Is global warming just another ‘End-of-the-World’ delusion?

[eclipsenow]

And you're from the green party. The green party here in the states never wins. Everyone knows that the "green" cause is phony. We can't take it seriously. We're not going to stop driving cars because some people come and tell us that the world is gonna end if we do. How much influence does your party have on Australia?

You haven't answered points 1 and 2 yet to even begin to have this conversation.
1. Fossil fuels DO cause global warming: you can demonstrate this in any physics lab, and see it in the environment with global temperatures rising last century and beating all records this century according to the best instruments we have. Fossil fuels will ALSO RUN OUT one day, and peak way before then.

2. Coal kills over 200,000 people a year.

The physics and chemistry and biology of these phenomenon occur independent of whoever you vote for. For your information, I don't vote Green any more, mainly because they don't support nuclear power which I now see as an essential part of weaning off fossil fuels. Thank you for the reminder that I should remove their logo from my avatar.

 

[I Eat Pie]

No problem. What is your solution for this? Stop using gas? How would our society function if people can't drive to work.

 

[eclipsenow]

No problem. What is your solution for this? Stop using gas? How would our society function if people can't drive to work.

1. Put a price on carbon NOW as nature's going to put a price on it later as supply fails to meet demand.
2. Allocate the money raised toward these solutions.
About/Contact | Eclipse Now
3. Ban the building of any new coal fired powerplants. Outlaw it now!
4. Save the coal for future steel smelting, etc... as carbon is an ingredient in one of our most important building materials, steel!
5. If climate catastrophe looks imminent, we may even be forced to try some of the geoengineering strategies the experts are talking about!
Climate Cliff | Eclipse Now

 

[Lollerskates]

Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener

In addition to greening dry regions, the CO2 fertilization effect could switch the types of vegetation that dominate in those regions. “Trees are re-invading grass lands, and this could quite possibly be related to the CO2 effect,” Donohue said. “Long lived woody plants are deep rooted and are likely to benefit more than grasses from an increase in CO2.”


“The effect of higher carbon dioxide levels on plant function is an important process that needs greater consideration,” said Donohue. “Even if nothing else in the climate changes as global CO2 levels rise, we will still see significant environmental changes because of the CO2 fertilization effect.”


This study was funded by CSIRO’s Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, the Australian Research Council and Land & Water Australia.

 

[Lollerskates]

CO2 fertilisation has increased maximum foliage coverage across the globe's warm, arid environments

[1] Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. The role in this greening of the ‘CO2 fertilization’ effect – the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels – is yet to be established. The direct CO2 effect on vegetation should be most clearly expressed in warm, arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth. Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analysed to remove the effect of variations in rainfall, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%. Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilisation effect is now a significant land surface process.

 

[eclipsenow]

Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener

Sure! But that doesn't change the fact that many of our important crops, or grasses we need for animal fodder, are adversely affected by higher Co2 concentrations. (It also doesn't prevent the other catastrophic effects of climate change.)

Co2 messes with their self-defence toxins. Some produce too little; others too much.

Less toxic makes them more vulnerable to bug attacks.
The “CO2 is Good for Plants” Crock. Turns out — not so much. | Climate Denial Crock of the Week

More toxic renders them inedible to us or livestock.
How plants respond to increasing carbon dioxide - The Science Show - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Also, let's not forget the carbon impacts on atmospheric temperatures and increased moisture movement. Every extra degree of temperature allows the atmosphere to carry 5% more moisture. That means increased evaporation and drought in drying areas, and increased precipitation in dumping areas. It means increased floods and famines.

 

[Upisoft]

Untrue: try reading the ingredients on the side of a pack of fertiliser! NPK? Ringing any bells?

Sure, there are other substances required for plant growth. Though in case of humans we don't call water "food". And all those you mention come with the water. So, it is what the plant drinks, not what the plant eats.

Yes, but we're not talking about a climate that has too little Co2, are we?

Sure we do, we now have 8 times less CO2 in the atmosphere compared to Jurassic period.

Dude, it's just a metaphor. I went on to quote the peer-reviewed science about how extra Co2 changes plant toxin ratios to either too little for self-defence purposes, or too much. I'm sure there are some plants that are just fine with Co2, but some of our most important plants are not. That's why I said the "Co2 = plant food" claim is trite. It's not informed by the latest data.

Now how do you know what is going to be the most important plant? Everything evolves, you have NO idea how it will evolve. If you wish to preserve the current state of evolution that's too bad. It's not going to happen. People don't have control over evolution, in fact they force evolution to increase. You know antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria and such.. Global warming or not, some day there will be a virus capable of killing 90% of all people alive at the time. You can't prevent that either.

 

[Upisoft]

We're thinking in terms of the 'current state of ecology' because you previously defended the "Co2 = plant food" half-truth. We've been pointing out that there are terrible side effects to many of modern civilisation's most important food crops, and your response is that we are not to worry, future ecologies will evolve and adapt? You mean humanity's 7 billion people will just have to wait for evolution to occur for new crops to appear?

Do you know how evolution works? New crops do not "appear" out of the blue. They slowly evolve along with what is eating them for food. So, those 7 billion people will eat what is now available. Crops are not going to just disappear. Maybe some of them will not do well, but there will be some plants that will. Should I explain to you how they made the carrot orange? Why do you think CO2 loving carrot will be impossible?

Gee, and I thought you were trying to tell us there wasn't a problem!

If you think that evolution is a problem.... I don't.

