By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Climate Change: What's your take?

EpicRandy said:
KLAMarine said:
Groundking said:

Well if you're going to criticise my initial statement the way you did do you not see the hypocrisy? And yes I know that the distrubution of rain will change, but overall the climate will be wetter, so again your initial statement is wrong. Also we'll be able to grow more food, as food production further north will become far more productive, as the north is warming the most, leading to a larger proportion of land that's productive. And yes, but we've already seen crop yeild improve with the warming environment (granted there are other things that help.)

Are any of these claims of increased food production supported anywhere in the scientific literature?

Actualy yes and no  here's a great summary : https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/

In other words, it's not as simple as just saying "the warmer more CO2 rich environment lets us grow more food than ever before".



Around the Network
Lafiel said:
SpokenTruth said:

I truly believe some people will remain in denial even after major catastrophic events.  They'll say, "Oh, that was just going to happen anyway becaue Earth changes."  

We are the only species to ever exist on Earth with the ability to prevent their own extinction and yet some people seem hell bent on ensuring that happens.

I'm not against human extinction, I just think it's a great shame we would likely take 99%+ of all species with us, possibly preventing any chance of a civilization happening after our demise.



WTF? Seriously?





EpicRandy said:
KLAMarine said:

Are any of these claims of increased food production supported anywhere in the scientific literature?

Actualy yes and no  here's a great summary : https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/



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).





LMU Uncle Alfred said:
Al Gore is a MFer.

Pretty sure 97% of everyone agrees.





PwerlvlAmy said:
I think its just the world leaders power agenda to push ''climate change'' in order for the big energy companies to get more money.

or ive just been watching too much jesse ventura

Woah. That's a big jump. Especially considering big energy companies will be taxed under the most popular solutions: carbon taxes and ETS.

I don't like either of these solutions but I can't see either benefiting energy companies.

I don't know who Jesse Ventura is, but I don't see his logic.





Around the Network

To those concerned about the potential for bias in the 5 major temperature datasets, I personally rely on the ones that require the least 'adjustments': Argo bouys for ocean temp, and balloons and satellites for the atmosphere. 

Of course these all still have some adjustments made, but far less than the land based thermometers and ocean 'bucket' temp readings and are certainly more accurate than most proxies (tree rings etc) as far as I can tell. Most of the data is freely available.

Argo data is very hard to come by though. You have to personally request it from the Argo Centre themselves or (like I did) find studies that managed to get ahold of the data, like these guys:

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf

This, like a lot of peer reviewed studies, actually indicates that extra heat has not gone into the oceans. Argo bouys are largely regarded as the most accurate ocean temperature readings from 700m to 2000m, and heat doesn't sink as far as my understanding of the laws of thermodynamics go.

It bothers me that the conversation is not changing based on the newest data. People are still committed to the idea of a need to mitigate catastrophic warming, including many influential people such as the leaders of most nations.



I am not a climate denier.



Zackasaurus-rex said:
I am not a climate denier.

So you admit that there is a climate.





Locknuts said:
EpicRandy said:

Actualy yes and no  here's a great summary : https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/



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.





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.