The Climate Change Hoax

[Ray]

Not that weird, since they did not attempt to create an all-encompassing world climate simulation but rather:
"In this study, we examine the climate effect of CO2 physiological forcing using a coupled global atmosphere-land surface
model".
and
"the focus of this study is to examine the nature of climate response to CO2-physiological forcing in terms of both magnitude and pattern, and contrast it with the effect of CO2-radiative forcing".
and
"This study provides an independent evaluation of the role of CO2-physiological forcing in CO2-induced climate change."

In other words, they are doing theoretical studies on isolated forcings which do not reflect reality because they have excluded other very significant effects, such as increased plant growth.

Or to express it another way, the title of their study could be, "An examination of the effects of plants on our climate, under elevated levels of CO2, based upon the erroneous assumption that whilst plants use water more efficiently, they do not simultaneously increase their growth."

Your statement in Post #425, Bart, was: "Because CO2-boosted plantgrowth uses water more efficiently, there will be more soil erosion during rainfall. That runoff has detrimental effects on water quality and for river/lake/marine life."

That is a false statement, Bart, and would only be true if plants did not increase their growth as a result of using water more efficiently.

I have no objection to computer modelers experimenting with various scenarios, as long as it's clear they are theoretical exercises which should not be used to make categorical statements about reality such as you made in post #425.

[Otto Phocus]

I think we should take reasonable, well planned efforts to improve our effects on the world without going to either extreme.

There may be nothing that man can do to prevent this current cycle of climate change, but perhaps we can slow it down or lessen the effects of climate change.  Perhaps not, but why not try?

I will be more willing to have my tax dollars spent on this than on fighting wars.

[Alan Klein]

...There may be nothing that man can do to prevent this current cycle of climate change, but perhaps we can slow it down or lessen the effects of climate change.  Perhaps not, but why not try?

I will be more willing to have my tax dollars spent on this than on fighting wars.

But the trillions of tax dollars spent on unnecessary or unattainable attempts to change the climate could be going to more productive things beside fighting wars such as better health, more food for starving people, etc. 

[tom b]

Head smack, Yes Alan we can do things to change the environment, just think of LA in the 70s.

https://www.kcet.org/history-society/how-los-angeles-began-to-put-its-smoggy-days-behind

Grrrr,

[Alan Klein]

Head smack, Yes Alan we can do things to change the environment, just think of LA in the 70s.

https://www.kcet.org/history-society/how-los-angeles-began-to-put-its-smoggy-days-behind

Grrrr,

Local environment is not world climate.  I can clean my house.  But I can't clean the whole city.  There's a huge difference. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Local environment is not world climate.  I can clean my house.  But I can't clean the whole city.  There's a huge difference.

Sure Alan, but why pollute the entire city instead of only your own house?

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Sure Alan, but why pollute the entire city instead of only your own house?

Cheers,
Bart

The US is at  97th place as dirtiest polluter and The Netherlands is slightly better at 101.  There you again pointing fingers.  You really do hate America, don't you?  Just like the Trump haters always looking for something to criticize.
https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings_by_country.jsp

[Alan Klein]

The US is at  97th place as dirtiest polluter and The Netherlands is slightly better at 101.  There you again pointing fingers.  You really do hate America, don't you?  Just like the Trump haters always looking for something to criticize.
https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings_by_country.jsp

I just looked at that map again.  It raises an interesting question we haven't really talked about.  First look at the colored maps that shows where the worst pollution (and I assume fossil fuel burning) comes from.  It's in China, India and most of Asia except Japan and South Korea. 

The West including America, Canada, and Europe, for the most part are doing pretty well.  So the question is what good is it if we in the west do a little better if the rest of the world is doing pretty much nothing?  If Asia does little, it will be like shoveling s**t against the tide.  What's the point of us spending our money?  Even if we could make a difference, without Asia, nothing's going to happen.

