Global warming discussion III

[greybeard]

,
What gives David ??? A couple of months ago you pounded on me when I mentioned how well plants and crops are growing with increased CO2

Now you post the same information to explain why the planet has failed to come to a slow boil like you predicted.

You don't quote your previous post or the response Arnold so I had to search to find it. It looks like what you are refering to is this where you said:

Yes , and all the plants on earth will consume the extra CO2 , not to mention how much better stuff grows when the environment is nice and warm
Greenhouses have done that for years .... here is one that adds CO2 ... and it is in MacDoc's Ontario

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/...cts/00-077.htm

To which Macdoc replied:

So AM - since the plants are unable to consume as much additional fossil CO2 as we have pumped into the atmosphere - kind of obvious as it keeps rising and is at 400 ppm up from 283 ppm pre-industrial.

Which seems to differ significantly from the conversation you describe. I've highlighted the parts relevant to the present conversation. As Macdoc explained plants do not take up all the additional CO2 which is why we have already seen an increase of over 40% from pre industrial levels.

 

[macdoc]

and many critical plants do not provide nutrition as well under high C02 levels....quantity is not quality.
20 years or so, no more wheat belt in the US.

Climate change: how a warming world is a threat to our food supplies
Global warming is exacerbating political instability as tensions brought on by food insecurity rise. With research suggesting the issue can only get worse we examine the risks around the world

more
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/13/climate-change-threat-food-supplies

Two major crops should do well: quinoa and potatoes.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

As Macdoc explained plants do not take up all the additional CO2 which is why we have already seen an increase of over 40% from pre industrial levels.

How could they? I contend that considering the damages to the environment we humans have done, mostly in agriculture, plants wouldn't be able to do that function even if there were no fossil fuel emissions at all. That's why attacking the fossil fuel industry for CO2 emissions is a fruitless endeavor. Sure we can at current technology reduce those emissions, but even if we dropped them to zero (something we don't even have the technology to effectively do at the moment) would not solve the problem.

Thus the potential solution is in reforming agriculture and restoring ecosystems to better ecosystem services function. That we have proven technology to accomplish, and even at a profit instead of a cost. Will that alone be enough? Maybe, maybe not. But it at least has the POTENTIAL of working, unlike the other side of the equation which has no chance at all of working in our lifetimes. With the added side benefit of if it isn't quite enough, then you can always help out by reducing fossil fuel emissions too.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

and many critical plants do not provide nutrition as well under high C02 levels....quantity is not quality. 20 years or so, no more wheat belt in the US.

Could you explain this conclusion? Don't models project around 2 degrees C. warming with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (i.e., in about 100 years)? Don't most plants that experience the daily sunlight cycle survive temperature swings greater than this most days of the year? Is it not more likely that the yearly cycle in the duration of sunlight limits the latitude of wheat more than does raw temperature (outside extremes)? If you insist that I read the article, I will but I expect there are technicalities some expert would have to explain, anyway. I understand that to exaggerate is human, and climate scientists are human. Exaggeration and simplification are the basic rhetorical tools of political advocacy. So climate scientists exaggerate. Limiting or extreme results come about because they use simplified analysis which may omit an important feedback or because an intricate model is being “exercised” by simulating an extreme scenario.

Peer-review is no guarantee of accuracy, since climate scientists succumb to the same blind spots and groupthink of every human. It tends to make scientists cautious in their statements and wary of adversarial debate, which enhances the likelihood of groupthink. .

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You appear to be unable to grasp the difference

Why do you do this?

 

[Reality Check]

...Thus the potential solution is in reforming agriculture and restoring ecosystems to better ecosystem services function.

That does not sound right, Red Baron Farms. Agriculture is about 10% of the US CO2 emissions (Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions). So eliminating a source such as fossil fuel usage in transport (28%) would have a larger effect.

The advantage is that there is proven technology to implement reduction of emissions from non-agricultural sources. This can even be economically profitable!
The economic impacts of carbon pricing

Climate economics research shows that in reality, we are harming the economy by failing to implement CO2 limits.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

That does not sound right, Red Baron Farms. Agriculture is about 10% of the US CO2 emissions (Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions). So eliminating a source such as fossil fuel usage in transport (28%) would have a larger effect.

The advantage is that there is proven technology to implement reduction of emissions from non-agricultural sources. This can even be economically profitable!
The economic impacts of carbon pricing

May not sound right to you, but it is right. I think that the reason it is counter intuitive is the fact that the stat you mentioned is based on fossil fuel emissions from agriculture (ETA BTW part of transportation is transporting agricultural goods), and doesn't address the rest of the carbon cycle at all. It doesn't include emissions from soil. It doesn't even consider at all the reduction in plants over 40% of the worlds land surface, and the associated reduction in the plants ability to absorb and process CO2. If a plant is no longer there, it has a real hard time absorbing carbon from the atmosphere. So even though the few remaining plants can actually absorb slightly more carbon per plant, they don't even come close to making up for the loss of so many ecosystems that no longer function as net sequesters of carbon.

