People can believe what they want. I, for instance, believe that I am amazingly handsome, young, and virile, and my wife will cheerfully welcome the dozens of beautiful young women that are even now queuing up outside our house to bring me multi-million dollar bribes to be allowed to be part of my legion of mistresses. Let me go look out the window.
Oh well, they seem to be somewhat delayed.
On the other hand, there is a lot of money to be made in building new houses, roads, power plants, etc. Is that why some deny that there is global warming and sea-level rise?
@JLocke – running out of alternatives to simple insults, eh? Someday, I hope you can acknowledge the rigorously determined findings of thousands of scientists studying an astonishing range of data, all of which converges on the same conclusions: The Earth is warming, and this is primarily due to human-caused increases of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This is grade school science. Those of us with advanced degrees in science find it baffling how people like you, who might be considered intelligent in other ways, work so hard to resist this finding. I find it vaguely encouraging that you can’t even bring yourself to try and cite the usual noisemakers failing to even challenge, let alone contradict, one of the best-established findings in the history of science.
I could cite any number of references; though I am not a climate scientist myself, I have followed this field for decades, and there are more and more places that even non-scientists can find clear-cut explanations with understandable data on this topic.
Let alone the point that it is absolutely absurd to imagine that ANYONE could maintain a hoax of this magnitude.
I hope you can open your eyes, rather than joining the Flat Earth Society.
If I had the money, one thing I pay to research is where scientists are purchasing homes. I would also ask where they are recommending their family members and friends buy homes or other properties. The answer would be informative.
Where the ultra-wealthy are purchasing homes would be less indicative. They can afford to replace homes as they like.
The best place for the average reader to learn the truth of global warming is
A Global Warming Primer: Answering Your Questions About The Science, The Consequences, and The Solutions
by Jeffery Bennett
It’s $10.20 at Amazon. 128 pages ISBN-10: 1937548783
“Bennett’s careful and question-by-question presentation will lead any fair-minded person to see the warming issue more clearly and increase understanding of the need for concern about current developments.” —Hon. George P. Shultz, Hoover Institution, Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan
“A uniquely powerful resource [that] presents the science of climate change clearly, in a way that will be understandable to readers without scientific training . . . a joy to read.” —John Abraham, Physics Today
From School Library Journal
Gr 9 Up—Comprehensive and thorough, this much-needed work explains the basic science required to understand and enter discussions on global warming and climate change. Through a question-and-answer format, Bennett presents the research in a conversational style. Divided into sections, the work explores the concepts and facts surrounding climate science and the potential worldwide consequences if steps are not taken to reduce energy consumption. The text also addresses common misconceptions and skepticism about the subject. On a more optimistic note, the author does provide possible and currently available solutions as well as those that may develop in the future. Numerous graphs, charts, and images help clarify concepts and enable even the less scientifically literate to easily understand the theories covered. Without moralizing, Bennett offers strong evidence for the effects of global warming and urges cooperation and action across political party and international lines to prevent a calamitous future. VERDICT Readable and informative, this valuable support tool for science curricula is a solid addition to high school libraries.—Eva Elisabeth VonAncken
Physics based models are never 100% accurate, yet they still tell the truth of many things. They are assured of being more accurate than un-informed and mis-informed opinion, because they have to conform to measurable, repeatable, facts as opposed to the ideology of deniers.
The very simplest model predicting climate change was made in 1894. It gave a quantitative estimate of what the change in global temperature might be if the CO2 doubled from it value at that time. The man making the model knew it would not accurately predict the change, because it included no other effects. Nevertheless, it provided information about a consequence of burning fossil fuels well before it became an issue.
Every physics based climate model (just as with every physics based weather model) is slightly different from the others. Some of this is because someone chooses to model a certain effect a different way from others. This is good, because that is how we can learn to improve things overall. The net result is that the measured curves which show increase in atmospheric CO2, as well as ocean acidity, and given the measured increase in fossil fuel burning, we know that atmospheric and oceanic CO2 will keep increasing. And the measured rate of increase has been increasing.
