Comments 1 to 28:

1. nigelj at 05:41 AM on 31 December, 2017

   "Hearing that the Trump administration would scrub federal sites of information on climate change or obscure other important research, researchers worked with dozens of coders, archivists, and librarians to preserve data sets and web pages from agencies, like the EPA, NOAA, and NASA"

   Astonishing that things have come to this level of anti-science and blatant denial of reality, and blatant censorship of science. This is supposed to be the 21st century, not the medieval period of book burning. The year 2017 will go down in infamy as the dumbest year on record (and almost certainly one of the hottest based on data so far this year)

   I feel protest marches and other shows of resistance are probably quite powerful. I dont think its a coincidence that Trumps approval ratings are all down near 30% now, it has to be the cumulative effect of protest, along with the nonsensical, damaging and self promoting things he says on a daily basis.

   1 0
2. citizenschallenge at 00:59 AM on 1 January, 2018

   Seems that it's going to take more than protests.  

   How about some direct intellectual confrontation - demanding an explaination for why Republican feel comfortable using blatant (and juvenile) lies to rationalize refusing to pay attention to what sober serious science tell us about the physical Earth that we depend on for everything.

   Here's a thought:

   "Science’s Blue team educates Pruitt’s Red team - A Rough Outline."

   https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/p/blue-vs-red-team.html

   or perhaps

   https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/p/hall-of-shame.html

   0 0
3. John Hartz at 02:00 AM on 1 January, 2018

   citzenschallenge:

   The ten actions identified in the Editor's Pick article of the OP are:

   1. Pipeline protesters fought back
   2. Thousands of nerds marched on Washington
   3. Scientists saved climate data
   4. Ex-government employees dropped the mic
   5. San Juan’s mayor said what many were thinking
   6. Bears Ears tribes took Trump to court
   7. Legislators pushed for environmental justice
   8. Companies defied the Trump agenda
   9. Cities filled a leadership gap
   10. States also thumbed their noses at Trump 

   Only the first two are public protests.    

   0 0
4. Zippi62 at 04:09 AM on 1 January, 2018

   The "resistance" comes from those who feel that they can trust the "97% consensus" mantra. Populations in large cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Denver, Seattle, Portland, Washington, D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, and Miami vote 75%+ 'democrat' and are the most likely places for demonstrations ("resistance"). It's easy to dupe those who can't verify scientific findings on their own. 99.9% of these people aren't scientists.

   Makes one wonder where "biased" polsters draw their lines. Most conservative thinkers I know avoid biased pollsters

   Millions of global warming/climate change protesters protesting in big cities where the environment can barely be be studied by those who protest. They have to depend on scientists to be honest and unbiased in their evaluations of each and every research study they perform using taxpayer dollars. Most big government environmental scientists have a bias IMO, otherwise they wouldn't worry about who becomes POTUS. George H.W. Bush Sr., Bill Clinto, George Bush Jr., and Barack Obama were all "globalists". (Remember George Sr.'s 'new world order' statement?)

   Let us not forget where the UN IPCC came from and how it has progressed over the past 30 years and what the United Nations' ultimate goal is. Globalism. Un-elected government officials (they are appointed) being handed billions of dollars every year for climate research projects and advisory boards.

   The corn-belt of the U.S. does lots of climate research. Farmers are a good source for spotting "climate change indicators".

   Purdue University did a survey aimed at Agricultural Extension educators, agricultural advisors, and farmers. Over 90% (1,560) of those surveyed mostly believed that either the environment and humans are 50/50 responsible (~33%), the climate has changedand is mostly natural (~29%) or their is insufficient evidence to know with any certainty that the climate is occuring or not (~28%). Less than 10% believe it is happening and is caused by human activities.

   It's easy to convince big city-dwelling populations. That's the only world they know. They generally can't understand how big the world really is.

   The 20 most populated areas in the U.S. (previous list of cities plus 6 other highly populated areas) take up less than 14,000 square miles of the 3,500,000+ square miles United States land area (0.04% of the total U.S. land area). (Hillary Clinton received 10 million more votes in these 20 most populated areas. She won the popular vote by less than 3 million)

   Big city dwellers are easy to antagonize. 

   If anything, Global Warming alarmism plays to those who don't have the luxury of exploring the world outside of their own city. They are the poorest of the poor.

