became vice-chancellor in 2001.

As well as publishing many research papers on the metabolism and cell biology of human skin, Professor Kealey has written two books to show that there is no economic case for the government funding of science.

Petr Chylek
Dr Chylek is a physicist by training. After working at universities in the USA and Canada he took up a post at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico where he now specialises in remote sensing.

He has been lead author on over 100 peer-reviewed publications in a wide range of subjects, including radiative physics, climate change, cloud and aerosol physics, laser physics and ice core analysis. He is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union, Optical Society of America, and Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Richard McNider
Richard McNider is Distinguished Professor of Science at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Professor McNider's career has focused on applied environmental questions, from the Bhopal disaster to the physics of the atmospheric boundary layer. He is a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and was honoured by the American Meteorological Society in 2013 for his outstanding contributions to applied meteorology. He was the founder of the atmospheric sciences program at UAH and has also served as Alabama state climatologist.

Roman Mureika
Professor Roman Mureika is a statistician who worked at the University of New Brunswick until his retirement in 2008. He brings to the inquiry his considerable expertise in identification and analysis of errors in the use of statistical methodology with particular reference to its application to environmental data

Outside his academic research, Professor Mureika has provided statistical consultancy services to bodies in both the private and public sectors and has served on the board of the Statistical Society of Canada.

Roger A Pielke Sr
Professor Pielke is a meteorologist and climatologist. He is professor emeritus of Colorado State University and is currently a Senior Research Scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

He is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society, and was previously the chairman of the AMS committee on weather forecasting and analysis. He has also occupied editorial positions at several scientific journals and is the author of over 300 peer-reviewed scientific papers.

William van Wijngaarden
Professor van Wijngaarden is a physicist who works at the University of York in Ontario, Canada. As well as researching quantum information and laser spectroscopy, he has published a substantial body of work in climatology, focusing particularly on inhomogeneities in the data records.

He has held leadership roles in the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics, the American Physical Society and the Canadian Association of Physicists and is a former chairman of his university's senate.

People The International Temperature Data Review Project​

QUESTION: It will likely be some time before this panel publishes any opinions or conclusions. BUT. . . if their opinion/conclusion is that the data by the pro-AGW-'consensus' has been manipulated, misrepresented, and/or is pretty much entirely wrong, will that change anybody's mind on the subject?

 

[Foxfyre]

And IMO, this study is important because we keep reading stories like this one today:

By SETH BORENSTEIN, Associated Press
Apr. 27, 2015 11:00 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — If you find yourself sweating out a day that is monstrously hot, chances are you can blame humanity. A new report links three out of four such days to man's effects on climate.

And as climate change worsens around mid-century, that percentage of extremely hot days being caused by man-made greenhouse gases will push past 95 percent, according to the new study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change. , ,

. . . Lead author Erich Fischer, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich, a Swiss university, and colleague Reto Knutti examined just the hottest of hot days, the hottest one-tenth of one percent. Using 25 different computer models. Fischer and Knutti simulated a world without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and found those hot days happened once every three years. . .
Study blames global warming for 75 percent of very hot days​

I do not claim to be a scientist, but for some time now I have been reading about the predictions of these computer models and have noted how they have been wrong again and again and again. But the pro-AGW scientists just keep moving the goal posts further on down the line and keep putting those computer models up as an authority on the subject.

Which always makes me think, how gullible do they expect us to be?

 

[Foxfyre]

And the above story almost has to be considered against other opinions like this that I believe any thinking person has to consider re the AGW or climate change theories based on what some self-serving (?) scientists present as computer models:

CNSNews.com) – Global temperatures collected in five official databases confirm that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years, according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH).

Christy's findings are contrary to predictions made by 73 computer models cited in the United Nation’s latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (5AR).
Christy told CNSNews that he analyzed all 73 models used in the 5AR and not one accurately predicted that the Earth’s temperature would remain flat since Oct. 1, 1996. (See Temperatures v Predictions 1976-2013.pdf) . . .

. . .Reaching the 17-year mark with no significant warming is a milestone because a climate change research team at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory defined it as the minimum length of time necessary to “separate human-caused global warming from the ‘noise’ of purely natural climate fluctuations,” according to a 2011 press release. . .

Climate Scientist 73 UN Climate Models Wrong No Global Warming in 17 Years CNS News​