The climate models predict a spread of temperature values for a given increase in CO2, so there is some uncertainty about exact numbers. But that is not as important as knowing that the one thing they do not predict is a decrease in global average temperature. That only happens in the models if you leave out the increase in CO2 from fossil fuel burning.
That’s physics, not politics, or economics, or religion. If you don’t believe in the physics, I invite you to spend time on Venus.
“Global warming is a hoax.” “The world is round” is a hoax. “The earth orbits the Sun” is a hoax; “Eppur si muove.” Evolution is only a theory, therefore probably a hoax. Gullible lot, aren’t we?
Evolution. Hmmm. I have heard that some people believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and that dinosaurs and humans lived together. I have heard some people say that God left fossils and bones and carbon dating information around to test people’s faith.
What kind of a sick, cruel being would leave a bunch of false clues like fossils and bones around in order to deceive people into making the “mistake” of believing that:
1.) The world is billions of years old,
2.) That dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago, and
3. That animals, including humans, change over time?
Probably the same sort of people who believe political and religious leaders who tell them that “those people” are not as good as “we” are, and that they are wrong to worship God (or not) the way they want, and that it is alright to take their lands and things away, or even kill them.
God gave us brains to figure things out, to increase our knowledge, and a conscience to use that knowledge wisely and humanely. Anyone who tells you otherwise, or who tells you to dismiss the knowledge gained with the brains that God gave us, is not listening to God. Whatever voice they are listening to, is not a kind, moral, benevolent being.
@Andylit: First: We don’t need computer models to verify that the Earth is warming; we have direct evidence of CO2 levels and temperature covering more than 100,000 years, and geological evidence going back much further. The Earth is warming, and the primary cause is human-based increases in CO2 levels. Period.
Second: your attempt to pull a “whataboutism” fails on other counts. The computer models are actually doing quite well and improving every year as we gather more data – since the models are built on data, not made up (like deniers’ explanations). As a matter of fact, the IPCC estimates have UNDERESTIMATED the warming, because they were taking the conservative case.
To all who have responded. No, the computer models have not done “quite well”. They have dramatically failed to meet their curves over the last 10-15 years.
No, the models are not built on “data”. They are built on grossly distorted, excuse me, adjusted, cherry picked partial data sets chosen or altered to support the theory.
Take a look at the number of and credentials of the climate scientists who retroactively demand that their names be removed from UN climate reports once the final product is published.
Consider the argument by East Anglia that they have “lost” huge chunks of raw data that supports the models they produced to ramp up warming farce. And pat us on the head and tell us to not worry, they would never massage the data, just trust us. Science DEMANDS that independent researchers be able to duplicate results. That is fundamental. A pity the data is no longer available for independent review.
And in closing, here is just one of thousands of sources that cover the machinations and crimes of the climate mafia.https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6748-ipcc-researchers-admit-global-warming-fraud
@ANDYLIT Just like those who chose to watch Fox news and believe what they say as fact, calling other sources fake, your premise fails in the same manner.
You need to check NASA, NOAA, and other actual sources instead of looking for fake ones that support your preconceived prejudices.
BTW, in case you are confused by my reference to CRU “losing” the original raw data, take a look at
Global Warming ate my datahttps://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/Even warming advocates are unable to get the data.
Since the East Anglia CRU is really the driving source for the warming hoax, it really IS kind of important that other scientists and statisticians gain access to the original raw data.
If results cannot be duplicated in controlled conditions, it ain’t science. Since the data is “lost”, there can be no duplication. And no, the processed data set offered by CRU is NOT the raw data.
Of course, the “loss” might be related this this interesting statement by Phil Jones in 2004:“Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
the East Anglia CRU is really the driving force for the warming hoax" …
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
What a lying, full of crap statement. There are both national and international organizations that provide climate researchers with data. NOAA for example, and on the international front, the WMO.
And you are using an article from The Register as your reference? Oh, yeah, a really fine and serious scientific journal. Oh, and it’s from 2009. Maybe you should try looking at the CRU site, where they have files, including station data, that can be downloaded. It’s current, unlike your stupid reference.
Your writings are absolutely worthless. You offer no data.