   Good luck in your celebration! The science isn't as 'cut-and-dry' as is portrayed by those who seem to love antagonizing people into a "resistance" they don't understand.

   0 0
   Moderator Response:

   [JH] Blatant sloganeering snipped. 

   Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

   Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site. 
    
   Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

   Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

5. Russell at 04:09 AM on 1 January, 2018

   https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/12/counting-down-to-year-of-dog.html

   Let us not forget how often President Trump has stood up as species of the year

   0 0
   Moderator Response:

   [JH] Sloganeering snipped.

6. nigelj at 05:18 AM on 1 January, 2018

   Zippi62 @4

   "Makes one wonder where "biased" polsters draw their lines. Most conservative thinkers I know avoid biased pollsters"

   This is too anecdotal, and it is highly improbable that conservatives simply don't do polls.

   "Millions of global warming/climate change protesters protesting in big cities where the environment can barely be be studied by those who protest. They have to depend on scientists to be honest and unbiased in their evaluations of each and every research study they perform using taxpayer dollars. "

   Partly true, but you don't need to be a scientist to understand that we are altering the climate. All you need is a reasonable education. The evidence is pretty basic and overwhelming.

   One data set or research paper might be unreliable, but we have numerous data sets and research papers,so its slander to suggest they are all somehow intellectually dishonest. Every paper discusses areas of certainty, and issues where uncertainty remains, so it's pretty transparent.

   "Most big government environmental scientists have a bias IMO, otherwise they wouldn't worry about who becomes POTUS."

   Not interested in your opinion, unless you can back it up with some information. Any sane person would worry about a president that tries to remove data from websites, and has scientifically illiterate views.

   "George H.W. Bush Sr., Bill Clinto, George Bush Jr., and Barack Obama were all "globalists". (Remember George Sr.'s 'new world order' statement?)"

   Irrelevant to the climate issue. You are also paranoid about globalism. The world has been globalising ever since we first started trading with each other. Imo the challenge is to get the global rules on a fair basis, and the balance of power right between nation states and larger global authorities, so that we avoid potential for abuse of power.

   "Let us not forget where the UN IPCC came from and how it has progressed over the past 30 years and what the United Nations' ultimate goal is. Globalism. Un-elected government officials (they are appointed) being handed billions of dollars every year for climate research projects and advisory boards."

   The Un doesn't primarily fund climate reseach, nation states do.

   "The corn-belt of the U.S. does lots of climate research. Farmers are a good source for spotting "climate change indicators".

   Yes, and they say the climate is changing.

   "Purdue University did a survey aimed at Agricultural Extension educators, agricultural advisors, and farmers. Over 90% (1,560) of those surveyed mostly believed that either the environment and humans are 50/50 responsible (~33%)"

   What makes you think farmers have any special insight on science? Their educational levels tend to be rather average or below average. They also tend to be Republican supporters and the Republican Party is sceptical of climate science, unfortunately. That's not to say farmers are inferior to anyone else, they aren't - and we rely on farmers for our very survival.

   "Big city dwellers are easy to antagonize."

   Well you might be right about that. I dont know why, but I have some good guesses on it. But its not really that relevant to the climate issue.

   0 0
7. Zippi62 at 10:16 AM on 1 January, 2018

   nigelj @6

   The 'climate issue' is based upon the Earth's ability to receive an additional 616 billion tons of natural (from nature) CO2 (40% increase from pre-industrial levels) into a 5.5 quadrillion ton and continuously moving atmospheric system that already had a naturally induced 1.54 trillion tons of CO2 working in continuous circulation with a receptive biosphere and receptive 1,450,000,000,000,000,000 ton hydrosphere (oceans).

   0 0
   Moderator Response:

   [TD] More than 100% of at least the past 50 years' (probably decades more than that) increase in atmospheric CO2 is from anthropocentric causes. Read the relevant post's Basic tabbed pane, then watch the video, then read the Intermediate tabbed pane. There are several lines of evidence, but really the algebraic one (mass balance) is sufficient and airtight. If you want clarification, more evidence, or want to argue, do so on that post, not this one.

8. nigelj at 12:47 PM on 1 January, 2018

   Zippi62 @7

   Oh big numbers!  Anyone can post superfluous or irrelevant big numbers and long words pulled out of a hat like the rabbit. 