[Ray]

Once again, you alarmists are confusing the issues. Sensible and wise people understand that in order to fix a problem one has to correctly identify the causes.
Smog and air pollution is not caused by CO2, but by sulphur dioxide, various nitrogen oxides, small particles of carbon or smoke, hydrocarbons, volatile compounds, and so on.

The following Wikipedia article provides lots of details, but nowhere is it mentioned that CO2 emissions are a cause of pollution, because it clearly isn't. CO2 is not only a wonderful, clean and odourless gas, it's absolutely essential for all life and therefore one of the greatest assets we can imagine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog

During the next few decades, the world-wide increase in agricultural production due to the current human-induced levels of CO2 and further small increases, could be worth more than the entire American national debt, and that's saying something! 

Of course, a common response from the alarmists is that anything can be described as toxic or a pollutant if it is present in sufficiently high concentrations. We all understand that.Too much of anything can be bad.

However, if drinking too much water after a marathon can kill you, is it sensible to call clean and fresh water a pollutant?

Here's an article which addresses the levels of CO2 which are toxic to humans.
http://principia-scientific.org/at-what-concentration-does-co2-becomes-toxic-to-humans/

Another misleading tactic used by the alarmists is to use the analogy of people exposed to unnaturally high levels of CO2 in poorly ventilated enclosed spaces, such as auditoriums with masses of people, and offices and homes where the windows are closed.

Co2 levels might then rise to several times the level that they are outside in the natural environment. But even then, the observed effects of slight drowsiness or headaches, or lack of clear thinking, are not entirely due to the increase in CO2 levels but are also partly due to a reduction in the available oxygen due to many people repeatedly breathing the same air.

[LesPalenik]

Reported by Spiegel, Apr 13, 2016

For the first time, Germany is pushing ahead with the green electricity expansion without any subsidies and is thus hoping to dampen the electricity prices. The wind park "He Dreiht" in the North Sea would be erected without the usual state subsidies, the supplier EnBW announced on Thursday.

Wind energy on the high seas is considered the most important driver for the expansion of renewable energies for the coming years. These are expected to accrue 40 to 45 percent of the electricity requirement by 2025.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Solar energy has plunged in price—where does it go from here?
A look forward to how we get to Terawatts of solar power capacity.:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/whats-next-for-solar-energy/

"In the year 2000, the entire world had roughly four Gigawatts of solar power capacity installed, and it didn't seem to be going anywhere fast. In 2002, the International Energy Agency forecast suggested that, by 2020, global solar capacity would still be hovering at around 10GW, and still barely register on the global energy markets.

How things change. Over the 15 years that followed, solar energy capacity expanded by 5,700 percent, reaching 227GW."

Cheers,
Bart

[Otto Phocus]

Head smack, Yes Alan we can do things to change the environment, just think of LA in the 70s.

I grew us near LA in the 70's and it was terrible.  If you were unwise enough to take a deep breath you would get a sharp stabbing pain in your lungs. Burning eyes were so common you soon forgot about it.  It was just part of life.  And if you coughed, it was recommended that you not look at what you coughed up.  Often it felt like you were working in a coal mine.

But since then, LA has done a great job with their air pollution. I went there in the early 2000's and the change was amazing.  There was actual air to breath.. and it did not hurt to breath.  LA is a beautiful city when you can see it without tearing eyes.   

Good on LA.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Once again, you alarmists are confusing the issues. Sensible and wise people understand that in order to fix a problem one has to correctly identify the causes.
Smog and air pollution is not caused by CO2, but by sulphur dioxide, various nitrogen oxides, small particles of carbon or smoke, hydrocarbons, volatile compounds, and so on.

Ray, I appreciate what you have been saying about CO2 levels and plant growth.  However, I think you are missing the trees in the forrest.  Increased CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation (look at all the clear cutting in parts of Indonesia and the Amazon basin in Brazil).  Also we cannot ignore the effect of water vapor which is also a greenhouse gas and would be expected to increase with warming temperatures.  Not only do we get all of the bad effects that you mention but there is also a lot more methane released to the air as a result of oil drilling and hydraulic fracking.  I've been pointing out that you cannot model based on just one variable but need to adopt a stochastic approach. 

