Climate Change

[Dexter Rutecki]

Yeah--moderators, fuck this. Stop moving threads--not wanted, not needed. People can just grow up and deal with it like we used to. Very easy not to click on a thread or to ignore things if you can't deal with it. Just because some people whine doesn't mean we need to go all Epicski on this.

[tom tuttle from tacoma washington]

While I agree with you to a certain extent, being a Mod is probably the suck.

So I guess I am saying, quit being such a dick.

As for PanchosDad, I do believe he has an advanced scientific degree, but not in Climatology, hence the not being 100% certain.

And finally, no one is going to convince anyone of anything by being a dick.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ing_class.html

f there is one thing everyone should be able to agree on about the past seven months, it is that the white working class can no longer be described as “forgotten.” Beaten-down? Racist? Mistreated? Angry? Victimized? Sure. We have read and heard the white working class described in all of those ways. But the election of Donald Trump has ensured that we are discussing this group ad nauseam.
Isaac Chotiner Isaac Chotiner

Isaac Chotiner is a Slate staff writer.

In a new book, White Working Class: Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America, Joan C. Williams argues that much of the analysis of this class has been misguided and condescending. So too is the general cultural attitude toward the white working class from society’s more fortunate members. The result, Williams says, is a white working class increasingly isolated from the Democratic Party, with dangerous consequences for our politics.

I spoke recently by phone with Williams, who is also a distinguished professor of law at University of California Hastings College of the Law. During the course of our conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, we discussed Trump’s view of his own voters, the role of racism in class resentments, and whether there is any way to avoid being “condescending” to Trump’s supporters.
Get Slate in your inbox.

Isaac Chotiner: What aspect of this subject did you feel like was not being understood when you decided to write this book?

Joan C. Williams: I think my book differs from a lot of what’s out there, and that it really talks about a broken relationship between two different groups: the professional managerial elites and the white working class. The argument I make is that the broken relationship between these two groups has driven the United States further to the right and ultimately into the arms of President Trump.

And you think that the relationship is broken because of what you see as condescension from elites, and a dismissiveness about white working-class culture?

“I think when you insult people, they get insulted.”
Joan C. Williams

Although in the past four years we’ve learned not to make disrespectful comments based on race, gender, and LGBTQ status, we haven’t learned the same lesson about class. So I think we see open class insults in American popular culture and everyday speech. The most dramatic examples are the “White Trash Bash” fraternity parties. But these insults are all over in terms of “flyover states,” “rednecks,” “plumber’s butt.” They’re also in popular culture. I was just reading a study of sitcoms over the past 40 years, and the image that we see of the white working class in sitcoms is overweight, flabby, dumb, maybe racist and sexist. Very consistently. So I think when you insult people, they get insulted.

Why is it that when the condescension comes from someone like Donald Trump, who gets up at his rallies and says things like, “I don’t have to be here, I have better things to do,” who brags about how rich he is, who has his own products made overseas, none of that sticks? Trump embodies everything people claim to hate about the elite as much as anybody I can imagine.

I disagree.

He just completely bald-facedly lies to them as if they’re morons.

I think you make some really good points, and I’ve been very open that I’m not a fan of Mr. Trump. I think that Trump is brilliant at channeling the anti-elitist theory of the white working class, and I think the reason he’s so good at that is because he felt condescended to his whole life. Now, how could that be: He’s a “self-made man” who started out with nothing but a little more than a $14 million loan from his dad?

Donald Trump is from Queens. Queens is not a fashionable borough. Trump’s casinos basically would be looked down upon as the epitome of garish bad taste. And so I think Trump has been so effective at channeling this elitist fury because he feels it himself. And I also think he’s been so effective because Democrats have been completely unaffected.

One of the most important quotes I think about the election was from an Ohio voter, if I remember correctly, and he said we voted with our middle finger. I think that Trump, like Bernie Sanders, was attractive to people just because he was so transgressive within his own party. And he was felt to be a way for the white working class to kind of stick that thumb in the eye at the elites and let them have it.

And I think Democrats didn’t do anything effective in response to that. What the Clinton campaign did, and at last what I see all too many Democrats still doing, is just attacking Trump, attacking Trump, attacking Trump. Which, in my view is just going to make Trump stronger among this key group of voters. I think what we need to do, and what this book is designed to help people do, is to identify what is a legitimate economic grievance that the white working class has.

I think you and I both agree that the role of politicians is not to get up and call half the country stupid.

Yeah probably not a great idea.

But as for people like us, we should have some commitment to honesty. What attitude should we be taking toward people who voted for a racist buffoon that is scamming them?

Here’s the absolutely sobering truth. A lot of them saw those aspects of Trump, and yet they thought he was the best candidate. Democrats have given the Republicans the precious gift of being the party that’s out there talking about jobs for people who lack college education. Two-thirds of Americans aren’t college graduates. And sometimes the message that they have heard is, “if you want a future, graduate from college.” Two-thirds of Americans are not college graduates, and what Trump said was, “I am going to offer you good jobs even if you don’t have a college degree.” The policy solutions he proposed were supply-side economics, bringing back coal, and chitchatting with a few employers. Those are not effective policy solutions, but as long as Democrats don’t say anything but that you guys are racist, are voting for a racist, they’re going to keep on voting for Trump.

I watched a lot of campaign speeches last year, and I can tell you the single biggest topic of conversation in Trump campaign rallies was Donald Trump. And if you tallied up the time that Hillary Clinton spent talking about jobs for the American people versus Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton spent way more time. And if you look at their websites Hillary Clinton has more plans, or had, for Americans without college degrees than Donald Trump does, and the more sensible plans, at least by my analysis and I think your analysis. Don’t “average people” have some responsibility to learn this.

No I think that’s completely unrealistic.

I agree it’s unrealistic, but I am not sure whose fault that is.

I am. I think the Democrats are—I’m damn sure they are at fault for that. The reason that Trump won was about 80,000 voters in Rust Belt states. Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and others were begging that Hillary Clinton campaign in those Rust Belt states and talk to those people about jobs and about other concerns that blue-collar Americans feel very, very strongly about, and they were told no. And they were told to adhere to a script of Donald Trump is unqualified, and Hillary Clinton is super qualified and wouldn’t it be awesome, and a progressive gesture to vote for a woman for president. Let’s break the glass ceiling. That is an incredibly well-designed message to alienate these voters. And if you are interested I can explain why.