   As Moderator says, CO2 emissions are coming from fossil fuels etc. It's one of those things proven beyond doubt now.

   Notice how none of the serious qualified sceptics like Spencer deny this, only the armchair eccentrics. Its embarassing watching people deny the obvious, and just shows their desperation and ignorance.

   0 0
9. Zippi62 at 14:06 PM on 1 January, 2018

   @ Moderator

   Since the earth surface is 790,854,451,200,000,000 million square inches and the weight of one square inch of atmosphere at sea level weighs 14.7lbs. Then the total weight of the atmosphere is 1,162,556,043,264,000,000,000 lbs. Which I think is 1 sextillion lbs. since there are 2000lbs in a ton then the earth’s atmosphere weight in tons is 5,812,780,216,320,000 tons so the closest answer would be about 6 quadrillion tons "if" the Earth was flat.
   Obviously the entire earth is not flat and other factors take that weight downwards.

   In all actuality combustion only adds 12 grams of weight per molecule of CO2 to the atmosphere. The additional oxygen in CO2 was used from existing oxygen in our atmosphere. You can't add what was already there as far as "tons added". That's another scientific misnomer.

   If you want to add the weight of additional carbon, then that's fine, but when you are scientifically disingenuous and add the whole as an overall "addition" to the atmosphere, then you surely need to be called out.

   The 2 oxygen atoms will eventually be released back into the atmosphere away from the carbon through either photosynthesis or some other process. It's called the "carbon cycle" simply because oxygen (O2) is the transporter.

   0 0
10. Zippi62 at 14:21 PM on 1 January, 2018

    nigelj @8

    I know what Spencer says. He's an intelligent meteorologist.

    Those "big numbers" are important. That's why we don't have the "runaway effect". 

    I also know where emissions come from, but a disingenuous scientist like yourself can't add 44 grams of CO2 to Earth's atmosphere when the atmosphere originally maintained the 2 oxygen atoms that were added through combustion. Let's reduce the added "tonnage" to the atmosphere by 73% (0.7272727272727) and stick to the additional carbon atom that married a couple of oxygen atoms through combustion. OK?

    0 0
11. nigelj at 14:27 PM on 1 January, 2018

    Zippi62 @9

    I don't see anyone claiming that it is the 'weight' of CO2 that is critical. Its extra quantity in ppm added to atmosphere as in the keeling curve.

    However a certain weight is added to the atmosphere and this is additional weight. This is obviously a fact.

    Oxygen is important and must be considered. It's the two oxygen atoms that allow the CO2 molecule to basically wobble around and this quantum property is what enables it to absorb energy. As in this graphic. This is mainly why CO2 absorbs heat (technically IR radiation) and O2 doesn't.

    0 0
12. nigelj at 14:36 PM on 1 January, 2018

    Zippi @62, Spencer is not simply an intelligent meterologist. He is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. According to wikipedia.

    He is also a creationist who believes humans are too insignificant in gods creation to cause climate change.  Again, you can read this on his wikipedia profile page.  

    "I also know where emissions come from," 

    Well you apparently don't. I can tell you where they don't come from: The oceans, humans,  and volcanoes and theres plenty of information on this in the "most used climate myths" part of this website.

    0 0
13. nigelj at 14:40 PM on 1 January, 2018

    By CO2 not coming from humans, I meant respiration. This is essentially a neutral cycle. Additional CO2 is coming mainly from fossil fuel burning.

    0 0
14. Zippi62 at 14:52 PM on 1 January, 2018

    Microphysics works with a proper analogy. Added carbon into the atmosphere can be a good thing as long as the proper analysis is applied. 

    When insufficient oxygen is applied to combustion, then carbon monoxide is produced, which is a highly toxic gas. Carbon dioxide is not toxic and is very essential to most all living things.

    0 0
15. Zippi62 at 14:59 PM on 1 January, 2018

    nigelj @13

    I get what you are saying. Humans are evil and produce excessive amounts of CO2. Every plant hates excessive amounts, even if those excessive amounts makes them less prone to droughts, more rigid, and require less water to survive. The animals that eat those plants get more carbohydrates into their own system. More carbohydrates are always good. It's basic sustenance.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Snide, argumentative, and false assertions snipped. Your willful and repeated violations of the SkS Comments Policy means you have relinquished your privilege of posting on this venue.

