Questions regarding Global Warming

Here we go again, another Global Warming discussion.
Seems like these are ongoing with no end just like the climate.

Lately I've been thinking about some issues regarding Global Warming.
Maybe members on the forum can bring some light on a few questions I have.
Only a couple questions which are pretty straight forward imo.

The first ones are about an evil pollutant called CO2, which is probably the cause of all these debates
on Global Warming and Climate Change, at least within the political camp.
-
"What is the norm for planet earth's CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to keep plant and animal life thriving
and flourish?"

If most of the plants(85%, C3-plants) we use for consumption would die off if concentrations dropped below 150ppm,
is it then responsible we aim for a concentration like we had before the Industrial Revolution, around 275ppm?
That's a small margin, no?

And the last on CO2;
Where would we have been if we didn't add CO2 'unconsciously' into the atmosphere?
By that i mean, isn't there a possibility we are actually helping nature (at least some species) to survive?
Should we call CO2 a pollutant then?

Next question is about, you guessed it, the money and politics.
-
"How many lives did we officially saved with the research, prevention or boldly the actions we undertake
against global warming? Are there any numbers available?
Does this outweigh the deaths caused by the lack of electricity?" Money better spend elsewhere?

These installations can provide the poor and underdeveloped regions with cooked food, clean water, heat and so much more.
The cheapest way to produce electricity in poor countries are coal industries i believe.


Last question,
-
"We know now that almost every model on climate sensitivity and global warming prediction were wrong.
The actual data is far from the predictions, why aren't these scientists relieved it didn't went the way predicted?"

Temperatures aren't rising as expected nor sea levels or natural catastrophic events like floods/droughts,
hurricanes,...
If it turns out we were wrong or at least exaggerated shouldn't the whole world party like it's 1999 or like we have won a war
against invading aliens!


QTA; are there members that switched camps during these years, from AGW-skeptic to AGW-believer or the other way round?
And what was the reason that made you change your mind?


Thank you for your time.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

"What is the norm for planet earth's CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to keep plant and animal life thriving
and flourish?"

That's actually pretty hard to know, since plants and animals also interact with one another. The biosphere isn't static, it's in constant evolution and every single species are constantly adapting to changes in their environment.

Where would we have been if we didn't add CO2 'unconsciously' into the atmosphere?
By that i mean, isn't there a possibility we are actually helping nature (at least some species) to survive?

Yes, most species if plants thrive when there's CO2, since it helps them generate glucose through photosynthesis. However, the true question is wether more CO2 affects the climate of Earth (and in which way), which in turn would (indirectly) affect the species as individuals. It's not the CO2 that kills, it's the effect it has on irradiance and thus the climate.

How many lives did we officially saved with the research, prevention or boldly the actions we undertake
against global warming? Are there any numbers available?
Does this outweigh the deaths caused by the lack of electricity?

Unknown. But prevention surely is better than nothing at all. Therefore I believe it's safe to say that it did save lives, more than if we didn't use caution.

We know now that almost every model on climate sensitivity and global warming prediction were wrong.
The actual data is far from the predictions, why aren't these scientists relieved it didn't went the way predicted?

Because it means their model isn't perfect yet. It means there's still some variables missing or misunderstood. Models are important if we are to understand climate fully and how our activities, or even natural phenomenons, actually affect it.

Good post, S+F mate!

Goog..."CO2 concentration in ambient air ranges from 300-500 parts per million (ppm), with a global atmospheric average of about 400 ppm. If you are growing in a greenhouse or indoors, the CO2 levels will be reduced as the plants use it up during photosynthesis."

1000-1500 ppm is used in grow rooms, for lush plants and up to a 50 percent decrease in total grow time.

I read somewhere that Ice cores have shown high co2 levels back when the earth was covered with lush vegetation before the ice age.

Plants eat it up during the light cycle, then release oxygen during the dark cycle.

Maybe someone a little more sciency can explain why co2 is even an issue, I thought it was heavier than air, so it will sink to lowest point.

"How many lives did we officially saved with the research, prevention or boldly the actions we undertake against global warming? Are there any numbers available?

That's like entitlement spending.

The measure of 'success' is guaged by how much money they throw at the problem.

