Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Kenomac]

Jack,

Even the giant tortoise has managed to figure out how to slowly crawl away from rising waters should the need arise.

Do you anticipate humans rapidly evolving into gelatinous, leg less blobs over the next 100 years.... Lazy creatures incapable of getting away from an extremely slowly rising tide, completely devoid of any cars, bikes, boat, planes, trains or other modes/means of transportation?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Do you allow your 13 and 14 year old middle school students to answer your questions with a question?

Let's try once again... this time as extra credit to make up for your previous attempt. Please answer the entire question.

Yes, I'm referring to the "greening" you and others were discussing in previous pages as a result of increasing plant growth due to increased CO2.

It's a simple question really, kind of a gimme.

I answered by question - leaves and trees are benefiting from increased CO2. It is a very specific short-term gain. Food crop nutritional levels suffer in CO2 levels as low as 550 ppm. Increased predation by pests also results in open high CO2 environments

Here is a layman's discussion of the latest research.

So, whilst the favorable effects of CO2 on plants may both improve the capacity and production of vegetation on Earth, it is almost certainly only a short-term beneficial by-product of a much greater problem, particularly when plants can no longer absorb any more and oceans are full to capacity with this gas. At that point we will have a much, much greater problem on our hands, no matter how green our trees may be.

The research paper was recently published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

The video below is NASA's short take on the research.

Increased CO2 levels are greening the Earth

https://youtu.be/zOwHT8yS1XI

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Just exactly what do you think is greening? Leaves and trees!

Food crops increases are more closely correlated to increased irrigation, pesticide use and fertilizer use, none which is sustainable.

CO2 enrichment causes trees to grow faster but not food crops? Wowser....

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Jack,

Even the giant tortoise has managed to figure out how to slowly crawl away from rising waters should the need arise.

Do you anticipate humans rapidly evolving into gelatinous, leg less blobs over the next 100 years.... Lazy creatures incapable of getting away from an extremely slowly rising tide, completely devoid of any cars, bikes, boat, planes, trains or other modes/means of transportation?

So you will be welcoming Bangladeshi climate refugees?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/wo...ange.html?_r=0

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I answered by question - leaves and trees are benefiting from increased CO2. It is a very specific short-term gain. Food crop nutritional levels suffer in CO2 levels as low as 550 ppm. Increased predation by pests also results in open high CO2 environments

Here is a layman's discussion of the latest research.



Increased CO2 levels are greening the Earth

https://youtu.be/zOwHT8yS1XI

No you didn't answer the complete question....

Please read the question more closely, especially the part about humans being unable to move a few miles. Why will humans be unable to relocate themselves via various means of locomotion?

"Jack,

Heading back to post #1 again:

Why do you feel that humans living hundreds of years from now will be unable to move a few miles inland if their coastline changes, and will starve to death as a result of increased greening?

If all your predictions come true, the change (8 inches sea rise over a 100 year period) will hardly be noticed... even by those living at waterfront properties."

[Delfin]

Recent studies concluding that enhanced CO2 is bad for food crops are another attempt to find a problem that can be associated with the need to raise taxes on energy where one does not exist. The problem for warmists is that of course plants benefit from more CO2 - this is first grade science. So these studies don't dispute the obvious, but conclude that the nutritional value of food crops will go because they will be growing so much faster that slowly translocated elements like zinc and iron won't have time to collect in the tissue before the plant is ready to harvest.

Why is that a silly approach to the question? Well for lots of reasons. First, slow growing crops have a tendency to freeze before harvest, which in general isn't good for their nutritional value. Second, you can solve zinc and iron deficiency with a vitamin tablet if need be. Third, we can breed square tomatoes so they fit better in packing crates so do these researchers really think we can't breed broccoli that takes up zinc and iron efficiently?

The studies are just more politics disguised as science that is designed to defend a hypothesis that is increasing looking like the hypothesis of phrenology.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

So you will be welcoming Bangladeshi climate refugees?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/wo...ange.html?_r=0

So... another sincere, simple question answered with a question and sensational headline.

Do you allow your students to do the same?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

So... another sincere, simple question answered with a question and sensational headline.

Do you allow your students to do the same?

Failure to understand rhetorical questions. ?

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Failure to understand rhetorical questions. ?

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Yet another question answered with a question.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What part of "upper atmosphere" do you not understand?

Did you miss this?

That quote was one persons opinion.

Here's a different persons opinion

Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, "there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific," correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Yet another question answered with a question.

Nice try Ken, but you know you aren't going to get a straight factual answer.

The Bangladesh red herring is a pretty good example of how crazy and harmful to average people the warmist scare is. Estimates to implement the Paris accords vary, but most seem to agree that over the next 84 years it will be in excess of 20 trillion. And that expenditure will lower warming by 1/20th to 1/5th of a degree.

However, for an estimated $10 billion you can build 8,000 km of rivers dikes to protect Bangladesh from the most extreme predictions of AGW caused sea level rise. In the process, you would provide employment for a couple of decades for some of the poorest people on the planet.

http://germanwatch.org/download/klak/fb-ms-e.pdf

Why do warmists insist on spending trillions to solve a problem that likely doesn't exist but if it does can be almost totally mitigated for a few hundred billion? Because AGW isn't about science, or economics, or reason as the warmists here demonstrate with their every post. It is about politics, left vs. right, big government big taxation leftists vs. reality.

You won't win that debate anymore than you will get a straight answer from Jack.

[TurninTurtle]

LOL... any evidence that disproves the MMGW people is "localized"

In other words... they don't like the data so it doesn't count.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

LOL... any evidence that disproves the MMGW people is "localized"

In other words... they don't like the data so it doesn't count.

I've said it before I'll say it again.
Warming =climate change
Cooling= weather.
No changes = non existence

[TurninTurtle]

MMGW isn't science... its a religion.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I've said it before I'll say it again.
Warming =climate change
Cooling= weather.
No changes = non existence

You just forgot one...
Posting in this thread thinking you are going to change anyone mind = The definition of insanity.

This is like a "I'm better than you" thread where the MMGW Cultists get to take a superior moral high ground for being better people and caring more than the other neanderthals, racists, hater, deniers.