16. nigelj at 15:06 PM on 1 January, 2018

    Zippi62@ 14

    "Microphysics works with a proper analogy. Added carbon into the atmosphere can be a good thing as long as the proper analysis is applied"

    Meaningless unsupported assertion.

    " Carbon dioxide is not toxic and is very essential to most all living things."

    Meaningless straw man argument. Nobody has claimed CO2 is poisonous in the way CO is poisonous. Merely that the build up of CO2 recently is causing dangerous climate change.

    Various minerals are also essential to plant growth, but too much can kill the things.

    We are bored with all these silly, weak denialist claims that are all such obviously nonsense. Can't you do better? Climate denialists are such losers.

    0 0
17. nigelj at 15:15 PM on 1 January, 2018

    Zippi62 @15

    "I get what you are saying. Humans are evil and produce excessive amounts of CO2."

    No, never said that. But some humans persist with bad habits even when they know they are bad habits.

    "Every plant hates excessive amounts, even if those excessive amounts makes them less prone to droughts, more rigid, ..."

    Maybe so to some extent,  but the trouble is any advantages of extra CO2 in cell growth come up against limits, and are offset by the effects of higher temperatures that start to reduce cell growth  and crop productivity particularly after 2050, and you have all the other negative effects of climate change, such as as sea level rise. The costs of climate change outweigh any benefits by a huge factor. This website has done numerous related articles, start reading them.;

    0 0
18. nigelj at 15:33 PM on 1 January, 2018

    "The EPA failed when they labelled CO2 as a "dangerous pollutant".

    Really? The finding still stands in law and is unlikely to be changed. This doesnt look like failure to me.

    "SKS also fails its own readers with its 'climate myth' about CO2 being a dangerous pollutant.

    his website doesnt actually use that language. The language used is by the EPA. As far as I can tell this website just raises the normal concerns about CO2. Remember the EPA used those words dangerous pollutant in a legalistic sense, dont get too hung up on them, we know what they mean CO2 is a problem. Its not woryth all the energy debating whether its a pollutant or problem.

    "SKS should redact many of its erroneous implications about CO2 in my opinion. Much of it is scientific conjecture."

    I dont think so. The basics of climate science are well established science, not conjecture. Opinions like yours without some actual commentary, credible sources and understanding of the relevant basic science are pretty empty. Not saying you are badly educated, and happy new year and all that.

    0 0
19. nigelj at 15:43 PM on 1 January, 2018

    Zippi62 @20

    "You are believing unfounded projections by overzealous environmentalists. "

    No I just accept the peer reviewed research and IPCC science. I'm not into deep green environmentalism, although its preferable to the denialist blather.

    You are sucked in by blogsites like Wattsup and iceagenow. These websites are emotive, politically driven, and make outrageous, stupid,  inflammatory claims and huge cherry picks. 

    "There's not one person I know that wants to destroy our planet. "

    So they claim. Know people by their actions and policies: Donald Trump for example.

    "There's much more science out there that disproves the "limits" mantra."The Arctic Sea Ice Extent is currently in a heavy increase period.'

    One year means nothing. Natural variation. The trend over the last 50 years approximately is far more important, and is of reducing sea ice cover and also thickness. Again, its one of those aspects of climate change that is incredibly well documented, and with increasing temperatures it can only get worse, unless you believe that higher temperatures cause water to freeze?

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline

    0 0
20. Jeff H at 21:35 PM on 1 January, 2018

    I really was not inclined to enter this thread until Zippi62 insisted on making a ludicrous argument about C02 not being a pollutant. 

    In excessive concentrations any element can be deemed thusly. The current biodiversity evolved under relatively low atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Indeed, there is compelling evidence that species and genetic richness across the biosphere were higher quite recently until Homo sapiens began to carve its way through ecosystems across the planet. The bottom line is that high atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are NOT a pre-requisite for high adaptive radiation. Other eco-physiological factors are infinitely more important including paradoxially both stability and change.

    As for increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 the net effect will be a significant reduction in diversity even if warming is excluded. This is because there will be decidedly non-linear effects of increased CO2 concentrations on plants and their associated consumers. Some plants will benefit at CO2 increases but many will not - this critically depends on the carbon pathway (C3, C4, ethylene) and how this leads to competitive asymmetries among plant communities. In other words the long evolutionary stasis that occurs under fairly stable abiotic regimes is being seriously undermined by the current athropogenic experiment. So phenology and non-linear dynamics is something that climate change contrarians continually ignore. This is because most of them don’t appear to have the reoevant expertise.