And if all you deniers are content with sacrificing the environment on the altar of unlimited profits and “growth,” and you discover yourselves on the wrong side of history, will you be able to breathe, drink, and eat all that money?
@JLocke – I realize you are trying to sound sharp and sensible and contemptuous of us poor deluded fools with your numbered list, but given that it is all based on nothing but your personal biases, it doesn’t really make you look impressive or even mildly informed. It just sounds ignorant at best, and stupid at worst. Cases in point:
“We will move to higher ground” – So you expect to move LA, NYC, Seattle, Boston, Washington DC, Miami, Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans, St. Louis, San Diego, San Francisco, etc., etc., etc.?
“it is hubris thinking we can manage global temperatures. We can’t even make it rain when we need it” Rain = weather. We are talking climate. Even ignoring that, we are not talking about our ability to “manage global temperatures.” There is no question — none whatsoever — that we had an impact on the current climate change through increase in CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases, reduction in tree cover that absorbed CO2, pollution that kills off CO2-absorbing plankton, etc. Therefore, we need to find ways to have an impact on it now, because we can, and we must.
“If CO2 increases, we’ll just have to deal with all the extra food and forest cover.” Um, no. CLIMATE change. As the Earth warms, fertile regions will move, which will have a profound impact on geopolitics, e.g., if the Midwest becomes a desert and Canada and Russia suddenly become prime wheat-growing areas. Furthermore, it doesn’t warm evenly, so we are getting increased drought in some areas, increased rainfall in others, which also have an impact. Deserts are growing. And increased CO2 does not guarantee increased growth. Indeed, it is acidifying the oceans, which will have a very, very bad impact on fish and plants there. And as long as we are cutting down forests, they aren’t coming back, are they?
“Our environment has been in constant change since time began and we have adapted. We will continue to adapt.” Perhaps. But our complex, delicate, interlinked civilization won’t.
Motive, the likes of NotJohnLocke never understand their own ignorance. The simplistic notion that more heat and more CO2 make all plants grow better is just ignorance manifesting itself. Do Redwoods grow in the South Carolina swamps? Does wheat grow there? No, not with any vigor.
There are now many studies which show that many plants do not do well under increased CO2, much less increased heat.
Canada, btw, is already a significant producer of wheat. The problem is that the lands in the northern areas of Canada are soggy, with acidic soil. The latter especially, will ensure that wheat will not grow there for a looonnnggg time.
And here is something else. The drier lands of the US West appear to be moving east. What happens to Iowa’s corn when it dries out there? Well, I suppose they might be able to grow wheat.
(Yes, it is a blog, but it references science articles.)
What happens to the US economy if major sections of the country undergo drying? These changes are going to start happening. The question is, do we take steps to prevent them from becoming ever worse? CO2 has a relatively long lifetime in the atmosphere, so the CO2 added today will still be around for another 50 to 100 years.
And no, the excess CO2 will not be taken in by plants. Because plants need water, too. In the West, we know about water shortages. The rest of the country is learning now, and it will get worse for them. So, no, the plants won’t make a real difference. This fact is already shown by the CO2 growth since 1959. The annual cycle of plant life in a hemisphere is shown in the plot as annual decline and rise of the CO2. The total CO2 has risen by 45% since 1959, but there is no evident change in annual cycle.
People like NJL never understood the maxim: “A stitch in time saves nine.” Or he is simply a wastrel who cares nothing for the future.
I am coming to the conclusion that people like andylit and jlocke have no idea what we mean when we talk about data, not what it is, much less how it’s gathered and how it’s analyzed (andylit wants the “raw data” but hasn’t a clue what that is or how it can be used). Nor do they understand what a model is, how models are tested, or even why we make and test models. We might as well be speaking entirely different languages, so where do we go from here? I honestly haven’t a clue how to bridge such gaps.
^ Here’s the thing, Martens. There is a difference in perspectives between educated and uneducated people. The uneducated don’t know the difference between fact and opinion, knowledge and belief, evidence and guesswork, reason and authority, thinking and feeling, subjective involvement and objective analysis. It’s all the same things to them. For that reason, you may present some EVIDENCE to said person who may well respond that he BELIEVES something different. There can be no communication.
