The New Climate Reality

of course

 

go ahead

https://archive.ciser.cornell.edu/reproduction-packages/2840

 

A lot has happened since that paper was published in 2018.

No, Yale Climate Connections, Carbon Dioxide Does Not Harm Plants
Crop nutrition December 15, 2020
Yale Climate Connections published an article this week attacking the scientific consensus, and implicitly calling all greenhouse operators idiots, by claiming adding carbon dioxide...

". . . The Yale article comes closest comes to supporting its central claim with any facts when it cites a single study showing minor declines in some nutrients for rice grown under higher CO2 conditions. That Yale article failed to note, however, that rice yields grow substantially under higher CO2 conditions. More rice production from the same plot of land will logically lead to less nutrient uptake per rice kernel. This can be mitigated by a corresponding increase in fertilizer usage. Even without more fertilizer usage, the benefits of significantly more rice production outweigh the harms of minor declines in micronutrients per kernel. . . ."

 

are you really that gullible?



"We rate the 'Heartland Institute' as Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of anti-science propaganda, lack of transparency with funding, and more than 5 failed fact checks by IFCN fact-checkers."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heartland-institute/

 

Sorry, but you'll have to do better. And you need to address the substance.

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst".[2]
Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Fact_Check

Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) is an American website founded in 2015 by editor Dave Van Zandt. The website has been described as an amateur effort to rate ...

 

so funny

"Oil and gas companies have contributed to the 'Heartland Institute', including $736,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[85][119] Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[55] In 2008, ExxonMobil said that it would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate change, including Heartland.[119][120][121] Joseph Bast, president of the Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[119]" Eilperin, Juliet (November 24, 2012). "Climate skeptic group works to reverse renewable energy mandates".

[85] The Washington Post. Retrieved February 23, 2018.

[119] Revkin, Andrew (March 8, 2009). "Skeptics Dispute Climate Worries and Each Other". The New York Times. Retrieved February 23, 2018.

[120] Monica Heger, "ExxonMobil Cuts Back Its Funding for Climate Skeptics," IEEE Spectrum, July 2008 (Retrieved December 27, 2011)

[121] Davies, Kert, "Exxon continued to fund climate denial in 2009", Greenpeace Blog, July 19, 2010. "[D]uring the same period where Exxon bent to the pressure on its campaign of denial and cut all funding to hard core deniers like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute and others...." Retrieved December 27, 2011.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

 

I’m asking for a link to the whole study—methods, data analysis, results, discussion etc.

I’m not interested in “he said she said” news releases. I want to go over the entire study with you. The actual published study. Not the title. Not some commentary, not raw data—the entire study.

Have you not read the study? But you are attempting to refute my statement with something you haven’t read and don’t have a viable link to?

 

We breathe air, use the oxygen in it and exhale co2. Plants breath air, use the co2 in it and exhale oxygen.

 

No we are dealing with people who cannot accept that weather is weather

 

Don't you see a balance here?

 

i'm talking about climate, you're parroting nonsense

how did know you wouldn't be able to make a logical argument?

the co2 that comes from plants isn't the same as what comes from cars

"There are human fingerprints on carbon overload. When humans burn coal, oil and gas (fossil fuels) carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, where it traps heat. A carbon molecule that comes from fossil fuels is lighter than the combined signal of those from other sources. As scientists measure the weight of carbon in the atmosphere, over time they see a clear increase in the lighter molecules from fossil fuel that corresponds closely to the known trend in emissions."

Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Drooled. 2007. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Bowen, G.J., J. B. West, B. H. Vaugh n, T. E. Dawson, J. R. Ehleringer, M. L. Fogel, K. Hobson, J. Hoogewerff , C. Kendall, C.-T. Lai, C. C. Miller, D. Noone, H. Sch warc z, and C. J. Still. 2009. Isoscapes to Address Large-Scale Earth Science Challenges EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 90:109-116.

 

Clever. Quality, peer reviewed studies from high ranking journals are almost always behind a paywall. Unless @dujac is an active student or current academic he won't have access. I could have sworn by how you behave that you were in one of those categories. It appears not.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01000-1?utm_campaign=Hot News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=119258146&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8a-ZdzDoPjbxbC_R-AFdK4DBvfuPBN5HvIZ9bkVXIJtSJbRoCIGa_jmjMb6wBUwetNI4XsCiF0_HwuByjwvzFiyid2Wg&utm_content=119258146&utm_source=hs_email

 

We will be fine with the formatting. Just remind me if I miss responding to an important point.

Sorry for seeming harsh. I’m a bit frustrated with all the denial of science I see on every issue nowadays and I’m less patient than I used to be. It’s a personal failing I need to correct.

I think we agree on what’s killing folks directly as far as temperatures. Your point on drought and hunger etc. is certainly valid and one I’ve spent a lot of time discussing on PF in the past.

