Australian Politics Forum - IPCC 95% sure about AGW

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #150 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:46am

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:41am:

Narsty stuff that co2 Grin

Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are bolstering plant life throughout the world, environmental scientists report in a newly published peer-reviewed study. The findings, published in Geophysical Research Letters, are gleaned from satellite measurements of global plant life, and contradict assertions by activists that global warming is causing deserts to expand, along with devastating droughts.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/10/global-warming-no-satellites-...

Yeah. The projections show that some latitudes will benefit from moderately higher CO2 but on the balance, the effect will be negative. The problem is that it won't stay at that level.

For higher projections still, all latitudes are projected crop losses of up to 50%.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Innocent bystander Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4220 Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #151 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:49am Rubbish
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #152 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:52am

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:39am:

Funny how the climate hysterics have determined that 280ppm is the ideal level for co2, even though levels have fluctuated wildly throughout Earths history, meanwhile greenhouses are fed co2 at levels over a 1000ppm, I guess no one told the plants what the ideal level was. Grin

Well I'm not aware that anybody has determined an ideal level of CO2. Maybe some over-enthusiastic newspaper reports, but I doubt if any responsible scientist would say that.

Some plants benefit from increased CO2 levels, but 80% of agriculture is currently not irrigated and we have a growing world population to feed. We're on a knife edge as far as widespread famine is concerned.

CO2 levels were higher during the Jurassic, but it was a hot steamy place. You certainly couldn't grow any of the staple food crops in those conditions.

This issue is not about cuddly polar bears. It's about the continuation of civilisation.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #153 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:54am Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:49am: Rubbish Do you have a link for that, or was it a visceral reaction? I notice that you haven't backed up your claim that all life would die at 150 ppm CO2 and have wandered away from that point.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #154 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:55am Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:42am: Isn't it funny that the "greens" are dead against the greening of the planet I'm not a Green. I'm a survivalist.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Innocent bystander Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4220 Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #155 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:57am Too much "www.scepticalscience" will rot yer brains
Back to top	IP Logged

Innocent bystander Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4220 Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #156 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 8:03am Moore: 'CO2 is lower today than it has been through most of the history of life on earth...At 150 ppm CO2 all plants would die, resulting in virtual end of life on earth' http://www.climatedepot.com/2012/07/13/greenpeace-cofounder-dr-patrick-moore-tha...
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #157 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 8:07am

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:57am:

Too much "www.scepticalscience" will rot yer brains Grin

How about Columbia University and the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Florida,?

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2002/20/c020p259.pdf

This shows crop losses of up to 55%. Check Table 2.
Quote:

Table 2. Summary of simulation results expressed as percent yield change from baseline (1951−1994) simulations. For each of 5 crops, intervals represent the range across simulated production sites

That's just one of many agricultural studies that take into account changes in temperature CO2 and precipitation.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #158 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 8:11am

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 8:03am:

Moore: 'CO2 is lower today than it has been through most of the history of life on earth...At 150 ppm CO2 all plants would die, resulting in virtual end of life on earth'

http://www.climatedepot.com/2012/07/13/greenpeace-cofounder-dr-patrick-moore-tha...

Patrick Moore was an Astronomer, and there was no scientific paper involved. It was a false statement as I've demonstrated. Atmospheric CO2 has been around 150 ppm several times in the last 400,000 years and also during the late Pliocene, 3 million years ago. The evidence that it's nonsense is the fact that life didn't go extinct during those periods. C3- photosynthesising plants might have been at a low, but they survived.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Innocent bystander

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4220
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #159 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 10:10am

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 8:07am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 7:57am:

Too much "www.scepticalscience" will rot yer brains Grin

How about Columbia University and the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Florida,?

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2002/20/c020p259.pdf

This shows crop losses of up to 55%. Check Table 2.
Quote:

Table 2. Summary of simulation results expressed as percent yield change from baseline (1951−1994) simulations. For each of 5 crops, intervals represent the range across simulated production sites

That's just one of many agricultural studies that take into account changes in temperature CO2 and precipitation.