Which is why climate change is nothing more than the new face of the same old agenda. Social engineering.

The new game in town ?

Geoengineering.

I can say that in contrast to what the like of the IPCC would rather you believe, is that there is not a blanket of CO2 around the globe this minute as if a constant, it's different region to region. Sure CO2 is everywhere, but any 'blanket' would be a bit thin in some areas than others.



files.abovetopsecret.com...

Nor is the Earth dynamics going to reproduce experiments done in labs as the same thing. What people do with the figures they do have is pretty much anyones guess, and to bear in mind that many still strive to get a better picture, and it's very difficult to get someone to come out and say this is what will happen definitively because they don't know everything for sure anyway. A bit like asking for how long does a heavier than air gas like CO2 stay in the atmosphere, there is no definitive answer, in the first instance you could get answers from 50-200 years down to 2-200 years or less, but some will say that anyway. Ask a bit more, say about how gases mix, then you get answers in percentages over time, because of degrading of the gas/'s, and then how long that takes, how much CO2 the ocean takes in, how much it spits out, and so on, and ultimately there is a percentage figure of C02 that, "always remains in the atmosphere" everybody and their granny is into that, but the word of caution is that, stats are just stats, a common phrase among statisticians is correlation does not imply causation, in this case that being of short term temperature increase anomalies, gel with statistical historical information gathered over a century and a half or so, no matter how crappy those mostly ground based stats are, even into the new millenium.
I'm not a scientist, but IMHO, a frest start is needed badly, I think NASA is going that way, but it, I think, is a long road to go, and in the meantime the controversy...because that's what it is, will continue.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

I read somewhere that there will be an increase in plant growth due to increasing C02 but that the plants will be less nutritious.

a reply to: Mandroid7

Maybe someone a little more sciency can explain why CO2 is even an issue, I thought it was heavier than air, so it will sink to lowest point.

It is, but it's a gas, not a liquid. I believe the reason CO2 rises is because of the heat it contains when produced through combustion, and atmospheric conditions, aka wind.

It eventually does settle, and I might be mistaken, but believe it has an average lifetime of 10-14 years in the atmosphere once it reaches that level.

The part that matters most to me is how much CO2 the oceans are taking in versus recycling. Its known for sure that plankton thrive in high CO2 environments, but is there a limit for it? Once the balance ends, the oceans will take on additional CO2 potentially changing their pH levels, which is devastating for oceanic life, and life in general.

Is there a limit? Who knows. I tend to say probably not, but also think it isn't the best thing to tempt. Green energy is better overall anyway

"What is the norm for planet earth's CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to keep plant and animal life thriving and flourish?"

Not really a meaningful question (sort of like "how long is a piece of string") but we do know that CO2 levels are higher now than they have been since we've been human.

If most of the plants(85%, C3-plants) we use for consumption would die off if concentrations dropped below 150ppm, is it then responsible we aim for a concentration like we had before the Industrial Revolution, around 275ppm? That's a small margin, no?

45% No, not a small margin.

"How many lives did we officially saved with the research, prevention or boldly the actions we undertake against global warming? Are there any numbers available?
Does this outweigh the deaths caused by the lack of electricity?" Money better spend elsewhere?

Are you saying that moving to alternative sources would result in a lack of electricity? Sorry to answer a question with a question, but why?

"We know now that almost every model on climate sensitivity and global warming prediction were wrong.
The actual data is far from the predictions, why aren't these scientists relieved it didn't went the way predicted?"

Far from predictions?

www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk...

10 epic forecast fails about climate change.. And people wonder why so many doubt all the hoopla . Just one of many videos pointing out forecast errors and predictions youtu.be...

youtu.be...

a reply to: 727Sky

Please list those failed "predictions" and by whom they were made. Lest you be engaging in gish galloping.

Don't be lazy, follow the example of the OP.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 727Sky

Please list those failed "predictions" and by whom they were made. Lest you be engaging in gish galloping.

Don't be lazy, follow the example of the OP.

Wow, love that analogy, but Dammit, now I'm thinking Trumpisms general, unrelated to here, well sort of.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 727Sky

Please list those failed "predictions" and by whom they were made. Lest you be engaging in gish galloping.

