Question about climate change

It doesn't matter in the long run. Who claimed the hockey stick is upside down ??

Maybe because McIntyre's work is solid ?? The alarmist "scientists" have been all over his work with McKitrick. And the books (Hiding the Decline & The Hockey Stick Illusion) written on their work are solid as well.

The historical and current data clearly show that global warming is beneficial to the human race. That's very clear from the Holocene period and it's interglacial periods of warming and cooling. There are no climate refugees flooding the temperate countries and there are no islands under water. The rate of sea level rise is the same as it was when the little ice age acceleration was over way before CO2 emissions began to increase. We are in the ~ 11,000 year of the current interglacial period which last between 10,000 to 15,000 years. Those who claim that we can slow cooling down by somehow eliminate fossil fuels through political action are lying to everyone both about the "problem" itself and the political reality of implementing their Draconian policies.

 

Exactly and at the end of the little ice age we have came perilously close to the 150 ppm CO2 level which would result in significant damage to global agriculture.

 

Yep.

It's not the hot periods on the earth that has lead to extinction events.....it was the cold ones.

 

Yes, the “dark ages” periods were deadly and the warm periods were and are the periods where civilizations prosper and human life span increases.

 

You're not making any sense.

You claimed plants were "CO2-starved" at 290 ppm CO2.

I pointed out that since plants were thriving at 290 ppm CO2, they clearly weren't "CO2-starved".

In response, you changed the topic to what happens at 150 ppm. Goalpost shifting, not honest of you.

If you would have said "plants were slightly CO2-inhibited" at 290 ppm, that would be a sensible statement. "CO2 starved" was not sensible, being that starvation implies being near death.

 

Can you make up your mind? Is your claim "There's not warming" or is it "Warming is good"?

You're arguing both positions here, and it undermines your credibility. It appears as if you're tossing everything at the wall, in the hopes that something will stick to back up your predetermined politically-based conclusion.

 

Warming is beneficial for the human race. I've been very clear on that. All the real world data backs me up.

And there is no question that the globe is warming today. Why would claim otherwise ??

 

There is no goal post shifting.

Plants die at 150 ppm. Plants do much better at concentrations much higher that our current levels. The satellite maps which show the greening of the planet as CO2 increases demonstrate that.

 

Utter toss.. The value was ~150 PPM and the observation was that in comparison even at 290 ppm the ecosystem is still vastly under serviced to what has historically been that value. Why try to deflect now? Oh wait, it's what you do. Got it.

 

So are you guys thinking we should focus on increasing biomass in general instead of focusing on crops and other kinds of vegetation that increases Earth's carrying capacity for humans?

 

Why not google your inquisition. There are plenty of resources that are as reliable as you’d ever want to know.

 

As that's senseless babbling, it's clearly a desperate evasion on your part.

You made the bizarre claim that 290 ppm left plants "CO2 starved".

Being how plant life on earth was thriving at the level, your claim was indisputably wrong.

Crying about how awful I am for pointing that out doesn't change the fact that your statement was just plain wrong.

 

We've been over this before. You rely entirely on the work of single economist, dismissing the work of all other economists. If you'd like, we can dig up the threads where we discuss that.

Being that you know most economists disagree with your position, why did you make a fake claim that "all the real world data backs me up"?

That is the point. Most deniers claim the globe isn't warming now. I'm glad that you agree they're all making up nonsense.

 

You still haven’t done your homework. I’ve given you the references.

The vast majority of people know that the earth is warming. And that the start of this warming was the end of the little ice age in the late 17th century. Who are these “majority of deniers” that you talk about ??

 

Yes, your cherrypicked references from a single economist. You depend entirely on a cherrypicking fallacy. I look at all the data, so my methodology is superior.

About half of the deniers here are lukewarmers like you, and half of them deny the warming outright, claiming it's all a conspiracy.

 

Still haven’t read the books ?? Why not ??