 

[Reality Check]

I think that the reason it is counter intuitive ...

No it is quite clear, Red Baron Farms:

Agriculture (10% of 2012 greenhouse gas emissions) - Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture come from livestock such as cows, agricultural soils, and rice production.

That is the agricultural part of emissions. There is a 15% offset from "Land Use and Forestry" but that is an absorption

Land Use and Forestry (offset of 15% of 2012 greenhouse gas emissions) - Land areas can act as a sink (absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere) or a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, since 1990, managed forests and other lands have absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit.

The part of the emissions that we can eliminate from agriculture is 10% of the total. This is comparable to the Commercial and Residential emissions and much less than other sources of emission.

You did not address "the other side of the equation" which I took to be controlling emissions (the other side of absorbing emissions into plants).

 

[greybeard]

Could you explain this conclusion? Don't models project around 2 degrees C. warming with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (i.e., in about 100 years)? Don't most plants that experience the daily sunlight cycle survive temperature swings greater than this most days of the year? Is it not more likely that the yearly cycle in the duration of sunlight limits the latitude of wheat more than does raw temperature (outside extremes)? If you insist that I read the article, I will but I expect there are technicalities some expert would have to explain, anyway. I understand that to exaggerate is human, and climate scientists are human. Exaggeration and simplification are the basic rhetorical tools of political advocacy. So climate scientists exaggerate. Limiting or extreme results come about because they use simplified analysis which may omit an important feedback or because an intricate model is being “exercised” by simulating an extreme scenario.

Peer-review is no guarantee of accuracy, since climate scientists succumb to the same blind spots and groupthink of every human. It tends to make scientists cautious in their statements and wary of adversarial debate, which enhances the likelihood of groupthink. .

That's an interesting theory to wish away the scientific consensus but it doesn't really stand up to critical thinking does it? Climate science is no different than any other branch of science. Scientists will try and prove existing theories wrong and are celebrated when they do. You have to ask yourself as well why it is that every scientific institution in the world has missed that this is happening and it is almost exclusively those who with a motive to discredit the scientific consensus that can see it. Why is it that with all the money they have at their disposal the fossil fuel industry and those they fund have never been able to show that AGW is not a threat? Why are there no more people involved in climate research who dispute the scientific consensus than those in the medical community who played down the threat to health from smoking?

 

[Pixel42]

NOAA's state of the climate report for September is up:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/9

•The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for September 2014 was the highest on record for September, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F).

•The global land surface temperature was 0.89°C (1.60°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F), the sixth highest for September on record. For the ocean, the September global sea surface temperature was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 16.2°C (61.1°F), the highest on record for September and also the highest on record for any month.

•The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–September period (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F), tying with 1998 as the warmest such period on record.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That's an interesting theory to wish away the scientific consensus but it doesn't really stand up to critical thinking does it?¹ Climate science is no different than any other branch of science². Scientists will try and prove existing theories wrong and are celebrated when they do³. You have to ask yourself as well why it is that every scientific institution in the world has missed that this is happening and it is almost exclusively those who with a motive to discredit the scientific consensus that can see it⁴. Why is it that with all the money they have at their disposal the fossil fuel industry and those they fund have never been able to show that AGW is not a threat⁵? Why are there no more people involved in climate research who dispute the scientific consensus than those in the medical community who played down the threat to health from smoking?⁶

1. We differ.
2. We agree; scientists are people. People respond to financial incentives and tribal impulses.
3. Sometimes. Sometimes they lose their NSF funding when they question conventional wisdom.
4. To what does "this" refer?
5. If facts and logic were persuasive, explain the variety and persistence of religions.
6. Control of the grant apparatus and manipulation of peer review by a close-knit cabal, is my guess.

 

[greybeard]

1. We differ.
2. We agree; scientists are people. People respond to financial incentives and tribal impulses.
3. Sometimes. Sometimes they lose their NSF funding when they question conventional wisdom.
4. To what does "this" refer?
5. If facts and logic were persuasive, explain the variety and persistence of religions.
6. Control of the grant apparatus and manipulation of peer review by a close-knit cabal, is my guess.

a) Your post reads as, I don't like what the scientists are saying so I will invent motives as to why they are saying it.

b)I don't believe scientists lose funding if their research found something that shows AGW isn't a threat. It sounds like a conspiracy theory.

c) We have just experienced the hottest 12 months on record and that is without an El Nino event. Nine of the ten hottest years on record have been this century. No conspiracy theory about scientists falsifying their research to obtain grants can wish that away.

