The world goes Green

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

2 minutes ago, olofscience said:

It's a classic technique (brenthutch uses it a lot) - making up something you didn't say, then arguing against it.

It's their go-to technique because without it, it's very easy to demolish their reasoning. Like getting her to give up on greenhouse gases on Neptune and Uranus, then she had to make crazier and more convoluted theories just to support her flimsy Venus argument. I really want to follow this and see where the crazy leads to

Oh yeah. I know it.

The only way they can win an argument with anyone is to make up the side that they are arguing against.

Classic gaslighting. 

[brenthutch 383]

8 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Oh yeah. I know it.

The only way they can win an argument with anyone is to make up the side that they are arguing against.

Classic gaslighting. 

How is this gaslighting?
”Global terrestrial gross primary production (GPP)—the rate of carbon fixation by photosynthesis—is estimated to have risen by (31 ± 5)% since 1900, but the relative contributions of different putative drivers to this increase are not well known. Here we identify the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration as the dominant driver.”

The argument I am making is that CO2 is causing plants to grow and deserts to shrink. What is your position?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

9 & 14. 

Maybe 13 too.

 

[BIGUN 1,050]

10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The argument I am making is that CO2 is causing plants to grow and deserts to shrink. What is your position?

It's called the CO2 fertilization effect (CFE). Which is not considered in the current carbon cycle models used to predict future "Long-Term" climate change. More carbon + enough rain will equate to a pattern of growth in the short-term, but in the long-term, less rain and CFE goes away.

[brenthutch 383]

14 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

It's called the CO2 fertilization effect (CFE). Which is not considered in the current carbon cycle models used to predict future "Long-Term" climate change. More carbon + enough rain will equate to a pattern of growth in the short-term, but in the long-term, less rain and CFE goes away.

The models say what ever their creators want them to say.  Observation says the earth is getting greener and deserts are shrinking. (Contrary to the dire predictions).  BTW plants are more efficient with their water in a higher CO2 environment.

”As the air's CO2 content rises, many plants reduce their stomatal apertures, because with more CO2 in the air, they don't need to open their stomates as wide as they do at lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations to allow for sufficient inward diffusion of CO2 for use in photosynthesis.  As a result, plants growing in CO2-enriched air typically exhibit reduced rates of transpirational water loss, smaller productivity losses attributable to the indiscriminate uptake of aerial pollutants, and increased water-use efficiency.”

[kallend 1,621]

44 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

It's called the CO2 fertilization effect (CFE). Which is not considered in the current carbon cycle models used to predict future "Long-Term" climate change. More carbon + enough rain will equate to a pattern of growth in the short-term, but in the long-term, less rain and CFE goes away.

"In the long run we are all dead";  someone famous from Cambridge.

[gowlerk 1,903]

4 minutes ago, kallend said:

"In the long run we are all dead";  someone famous from Cambridge.

And yet we carry on as if anything matters.........

Edited March 1, 2021 by gowlerk

[billvon 2,384]

On 2/27/2021 at 12:11 PM, Zoe Phin said:

"Here's a simple one."

This experiment doesn't show IR lamp getting hotter. 

Correct.  Nor is the Earth warming up making the Sun hotter.  The very same Sun makes a planet with more CO2 (the bottle on the left) warmer than the same planet but with less CO2 (the bottle on the right.)  That's because CO2 absorbs infrared.

See how easy that is?

[BIGUN 1,050]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

BTW plants are more efficient with their water in a higher CO2 environment.

Which is exactly what I said. Except, if the carbon continues to go up, CFE goes down. 

ETA: Brother, there is a difference between weather, climate change and global warming. 

Edited March 1, 2021 by BIGUN

[brenthutch 383]

40 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

ETA: Brother, there is a difference between weather, climate change and global warming. 

Yes I know.  Weather is what is happening now, climate change is the cooling and heating of the planet over time.  All of that is true.  What I am saying is, that on the whole, higher CO2 and slightly warmer temperatures have been good for humanity.  Standard of living has gone up, life expectancy has gone up, deaths from climate related disasters has plummeted >95% in the last century and food production is at an all time high.  
I just don’t get the whole “the world is literally going to end in nine years” nonsense.  

[olofscience 420]

29 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I just don’t get the whole “the world is literally going to end in nine years” nonsense.  

Again, nobody is saying that. Stop making things up.

[brenthutch 383]

7 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Again, nobody is saying that. Stop making things up.

“The scientists told us three years ago we had 12 years to avert the worst consequences of climate crisis. We are now three years gone, so we have nine years left," Kerry said.”

That would be John Kerry the US’s climate envoy.

Just to be clear he said “the worst consequences” not just consequences but the WORST ones.

Edited March 1, 2021 by brenthutch

[olofscience 420]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Just to be clear he said “the worst consequences” not just consequences but the WORST ones.

Rephrasing that as "literally the end of the world" is pretty dishonest though.

