How or Why we will reverse global warming

[SysError]

Thanks. 

What I'm pointing out is very simple -- and I don't need to reference anything other than the data for this point:

In the past of the earth, both temperature and co2 was a substantially higher than today, yet life (both animal and plant) thrived.  That is all.

When CO2 was high the sun was a lot cooler.  In fact models show that the earth could have been a block if ice if not for the CO2.  (I can find references if needed - but you google right?)

As for Temp.  Let me know what time frame you are thinking of.  (I am running out of time again and I want to make sure that I am not wasting it on something that you and I agree on.)

[Brooke]

An ice age is not too good either but we are not in any immediate danger of it, it will come a new ice age but it will still be in a (for humans) distant future.

Maybe not so distant.  Look at this chart of ice ages.  You can see from the chart that one could be starting now for all we (or anyone else) knows.

[NatCigg]

I would say that that is a bit irrelevant, we can sustain higher temperatures yes but that is not the main issue, The problem would be that the change happen too fast for us to adapt to it. it will not kill all life on the planet but it can cause some major issues like droughts forcing people in warmer countries to move to less warm countries. That mean poor people moving to richer countries and as we all know that isn't friction free... The rules does not allow us to cover that part of the climate change issue but my point is that its more in it than just psychical survival.

One point my experience brings to mind is some forms of life move faster than others.  A warm season can cause disease to grow rapidly (or less) where the host plant may take generations to move.  well, the plant does not move, the offspring "moves" by way of the changing environment moving the suitable ecosystem elsewhere. 

We humans are smart enough we can see the changes, understand them, and adapt.  Now Im not saying drop a nuke on D.C. and then spread plague in china and india because they are doing what we all want, but logical management of the changing world and changing needs.

Telling people to stop what they are doing for survival and start driving electric cars that are impractical is not going to save the world.  Probably nothing will save the world to keep it like it is.  we will have to adapt to the changes caused by our presence, wars will happen, disease will happen, and mother earth will cycle around again.

Im going to try and avoid these problems by being a good person, that is to share my knowledge with someone else so they can be a little better off than when I got here.   

[Brooke]

It was suggesting that even with really interesting positive indications on crops with increased CO2, it none-the-less looks as total crop yield will drop significantly.

I think that you have misinterpreted the paper.  It doesn't say that crop yields are 50% lower with more co2.

It says "In those trials, elevated [CO 2 ] enhanced yield by ~50% less than in enclosure studies."  To put it in math terms, let's say that nominal yield is Y and yield in "enclosure studies" is Y + dY.  According to this statement, yield in the the paper's trial would then be Y + 0.5 * dY.  The studies clearly show increase in yield with increased co2, as you can see in all of the graphs.

The authors go on to speculate about the magnitude of 0.5 * dY compared other effect in some models (not giving any details or analysis).  Even that speculation doesn't say that yields with more co2 are 50% less than yields without more co2.  It says things like " This casts serious doubt on projections that rising [CO 2 ] will fully offset losses due to climate change."  It could still be an increase, it could be a decrease, it could be a wash.  Also, it could be that the models are crap (like so many climate-related models because, as I wrote about before, complicated models that have 1 zillion adjustable parameters often have absolutely no predictive capability).  But the models are not what the paper is developing.  It is doing only this study:  looking at how much extra growth there is as co2 goes up.

[Brooke]

Playing the man instead of the ball?

Information is information.  It is never a valid argument against data by discussing who gave the data.

[NatCigg]

I think that you have misinterpreted the paper.  It doesn't say that crop yields are 50% lower with more co2.

It says "In those trials, elevated [CO 2 ] enhanced yield by ~50% less than in enclosure studies."  To put it in math terms, let's say that nominal yield is Y and yield in "enclosure studies" is Y + dY.  According to this statement, yield in the the paper's trial would then be Y + 0.5 * dY.  The studies clearly show increase in yield with increased co2, as you can see in all of the graphs.

The authors go on to speculate about the magnitude of 0.5 * dY compared other effect in some models (not giving any details or analysis).  Even that speculation doesn't say that yields with more co2 are 50% less than yields without more co2.  It says things like " This casts serious doubt on projections that rising [CO 2 ] will fully offset losses due to climate change."  It could still be an increase, it could be a decrease, it could be a wash.  Also, it could be that the models are crap (like so many climate-related models because, as I wrote about before, complicated models that have 1 zillion adjustable parameters often have absolutely no predictive capability).  But the models are not what the paper is developing.  It is doing only this study:  looking at how much extra growth there is as co2 goes up.

photosynthesis is limited by co2 availability when all other factors are maximized.  As temperature increases, the pollutant O2 is more pronounced in interfering with the enzyme RuBisCo's ability to "get" CO2. 

[Brooke]

When CO2 was high the sun was a lot cooler.  In fact models show that the earth could have been a block if ice if not for the CO2.  (I can find references if needed - but you google right?)

As for Temp.  Let me know what time frame you are thinking of.  (I am running out of time again and I want to make sure that I am not wasting it on something that you and I agree on.)