Please.

The glass ceiling is a very ineffective message. Not only for the men, but also for the women, because what does glass ceiling mean? It means women like me, born with a silver spoon in my mouth, get to have jobs like the jobs my husband and father had. Why should working-class people care? You know, newsflash, they don’t care. Also Donald Trump is a, what did you call him, a buffoon?

Yeah.

Attacks on Donald Trump are perceived as the elite attacking the person who is transgressive and is standing up for us, the forgotten people. So that didn’t work.

Donald Trump is a con man who is taking advantage of his voters and using them to enrich rich people and himself, while doing nothing for them. I’m sitting here saying Donald Trump is a con man, and he’s doing this, and it’s really bad because people in this country need help, and he’s not going to help them, and instead he’s using them. And it seems like what you’re saying is that I’m somehow being more disrespectful to those voters than he is, even though he is the one using them.

Donald Trump has a long line of blue-collar–trades people, who he has stiffed and not paid. Or paid pennies on the dollar. One of those people should have been at every campaign rally possible. That is a really different message than, “Donald Trump is taking you for a ride, and Hillary is super qualified, and breaking the glass ceiling would be awesome.” Just calling the guy a buffoon is not calling him on it effectively.

[assman]

[tom tuttle from tacoma washington]

Case in point.

[Tye 1on]

thread's moved back, sometimes we catch an edge and miss a turn...

[Dexter Rutecki]

While I agree with you to a certain extent, being a Mod is probably the suck.

So I guess I am saying, quit being such a dick.

Yeah, well, no one forced this on them, and frankly there was resistance to having any moderators whatsoever. If they don't like it I would encourage them to drop the gig--and beyond that I don't think anyone is making them do stupid shit like moving threads just because they, in their infinite wisdom, unilaterally decide something belongs elsewhere. Back in the day (Powder board) there was literally zero moderation, AFAIK, and when we had to come here it was just Owens who essentially did nothing (again, AFAIK) beyond making sure no one threatened the president. Almost no one asked for these changes, but Advres or some other idiot decided we 'needed' it.

So you can call me making these statements 'being a dick,' but I don't know how that squares with just being sensible (people aren't forced to click on any threads at all) and asking that we return this place to the way it was before it turned into the current turd pile.

All that said, except for the past few days and a few other brief periods over the past few years, I'm not actually here all that much anymore (and in part that is because of the bullshit changes that a few people decided they would force on everyone). So leave polyass as it is (which is moronic), have a separate Trip Reports category so you're guaranteed of having fewer people see them, and keep watching the exodus of the people who were the only reason to hang out here. It is what it is, I guess. Fuck it.

[cumicon]

I have only scanned this but it appears to be a really lengthy way of presenting the ever popular argument "plants seem to grow really well when there is a lot of co2. therefore having a lot of co2 in the atmosphere is a good thing." Here are some details about the flaws in that train of thought.

This is from the about the author section in your link. Some interesting qualifications but I'm not sure I would call him a qualified climate scientist, exactly.

"Randall Carlson is a master builder and architectural designer, teacher, geometrician, geomythologist, geological explorer and renegade scholar. He has 4 decades of study, research and exploration Into the interface between ancient mysteries and modern science, has been an active Freemason for 30 years and is Past Master of one of the oldest and largest Masonic lodges in Georgia."

Hi klar,

I have only just gotten around at looking at the link you provided and comparing it to the series of articles I linked. I don't really know what to make of it all. As someone not well versed in these matters, I tend to find the articles I posted more convincing than the rebuttal article you provided. Your link argues that the increase in CO2 and its beneficial effect on plants can be seen in greenhouses, but is not so apparent in the real world. My link provides evidence of CO2 benefitting plants on a global scale with forests expanding and deserts shrinking. If this is the case, then the increased plant growth will be helping sequester more carbon from the air acting as a system of 'checks and balances'.

I think the thing I found most confounding is how tiny the human sourced CO2 in the atmosphere really is. There are 753 gigatons of carbon in the atmosphere and only 3 gigatons are sourced to human activities? A .4% increase in the carbon cycle is going to lead to run away global warming?

Some other facts I found interesting:

From the 1930's to the 1980's global temperatures had been cooling.

Glaciers have been receding since the early to mid 1800's, before humans were burning fossil fuels.


The author is not a climate scientist, but I tend to not care very much about these titles as long as their work is backed up with research and studies (which it appears it has to my non scientific eye). I was familiar with the author from other fields and have been impressed with his work.

The series is now complete with six parts:
http://sacredgeometryinternational.c...monization-co2
http://sacredgeometryinternational.c...ion-co2-part-2
http://sacredgeometryinternational.c...ion-co2-part-3
http://sacredgeometryinternational.c...-of-co2-part-4
http://sacredgeometryinternational.c...ion-co2-part-5
http://sacredgeometryinternational.c...ion-co2-part-6

[SirHeady]

Hi klar,

I have only just gotten around at looking at the link you provided and comparing it to the series of articles I linked. I don't really know what to make of it all. As someone not well versed in these matters, I tend to find the articles I posted more convincing than the rebuttal article you provided. Your link argues that the increase in CO2 and its beneficial effect on plants can be seen in greenhouses, but is not so apparent in the real world. My link provides evidence of CO2 benefitting plants on a global scale with forests expanding and deserts shrinking. If this is the case, then the increased plant growth will be helping sequester more carbon from the air acting as a system of 'checks and balances'.

I think the thing I found most confounding is how tiny the human sourced CO2 in the atmosphere really is. There are 753 gigatons of carbon in the atmosphere and only 3 gigatons are sourced to human activities? A .4% increase in the carbon cycle is going to lead to run away global warming?

Some other facts I found interesting:

From the 1930's to the 1980's global temperatures had been cooling.

Glaciers have been receding since the early to mid 1800's, before humans were burning fossil fuels.


The author is not a climate scientist, but I tend to not care very much about these titles as long as their work is backed up with research and studies (which it appears it has to my non scientific eye). I was familiar with the author from other fields and have been impressed with his work.

The series is now complete with six parts:
http://sacredgeometryinternational.c...monization-co2
http://sacredgeometryinternational.c...ion-co2-part-2
http://sacredgeometryinternational.c...ion-co2-part-3
http://sacredgeometryinternational.c...-of-co2-part-4
http://sacredgeometryinternational.c...ion-co2-part-5
http://sacredgeometryinternational.c...ion-co2-part-6

Randall Carlson is the man. Def knows whats up. Studies a ton of pre-historic/paleo history along with that era's climate, geography etc from 30,000 bc- 1 AD.