^I see your point, Neo, but I don’t think it is just a matter of education. I know Motive would warn me here not to put too much weight on brain properties, but I think that the authoritarian type personalities may well have a somewhat different wiring from the general norm that affects their perception of self and other. At one point I frivolously suggested that Trump lacks mirror neurons, but in truth I do think that there may be a real and possibly unchangeable differences. I guess I’m saying that some may just not be educatable.
I should clarify my last remark. I did not mean NJL was uneducated, rather that he has previously stated that he is averse to changing his opinions, especially on AGW. This, however, does put him in the group of those who stand by their existing ignorance and resist anything not supporting prior opinion. And, I have to say, that such behavior is found left or right, highly educated or not.
lopaka about 6 years ago
You might stick it up someting belonging to the trumpster. He will join you later.
Darsan54 Premium Member about 6 years ago
I have several suggestions as to where you might stick it…..
Ontman about 6 years ago
We’re watching ‘Pruitt do it’.
Masterskrain Premium Member about 6 years ago
Ah yes, Dear old JLOCKE, stuck in the 50’s as usual…the 1850’s, that is.
Random Nick Premium Member about 6 years ago
No problem: just stick your head under water for about 10 minutes. It will work just as well.
piobaire about 6 years ago
People can believe what they want. I, for instance, believe that I am amazingly handsome, young, and virile, and my wife will cheerfully welcome the dozens of beautiful young women that are even now queuing up outside our house to bring me multi-million dollar bribes to be allowed to be part of my legion of mistresses. Let me go look out the window.
Oh well, they seem to be somewhat delayed.
On the other hand, there is a lot of money to be made in building new houses, roads, power plants, etc. Is that why some deny that there is global warming and sea-level rise?
Radish the wordsmith about 6 years ago
Republicans like the Kochs want to force America to use fossil fuels because they profit off it.
Republicans have traditionally blocked solar and wind power and America is falling behind while polluting the world.
Republicans deny that fossil fuels help to fuel global warming despite massive evidence that it does.
Republicans cling to every lie that half way supports their evil plans,
and deny science.
Motivemagus about 6 years ago
@JLocke – running out of alternatives to simple insults, eh? Someday, I hope you can acknowledge the rigorously determined findings of thousands of scientists studying an astonishing range of data, all of which converges on the same conclusions: The Earth is warming, and this is primarily due to human-caused increases of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This is grade school science. Those of us with advanced degrees in science find it baffling how people like you, who might be considered intelligent in other ways, work so hard to resist this finding. I find it vaguely encouraging that you can’t even bring yourself to try and cite the usual noisemakers failing to even challenge, let alone contradict, one of the best-established findings in the history of science.
I could cite any number of references; though I am not a climate scientist myself, I have followed this field for decades, and there are more and more places that even non-scientists can find clear-cut explanations with understandable data on this topic.
Let alone the point that it is absolutely absurd to imagine that ANYONE could maintain a hoax of this magnitude.
I hope you can open your eyes, rather than joining the Flat Earth Society.
piobaire about 6 years ago
If I had the money, one thing I pay to research is where scientists are purchasing homes. I would also ask where they are recommending their family members and friends buy homes or other properties. The answer would be informative.
Where the ultra-wealthy are purchasing homes would be less indicative. They can afford to replace homes as they like.
Andylit Premium Member about 6 years ago
Still waiting for accurate climate computer models. So far, not so good.
Pause.
gigagrouch about 6 years ago
2 words: Closed system.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member about 6 years ago
We have some well used cat litter you deniers can stick your heads in.