[brenthutch 383]

9 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Rephrasing that as "literally the end of the world" is pretty dishonest though.

How about 

“The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?”

AOC

And that what Kerry was referring to.

Factual, not dishonest.

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by brenthutch

[olofscience 420]

10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

How about 

“The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?”

AOC

And that what Kerry was referring to.

Factual, not dishonest.

 

So, to argue your point on SC, what you say is what you say, but what every other person in the world says is attributed to our side?

You'll have an unlimited pool of examples, so if you want to debate me, then you'll have to agree just to draw arguments from what *I* say, not what AOC says.

Edited March 2, 2021 by olofscience

[brenthutch 383]

27 minutes ago, olofscience said:

So, to argue your point on SC, what you say is what you say, but what every other person in the world says is attributed to our side?

You'll have an unlimited pool of examples, so if you want to debate me, then you'll have to agree just to draw arguments from what *I* say, not what AOC says.

Then you can’t claim “nobody is saying that”
Nobody gives a toss about what you or I have to say.  What counts are the people in the position to spend/waste trillions dollars have to say.  That said, just how much of an existential threat do you think a few ppm of CO2 is?

Edited March 2, 2021 by brenthutch

[olofscience 420]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

That said, just how much of an existential threat do you think a few ppm of CO2 is?

Me personally? Not much.

[billvon 2,384]

46 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

just how much of an existential threat do you think a few ppm of CO2 is?

To me?  Very little.  

200ppm of CO2 is very much an existential threat to people around the globe.  We will hit that in about 15 years if people like you have your way.

[gowlerk 1,903]

Just now, billvon said:

To me?  Very little.  

200ppm of CO2 is very much an existential threat to people around the globe.  We will hit that in about 15 years if people like you have your way.

This is the one area where you are wrong and he is right. It is the one valid point he makes. It is not an existential threat and it is constantly overstated. It is a real threat, and we don't really understand the true extent of effects that it will have. But the battle with deniers has caused everyone to move to extremes to defend their beliefs. The exaggeration and the attempts to tie almost all weather events to global warming gives them the opening they need to attack. There is no reason not to believe we are warming the world. And there is no reason to believe that warming is an existential threat. And there is no reason not to understand that it will be damaging and that we would be wise to limit the damage. 

[brenthutch 383]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

To me?  Very little.  

200ppm of CO2 is very much an existential threat to people around the globe.  We will hit that in about 15 years if people like you have your way.

That is what you said 15 years ago.  BTW people like me will have their way much more than the people like you will have theirs.  The EU doesn’t matter, the US doesn’t matter.  The real game is in the developing world — China, India, and Africa.  If those countries thought CO2 was an existential threat they might do something more than build FF fired power plants.  They obviously made the calculation that poverty is more of a threat than plant food.

 

[billvon 2,384]

5 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

 And there is no reason to believe that warming is an existential threat. 

Climate change is now killing about 150,000 people a year due to extreme temperatures, changes in transmission patterns for waterborne and insect borne diseases, and loss of arable land.  This will get worse as time goes on.

Which is pretty much the definition of an existential threat to people so affected.

[olofscience 420]

14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

That is what you said 15 years ago.  BTW people like me will have their way much more than the people like you will have theirs.  The EU doesn’t matter, the US doesn’t matter.  The real game is in the developing world — China, India, and Africa.  If those countries thought CO2 was an existential threat they might do something more than build FF fired power plants.  They obviously made the calculation that poverty is more of a threat than plant food.

 

Do you have any new arguments this time round?

This sounds like the same old, same old.

[brenthutch 383]

6 minutes ago, billvon said:

Climate change is now killing about 150,000 people a year due to extreme temperatures, changes in transmission patterns for waterborne and insect borne diseases, and loss of arable land.  This will get worse as time goes on.

Which is pretty much the definition of an existential threat to people so affected.

Bill, climate related deaths are a fraction of what they were a hundred years.  Down more than 95%.  Cold kills more than heat and we produce more food than ever.  Deaths from insect borne diseases are a fraction of what they used to be.  Where are you getting your information?

[gowlerk 1,903]

16 minutes ago, billvon said:

Climate change is now killing about 150,000 people a year due to extreme temperatures, changes in transmission patterns for waterborne and insect borne diseases, and loss of arable land.  This will get worse as time goes on.

Which is pretty much the definition of an existential threat to people so affected.

Yet the world wide average life expectancy has more than doubled since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The same event that began the rise in CO2. Without our carbon emitting activities most of those 150K extra deaths would not happen because those people would never have been born. It is complicated. All I'm saying is that there is now a tendency to blame everything on warming and to say that the sky is falling. I'm not blaming you in particular. But there is a lot of hysterical words starting to appear in the public sphere.

 

Edited because I missed the word not and I blamed Billvon!

Edited March 2, 2021 by gowlerk

[brenthutch 383]

3 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Do you have any new arguments this time round?

This sounds like the same old, same old.

When one is correct, there is no need to modify one’s argument.