He, along with Graham Hancock have a lot of good shit to say on these episodes of the Joe Rogan Podcast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R31SXuFeX0A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H5LCLljJho

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFlAFo78xoQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDejwCGdUV8


He also is featured heavily in Hancock's latest book "Magicians of the Gods"... a great audible listen for the commute.

Anyways, I am a republican, I do not believe in man-made climate change, however I don't think environmental Stewardship and Global Warming Denial are mutually exclusive.

I give a shit about preserving special public places, preserving wild areas, and protecting the environment in a sensible manner, but at the same time "global warming" shouldn't be used as a vehicle to broaden government interference in private enterprise.

I also find it hard to believe that all human co2 emissions have more of an impact on our climate than the Sun lol.

[Dexter Rutecki]

You're an idiot.

[californiagrown]

, I do not believe in man-made climate change

I also find it hard to believe that all human co2 emissions have more of an impact on our climate than the Sun lol.

Are you aware that climate change/ global warming is not a religion? Have reasons, for agreeing or disagreeing, but science isn't based on faith or belief and to frame your position as based upon those makes you look foolish.

Who has ever said that humans are more responsible for warming the earth than the sun? No one. AGW says that the earth is a finely balanced machine full of positive and negative feedback loops that took billions of years to come to a relative stasis naturally. Now add in a 2% push one way or the other and those previously mentioned feedback loops get started and or thrown out of wack and we have a big problem. That 2% push comes from releasing a store elements, so big that it took hundreds of millions of years to trap, into the atmosphere in a matter of 100 years... and then expecting that to not affect the climate around us.

I, personally think that the average American is too damn dumb to see beyond the next mortgage/car payment made to keep up with the jones'. I think the government does need to set environmental policy, which in this case means energy policy... because when in comes down to it, the average American will pick $50 in their pocket now, over the longterm economic future of the country or especially a few trees and snowfields.

[::: :::]

"global warming" shouldn't be used as a vehicle to broaden government interference in private enterprise.

it isn't

I also find it hard to believe that all human co2 emissions have more of an impact on our climate than the Sun lol.

there's a reason for that...it doesn't


& +1 to californiagrown's comments

[klar]

Hi klar,
I have only just gotten around at looking at the link you provided and comparing it to the series of articles I linked. I don't really know what to make of it all. As someone not well versed in these matters, I tend to find the articles I posted more convincing than the rebuttal article you provided.
….
The author is not a climate scientist, but I tend to not care very much about these titles as long as their work is backed up with research and studies (which it appears it has to my non scientific eye). I was familiar with the author from other fields and have been impressed with his work.

Hi cumicon,
I changed the order of what you posted a little so that it’s grouped into what I’m responding to.

You tend to find the articles you posted more convincing, at least in part because it „looks scientific“, while the site I linked to, www.skepticalscience.com - a platform dedicated to writing accessible rebuttals to common "climate myths“ (their words) - features photoshopped penguins in its logo, has a terrible layout, and does not "look scientific“ (they do link to "research and studies“ that back up what they are saying. note that they have basic and advanced versions with different levels of detail).. Would you say that is a fair assessment?

For me something needs to be peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal to look scientific. What you posted isn’t but what I linked to isn’t a scientific journal either, so fair point. I can also accept "not caring too much about these titles“ (title being climate scientist?). Discrediting the source instead of looking at what they are saying can be abused as a huge cop out.

However, I do think it is important to at least have some idea about the background of the source. The author does not have any peer reviewed publications that I can find. Why is that? Why doesn't he seem to be working with any other scientists? Doesn’t have to be "climate scientists“ (it’s a really broad field and there is no single type of "climate scientist“), could be a plant biologist, an agriculture expert, whatever?

Perhaps the broader question is, how do we figure out what sources to look at, when we want information about a subject we are not experts at? Anyone can put together something that "looks scientific“. This site explaining that the earth is flat looks fairly scientific and appears to cite research that backs up what they are saying.

Titles may not mean much, but I would rather not go to a doctor that can’t at least convincingly demonstrate that he has relevant experience in whatever health issue I may have and engages with colleagues who deal with similar topics. As I maybe don’t want to figure out if he has and does that every time I am sick, I am going to rely on his title being enough evidence. Would you say it matters whether an engineer building bridges or dams has a title that shows that he is qualified?

Could the author of the articles you linked convince you that he would be a good person to decide how a bridge should be built, considering the credentials he lists? If not, why not?

This is a whole other discussion and I don’t really want to get deeply into it, but I did want to explain why I am not convinced that I need to read what he is posting. Not sure if I succeeded.

Your link argues that the increase in CO2 and its beneficial effect on plants can be seen in greenhouses, but is not so apparent in the real world. My link provides evidence of CO2 benefitting plants on a global scale with forests expanding and deserts shrinking. If this is the case, then the increased plant growth will be helping sequester more carbon from the air acting as a system of 'checks and balances'.

How and why plants react to CO2 under what conditions is not my field of expertise, so I have to rely on people whose expertise it is for this. From what I have read on the subject, my general understanding is:
1. it’s complicated.
2. plants benefit from a CO2 rich atmosphere under certain conditions and up to a point. A lot depends on what kind of plant it is.
3. there are factors other than CO2 that affect plant growth (such as temperature and precipitation). If those develop in a way that is bad for the plants (hot, dry), that can offset any positive effect the CO2 may have.

Here are a couple relatively recent studies that describe "real world“ experiments on the subject of whether the general developments we have been seeing over the last decades are good or bad for plants. Here is a more readable "non scientific“ summary of the first one.
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/38/10589.full.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8148

This is an interesting summary of a study that looks at past climate change (including an increase of atmospheric CO2) and what happened to the plants.

If more plants grow, they will sequester more carbon, yes. It’s a big if.

[klar]

I think the thing I found most confounding is how tiny the human sourced CO2 in the atmosphere really is. There are 753 gigatons of carbon in the atmosphere and only 3 gigatons are sourced to human activities? A .4% increase in the carbon cycle is going to lead to run away global warming?