Don't be lazy, follow the example of the OP.

Not lazy Page... I provided content and topic to the thread.. The ones who are lazy are the ones who will not or can not view a 4 or 12 minute video that gives names graphs and data to refute claims made by those who push the agenda.. I realize you do not like videos but hard written data.. This is 2017...many communicate by videos now..

I would be willing to bet I am older (maybe not wiser in certain subjects as everyone has their own specialties) but I have gotten with the new fangled way of communicating and have found it entertaining and informative...

People pay money to go see a lecture with slides and a public speaker.. Youtube brings the lecture into your electronic device ... I like it .... sorry if you don't...

a reply to: 727Sky

I would be willing to bet I am older

1953

Got anything relevant?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 727Sky

I would be willing to bet I am older

1953

Got anything relevant?

I was hitting a golf ball over 300 yards when I was your age Page... Now I am lucky to get 280 yards on a good day.. Also as you well know it is not the age but the journey traveled that results in the individual's outlook and knowledge.

I am not anti-climate change (it changes that is what it does) or even global warming... I am anti fiddled data or predictions made and results given with models that have a predetermined result in mind to push an agenda for the NWO crowd.

P.S. Since you were born in 53 then surely you remember all the new ice age crap that was pushed back in the 70s... They, the pushers, were wrong then and there really is a possibility that the new pushers are wrong today.. With fluctuations within normally acceptable known parameters the earth has warmed approximately .5c per 100 years since 1680.. which would be not that hard to figure correct if we are still in the last ice age and coming out of the deep freeze. Some years warmer some colder but that is the trend I have seen reported.. Either way you and I will probably both be dead before the Climate SHTF.

a reply to: 727Sky

I was hitting a golf ball over 300 yards when I was your age Page.

Relevance?

They, the pushers, were wrong then and there really is a possibility that the new pushers are wrong today..

They, the pushers, were in a minority. Similar to the AGW skeptics now.

Either way you and I will probably both be dead before the Climate SHTF.

Yeah. Well. I have offspring.


So, how about, in your own words, those "predictions?"

a reply to: smurfy

I can say that in contrast to what the like of the IPCC would rather you believe, is that there is not a blanket of CO2 around the globe this minute as if a constant, it's different region to region. Sure CO2 is everywhere, but any 'blanket' would be a bit thin in some areas than others.

The IPCC would have you believe NO SUCH THING. The figure that is quoted is the figure from ONE location, Hawaii, chosen because it is far away from human generation of CO2. So the numbers reported from Hawaii are the result of the mixing of the human generated CO2 in the global atmosphere.

If human generated CO2 rises in Hawaii, it is rising even more near the source of that CO2.

By the way, we CAN tell the difference between human generated CO2 and 'natural' CO2 (like say from a volcano) because of the differing proportions of the various isotopes. So when the CO2 count rises, we can tell precisely what part of that rise is human related.

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: intergalactic fire

I read somewhere that there will be an increase in plant growth due to increasing C02 but that the plants will be less nutritious.

Excellent catch. You are quite right.

This article is a bit of a technical summary of the research, but I couldn't find a more readable one right off the bat: Effects of Rising Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide on Plants

Protein concentrations in plant tissues are closely tied to plant nitrogen status. Changes in plant tissue nitrogen are therefore likely to have important effects on species at higher trophic levels. Performance is typically diminished for insect herbivores feeding on plants grown in elevated CO2 (Zvereva & Kozlov 2006). This can lead to increased consumption of plant tissues as herbivores compensate for decreased food quality (Stiling and Cornelissen 2007). Effects on human nutrition are likely as well. In FACE experiments, protein concentrations in grains of wheat, rice and barley, and in potato tubers, are decreased by 5–14% under elevated CO2 (Taub et al. 2008). Crop concentrations of nutritionally important minerals including calcium, magnesium and phosphorus may also be decreased under elevated CO2 (Loladze 2002; Taub & Wang 2008).

originally posted by: Mandroid7
Goog..."CO2 concentration in ambient air ranges from 300-500 parts per million (ppm), with a global atmospheric average of about 400 ppm. If you are growing in a greenhouse or indoors, the CO2 levels will be reduced as the plants use it up during photosynthesis."