    Then there is stoichiometry. Plants require more than carbon for optimal growth. Indeed C is by now essentially ‘junk’ in that it may accrue as biomass but this in no way creates healthier, fitter plants if vital nutrients like N and P are shunted out of plant tissues. In the Amazon there is even evidence now that most vegetation has reached a saturation point and that these forests are no longer sinks but sources of C. But I digress. N is generally much more limiting as a nutrient than C. The loss of N is already having significant consequences up the food chain. Most consumers, in particular herbivores, depend on N in their diet. Given that plant food is highly suboptimal to begin with, containing an array of allelochemicals, digestibility reducers, tannins, resins and other non-nutritive components, the loss of vitally important N from plants will lead to compensatory feeding by herbivores as they seek to acquire sufficient N. To compound the problem many plants possess N-based defenses; these plants are under the great rusk of becoming less well-defended from their antagonists as atmospheric concetrations of N rise rapidly. By contrast, plants with C-based defenses become much more toxic. Again, those repeating this silly mantra of ‘C is plant food’ continually expunge complex non-linear ecophysiological processes from their rhetoric. In their world, cause-and-effect relationships are linear, but complex adaptive systems just do not function in that way. 

    I am a population ecologist whose research involves the effects of primary and secondary plant metabolism on plant-insect interactions, and I continually cringe when I see this fatally flawed argument extolling the wonders of increasec atmospheric CO2 on nature dredged up. Few if any of those making this argument are qualified in the relevant fields. 

    0 0
21. chriskoz at 07:43 AM on 2 January, 2018

    Jeff H@20,

    Thank you for sharing your knowledge of ecological adaptation to us.

    To help me, non-expert in your field, to better understand it, please xplain how the availability of N as nutrient to the plants has changed with changing climate. I think not all plants can assimilate it from air where N is main ingredient. But those that do (e.g. beans) have no problems and are unnafected. How are the others affected? By changed composition of the soil which becomes depleted of N carrying compountds? Do you see any local climate treands around the world that affect local ecology by depleting N as nutrient?

    And why do you think amazon rainforrests are lately becoming C source?

    0 0
22. nigelj at 12:56 PM on 2 January, 2018

    The new scientist article below evaluates the CO2 is plantfood nonsense.  

    www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/

    There are many problems with the plantfood idea, and only certain types of crops have improved yeilds of about 14%.  This is best case scenario, so I think it is hardly going to revolutionise farming, or solve food scarcity problems, so in no way even comes close to justifying the risks of climate change. There are many safer alternatives for improved productivity of that magnitude or more.

    0 0
23. One Planet Only Forever at 05:13 AM on 3 January, 2018

    nigelj@22,

    The excuse of CO2 being plant food is indeed irrelevant (use the term 'a real nothingburger' if you are conversing with a Right-Winger and you want to poke-at-them).

    • There was more than enough CO2 when levels were at 280 ppm.
    • Any increased CO2 results in climate changes that cannot be accurately predicted but are certain to include negative consequences for future generations.
    • A significant amount of the excess created CO2 is absorbed into the oceans creating negative consequences for future generations.
    • Burning up of fossil fuels reduces the amount of that non-renewable resource that is available for future generations.
    • There are many other negative current day and future consequences from the activities related to burning fossil fuels, including tragic conflicts excused for other reasons but clearly  linked to desires to Win more Private Interest benefit from last gasp desperate attempts by 'knowing deliberate trouble-makers' to benefit as much as possible from the global burning of fossil fuels.
    0 0
24. Rhoowl at 10:59 AM on 4 January, 2018

    OOPOF@23

    Bullet 1 if that were the case then the planet would not have increased greening over the past 40 years. Plant are noticeably bigger and stronger now. 

    Bullet2 the increased co2 may have some negative consequences in the future. If the tcr  is low as predicted by many papers then the net effect of increased c02 will most likely be positive through increased food yields. Food yields have been increasing steadily. 

    Bullet3 not sure how the increased absorption of co2 into the seas will create a negative effect. The biosphere has been increasing its absorption capacity of co2. 