Those numbers mean very little without context (also, where are they from?). There are natural sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon, that’s how the carbon cycle works. The sources and sinks balanced out for a long time before we came around. We are adding more CO2 than the sinks absorb (about 40% of what we add is absorbed anyway), so there is a net increase.

This is from the last IPCC report, chapter on carbon and other cycles. It shows sinks and sources of carbon.


IPCC figure caption:
Simplified schematic of the global carbon cycle. Numbers represent reservoir mass, also called ‘carbon stocks’ in PgC (1 PgC = 1015 gC) and annual carbon exchange fluxes (in PgC yr–1). Black numbers and arrows indicate reservoir mass and exchange fluxes estimated for the time prior to the Industrial Era, about 1750 (see Section 6.1.1.1 for references). Fossil fuel reserves are from GEA (2006) and are consistent with numbers used by IPCC WGIII for future scenarios. The sediment storage is a sum of 150 PgC of the organic carbon in the mixed layer (Emerson and Hedges, 1988) and 1600 PgC of the deep-sea CaCO3 sediments available to neutralize fossil fuel CO2 (Archer et al., 1998). Red arrows and numbers indicate annual ‘anthropogenic’ fluxes averaged over the 2000–2009 time period. These fluxes are a perturbation of the carbon cycle during Industrial Era post 1750. These fluxes (red arrows) are: Fossil fuel and cement emissions of CO2 (Section 6.3.1), Net land use change (Section 6.3.2), and the Average atmospheric increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, also called ‘CO2 growth rate’ (Section 6.3). The uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the ocean and by terrestrial ecosystems, often called ‘carbon sinks’ are the red arrows part of Net land flux and Net ocean flux. Red numbers in the reservoirs denote cumulative changes of anthropogenic carbon over the Industrial Period 1750–2011 (column 2 in Table 6.1). By convention, a positive cumulative change means that a reservoir has gained carbon since 1750. The cumulative change of anthropogenic carbon in the terrestrial reservoir is the sum of carbon cumulatively lost through land use change and carbon accumulated since 1750 in other ecosystems (Table 6.1). Note that the mass balance of the two ocean carbon stocks Surface ocean and Intermediate and deep ocean includes a yearly accumulation of anthropogenic carbon (not shown). Uncertainties are reported as 90% confidence intervals. Emission estimates and land and ocean sinks (in red) are from Table 6.1 in Section 6.3. The change of gross terrestrial fluxes (red arrows of Gross photosynthesis and Total respiration and fires) has been estimated from CMIP5 model results (Section 6.4). The change in air–sea exchange fluxes (red arrows of ocean atmosphere gas exchange) have been estimated from the difference in atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 since 1750 (Sarmiento and Gruber, 2006). Individual gross fluxes and their changes since the beginning of the Industrial Era have typical uncertainties of more than 20%, while their differences (Net land flux and Net ocean flux in the figure) are determined from independent measurements with a much higher accuracy (see Section 6.3). Therefore, to achieve an overall balance, the values of the more uncertain gross fluxes have been adjusted so that their difference matches the Net land flux and Net ocean flux estimates. Fluxes from volcanic eruptions, rock weathering (silicates and carbonates weathering reactions resulting into a small uptake of atmospheric CO2), export of carbon from soils to rivers, burial of carbon in freshwater lakes and reservoirs and transport of carbon by rivers to the ocean are all assumed to be pre-industrial fluxes, that is, unchanged during 1750–2011. Some recent studies (Section 6.3) indicate that this assumption is likely not verified, but global estimates of the Industrial Era perturbation of all these fluxes was not available from peer-reviewed literature. The atmospheric inventories have been calculated using a conversion factor of 2.12 PgC per ppm (Prather et al., 2012).

Here are some more articles that go into detail on how large the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is and how this was figured out. (These are summaries of relevant peer reviewed literature and they cite/ link to that literature if you want to look at the actual sources of the information)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ities-updated/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=81
https://skepticalscience.com/human-c...termediate.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=45

From the 1930's to the 1980's global temperatures had been cooling.

Global temperatures? Land temperatures? Ocean temperatures? Regional temperatures? Those can show different trends, especially regional vs global.
Globally, it looks like this (from this nice and interactive NASA overview)


The dip and stagnation roughly in the time frame you are referring to is a well known thing. It was due to increased aerosol concentrations, especially sulfur particles, due to air pollution. The particles block sunlight and thereby have a cooling effect. Eventually things like the clean air act were introduced because people don’t like airpollution and this effect lessened. Aerosols still have a cooling effect now but it is offset by other, opposite effects.

Here is a summary by NASA
Here is a rebuttal summary by new scientist
Here is the skeptical science entry on this
Here is the Wikipedia article on global dimming with many relevant references.

Glaciers have been receding since the early to mid 1800's, before humans were burning fossil fuels.

Yes. The period from roughly the 16th to the end of the 19th century is known as the "little ice age“ because temperatures were cooler than they were during the medieval climate optimum. During this phase, glaciers grew. They reached the maximum extent around 1850 and have largely been receding since, with short pauses in the recession in some regions particularly in the 1920s and ~1980s. The little ice age was largely due to decreased solar activity. Volcanic eruptions may have played a role (cooling effect through aerosols/ash blocking sunlight) but that is uncertain. There is some evidence that soot from fires may have contributed to glacier melt (black soot on ice changes the albedo/ability of the ice to reflect sunlight, thereby increasing melt).


Figure from this study.

We are currently in an interglacial of an ice age. The last glacial ended something like 12 000 years ago.

Some more links:
Response to question by researcher
Skeptical science, what ended the LIA
More details on volcanos as contributing cause to LIA (summary)

[geo039]

Still not what I meant by specific

As a species we have been influencing global climate on some level at least since we figured out how to grow food and cut down forests for our fields. We have been doing a lot of influencing for the last last couple of 100 years since we figured out how to seriously burn stuff to our benefit. Our various activities obviously affect other species as well as ourselves, in lots of different ways.

We have already caused changes that are largely irreversible for a long period of time. Even if we stopped all carbon and other emissions immediately, what we have put in the atmosphere up to now is going to stick around for a long time unless we actively remove it.

Whether we're already screwed depends strongly on your specific (!) definition of screwed. I would say you and I are not screwed right now but other people perhaps already consider themselves screwed with how things are at the moment.