None of that matters to what I was pointing out.  I was pointing out (1) that the past of the earth had vastly higher co2 than we would have even if we burned all the oil, coal, and natural gas in the ground all at once and (2) that the earth had significantly higher temperatures than what anyone is forecasting as a result of co2 emissions.  In case 1, 2, and 1 and 2, plants and animals on land and sea thrived.

So, whether you want to focus on higher co2 or higher temps, or both, my point is that it seems (given history) unlikely that it would endanger animal, plant, land, or sea life on earth.

[Brooke]

photosynthesis is limited by co2 availability when all other factors are maximized.  As temperature increases, the pollutant O2 is more pronounced in interfering with the enzyme RuBisCo's ability to "get" CO2. 

So are you saying that as co2 increases in the atmosphere from where we today (say from 400 ppm to 600 ppm), crop yields will go down?

[Zimme83]

Maybe not so distant.  Look at this chart of ice ages.  You can see from the chart that one could be starting now for all we (or anyone else) knows.

(Image removed from quote.)

Distant in this case means more than a few hundred years from now, but when it comes to geology a few hundred years is nothing.

Saw an article that suggested that it is the gravity of Jupiter and Saturn that cause ice ages on earth (they pull us slightly farther from the sun) and that next such event will occur in about 2000 years. Might not be correct but nevertheless is the margin of error very big when predicting a new ice age, at least a few hundred years.

[SysError]

None of that matters to what I was pointing out.  I was pointing out (1) that the past of the earth had vastly higher co2 than we would have even if we burned all the oil, coal, and natural gas in the ground all at once and (2) that the earth had significantly higher temperatures than what anyone is forecasting as a result of co2 emissions.  In case 1, 2, and 1 and 2, plants and animals on land and sea thrived.

So, whether you want to focus on higher co2 or higher temps, or both, my point is that it seems (given history) unlikely that it would endanger animal, plant, land, or sea life on earth.

Off the top of my head (plus review of vid below), and an almost complete bottle of wine, (Francis Coppola. 2013 Claret about $10 or $15 – very good value for money), here’s what I can say.

Yes 400 million years ago C02 levels were high (1,000 – 2,000 ppm).  As I said, even at these levels the earth almost turned into a block of ICE.  If you think about it, though, the earth was a LOT DIFFERENT back then.

But let’s just move on. 

I’ll tell you what, take care of these issues for me and I’ll be OK with most of what you have to say about not worrying about high C02 levels.

1) Please cool down the effect of the sun for us.  I guess you can hose it down or perhaps push out the earth’s orbit a bit.  (I might have an HP 41cv to help you out to figure out how far the orbit will have to go.  BTW, you will have to supply the batteries)

2) Push the continents back together.  You know, reverse all of that tectonic stuff.

3) Once #2 is done, hammer all of the mountains down flat.  I know that this sounds tough but my thoughts are that if you pulled off #2 this shouldn’t be that hard.

4) You got to kill off a bunch of plants.  Unfortunately I don’t have a list right now.  But I might be able to work out a punch down list by the time you get to this task.

5) Kill off a lot of the animals.  (See #4 for issues with list)

6) TBD (


I think that I already posted below before.  Real short.  Informative;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqkGoCglp_U
UQx DENIAL101x 4.2.4.1 Ancient CO2 levels

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqkGoCglp_U

[SysError]

I think that you have misinterpreted the paper. 

Going to sleep.  Will reply after work tomorrow.


P.S.  Good night.   

[NatCigg]

So are you saying that as co2 increases in the atmosphere from where we today (say from 400 ppm to 600 ppm), crop yields will go down?

no, more CO2 would result in more photosynthesis. the amount you describe sounds minuscule considering the 20% oxygen concentration is what interferes with rubiscos ability to function at a high rate (temperature).

[SysError]

I think that you have misinterpreted the paper. 

This morning, I grabbed a cup of coffee and said to myself ‘OK, go re-read it and figure out what is going on’.  Well I did, and yep, you are right.  I misread it.

So I while I was getting ready to eat crow, (which I often do), I went back to a number of science blogs and web sites to try to figure out why I picked up the impression that I did.  (That higher CO2 does not mean higher crop yield/food supply).  And that was when I had a bit of an eureka moment.

I think that if I have learned anything about climate change discussion, it’s that not too infrequently when you think you got a handle on something, you find out that you have not even scratched the surface.

You are right.  I misread the paper.  However science still says that higher CO2 levels are going to be a real problem.  I just understood the issue in overly simple terms. 

Your comment resulted in my getter much better understanding of the issue.  Thanks. (I mean it).  (Learning is not losing).

I will post something soon.

In the mean time I found a finished unposted piece for you.

[DmonSlyr]

Global Warming..... Not even once.

[NatCigg]

(Image removed from quote.)


Global Warming..... Not even once.

A typical forest fire can look like that in a few hours.  Impressive indeed. When coals strart falling from the sky the next morning I was a bit nervous.