The last paragraph is absurd.

 

If you've got an actual point, state it and back it up. Don't just yell "read my book!". That's an evasion, not a point.

Here's a point. Higher temps mean lower crop yields. That would be harmful, not beneficial.

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/35/9326
---
each degree-Celsius increase in global mean temperature would, on average, reduce global yields of wheat by 6.0%, rice by 3.2%, maize by 7.4%, and soybean by 3.1%.
---

Do you have any evidence that warming would increase crop yields? If you do, present it.

 

My points have been made many times. And my suggestions on books which back up those points have been made many times. But you still refuse to educate yourself. That's telling.

Higher temperatures do not mean lower crop yields. The growing season is extended, the amount of arable land is increased, and the amount of clouds and rain is increased. Your numbers come from fake computer models which are not backed up by real world data. QED.

 

That's like claiming it doesn't matter whether money supply leads or lags economic growth.

Yes, they are, because they trigger the far more powerful ice-albedo positive feedback.

Garbage. The variation in CO2 is far too small to account for more than a small portion of the temperature variation.

Readers' attention is drawn to the dishonesty of reversing the time scale to make it look as if CO2 leads temperature.

 

Such claims are self-evidently false, absurd, and disingenuous tripe. In cooler Japan and Korea, they get one crop of rice per year. In hotter Indonesia, they get three.

That is an absurd load of nonscience. YOUR OWN SOURCE said those declines would be WITHOUT CO2 fertilization. But your screaming about temperature is ALL ABOUT CO2 increase. HELLO?

LOOK AT THE FRICKIN' DIFFERENCE IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY BETWEEN THE TROPICS AND HIGH LATITUDES. HELLO???

 

Yes. The alarmists claim that global warming is an existential threat to the human race. In fact global warming is beneficial to the human race. This is clearly evident in the Medieval, Roman, Minoan, and our warm period of the current interglacial period.

 

I'm sure everyone notes the very impressive evidence you posted to back up your claim.

And in Indian and Pakistan, they'll get zero if it gets too hot. See the problem? Nobody argues certain regions will produce more. But, as most people won't stoop to dishonestly cherrypick like you do, they'll understand that overall production will be down.

Which has plus and minus effects.

It's true, you know. If you scream your nonsense in all-caps, it makes the nonsense true.

Also, good to see you screaming that the warming is real. We'll make sure to bring that up the next time anyone screams the warming is a socialist conspiracy. It would really help if you deniers could get together and settle on a single consistent conspiracy theory.

 

No, the two sitations are entirely different. If you didn't fail so hard at both science and economics, you'd understand that.

Not even close to being a sufficient feedback. Proof? Ice exists now. If that feedback was as powerful as you say, it would keep running until all the ice was gone.

Explain for us how earth existed the snowball earth phase. It went through hundreds of Milankovitch cycles without effect. Then the CO2 level rose, and the earth melted.

You can't explain paleoclimate without invoking CO2. Thus, your theory is proven to be garbage.

Readers' attention drawn to the fact that you're invoking paranoid conspiracy gibberish to deflect away from the hard data that say your cult lies about everything.

 

India and Pakistan will do just fine. Agricultural fields have a naturally cooling effect, there will be more arable land, the growing season will be longer, there will be more moisture in the air, and there will be more water available for irrigation as snow/ice from the mountains melts. India and Pakistan are doing very little with green energy and are committed to fossil fuels. If the western alarmists really wanted to save lives in these countries they would replace all the cow dung fireplaces producing toxic black smoke with coal fired family stoves. This would get rid of the brown smudge over these countries visible from space.

 

Roughly 50 million years ago the CO2 levels rose due to warming, not the other way around. That is guessed at because of higher water vapor and volcanic activity at the time. Some believe the CO2 came from volcanoes but others believe it came from melting permafrost. Fact is that these are all guesses and so is CO2 as a control knob for temperature.