There is no question that CO2 is contributing to global warming.  Whether there will be major benefits as a result of increased plant growth is something that cannot be proven; it is mere conjecture at this point in time.

I'm sure this link has been posted at one point, but it's worth re-reading:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Proportion_of_direct_effects_at_a_given_moment

I think that I will exit this discussion now as it continues to be too circular just as Kekule's benzene snake dream.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Ray, I appreciate what you have been saying about CO2 levels and plant growth.  However, I think you are missing the trees in the forrest.  Increased CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation (look at all the clear cutting in parts of Indonesia and the Amazon basin in Brazil).  Also we cannot ignore the effect of water vapor which is also a greenhouse gas and would be expected to increase with warming temperatures.  Not only do we get all of the bad effects that you mention but there is also a lot more methane released to the air as a result of oil drilling and hydraulic fracking.  I've been pointing out that you cannot model based on just one variable but need to adopt a stochastic approach.

Ah, but that's taking away all the fun for Ray, cherry picking isolated effects that suit his agenda, and of course ignoring the wider range of negative consequences if they don't suit his denialist agenda.

There is no question that CO2 is contributing to global warming.  Whether there will be major benefits as a result of increased plant growth is something that cannot be proven; it is mere conjecture at this point in time.

Indeed. And pointing out flaws in his reasoning only makes him produce more unsubstantiated assumptions/suggestions/confusions.

Like his (failed attempt at a) redifinition of Pollution, by only pointing to Smog.
To help him get back on track;
Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment, that cause adverse change.

One can also check with e.g. the Merriam-Webster definition:
"the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination with man-made waste"

Carbon Dioxide is a waste product, which is introduced into the environment at elevated levels as a product of a.o. the burning of fossil fuel. We humans also exhale 4% to 5% by volume more carbon dioxide and 4% to 5% by volume less oxygen than was inhaled.

Because the air we inhale has a much higher percentage of Oxygen (20.84% oxygen) than Carbon Dioxide (0.04%), a doubling or tripling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, will not even come close to significantly reducing the amount of Oxigen, which seems to be one of his latest (unfounded) arguments. Besides, reduced availability of oxygen is compensated by deeper and more frequent breathing.

However, the elevated level of CO2 does affect how our brain functions:
https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-directly-affect-human-cognition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941
"Significantly, the Harvard study confirms the findings of a little-publicized 2012 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) study, “Is CO2 an Indoor Pollutant? Direct Effects of Low-to-Moderate CO2 Concentrations on Human Decision-Making Performance.” That study found “statistically significant and meaningful reductions in decision-making performance” in test subjects as CO2 levels rose from a baseline of 600 parts per million (ppm) to 1000 ppm and 2500 ppm."

Now these are mostly issues we encounter indoors, with poor ventilation, but the accumulating effects on the global climate changes are what we are actually talking about. These CO2 pollution effects do cross borders, affect huge numbers of people and other living creatures, and some of those effects are becoming irreversible.

I'm sure this link has been posted at one point, but it's worth re-reading:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Proportion_of_direct_effects_at_a_given_moment

Yes, it's a useful reference. From that reference, this chart shows what is happening with respect to Carbon emissions, although it may not even be up to date for the most recent emissions:

I think that I will exit this discussion now as it continues to be too circular just as Kekule's benzene snake dream.

Yes, that's one way of approaching it, and the thought of 'Bertrand Russell's teapot' creeps in every time Ray comes up with another assumption. Unfortunately I do not expect well reasoned studies to be provided by the 'Deniers', as long as they use descriptions like "CO2 is not only a wonderful, clean and odourless gas, it's absolutely essential for all life and therefore one of the greatest assets we can imagine". That is such deliberate nonsense, on several levels, it's making clear that it's useless to expect a reasonable discourse over the subject.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is also a colorless, odorless, and tasteless gas. However, it is toxic to hemoglobic animals (both invertebrate and vertebrate, including humans) when encountered in concentrations above about 35 ppm, which is only 8.75% of  average outdoor CO2 concentrations. It too is considered a pollutant.