robnvon Premium Member about 6 years ago
Make it a bag of fertilizer and heave it at his mouth.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member about 6 years ago
The best place for the average reader to learn the truth of global warming is
A Global Warming Primer: Answering Your Questions About The Science, The Consequences, and The Solutions
by Jeffery Bennett
It’s $10.20 at Amazon. 128 pages ISBN-10: 1937548783
“Bennett’s careful and question-by-question presentation will lead any fair-minded person to see the warming issue more clearly and increase understanding of the need for concern about current developments.” —Hon. George P. Shultz, Hoover Institution, Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan
“A uniquely powerful resource [that] presents the science of climate change clearly, in a way that will be understandable to readers without scientific training . . . a joy to read.” —John Abraham, Physics Today
From School Library Journal
Gr 9 Up—Comprehensive and thorough, this much-needed work explains the basic science required to understand and enter discussions on global warming and climate change. Through a question-and-answer format, Bennett presents the research in a conversational style. Divided into sections, the work explores the concepts and facts surrounding climate science and the potential worldwide consequences if steps are not taken to reduce energy consumption. The text also addresses common misconceptions and skepticism about the subject. On a more optimistic note, the author does provide possible and currently available solutions as well as those that may develop in the future. Numerous graphs, charts, and images help clarify concepts and enable even the less scientifically literate to easily understand the theories covered. Without moralizing, Bennett offers strong evidence for the effects of global warming and urges cooperation and action across political party and international lines to prevent a calamitous future. VERDICT Readable and informative, this valuable support tool for science curricula is a solid addition to high school libraries.—Eva Elisabeth VonAncken
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member about 6 years ago
Physics based models are never 100% accurate, yet they still tell the truth of many things. They are assured of being more accurate than un-informed and mis-informed opinion, because they have to conform to measurable, repeatable, facts as opposed to the ideology of deniers.
The very simplest model predicting climate change was made in 1894. It gave a quantitative estimate of what the change in global temperature might be if the CO2 doubled from it value at that time. The man making the model knew it would not accurately predict the change, because it included no other effects. Nevertheless, it provided information about a consequence of burning fossil fuels well before it became an issue.
Every physics based climate model (just as with every physics based weather model) is slightly different from the others. Some of this is because someone chooses to model a certain effect a different way from others. This is good, because that is how we can learn to improve things overall. The net result is that the measured curves which show increase in atmospheric CO2, as well as ocean acidity, and given the measured increase in fossil fuel burning, we know that atmospheric and oceanic CO2 will keep increasing. And the measured rate of increase has been increasing.
The climate models predict a spread of temperature values for a given increase in CO2, so there is some uncertainty about exact numbers. But that is not as important as knowing that the one thing they do not predict is a decrease in global average temperature. That only happens in the models if you leave out the increase in CO2 from fossil fuel burning.
That’s physics, not politics, or economics, or religion. If you don’t believe in the physics, I invite you to spend time on Venus.
Bookworm about 6 years ago
“Global warming is a hoax.” “The world is round” is a hoax. “The earth orbits the Sun” is a hoax; “Eppur si muove.” Evolution is only a theory, therefore probably a hoax. Gullible lot, aren’t we?
Radish the wordsmith about 6 years ago
The GOP is the hoax.
piobaire about 6 years ago
Bookworm, I agree. You got me thinking.
Evolution. Hmmm. I have heard that some people believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and that dinosaurs and humans lived together. I have heard some people say that God left fossils and bones and carbon dating information around to test people’s faith.
What kind of a sick, cruel being would leave a bunch of false clues like fossils and bones around in order to deceive people into making the “mistake” of believing that:
1.) The world is billions of years old,
2.) That dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago, and
3. That animals, including humans, change over time?
Probably the same sort of people who believe political and religious leaders who tell them that “those people” are not as good as “we” are, and that they are wrong to worship God (or not) the way they want, and that it is alright to take their lands and things away, or even kill them.
God gave us brains to figure things out, to increase our knowledge, and a conscience to use that knowledge wisely and humanely. Anyone who tells you otherwise, or who tells you to dismiss the knowledge gained with the brains that God gave us, is not listening to God. Whatever voice they are listening to, is not a kind, moral, benevolent being.
Motivemagus about 6 years ago
@Andylit: First: We don’t need computer models to verify that the Earth is warming; we have direct evidence of CO2 levels and temperature covering more than 100,000 years, and geological evidence going back much further. The Earth is warming, and the primary cause is human-based increases in CO2 levels. Period.
Second: your attempt to pull a “whataboutism” fails on other counts. The computer models are actually doing quite well and improving every year as we gather more data – since the models are built on data, not made up (like deniers’ explanations). As a matter of fact, the IPCC estimates have UNDERESTIMATED the warming, because they were taking the conservative case.
