6 replies to this topic

[Karlis]

The State of Earth’s Terrestrial Biosphere: How is it Responding to Rising Atmospheric CO2 and Warmer Temperatures?

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for example, contends that current levels of temperature and changing precipitation patterns (which they believe are mostly driven by the modern rise in atmospheric CO2) are beginning to stress Earth’s natural and agro-ecosystems now by reducing plant growth and development.

Such concerns, however, are not justified. In the ensuing report we present a meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining how the productivities of Earth’s plants have responded to the 20th and now 21st century rise in global temperature and atmospheric CO2, a rise that climate alarmists claim is unprecedented over thousands of years (temperature) to millions of years (CO2 concentration).
Source

[Imaginarynumber1]

Would it not make sense to give climate scientists the benefit of the doubt and work toward lowering emissions and developing cleaner technologies instead of constantly whining and yelling "Nuh uh!" while trying to shove your head as far as you can into the ground?

[Br Cornelius]

The authors of the source materials used for the report do not draw the same rosy conclusion that Idso does.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1o29]

Imaginarynumber1, on 11 December 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

Would it not make sense to give climate scientists the benefit of the doubt and work toward lowering emissions and developing cleaner technologies instead of constantly whining and yelling "Nuh uh!" while trying to shove your head as far as you can into the ground?

Have you ever observed an ant colony?  When beset by rising water, they scurry around dragging the brood to higher ground and shoring up tunnel entrances.  But when a fire approaches, they stand there, mesmerized.  Even in a desert, ants retain an ancestral memory about what to do about rising water.  But fire has happened so rarely and destroyed even the memory of it when it did happen, that ants have no way to deal with it.

That's what we're up against.  Humans have no way to deal with a disaster of this magnitude, so they pretend it doesn't exist.  For most, it won't matter anyway.  If the worst happens, they'll just die.  If it doesn't, they won't.  In either case, they won't have to deal with it.  They are irrelevant unless they block effective action.  Only a few can look at disaster and organize a response.  But mind has to override psychology.

What will it take to get people moving?  A large and obvious disaster - like maybe widespread crop failure and not being able to buy food at any price.  Or going to the tap and no water comes out - in an area the size of Colorado.

If the drought now plaguing the central US is just a normal one, we'll pull out of it in three or four years without it getting much worse than it is now.  But if it's a function of a new climate regime, we may not pull out of it at all.  Climate change is accelerating.  I thought this drought would just blow on by, but it's not doing that.  Something has changed.
Doug

[Imaginarynumber1]

Doug1o29, on 11 December 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

Have you ever observed an ant colony?  When beset by rising water, they scurry around dragging the brood to higher ground and shoring up tunnel entrances.  But when a fire approaches, they stand there, mesmerized.  Even in a desert, ants retain an ancestral memory about what to do about rising water.  But fire has happened so rarely and destroyed even the memory of it when it did happen, that ants have no way to deal with it.

That's what we're up against.  Humans have no way to deal with a disaster of this magnitude, so they pretend it doesn't exist.  For most, it won't matter anyway.  If the worst happens, they'll just die.  If it doesn't, they won't.  In either case, they won't have to deal with it.  They are irrelevant unless they block effective action.  Only a few can look at disaster and organize a response.  But mind has to override psychology.

What will it take to get people moving?  A large and obvious disaster - like maybe widespread crop failure and not being able to buy food at any price.  Or going to the tap and no water comes out - in an area the size of Colorado.

If the drought now plaguing the central US is just a normal one, we'll pull out of it in three or four years without it getting much worse than it is now.  But if it's a function of a new climate regime, we may not pull out of it at all.  Climate change is accelerating.  I thought this drought would just blow on by, but it's not doing that.  Something has changed.
Doug

I know all that you're saying and the ant analogy is very apt. I guess I just want my faith in humanity to be renewed, you know? I can't believe the amount of people that deny what is right in front of their very eyes.

[questionmark]

Wow, we are back to the Chevron argument: lots of carbon dioxide is good for us?

I thought that even the authors were laughing at it by now....

[Br Cornelius]

questionmark, on 12 December 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

Wow, we are back to the Chevron argument: lots of carbon dioxide is good for us?

I thought that even the authors were laughing at it by now....

The problem is that the carbon sinks have not yet become saturated and are still happily absorbing half of a rising level of CO2. All the authors used for the report do not doubt that the sinks are reaching saturation and will become net sources of carbon very soon. The hot dry decade of the 1990's were a period when the sinks became sources (a fact glossed over in the Hearland document) and it is only a matter of a short time until the tropical rainforest and the Tigra and Tundra become sources. At that point expect to see a dramatic spike in CO2 concentrations.

Until it happens these bogus arguments can proliferate.

Br Cornelius