So describing a pollutant as clean and odorless is meaningless, and only used to distract from the ugly truth.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Ray, you're on your own.  I gotta go.

[EricV]

There is no question that CO2 is contributing to global warming.  Whether there will be major benefits as a result of increased plant growth is something that cannot be proven; it is mere conjecture at this point in time.

I am a believer in global warming, but it does no good to over-state the case like this.  One could equally well say "There is no question that CO2 increases plant growth.  CO2 is not the largest contributor to global warming; the relative importance of CO2 is a matter of conjecture at this point in time."

[LesPalenik]

Solar energy has plunged in price—where does it go from here?
A look forward to how we get to Terawatts of solar power capacity.:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/whats-next-for-solar-energy/

"In the year 2000, the entire world had roughly four Gigawatts of solar power capacity installed, and it didn't seem to be going anywhere fast. In 2002, the International Energy Agency forecast suggested that, by 2020, global solar capacity would still be hovering at around 10GW, and still barely register on the global energy markets.

How things change. Over the 15 years that followed, solar energy capacity expanded by 5,700 percent, reaching 227GW."

Cheers,
Bart

More from Spiegel:
For many years, the global solar industry had good reasons to celebrate - the investment in photovoltaics rose at a breathtaking pace. A total of 161 billion US dollars flowed into new solar plants worldwide in 2015. Two years earlier, it was only 114 billion dollars.

But this development has now come to an abrupt end: last year, the investment volume fell by 34 percent compared to 2015. This is revealed by a study published recently by UNO's environmental organization UNEP.
Is the high altitude flight of the photovoltaic system over? On the contrary, "the financial volume has declined compared to the previous year, but the capacities that have been added have risen, and these are the most important parameter for the conversion of the energy system", says Michael Pahle from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research.

Globally, 2016 turbines with a total capacity of 75 gigawatts were installed, 19 gigawatts more than in the previous year. At the top they deliver as much electricity as about 120 medium-sized coal-fired power plants.

More power for less money: The costs of photovoltaics have recently fallen dramatically. An international research group is now forecasting in science magazine "Science" that the installed solar power will be at least tenfold by 2030. The authors work for well-known research facilities such as the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE) or the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

Even today, the sun is the most favorable source of power in some regions of the world.
In Chile, Abu Dhabi and Dubai, for example, solar fields will be built soon, producing electricity for less than three cents per kilowatt hour. Coal and gas power plants can not keep up, nuclear reactors certainly not at all.

[Ray]

I am a believer in global warming, but it does no good to over-state the case like this.  One could equally well say "There is no question that CO2 increases plant growth.  CO2 is not the largest contributor to global warming; the relative importance of CO2 is a matter of conjecture at this point in time."

Good point! That's a very balanced approach. I've often been puzzled by Alan Goldhammer's position in this regard, because he claims to have qualifications in Chemistry.

Chemistry is a so-called 'hard' science which lends itself to the rigorous scientific processes of repeated testing under controlled conditions which can be observed over relatively short time scales. It also lends itself to experimentation designed to falsify a particular theory.

The consistency of the results of repeated experiments, together with a failure of all attempts to falsify a particular theory which is based upon the observations, results in a high degree of certainty that the theory is correct and allows for reliable predictions to be made.

Now surely it must be obvious to anyone with an understanding of the general methodology of science, that the subject of anthropogenic global warming falls outside the parameters of this rigorous approach.

It's impossible to create a realistic model of our planet and climate, with all its complexities, and conduct experiments to see what effect on the climate a 0.02% increase in CO2 might have. Instead, we rely upon very simplified computer models.

However, the subject of the 'CO2 fertilization effect' does lend itself to repeated experimentation under various degrees of controlled conditions. Farmers have been observing for many decades the increased growth that results after they pump CO2 into their greenhouses, and have been getting extra cash for the increased growth.