Quoting from here:

"Human activities are changing the climate. Climate-change impacts are already widespread and consequential. But while science can quantify climate change risks in a technical sense, based on the probability, magnitude, and nature of the potential consequences of climate change, determining what is dangerous is ultimately a judgment that depends on values and objectives. For example, individuals will value the present versus the future differently and will bring personal worldviews on the importance of assets like biodiversity, culture, and aesthetics. Values also influence judgments about the relative importance of global economic growth versus assuring the well-being of the most vulnerable among us. Judgments about dangerousness can depend on the extent to which one’s livelihood, community, and family are directly exposed and vulnerable to climate change. An individual or community displaced by climate change might legitimately consider that specific impact dangerous, even though that single impact might not cross the global threshold of dangerousness. Scientific assessment of risk can provide an important starting point for such value judgments about the danger of climate change."

It is perhaps worth noting that humans have actually managed to get their shit together in a global manner before. A relevant example would be the Montreal protocol (Remember the ozone hole?).

Too many word...cliff notes version....we are screwed because it is not the 80s

[old goat]

Glaciers have been receding since the early to mid 1800's, before humans were burning fossil fuels.

This statement alone disqualifies you from any further participation in this conversation.

The problem with non scientists, on either side of the issue, discussing global warming is that we all can find studies that support our position. Frequently we take these studies out of context or don't fully understand their implications. To truly understand the subject one has to have studied it for years, learned the history of research on the subject, and be familiar with the broad range of scientific research on the subject. You are better off learning what the professionals in the field think than trying to figure it out on your own or worse, reading only the publications of advocacy groups on either side of the issue. I realize that trusting scientists, who are part of the so-called elites, is out of fashion these days and that everyone's opinion, no matter how educated or uneducated, is considered equally valid, but that is the road to ruin.

[cumicon]

Hi cumicon,
I changed the order of what you posted a little so that it’s grouped into what I’m responding to.

You tend to find the articles you posted more convincing, at least in part because it „looks scientific“, while the site I linked to, www.skepticalscience.com - a platform dedicated to writing accessible rebuttals to common "climate myths“ (their words) - features photoshopped penguins in its logo, has a terrible layout, and does not "look scientific“ (they do link to "research and studies“ that back up what they are saying. note that they have basic and advanced versions with different levels of detail).. Would you say that is a fair assessment?

For me something needs to be peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal to look scientific. What you posted isn’t but what I linked to isn’t a scientific journal either, so fair point. I can also accept "not caring too much about these titles“ (title being climate scientist?). Discrediting the source instead of looking at what they are saying can be abused as a huge cop out.

However, I do think it is important to at least have some idea about the background of the source. The author does not have any peer reviewed publications that I can find. Why is that? Why doesn't he seem to be working with any other scientists? Doesn’t have to be "climate scientists“ (it’s a really broad field and there is no single type of "climate scientist“), could be a plant biologist, an agriculture expert, whatever?

Perhaps the broader question is, how do we figure out what sources to look at, when we want information about a subject we are not experts at? Anyone can put together something that "looks scientific“. This site explaining that the earth is flat looks fairly scientific and appears to cite research that backs up what they are saying.

Titles may not mean much, but I would rather not go to a doctor that can’t at least convincingly demonstrate that he has relevant experience in whatever health issue I may have and engages with colleagues who deal with similar topics. As I maybe don’t want to figure out if he has and does that every time I am sick, I am going to rely on his title being enough evidence. Would you say it matters whether an engineer building bridges or dams has a title that shows that he is qualified?

Could the author of the articles you linked convince you that he would be a good person to decide how a bridge should be built, considering the credentials he lists? If not, why not?

This is a whole other discussion and I don’t really want to get deeply into it, but I did want to explain why I am not convinced that I need to read what he is posting. Not sure if I succeeded.

What I meant by "looks scientific" is that the author's entire piece is based on research and studies, with links to all those sources. I just can't really judge the validity of the sources, just like I can't judge the sources from your link, because I have no background in the field. It had nothing to do with the appearance of the web pages.

I don't understand why it matters if the author has any peer reviewed publications. He is not a scientist. He is a researcher, and has studied the climate for 30 years on his own. His piece is based on research of other scientists, not his own feelings or anecdotal evidence. I don't think its fair to not give him a chance because he lacks a title or peer reviewed publications. His work is based on the work of other scientists. The validity of his arguments should be judged on the evidence he presents rather than the author himself.

and why plants react to CO2 under what conditions is not my field of expertise, so I have to rely on people whose expertise it is for this. From what I have read on the subject, my general understanding is:
1. it’s complicated.
2. plants benefit from a CO2 rich atmosphere under certain conditions and up to a point. A lot depends on what kind of plant it is.
3. there are factors other than CO2 that affect plant growth (such as temperature and precipitation). If those develop in a way that is bad for the plants (hot, dry), that can offset any positive effect the CO2 may have.

Here are a couple relatively recent studies that describe "real world“ experiments on the subject of whether the general developments we have been seeing over the last decades are good or bad for plants. Here is a more readable "non scientific“ summary of the first one.
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/38/10589.full.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8148

This is an interesting summary of a study that looks at past climate change (including an increase of atmospheric CO2) and what happened to the plants.

If more plants grow, they will sequester more carbon, yes. It’s a big if.

"It's complicated" - it certainly seems so, but doesn't this leave some doubt with the narrative that "the science is settled" with regard to the conventional AGW narrative? You can provide studies demonstrating that CO2 may not be as beneficial as thought, and my author can cite studies showing the opposite. For example:

“Significant land greening in the northern extratropical latitudes (NEL) has been documented through satellite observations during the past three decades. This enhanced vegetation growth has broad implications for surface energy, water and carbon budgets and ecosystem services across multiple scales. . . Our findings reveal that the observed greening record is consistent with an assumption of anthropogenic forcings, where greenhouse gases play a dominant role . . .”

“This study adds to an increasing body of evidence that the NEL has experienced an enhancement of vegetation activity, as reflected by increased trends in vegetation indices, aboveground vegetation biomass, and terrestrial carbon fluxes during the satellite era. Our analysis goes beyond previous studies . . . to establish that the trend of strengthened northern vegetation greening is clearly distinguishable from both the IV (internal variability) and the response to natural forcings alone. It can be rigorously attributed, with high statistical confidence, to anthropogenic forcings, particularly to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases.”http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...AwNDc1NDk0MwS2

“Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system . . . Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate 4 key drivers of LAI trends during 1982-2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of the growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area . . . 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 (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau.”http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate3004.html

Both of these studies were published in Nature, which I believe is supposed to be one of the best scientific journals and exactly the type of research you want to see. I would tend to find this research of plant growth on a global scale more convincing than the more isolated experiments.