Andylit Premium Member about 6 years ago
To all who have responded. No, the computer models have not done “quite well”. They have dramatically failed to meet their curves over the last 10-15 years.
No, the models are not built on “data”. They are built on grossly distorted, excuse me, adjusted, cherry picked partial data sets chosen or altered to support the theory.
Take a look at the number of and credentials of the climate scientists who retroactively demand that their names be removed from UN climate reports once the final product is published.
Consider the argument by East Anglia that they have “lost” huge chunks of raw data that supports the models they produced to ramp up warming farce. And pat us on the head and tell us to not worry, they would never massage the data, just trust us. Science DEMANDS that independent researchers be able to duplicate results. That is fundamental. A pity the data is no longer available for independent review.
And in closing, here is just one of thousands of sources that cover the machinations and crimes of the climate mafia.https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6748-ipcc-researchers-admit-global-warming-fraud
genome_project Premium Member about 6 years ago
@ANDYLIT Just like those who chose to watch Fox news and believe what they say as fact, calling other sources fake, your premise fails in the same manner.
You need to check NASA, NOAA, and other actual sources instead of looking for fake ones that support your preconceived prejudices.
Andylit Premium Member about 6 years ago
BTW, in case you are confused by my reference to CRU “losing” the original raw data, take a look at
Global Warming ate my datahttps://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/Even warming advocates are unable to get the data.
Since the East Anglia CRU is really the driving source for the warming hoax, it really IS kind of important that other scientists and statisticians gain access to the original raw data.
If results cannot be duplicated in controlled conditions, it ain’t science. Since the data is “lost”, there can be no duplication. And no, the processed data set offered by CRU is NOT the raw data.
Of course, the “loss” might be related this this interesting statement by Phil Jones in 2004:“Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
What an odd statement from a scientist.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member about 6 years ago
the East Anglia CRU is really the driving force for the warming hoax" …
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
What a lying, full of crap statement. There are both national and international organizations that provide climate researchers with data. NOAA for example, and on the international front, the WMO.
And you are using an article from The Register as your reference? Oh, yeah, a really fine and serious scientific journal. Oh, and it’s from 2009. Maybe you should try looking at the CRU site, where they have files, including station data, that can be downloaded. It’s current, unlike your stupid reference.
Your writings are absolutely worthless. You offer no data.
Radish the wordsmith about 6 years ago
Andy is lit all right.
gigagrouch about 6 years ago
And if all you deniers are content with sacrificing the environment on the altar of unlimited profits and “growth,” and you discover yourselves on the wrong side of history, will you be able to breathe, drink, and eat all that money?
NeoconMan about 6 years ago
HA! J.Anti-Locke cites “The New American: For those who are tired of Drudge.” Alrighty-then….
Motivemagus about 6 years ago
@JLocke – I realize you are trying to sound sharp and sensible and contemptuous of us poor deluded fools with your numbered list, but given that it is all based on nothing but your personal biases, it doesn’t really make you look impressive or even mildly informed. It just sounds ignorant at best, and stupid at worst. Cases in point:
“We will move to higher ground” – So you expect to move LA, NYC, Seattle, Boston, Washington DC, Miami, Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans, St. Louis, San Diego, San Francisco, etc., etc., etc.?
“it is hubris thinking we can manage global temperatures. We can’t even make it rain when we need it” Rain = weather. We are talking climate. Even ignoring that, we are not talking about our ability to “manage global temperatures.” There is no question — none whatsoever — that we had an impact on the current climate change through increase in CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases, reduction in tree cover that absorbed CO2, pollution that kills off CO2-absorbing plankton, etc. Therefore, we need to find ways to have an impact on it now, because we can, and we must.
“If CO2 increases, we’ll just have to deal with all the extra food and forest cover.” Um, no. CLIMATE change. As the Earth warms, fertile regions will move, which will have a profound impact on geopolitics, e.g., if the Midwest becomes a desert and Canada and Russia suddenly become prime wheat-growing areas. Furthermore, it doesn’t warm evenly, so we are getting increased drought in some areas, increased rainfall in others, which also have an impact. Deserts are growing. And increased CO2 does not guarantee increased growth. Indeed, it is acidifying the oceans, which will have a very, very bad impact on fish and plants there. And as long as we are cutting down forests, they aren’t coming back, are they?