There have also been many experiments in recent times in the open air, using a procedure with the acronym FACE (Free-Air CO2-Enrichment), which show similar effects of increased growth.

From an unbiased and scientific perspective, it would seem pretty obvious that the theory that elevated levels of CO2 result in increased plant growth is more certain than the theory that elevated levels of CO2 cause global warming.

I would also add, that the certainty that increased plant growth due to CO2 is good, is greater than the certainty that possible warming due to CO2 is bad.

[Ray]

Indeed. And pointing out flaws in his reasoning only makes him produce more unsubstantiated assumptions/suggestions/confusions.

Like his (failed attempt at a) redifinition of Pollution, by only pointing to Smog.
To help him get back on track;
Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment, that cause adverse change.

One can also check with e.g. the Merriam-Webster definition:
"the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination with man-made waste"

False and misleading statements seem to be your forte, Bart. 

Just a few posts ago, post #381 actually, I wrote the following.

"The damage to the environment from human activity has always affected our health and security. We slash down huge areas of forest for agricultural purposes and to build cities and suburban dwellings. In some countries they burn coal without adequate emission controls, as in China and India. The noxious fumes from such outdated power plants also affect neighbouring countries such as Japan, as well as the local inhabitants of China.

Countries such as Indonesia engage in seasonal burn-off of forests for agricultural purposes causing significant amounts of haze and smog which drifts over to other countries such as Malaysia and Singapore resulting in the need for many people to protect themselves by wearing masks.

We pollute the sea with huge quantities of plastic waste, disrupt the Great Barrier Reef with the run-off of artificial fertilizers and pesticides used for farming near the coast, and in some countries release toxic chemicals from industrial processes into nearby rivers."

Do you expect me to include in every new post I make, all the points I've made in previous posts. 

[Ray]

Because the air we inhale has a much higher percentage of Oxygen (20.84% oxygen) than Carbon Dioxide (0.04%), a doubling or tripling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, will not even come close to significantly reducing the amount of Oxigen, which seems to be one of his latest (unfounded) arguments. Besides, reduced availability of oxygen is compensated by deeper and more frequent breathing.

However, the elevated level of CO2 does affect how our brain functions:
https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-directly-affect-human-cognition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941
"Significantly, the Harvard study confirms the findings of a little-publicized 2012 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) study, “Is CO2 an Indoor Pollutant? Direct Effects of Low-to-Moderate CO2 Concentrations on Human Decision-Making Performance.” That study found “statistically significant and meaningful reductions in decision-making performance” in test subjects as CO2 levels rose from a baseline of 600 parts per million (ppm) to 1000 ppm and 2500 ppm."


Now these are mostly issues we encounter indoors, with poor ventilation, but the accumulating effects on the global climate changes are what we are actually talking about. These CO2 pollution effects do cross borders, affect huge numbers of people and other living creatures, and some of those effects are becoming irreversible.

Now I understand why so many so-called scientists are convinced that elevated CO2 levels are a serious risk to humanity. They are exposed to very high concentrations of CO2 in their offices and laboratories, and cannot think straight. 

I don't need expensive modern research to advise me that living in a poorly ventilated room or enclosure is not good for me. My mother told me that when I was a young kid. I always open the windows in my house, and especially the windows in my bedroom when I sleep.

The idea that one of the benefits of reducing CO2 levels from, say 400 ppm to the preindustrial levels of 280ppm, could be that people in offices and unventilated spaces will receive less damage, is quite bizarre.

We inhale air that contains 0.04% CO2, and exhale air that contains about 4% CO2. Do you imagine that's going to change much if the air we breathe has 0.028% CO2?

This is another of the false and misleading tactics used by the AGW alarmists. If there's a problem with a lack of ventilation in any enclosed space, that might cause a reduction in mental performance, then the obvious solution is to improve ventilation, not to spend trillions of dollars reducing atmospheric CO2 levels.