The choice you present us with:
A/ Use clean energy sources because fossil fuels cause global warming, and will run out one day anyway:
B/ Use ALL the fossil fuels, drastically change the climate, bankrupt our grandchildren, wipe out about a third of all biodiversity on earth, change the toxicity of many of our most important crops, and then just sit back and wait for evolution to occur?

Gee, that's a tough one!

First, changing toxicity of something IS evolution. So, no we will not wait for evolution to happen, it will already be happening.

Second, plants do not necessarily evolve toxicity as defense mechanism. Naturally they sometimes do, under artificial selection they don't. No one is stupid to grow toxic food. People will select non-toxic adaptations.

 

[usexpat97]

"End of the world delusion" sounds, itself, delusional. The idea that if something threatens mankind's existence that therefore it is a delusion is delusional in and of itself. You have to accept reality that there can be and are very real threats to earth's habitability. Once you get past that hurdle, then we can honestly discuss the evidence of global warming--which isn't even necessarily a threat to the earth's habitability to begin with. But if it is, that does not make it any less credible.

 

[eclipsenow]

"End of the world delusion" sounds, itself, delusional. The idea that if something threatens mankind's existence that therefore it is a delusion is delusional in and of itself. You have to accept reality that there can be and are very real threats to earth's habitability. Once you get past that hurdle, then we can honestly discuss the evidence of global warming--which isn't even necessarily a threat to the earth's habitability to begin with. But if it is, that does not make it any less credible.

Exactly. I'm not sure I'd say global warming was a threat to mankind's existence, but definitely to the prosperity and wellbeing of civilisation itself. Just imagine the wars and geopolitical crisis and bankruptcy and Greater Depressions this beast may cause, if left to play out without a significant international effort?

 

[durangodawood]

Most end of world predictions to date have been entirely delusional.

Someone is trying to discredit AGW by associating it with the many goofy Christian end times scares that, of course, amounted to zero.

 

[Upisoft]

Exactly. I'm not sure I'd say global warming was a threat to mankind's existence, but definitely to the prosperity and wellbeing of civilisation itself. Just imagine the wars and geopolitical crisis and bankruptcy and Greater Depressions this beast may cause, if left to play out without a significant international effort?

Why should I imagine them, I already experience these things. And they are not caused by the global-warming. The civilization you want to protect is working wonders all by itself.

 

[Lollerskates]

Why should I imagine them, I already experience these things. And they are not caused by the global-warming. The civilization you want to protect is working wonders all by itself.

This is so true. If hCoV-EMC wipes out 60% of the population, climate change will be child's play. If thermonuclear war breaks out between US/Israel and Iran/Russia/China, climate change will be child's play. If Japan's market tanks, and the derivatives bubble bursts, then no one will be thinking about climate change.

Climate change is important, but it isn't sufficient to exclaim that it will be the main cause of our demise, or our children's demise. There are so many things that can (and most likely will) happen before the earth's climate destroys the world... Climate change has become a red herring for more important geopolitical and economic problems.

 

[eclipsenow]

This is so true. If hCoV-EMC wipes out 60% of the population, climate change will be child's play. If thermonuclear war breaks out between US/Israel and Iran/Russia/China, climate change will be child's play. If Japan's market tanks, and the derivatives bubble bursts, then no one will be thinking about climate change.

Climate change is important, but it isn't sufficient to exclaim that it will be the main cause of our demise, or our children's demise. There are so many things that can (and most likely will) happen before the earth's climate destroys the world... Climate change has become a red herring for more important geopolitical and economic problems.

Dude, if you had read ANY of the major papers on the effects of climate change, you would realise this is not an 'if / or' choice. Climate change may CAUSE the nuclear war or disease outbreaks you're talking about.

Once again, if any lay person has not seen this footage it demonstrates the raw physics of Co2's heat trapping ability in remarkable footage!

Relevant portion starts 1:30 in (90 seconds in).

This Year's Model - YouTube

 

[Upisoft]

Climate change may CAUSE the nuclear war

I'm very certain climate change cannot cause nuclear war. Humans can cause nuclear war.

 

[Loudmouth]

Venus has suffered from runaway global warming to the point that surface temperatures can melt Lead. Guess what? Venus is still there. It didn't end that world.

 

[Mariposa36]

Well, while the whole idea of global warming is debatable, we can't argue and the other consequences pollution has on the earth, as well as the need for clean energy and conservation.

See:

Air Pollution From Traffic Linked With Childhood Cancer

Air Pollution Raises Birth Defect Risk : Environment : Nature World News

 

[Upisoft]

Venus has suffered from runaway global warming to the point that surface temperatures can melt Lead. Guess what? Venus is still there. It didn't end that world.

Show that Earth is endangered by "runaway global warming". Earth had periods with 2000 ppm or even higher. Instead of "runaway global warming" the result was coal. (The one we now burn)

 

[Upisoft]

Well, while the whole idea of global warming is debatable

Not a debate, global warming is happening.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Well, while the whole idea of global warming is debatable,

There is almost nothing to "debate" about global warming as an idea. It has almost universal scientific consensus.

Science is not done by consensus but one would expect a solid scientific hypothesis to garner a consensus of the trained experts.

And AGW has done just that.

The only real "debates" about the core concept only come up in places like this forum where people largley unfamiliar with the technical details try to keep a "debate" alive.

But when one hangs in circles that include experts in the fields associated with AGW there is actually almost no "debate" at this point.

There may be some fine tuning on exact rates or exact values of forcing functions, but for the most part it's pretty close to being "settled science".