“Our environment has been in constant change since time began and we have adapted. We will continue to adapt.” Perhaps. But our complex, delicate, interlinked civilization won’t.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member about 6 years ago
Motive, the likes of NotJohnLocke never understand their own ignorance. The simplistic notion that more heat and more CO2 make all plants grow better is just ignorance manifesting itself. Do Redwoods grow in the South Carolina swamps? Does wheat grow there? No, not with any vigor.
There are now many studies which show that many plants do not do well under increased CO2, much less increased heat.
Canada, btw, is already a significant producer of wheat. The problem is that the lands in the northern areas of Canada are soggy, with acidic soil. The latter especially, will ensure that wheat will not grow there for a looonnnggg time.
And here is something else. The drier lands of the US West appear to be moving east. What happens to Iowa’s corn when it dries out there? Well, I suppose they might be able to grow wheat.
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/04/11/the-100th-meridian-where-the-great-plains-used-to-begin-now-moving-east/
(Yes, it is a blog, but it references science articles.)
What happens to the US economy if major sections of the country undergo drying? These changes are going to start happening. The question is, do we take steps to prevent them from becoming ever worse? CO2 has a relatively long lifetime in the atmosphere, so the CO2 added today will still be around for another 50 to 100 years.
And no, the excess CO2 will not be taken in by plants. Because plants need water, too. In the West, we know about water shortages. The rest of the country is learning now, and it will get worse for them. So, no, the plants won’t make a real difference. This fact is already shown by the CO2 growth since 1959. The annual cycle of plant life in a hemisphere is shown in the plot as annual decline and rise of the CO2. The total CO2 has risen by 45% since 1959, but there is no evident change in annual cycle.
People like NJL never understood the maxim: “A stitch in time saves nine.” Or he is simply a wastrel who cares nothing for the future.
martens about 6 years ago
@Motive and Baslim
I am coming to the conclusion that people like andylit and jlocke have no idea what we mean when we talk about data, not what it is, much less how it’s gathered and how it’s analyzed (andylit wants the “raw data” but hasn’t a clue what that is or how it can be used). Nor do they understand what a model is, how models are tested, or even why we make and test models. We might as well be speaking entirely different languages, so where do we go from here? I honestly haven’t a clue how to bridge such gaps.
NeoconMan about 6 years ago
^ Here’s the thing, Martens. There is a difference in perspectives between educated and uneducated people. The uneducated don’t know the difference between fact and opinion, knowledge and belief, evidence and guesswork, reason and authority, thinking and feeling, subjective involvement and objective analysis. It’s all the same things to them. For that reason, you may present some EVIDENCE to said person who may well respond that he BELIEVES something different. There can be no communication.
martens about 6 years ago
^I see your point, Neo, but I don’t think it is just a matter of education. I know Motive would warn me here not to put too much weight on brain properties, but I think that the authoritarian type personalities may well have a somewhat different wiring from the general norm that affects their perception of self and other. At one point I frivolously suggested that Trump lacks mirror neurons, but in truth I do think that there may be a real and possibly unchangeable differences. I guess I’m saying that some may just not be educatable.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member about 6 years ago
Neo’s remark is spot on with regard to NotJohnLocke, based on previous remarks.
NeoconMan about 6 years ago
I was being diplomatic. There is a very good reason why some people are not educated. They CAN’T be.
martens about 6 years ago
But if they’re making up 1/3 of the population, then we’re in deep trouble…which we are without doubt.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member about 6 years ago
I should clarify my last remark. I did not mean NJL was uneducated, rather that he has previously stated that he is averse to changing his opinions, especially on AGW. This, however, does put him in the group of those who stand by their existing ignorance and resist anything not supporting prior opinion. And, I have to say, that such behavior is found left or right, highly educated or not.
martens about 6 years ago
jlocke has book-learning, but I don’t think he is educated in the sense we are using here.