1000-1500 ppm is used in grow rooms, for lush plants and up to a 50 percent decrease in total grow time.

I read somewhere that Ice cores have shown high co2 levels back when the earth was covered with lush vegetation before the ice age.

Plants eat it up during the light cycle, then release oxygen during the dark cycle.

Maybe someone a little more sciency can explain why co2 is even an issue, I thought it was heavier than air, so it will sink to lowest point.





Large greenhouse growers buy methane burners to add more CO2 into the greenhouse atmosphere, thereby increasing the yield. The manufacturers advertise on the web.

Rotting vegetation produces CO2, termites produce more CO2 than humans, (BBC America Qi) animals produce CO2, volcanoes produce CO2, volcanic activity has gone up 300% in the last 2,000 years.(in my archives somewhere!) Methane is worse anyway.

a reply to: Phage

Please list those failed "predictions" and by whom they were made. Lest you be engaging in gish galloping.

I did some of his work for him, scanned the beginning of the video and decided to answer his number 8. And then almost finished with a reply and lost it by jumping away from the page by accident. Hmmmph. Anyway a quick reconstruction:

Number 8 asserted that a scientist "predicted" an ice free Arctic Sea by 2000 but in fact the sea ice cover is greater than ever; that polar bear numbers are increasing; that penguin numbers in Antarctica were increasing.

The first part is trivially and obviously false.
1) it wasn't a 'prediction' - it was a description of a worst case scenario based on then current trends - he said "MAY" not "WILL".
2) there are periods of the year when the total area that contains ice is larger than the same time of the year in the past. The 'however' part though is that that ice is basically slush. The total VOLUME of ice is drastically reduced.

PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

Arctic sea ice volume starts the 2017 with a new record. January 2017 sea ice volume was 14,600 km3 , more than 1100 km3 below the previous record for January in 2013. This record is in part the result of anomalously high temperatures throughout the Arctic for November through January discussed here and here. January volume was 47% below the maximum January ice volume in 1979, 33% below the 1979-2016 mean, and about 1.5 standard deviations below the long term trend line.

Finally, Adelie Penguins in the EAST Antarctic are in fact increasing while the Adelies in the West Antarctic are decreasing. To report the eastern colony increase without mentioning the western population decrease is simple fraudulent, psuedo-scientific, propaganda.

Adélie penguin population dynamics: 18 years in a colony

Antarctica’s population of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae), which numbers approximately 2.5 million breeding pairs, closely reflects underlying changes in the lower levels of the food web and the ice environment on which they are dependent. For example, their notable decrease on the Antarctic Peninsula is thought to be a direct response to a reduction in sea ice as a consequence of climate change. Across their distribution of ice free breeding sites along the Antarctic coastline and offshore islands, their population trends vary, with some populations decreasing, some remaining stable and others increasing.

Adélie penguin population almost doubles in East Antarctica

The population increase in East Antarctica contrasts strongly with research showing widespread decreases in Adélie penguin populations on the West Antarctic Peninsula over the same time. “With Adélie penguins there is a delicate balance between too much and too little sea-ice for accessing foraging grounds, capturing prey and resting,” Dr Emmerson said. “It has been proposed that in areas where ice is very extensive, such as East Antarctica, a reduction in sea ice extent will initially benefit the species up to a point, and then further reductions will be detrimental – as we are seeing in West Antarctica.” The increasing Adélie population in East Antarctica also contrasts with declines in East Antarctic emperor penguin populations. “Differing species’ ecologies can result in a range of responses to the same environmental conditions,” Dr Southwell said.

Finally, Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice behave quite differently.

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

Editor’s note: Antarctica and the Arctic are two very different environments: the former is a continent surrounded by ocean, the latter is ocean enclosed by land. As a result, sea ice behaves very differently in the two regions. While the Antarctic sea ice yearly wintertime maximum extent hit record highs from 2012 to 2014 before returning to average levels in 2015, both the Arctic wintertime maximum and its summer minimum extent have been in a sharp decline for the past decades. Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.

I understand that this has all been covered on ATS many times in the past, but fraudsters cannot be allowed to control the conversation. Maybe someone else can address the other points. I gotta get up early in the morning. Nite all.