[cumicon]

Those numbers mean very little without context (also, where are they from?). There are natural sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon, that’s how the carbon cycle works. The sources and sinks balanced out for a long time before we came around. We are adding more CO2 than the sinks absorb (about 40% of what we add is absorbed anyway), so there is a net increase.

Those numbers came from this textbook: http://bcs.wiley.com/he-bcs/Books?ac...BKS&bcsId=1585 They attributed 6 gigatons/year of CO2 being released into the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels, with half of those being absorbed by carbon sinks. Leaving a net increase of +3 gigatons/year of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Your picture shows 7.8 gigatons attributed to fossil fuels with 590 in the atmosphere. If 40% is absorbed by carbon sinks that leaves 4.68gt/year added to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. That is still just a 00.8% increase in carbon attributed to human emissions. A 00.8% increase leads to run away warming? That seems hard to believe when carbon levels in the atmosphere are not constant and have fluctuated significantly at times in the past.

is from the last IPCC report, chapter on carbon and other cycles. It shows sinks and sources of carbon.


IPCC figure caption:
Simplified schematic of the global carbon cycle. Numbers represent reservoir mass, also called ‘carbon stocks’ in PgC (1 PgC = 1015 gC) and annual carbon exchange fluxes (in PgC yr–1). Black numbers and arrows indicate reservoir mass and exchange fluxes estimated for the time prior to the Industrial Era, about 1750 (see Section 6.1.1.1 for references). Fossil fuel reserves are from GEA (2006) and are consistent with numbers used by IPCC WGIII for future scenarios. The sediment storage is a sum of 150 PgC of the organic carbon in the mixed layer (Emerson and Hedges, 1988) and 1600 PgC of the deep-sea CaCO3 sediments available to neutralize fossil fuel CO2 (Archer et al., 1998). Red arrows and numbers indicate annual ‘anthropogenic’ fluxes averaged over the 2000–2009 time period. These fluxes are a perturbation of the carbon cycle during Industrial Era post 1750. These fluxes (red arrows) are: Fossil fuel and cement emissions of CO2 (Section 6.3.1), Net land use change (Section 6.3.2), and the Average atmospheric increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, also called ‘CO2 growth rate’ (Section 6.3). The uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the ocean and by terrestrial ecosystems, often called ‘carbon sinks’ are the red arrows part of Net land flux and Net ocean flux. Red numbers in the reservoirs denote cumulative changes of anthropogenic carbon over the Industrial Period 1750–2011 (column 2 in Table 6.1). By convention, a positive cumulative change means that a reservoir has gained carbon since 1750. The cumulative change of anthropogenic carbon in the terrestrial reservoir is the sum of carbon cumulatively lost through land use change and carbon accumulated since 1750 in other ecosystems (Table 6.1). Note that the mass balance of the two ocean carbon stocks Surface ocean and Intermediate and deep ocean includes a yearly accumulation of anthropogenic carbon (not shown). Uncertainties are reported as 90% confidence intervals. Emission estimates and land and ocean sinks (in red) are from Table 6.1 in Section 6.3. The change of gross terrestrial fluxes (red arrows of Gross photosynthesis and Total respiration and fires) has been estimated from CMIP5 model results (Section 6.4). The change in air–sea exchange fluxes (red arrows of ocean atmosphere gas exchange) have been estimated from the difference in atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 since 1750 (Sarmiento and Gruber, 2006). Individual gross fluxes and their changes since the beginning of the Industrial Era have typical uncertainties of more than 20%, while their differences (Net land flux and Net ocean flux in the figure) are determined from independent measurements with a much higher accuracy (see Section 6.3). Therefore, to achieve an overall balance, the values of the more uncertain gross fluxes have been adjusted so that their difference matches the Net land flux and Net ocean flux estimates. Fluxes from volcanic eruptions, rock weathering (silicates and carbonates weathering reactions resulting into a small uptake of atmospheric CO2), export of carbon from soils to rivers, burial of carbon in freshwater lakes and reservoirs and transport of carbon by rivers to the ocean are all assumed to be pre-industrial fluxes, that is, unchanged during 1750–2011. Some recent studies (Section 6.3) indicate that this assumption is likely not verified, but global estimates of the Industrial Era perturbation of all these fluxes was not available from peer-reviewed literature. The atmospheric inventories have been calculated using a conversion factor of 2.12 PgC per ppm (Prather et al., 2012).

Here are some more articles that go into detail on how large the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is and how this was figured out. (These are summaries of relevant peer reviewed literature and they cite/ link to that literature if you want to look at the actual sources of the information)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ities-updated/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=81
https://skepticalscience.com/human-c...termediate.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=45



Global temperatures? Land temperatures? Ocean temperatures? Regional temperatures? Those can show different trends, especially regional vs global.
Globally, it looks like this (from this nice and interactive NASA overview)


The dip and stagnation roughly in the time frame you are referring to is a well known thing. It was due to increased aerosol concentrations, especially sulfur particles, due to air pollution. The particles block sunlight and thereby have a cooling effect. Eventually things like the clean air act were introduced because people don’t like airpollution and this effect lessened. Aerosols still have a cooling effect now but it is offset by other, opposite effects.

Here is a summary by NASA
Here is a rebuttal summary by new scientist
Here is the skeptical science entry on this
Here is the Wikipedia article on global dimming with many relevant references.




Yes. The period from roughly the 16th to the end of the 19th century is known as the "little ice age“ because temperatures were cooler than they were during the medieval climate optimum. During this phase, glaciers grew. They reached the maximum extent around 1850 and have largely been receding since, with short pauses in the recession in some regions particularly in the 1920s and ~1980s. The little ice age was largely due to decreased solar activity. Volcanic eruptions may have played a role (cooling effect through aerosols/ash blocking sunlight) but that is uncertain. There is some evidence that soot from fires may have contributed to glacier melt (black soot on ice changes the albedo/ability of the ice to reflect sunlight, thereby increasing melt).


Figure from this study.

We are currently in an interglacial of an ice age. The last glacial ended something like 12 000 years ago.