I grew up around agriculture in an area that received around 12 inches of precipitation annually. When I was a kid we were almost burned out by brush/juniper fire. Aerial drops of water and retardant stopped the fire about a mile from my house. We were loading animals in trailers to evacuate when word came things were under control. I farmed for my uncle every summer during high school and college in an area that gets about 16 inches of precipitation annually. Ground was planted (mostly winter wheat) every other year using a fallow rotation to store enough soil moisture to grow a crop every other year. I believe 16 inches of precipitation is average for Australia, correct?

For two years in college I worked on a farm east of here where they get about 34 inches of precipitation annually—enough to grow decent corn, soybean, milo, and wheat crops most every year without irrigation.

Now I live with about 23 inches of precipitation but have the ability to irrigate most of my crop land.

My point is I am not ignorant of the challenges of growing food in arid regions. And even with the ability to irrigate, summers where we have no rain like 2002 result in not a year with no income, but a year of loss in net profits, working capital and net worth.

Then we are in complete agreement here. One reason I responded to the initial post with the deaths from cold data was to try and get people to think outside of the simplistic media narrative.

I’d first remind you extreme cold and heat are much less of a factor than more moderate suboptimal temperatures (from my first study). So even in the western first world where we utilize a lot of carbon for mitigation of temperature effects, cold still kills far more than heat. Heat waves and cold snaps are not the big killer anywhere on the planet. But of course other variables that will change with a warming planet like increased humidity should be considered.

It’s pretty well established warming will be more pronounced towards the poles. This should also be considered. And we are seeing slightly higher temps on average “everywhere”. I don’t think we need to guess on that one.

That said, again we are in basic agreement.

My views are far from simplistic. Perhaps the post in question is but I did not expect anyone to be interested in discussing the odd phenomenon of decreased growing degree days in climates we would expect them to increase in with global warming or how nutritional/caloric deficits in India not based on failing agriculture may affect tolerance to cold as well. It was a simple post showing another simple post was not based on empirical evidence.

Whether you complain about the cold or not may boil down to whether you have functional ACTN3 genes or not. But yes, I’m sure what we are feeling weather wise today colors our perceptions.

 

I certainly can. But I can’t address a study we can’t read. And what would be the point? Even if I buy it you still wouldn’t read it. If I showed you the title of a study or a news release that claimed global warming was a hoax would you just believe it because the claim was in print?

You can’t believe a study you can’t read. Go look up the studies and especially news releases on Covid I’ve had to correct misinformation from. Appeal to authority is DANGEROUS territory in these matters.

 

It’s pretty easy to spot people who base their opinions on news releases and not actual evidence.

It would be great fun to discuss the study and I almost bought it earlier today. But I see it would only be for my edification—he’s not interested.

 

Long term weather is 'climate.'
If you have the occassional 135 deg F day that's weather.
If, instead of having a 135 day once in a lifetime, you have 135 every year,
then that's 'climate.' And if you get 130 every day then, like Palm Springs,
you think of moving.
Climate is seeing 85 F minimum temperatures as a new norm. Climate is
seeing weather once seen in the south shift up to the north. Climate is
when you have to start growing crops never seen before in your latitude.
And climate is when plants and animals begin migrating, only they can't 'cos
there's fences, roads, airports and cities blocking them.

 

What you say is true, but... we find new ways of growing crops.
And instead of growing apples, which require 'chill hours' from
a winter which has vanished we grow bananas instead. We
haven't really solved the problem with new tech and new crops,
the problem is that it's g.e.t.t.i.n.g. .h.o.t.t.e.r.

 

A trillion dollars isn't going to fix this. IMO the solution is two fold
1 - develope non-carbon energy like traditional nuclear and nuclear fusion
2 - start sucking carbon out of the air - carbon prevents the earth cooling down, and
plays havooc with the oceans.

 

You mean like democrats saying a man is a woman. Lol get out of here. No political party holds the holy grail of facts, fictions, or science.

 

What they mean is that we are putting a green-house over the whole planet.
Fine if you live in Russia, not good if you live in the Pacific ocean.

 

As it gets & stays consistently hotter they might just have to move. to more "habitable" areas. At some point areas sustaining elevated heat levels,,,,,,will become uninhabitable for most life forms.

 

A little over a 100k a year? That’s a tax write off. Oil companies donate to black colleges by the multi millions. A 100k donation is literally pennies in their donation scheme. why is oil money evil money? it literally makes your life as good as it is today.

 

All of which are crushingly refuted under the "reply to our critics" tab at the Heartland site.
Heartland Institute: Home
https://heartland.org

Description: Heartland Institute Board Member Steve Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com, was a guest recently on the Ingraham Angle on the Fox News ...

 

Not so much lately.

 

You realize that you go for ad hominem more than anyone you debate? This is a departure of philosophy. How are you ever suppose to win a debate when in order to stand your philosophical ground you have to use ad hominem attack?