    Bullet4 yeah...but we need to burn it now....we need energy and and the greens refuse to consider the nuclear option. If co2 is what you want to reduce then nuclear ome of your best option

    Bullet5 yeah...wars are fought over fossil fuel energy.....another good reason to embrace nuclear

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [DB]  Thank you for taking the time to share with us.  Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself.  Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard.

    Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
    
    Off-topic and sloganeering snipped.

25. nigelj at 12:32 PM on 4 January, 2018

    Rhoowl @25

    "Bullet 1 if that were the case then the planet would not have increased greening over the past 40 years. Plant are noticeably bigger and stronger now."

    CO2 has caused some greening, but this effect saturates fairly quickly. Amazon is already becoming a carbon source for example. 

    "Bullet2 the increased co2 may have some negative consequences in the future. If the tcr is low as predicted by many papers then the net effect of increased c02 will most likely be positive through increased food yields. Food yields have been increasing steadily."

    Read my comment @22 and the attached reference source in scientific american: Improvements in crop yields are small, and obviously negated by the negative effects of CO2 emissions

    "Bullet3 not sure how the increased absorption of co2 into the seas will create a negative effect. The biosphere has been increasing its absorption capacity of co2."

    Co2 absorption makes the oceans acidic (strictly speaking less alkaline) This causes damage to corals and shellfish because the acidity damages their shells. It's not just these organisms, because acidicication affects the whole food chain negatively and we have evidence that it has caused mass extinctions in the past. Refer the scientific american article below:

    www.scientificamerican.com/article/rising-acidity-in-the-ocean/

    "Bullet4 yeah...but we need to burn it now....we need energy and and the greens refuse to consider the nuclear option. If co2 is what you want to reduce then nuclear ome of your best option"

    The Greens do not run the government or power stations Currently generating companies and governments are not interested in the nuclear alternative because of high capital costs, and slow buiding and regulatory process. We have other alternatives such as solar, hydro, wind and geothermal and costs are becoming very cost competitive with coal and gas. Refer cost of electricity by source on wikipedia.

    "Bullet5 yeah...wars are fought over fossil fuel energy.....another good reason to embrace nuclear"

    Wars will be fought over supplies of uranium, which would become stretched by building massive numbers of nuclear power stations. The resources of wind and the sun are free. Materials used for wind towers are abundant. 

    0 0
26. nigelj at 13:16 PM on 4 January, 2018

    Rhoowl @25,  just one more comment: You say "If the tcr is low as predicted by many papers then the net effect of increased c02 will most likely be positive through increased food yields"

    And only a minority of papers predict TCR is low as below. 

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

    0 0
27. One Planet Only Forever at 03:11 AM on 5 January, 2018

    nigelj,

    You have comprehensively debunked the attempted counter-claims made by Rhoowl.

    I would add that Rhoowl did not to provide a counter-claim to my first point that the 280 ppm level that existed for the last 2000 years was more than enough. No part of the counter-claim provided evidence that global plant growth was 'deficient' when CO2 was at 280 ppm.

    I would however concede that an increase to 350 ppm would be a reasonable limit to the damage done to future generations, as has been established by many reports. So, today's generation having to lose personal benefits and opportunity in order to unprofitably rapidly bring the current CO2 levels back down to 350 ppm would be sufficient penalty for what regrettably got away with being developed.

    0 0
28. Jeff H at 23:01 PM on 7 January, 2018

    Yes, nijelj comprehensively debunked Rhoowl’s ‘arguments’. 

    What frustrates me is that my comment earlier did the same and yet Rhoowl posts later making profoundly unscientific comments correlating plant biomass with fitness (i.e. Plants are noticeably bigger and stronger). Such a flippant remark would not pass muster in a peer-reviewed journal. What is meant by ‘stronger’ is anyone’s guess. The fact that terrestrial vegetation is already reaching and exceeding saturation points is clear by now. Moreover, as I said before, there are species-specific responses that differ, generating phenological asynchronies that must be factored into community and system-wide effects, along with changes in stoichiometry that will affect not only plant metabolism with trophic interactions. 

    Deniers see the world in a decidedly linear way: cause-and-effect relationships in complex adaptive systems, however, are profoundly non-linear. This may explain why there are so few population ecologists and environmental scientists among denier ranks. 

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.