Climate Change: What's your take?

[Locknuts]

EpicRandy said:

Locknuts said:

I don't trust that article at all. The links to the areas of the IPCC report if refers to are broken. It's a biased news article and doesn't appear to be properly referenced.

Here's what I've read on the subject.

http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/53689/PDF

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/312/5782/1918.short

First one estimates a 33% increase in crop yields due to Co2.

Second also estimates a rise, but states that it's less than expected and so probably won't offset negative effects of Climate Change (but fails to explain what those negative effects are).

The 33% increased your article is reffering to is at 660 ppm. For instance the safe zone is estimated to be 350 ppm we are at 400 ppm and the limit to keep temperature below 2C increase is estimated to be 450 ppm. http://sustainabilityadvantage.com/2014/01/07/co2-why-450-ppm-is-dangerous-and-350-ppm-is-safe/

we'll never have 33% increase in an open environement.

As the second study suggested, 33% is optimistic, but 2C warming based on 450ppm seems overly pessimistic. The article you referenced isn't peer reviewed and is written by a high school teacher. He seems to reference an article though that appears well written, but asserts that the global warming will be catastrophic and that a tax on carbon is the only way to stop it. Are these people scientists or politicians? They should stick with the data and let the policy makers worry about the policies, if and when they're needed.

Here:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1375-3?LI=true

Around 2C warming for a doubling of Co2.

And this one suggests it is around .51C for a doubling:

http://iacweb.ethz.ch/doc/publications/Chylek-et-al-JGR2007-climate-sens.pdf

I can provide many more below 2C estimates if you'd like, as climate Co2 sensitivity is where I've been doing most of my reading.