Some more links:
Response to question by researcher
Skeptical science, what ended the LIA
More details on volcanos as contributing cause to LIA (summary)

Thanks for the info.

[cumicon]

This statement alone disqualifies you from any further participation in this conversation.

Why? How is that not relevant to the discussion when the general narrative is that carbon emissions are causing the rising temperatures, yet we have evidence that temperatures were rising before carbon emissions became significant?

[klar]

Your picture shows 7.8 gigatons attributed to fossil fuels with 590 in the atmosphere. If 40% is absorbed by carbon sinks that leaves 4.68gt/year added to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. That is still just a 00.8% increase in carbon attributed to human emissions. A 00.8% increase leads to run away warming? That seems hard to believe when carbon levels in the atmosphere are not constant and have fluctuated significantly at times in the past.

For such a discussion it would be good to define what is meant by runaway warming. The term runaway climate change/ warming is something that gets thrown around in the media but is not particularly well defined in scientific literature when referring to what is happening on earth. "Runaway greenhouse effect" is typically used to mean a process where the greenhouse effect is hugely increased by positive feedbacks until a planet’s oceans boil off. It is hypothesized that this happened on Venus. There has been some speculation about whether something like this would somehow be theoretically be possible on earth, but the oceans boiling off is not a pressing concern for anyone.

In earth climate terms, runaway anything is mostly used to refer to the possibility that we will reach a tipping point in the climate system where positive feedbacks are activated, which would then magnify changes without any other outside influence. Such feedbacks are for example the possibility of the release of lots of methane and carbon from thawing arctic permafrost or the disintegration of the ice sheets.

Triggering such processes seems quite possible in theory and some people argue that the west antarctic ice sheet and maybe also greenland are already well on the way to destabilizing. If any major positive feedback are triggered, it becomes much more difficult to predict how and how much things would change, but change is likely to be large and reasonably abrupt, making it difficult for species to adapt.

The wikipedia entry about the clatharte gun hypothesis is quite interesting reading imo. It explains how release of methane can have dramatic effects. Such an event may have caused mass extinctions in the past, such as the "Great dying“ 252 million years ago.

Here is a good summary on how concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have changed in the past. It includes infromation on how different studies differ in this regard, issues that are not yet determined, as well as those that everyone agrees upon. The point is that CO2 levels have most likely not been as high as they are right now during the existence of homo sapiens. Here is a well done and informative (imo) CSIRO website detailing recent changes in ghg concentrations as measured at Cape Grim (Australia). Here is a NOAA overview of what is measured at Mauna Loa.



Only about 1% of our air is made up of ghgs like hydrogen, CO2 and methane. 75ish% are nitrogen, 24ish% are oxygen. We are at around 400ppm CO2 concentration currently (= Per 1 million of air molecules, 400 are CO2). Is that a lot in absolute terms, compared to the rest of what is in the air? No. Does it influence our climate anyway? Yes.

The calculation of how the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed depends a lot on what units you use. The concentration was relatively stable at around 280ppm for the last few thousand years, because sources and sinks balanced out over that time frame. Going from about 280 to 400ppm is an increase of over 40%. In absolute terms, natural sources of CO2 are much larger than human contributions, yes, but the former are compensated by carbon sinks while the latter are only partially compensated. When sources and sinks balance out, the absolute amount and the concentration stays the same. When they no longer do so, both the absolute value and the concentration increase. You can have 590GT or 800GT or as much as you want, if that value remains constant there will not be a climatic change associated with it. In this case, change causes change.



We know that most of the recent increase is due to human activities because 1) we can calculate how much stuff people have been burning and how that translates to CO2 concentrations and 2) CO2 from fossil fuels has a different isotope signature than CO2 from non-plant sources and people can figure out how the ratio of the two kinds of CO2 is changing. (older explanation with some literature)

This IPCC plot shows ghg effect in terms of radiative forcing.



This is what CO2 concentrations look like going further back (ice core data), by the way. From here:

[klar]

I don't understand why it matters if the author has any peer reviewed publications. He is not a scientist. He is a researcher, and has studied the climate for 30 years on his own. His piece is based on research of other scientists, not his own feelings or anecdotal evidence. I don't think its fair to not give him a chance because he lacks a title or peer reviewed publications. His work is based on the work of other scientists. The validity of his arguments should be judged on the evidence he presents rather than the author himself.

Okay. Personally, I prefer to look at what people who have studied climate for 30 years in a research setting, while interacting with many colleagues with different expertise, with peer reviewed publications of their own have to say, and those are plentiful, but that goes back into the debate about who we trust and why, what "experts“ are and why some people don’t seem to like them.

Looking at the first link you posted: He starts out with some images from text books that show the carbon cycle. He mainly points out that there is a lot of CO2 in the oceans and in rocks. This is true. In and of itself, it is not particularly relevant to what is happening in the atmosphere.

He then goes on to discuss the "missing carbon sink“. The observed increase in CO2 is less than what you could expect if all the CO2 from human emissions ended up in the atmosphere. Once people figured that out, they looked for the reason why, i.e. the missing sink. He cites a few older (20ish years old) studies, that discuss how large exactly the difference is and where it might be going (oceans and/or plants). He points out that a significant amount of the difference is absorbed by plants. The most recent study he cites in this section is from 2010 and he quotes it as saying that it is unclear exactly how much of the "missing“ CO2 goes to the oceans and how much goes to plants, pointing out that while such uncertainties exist, we can’t be certain about future CO2 concentrations.

Just for comparison, here are some quotes I took from the article, from the "conclusions and perspective“ section, where the main points of the study are summed up:

"Based on theoretical calculations and field monitoring evidence, we have shown, that there is an important but previously underestimated sink for the atmospheric CO2 as dissolved inorganic carbon that results from the combined action of carbonate dissolution, the global water cycle and the photosynthetic uptake of DIC by aquatic organisms“

"In summary, the combined action of carbonate weathering, the global water cycle and aquatic organisms may act as a regulator of atmospheric CO2. These processes jointly provide a negative climate feedback mechanism that partly counteracts the anthropogenic increase of atmospheric CO2. However, for full understanding and more accurate assessment of these processes, the temporal and spatial variations in DIC in precipitation and runoff in the world, which are related to the temporal and spatial distribution of carbonate dust and CO2 in the atmosphere, and pedogenic carbonate and CO2 in the soil respectively, remain to be determined more accurately in the future.“

His final conclusion in this part is that a bunch of the "missing“ CO2 goes into plants and he goes on to ask how the plants like that.