Gobbledeygook Grin

Try this ... http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #160 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 10:37am That actually confirms the "gobbledegook which you didn't bother to read. There is a short term improvement under some conditions (well watered, not too hot)
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Innocent bystander Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4220 Gender:	Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW Reply #161 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 11:31am Yeah sure, thats why satellites are showing a planet wide greening as plant life soaks up the extra co2, certain conditions my arse.
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137935
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #162 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 12:27pm

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 10:37am:

That actually confirms the "gobbledegook which you didn't bother to read. There is a short term improvement under some conditions (well watered, not too hot)

Define "short term".

While you're at it, define "long term".

And, most importantly, do your definitions of these terms ever change?

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #163 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 12:46pm

This is getting tiresome and will no doubt try muso's patience, but here goes (again):
greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

...
Why couldn't you just answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no' ?
...

So:
a) you believe that all questions can be answered either 'yes' or 'no'. That is, you're a simpleton or;
b) you pretend to believe so. That is, you're a troll.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 12:33pm:

...
I doubt if there are many on here who are as far to the left as I am.
...

Is a left-wing troll any less a troll? Is a left-wing simpleton any less a simpleton?

As I've already pointed out, you've given no cause to suppose that you believe a word you say. There's no reason to give you credit for any politics at all - a complete vacuum, in more ways than one.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 12:33pm:

...
They also assume that just because of my open-minded scepticism, ...

Which you've failed to substantiate on so many occasions that I've lost count.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 12:51pm:

# wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 7:30am:

... Global warming; remember that? You treat it as a joke.

au contraire

What I do treat as a joke is closed-minded fools who have no capacity to think for themselves, ...

That reminds me of a comment I encountered while researching Andrew Khan (Poptech) Quote:

That’s right Andrew, do you support child molestation? If not, you’re a COLLECTIVIST.
Do you believe in moon landing conspiracy theorists? If not, you’re BRAINWASHED.
Do you exercise your freedom to smoke pot? If not, you HATE FREEDOM.
Do you believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories? No? You’re not a FREE THINKER.
Do you have empirical evidence you were born from your mother’s womb? If not, you believe it on FAITH, NOT FACT.
Do you respond to criticism? YES, that means you’re DESPERATE AND SCARED THAT PEOPLE READ FACTS.
Do you ignore some? YES, because you’re afraid of giving FACTS the attention it deserves, which would CHANGE MINDS OF THINKING PEOPLE.

Mind you, Andrew at least seems to believe something. That is to say, he shows more integrity than you.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 2:21pm:

...
This issue isn't about partisan politics, or consensus: it's about science.
...

So you're saying the the scientists reached their consensus on a basis other than science? I'll be interested to see your substantiation of that.

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 2:49pm:

Maybe you should talk about the science then. I shouldn't be so hard on Ajax. At least he tries to do that.

Ajax too shows more integrity than greggerypeccary.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:06pm:

...
I've dealt with many alarmists.

What I have learned is that it's a complete waste of time discussing the science with them They simply do not wish to listen to anything that differs from their own preconceived, arrogant views.

As the previous poster said: it's more like a religion with you alarmists. In all my years, I have never encountered a more closed-minded group of people (except perhaps religious fundamentalists).
...

Which brings us back to the above comments about Andrew Khan.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:32pm:

... I've never encountered a more closed-minded or arrogant group of people in my life.

Look in a mirror.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:32pm:

Moreover, I've lost count of the amount of times that you and other alarmists have used the term 'consensus'. Just more evidence of your complete lack of understanding when it comes to science.
...

So what are your credentials?

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

... I'm not adverse to onanism ...

It's been suggested that the reason you don't substantiate anything is that it would mean more typing. That might require you to use both hands on the keyboard.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137935
Gender: male

Re: IPCC 95% sure about AGW
Reply #164 - Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 12:50pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 12:27pm:

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 10:37am:

That actually confirms the "gobbledegook which you didn't bother to read. There is a short term improvement under some conditions (well watered, not too hot)

Define "short term".

While you're at it, define "long term".

And, most importantly, do your definitions of these terms ever change?

Back to top

IP Logged