 

[macdoc]

moving along to the growing list of consequences...

Lake Erie is increasingly plagued by toxic algae blooms each summer, and a new study suggests how climate change and mussels, of all things, may be to blame.
On Thursday, the Columbus Dispatch reported on the new research and computer modeling, which show neither rising water temperatures nor runoff from fertilizers and sewage — the traditional causes cited — fully account for the blooms. According to the paper, published in Water Resources Research, climate change may be providing cyanobacteria — the toxic blue-green algae that’s been invading the lake — a competitive edge over other species of algae.
On top of that, invasive species of mussels which were transported to the Great Lakes in the 1980s by ocean shipping may also be killing off the other beneficial species of algae while avoiding the cyanobacteria, again giving them more room to spread.

“When you have these calmer weather conditions, the cyanobacteria can rise to the surface and create scum layers that shade out other species of algae, which makes cyanobacteria more dominant in the water,” said Daniel Obenour, who was the lead author of the study while still at the University of Michigan Water Center, though now he hails from North Carolina State University.

Climate change also contributes to the rising water temperatures and the phosphorous runoff from agricultural fertilizer and sewage treatment plants. The Earth’s natural cycles plow the vast majority of the additional heat from global warming into the oceans and other major water bodies.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/17/3581428/lake-erie-algae-mussels-study/

 

[macdoc]

a little reinforcement from the Smithsonian.

As humans continue to transform the planet at an increasingly rapid rate, the need to inform and encourage change has become ever more urgent. The situation is becoming critical for wild species and for the preservation of human civilization. Recognizing this urgency, the Smithsonian Institution has formulated its first official statement about the causes and impacts of climate change.

With special emphasis on the Smithsonian’s 160-year history and tradition of collection, research and global monitoring, the statement delivers a bold assessment: "Scientific evidence has demonstrated that the global climate is warming as a result of increasing levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases generated by human activities."

Here is the statement link
http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/smithsonian-statement-climate-change

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smith...ange-statement-180952822/#q7oaQpiCLfSZMS9A.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

 

[Trakar]

Could you explain this conclusion? Don't models project around 2 degrees C. warming with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (i.e., in about 100 years)? ...

No models necessary, direct (laboratory and field) measurements indicate that, by itself, a doubling of CO₂ will generate an additional ~2^o of warming. Unfortunately, CO₂ does not act in isolation. As the atmosphere warms it will then hold more water vapor, as the system equilibrates, this additional water vapor will add another 2-3^oC of warming. Add in all the other contributing cast members (albedo changes, sea-level rise, soil outgassing, etc.,) and you end up with the short-term (50-100year) impact of CO₂ doubling resulting in a 4-6^o C temperature increase (and most likely at least another couple of degrees over the longer term (500 - 5000 years) as slower feedback systems equilibrate). The real problem issue is that the doubling (most likely before 2050) isn't the end of the story. It would not in the least surprise me to see a quadrupling of pre-industrial CO₂ by the first couple of decades of the 22nd Century (100 years from now), a tripling is all but guaranteed by the expanding BAU approach humanity has taken over the last couple of decades.

 

[Pixel42]

I think you might have got Celsius and Fahrenheit confused, Trakar. Best estimates are around 1°C direct temperature increase per doubling of CO2, total including feedbacks of around 3°C. The range of uncertainty around that latter figure is large, it's usually quoted as most likely being between 2 and 4.5C but most recent estimates seem to be converging around the 3°C figure.

 

[Trakar]

I think you might have got Celsius and Fahrenheit confused, Trakar. Best estimates are around 1°C direct temperature increase per doubling of CO2, total including feedbacks of around 3°C. The range of uncertainty around that latter figure is large, it's usually quoted as most likely being between 2 and 4.5C but most recent estimates seem to be converging around the 3°C figure.

If you are aware of compelling support for your statements, I would be interested in seeing your references. As far as I'm aware, my numbers are accurate and reflective of my understandings and readings.

 

[Pixel42]

If you are aware of compelling support for your statements, I would be interested in seeing your references. As far as I'm aware, my numbers are accurate and reflective of my understandings and readings.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Radiative_forcing_due_to_doubled_CO2

 

[Trakar]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Radiative_forcing_due_to_doubled_CO2

Are you seriously offering wiki as a compelling scientific reference?

 

[Pixel42]

Are you seriously offering wiki as a compelling scientific reference?

No, I'm offering the references given in the article (mostly to IPCC reports) as compelling scientific references.

I can click on the references and give you the actual links if you like, but I'm on my tablet at the moment so that would take some time.