He cites some old literature (written in 1898 and 1962) that basically points out that CO2 is important for plants. He then goes on about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to other gases, pointing out that this amount is very small compared to all the other stuff in the air, like I did above. He states that the amount of CO2 from anthropogenic sources is even smaller compared to everything in the atmosphere.

He then asks "Are we then supposed to accept the conclusion, without question or debate, that this miniscule additional amount of CO2 to the atmosphere is going to provoke such a horrendous planetary catastrophe that we must completely overhaul our energy system“

I would say that "without question or debate“ hardly covers the last ~100 years of science in this general area. He presents no further arguments to support the idea that since there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere, it can’t have much of an effect.

Instead, he goes on to look at potential positive effects an increased amount of atmospheric CO2 might have on plants. Here he cites three sources. The one he draws on most heavily is an article published in 1964. It begins by talking about a willow tree that someone planted in the 17th century. It then talks about experiments conducted in greenhouses that the authors did. They grew lettuce and tomatoes, change the amount of CO2 (to as much as 1500ppm) in the greenhouses and watched what happened. The yield form the plants increased with more CO2. The authors discuss how enriching greenhouse atmospheres with CO2 would be beneficial.

The other texts he cites are a report by the US agriculture department published in 1904 and a study from 1928, also about experimenting with CO2 concentrations in greenhouses. In part 2 he goes on to list a bunch of other publications. Some are from peer reviewed journals, others aren’t - most notably the one from which he has taken the pictures of the guy standing next to a tree.

You point out these two that he cites somewhere (I didn’t read past part 2) and I’m sure he has more:

[I]“Significant land greening in the northern extratropical latitudes (NEL) has been documented through satellite observations during the past three decades. This enhanced vegetation growth has broad implications for surface energy, water and carbon budgets and ecosystem services across multiple scales. . . Our findings reveal that the observed greening record is consistent with an assumption of anthropogenic forcings, where greenhouse gases play a dominant role . ..”
....
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...AwNDc1NDk0MwS2

This study uses satellite data to figure out how vegetation has changed over the last 30 years, coming to the conclusion that it has generally increased and:

"Our findings reveal that the observed greening record is consistent with an assumption of anthropogenic forcings, where greenhouse gases play a dominant role, but is not consistent with simulations that include only natural forcings and internal climate variability. These results provide the first clear evidence of a discernible human fingerprint on physiological vegetation changes other than phenology and range shifts.“

...“CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau.”http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate3004.html

This one also uses global satellite data but goes more into why the observed greening trend is ocurring, concluding, as you point out in the quote, that a lot of it is due to more CO2. The BBC covered this study and talked to the authors about how their study plays into general climate change issues:

"Co-author Dr Philippe Ciais, from the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences in Gif-sur‑Yvette, France (also an IPCC author), said: "The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change are not acknowledged. Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatise to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilisation effect diminishes over time.“

There are some other quotes in there that stress uncertainties in climate projections from another co-author and also some from prominent "contrarians“, presenting a view that goes more in your direction.

[SB]

climate change for a nickle?

[klar]

Both of these studies were published in Nature, which I believe is supposed to be one of the best scientific journals and exactly the type of research you want to see. I would tend to find this research of plant growth on a global scale more convincing than the more isolated experiments.

Yes, Nature is one of the most highly respected journals and I have no doubts about the validity of those studies, or any of the other peer reviewed studies you or Randall cite. As you said, I can cite a bunch of studies that show certain plants doing not so great with more CO2, or find things like:

"But elevated CO2 concentrations did not increase plant biomass when both rainfall and nitrogen were at their lower level. We conclude that given widespread, simultaneous limitation by water and nutrients, large stimulation of biomass by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations may not be ubiquitous.“ Also a nature study.

It is easy to pick and choose quotes or take a single result out of the context of the larger study and spin that into whatever narrative we like. I don’t know enough about plants to judge how relevant isolated experiments are vs past global trends in terms of plant reaction to CO2.

My take away from what I have read on the plant/CO2 thing is 1) again, it’s complicated and plants need more than CO2 to grow. 2) Studies looking only at the effect of CO2 are limited in a climate change context for this reason. That doens’t mean they are not interesting or worthwhile. 3) again, I don’t know enough about plants to come to more detailed, definitive conclusions.

So, for a larger perspective I rely on the people I consider experts and you choose to give more weight to Mr. Randall, whom I find unconvincing because of reasons I mentioned. I probably wont convince you that he is kooky and you wont convince me that he’s not. For what it’s worth, there are "dissenting“ voices from within the field that make more sophisticated points and do provide what I consider worthwhile discussion.

"It's complicated" - it certainly seems so, but doesn't this leave some doubt with the narrative that "the science is settled" with regard to the conventional AGW narrative?

No. The point is that there can be things that are not settled in specific fields (there are many such issues, including in my own specific field), without that affecting the overall "narrative“, whatever that is supposed to be, exactly. Say CO2 is great for plants, without any limitations (such as the dimishing fertilization effect mentioned by the author of the study you cited in the bbc interview, different plants reacting in different ways, etc). Further say that there will be a net global increase in plant growth and other effects like rising temperatures, shifting precipitation patterns wont outweigh potential positive effects from more carbon (this topic appears to me "not settled“). That still does not change what I would consider "the conventional AGW narrative“, i.e. anthropogenic emissions causing an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and rising temperatures (as well as some other effects).

Regarding the relevance of climatic changes before humans began burning fossil fuels, the point alluded to by old goat: temperatures have changed many times in the past due to known natural climate forcings. Humans are not the only factor that can affect climate. The natural forcings cannot account for changes we are currently seeing.

[klar]

climate change for a nickle?

I have text books worth a lot more than that! That's where I learned the tldr approach

[Dexter Rutecki]

Klar deserves some kind of award or something. I hope that those who are looking for something to contradict the general understanding of climate change carefully read what he wrote. Unfortunately even if they're satisfied with the above explanations I suspect at least some of them will just move on to something else that they think can be questioned, and Klar could spend his life addressing questions that have already been addressed by people who actually study and understand all of this.

[SirHeady]

wow the cultural marxism in this thread is V strong #Cucks




Man is not powerful enough to impact climate /Thread