how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[IanC]

Simpler for me? By using inappropriate examples that use incorrect mathematics and exaggerated precision?

I am all for making simplifications that clarify underlying first principles but that is not what you are doing.

 

[PMZ]

Nothing to sneeze at: Climate change is making your allergies worse

"“The link between rising carbon dioxide and pollen is pretty clear,” says Lewis Ziska, a weed ecologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a top researcher in the field.

His lab tests show that pollen production rises along with carbon dioxide. It doubled from 5 grams to 10 grams per plant when CO2 in the atmosphere rose from 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1900 to 370 ppm in 2000. He expects it could double again, to 20 grams, by 2075 if carbon emissions continue to climb. The world’s CO2 concentration is about 400 ppm."

Nothing to sneeze at: Climate change is making your allergies worse | Grist

Let's see plants grow faster with CO2, and therefore pollinating plants will occur faster as well... Wow, you guys are real geniuses for that one... Bet they spent billions on research for that... ROFL

"Let's see plants grow faster with CO2"

Only if CO2 is the limiting factor. If you expose plants limited by water, or sunshine, or critical nutrients, as examples, giving them more CO2 won't do a thing.

 

[PMZ]

Simpler for me? By using inappropriate examples that use incorrect mathematics and exaggerated precision?

I am all for making simplifications that clarify underlying first principles but that is not what you are doing.

I think that what you keep bumping up against is that "skeptic" is a non-objective perspective. Being skeptical about something that's true just runs you around in circles.

 

[IanC]

Simpler for me? By usinug inappropriate examples that use incorrect mathematics and exaggerated precision?

I am all for making simplifications that clarify underlying first principles but that is not what you are doing.

I think that what you keep bumping up against is that "skeptic" is a non-objective perspective. Being skeptical about something that's true just runs you around in circles.

I am a likewarmer actually and all the areas that I contest have lots of room for alternate conclusions. CAGW is built in layers, the first level is reasonable but quickly turns into unsupported and exaggerated conclusions.

 

[gslack]

Nothing to sneeze at: Climate change is making your allergies worse

"“The link between rising carbon dioxide and pollen is pretty clear,” says Lewis Ziska, a weed ecologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a top researcher in the field.

His lab tests show that pollen production rises along with carbon dioxide. It doubled from 5 grams to 10 grams per plant when CO2 in the atmosphere rose from 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1900 to 370 ppm in 2000. He expects it could double again, to 20 grams, by 2075 if carbon emissions continue to climb. The world’s CO2 concentration is about 400 ppm."

Nothing to sneeze at: Climate change is making your allergies worse | Grist

Let's see plants grow faster with CO2, and therefore pollinating plants will occur faster as well... Wow, you guys are real geniuses for that one... Bet they spent billions on research for that... ROFL

"Let's see plants grow faster with CO2"

Only if CO2 is the limiting factor. If you expose plants limited by water, or sunshine, or critical nutrients, as examples, giving them more CO2 won't do a thing.

LOL, and where did I say to eliminate anything?

ROFL, you get caught being ignorant again and you try and save face with making up my claim for me?

You got caught buying into another BS scare tactic in the media, you should be used to it by now...

 

[westwall]

Nothing to sneeze at: Climate change is making your allergies worse

"“The link between rising carbon dioxide and pollen is pretty clear,” says Lewis Ziska, a weed ecologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a top researcher in the field.

His lab tests show that pollen production rises along with carbon dioxide. It doubled from 5 grams to 10 grams per plant when CO2 in the atmosphere rose from 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1900 to 370 ppm in 2000. He expects it could double again, to 20 grams, by 2075 if carbon emissions continue to climb. The world’s CO2 concentration is about 400 ppm."

Nothing to sneeze at: Climate change is making your allergies worse | Grist

Let's see plants grow faster with CO2, and therefore pollinating plants will occur faster as well... Wow, you guys are real geniuses for that one... Bet they spent billions on research for that... ROFL

"Let's see plants grow faster with CO2"

Only if CO2 is the limiting factor. If you expose plants limited by water, or sunshine, or critical nutrients, as examples, giving them more CO2 won't do a thing.

Actually, if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere they need less water. You really need to do some basic research there dude. Your ignorance is showing yet again...

 

[westwall]

Simpler for me? By using inappropriate examples that use incorrect mathematics and exaggerated precision?

I am all for making simplifications that clarify underlying first principles but that is not what you are doing.

I think that what you keep bumping up against is that "skeptic" is a non-objective perspective. Being skeptical about something that's true just runs you around in circles.

Wrong...

 

[PMZ]

Clearly those who choose to believe political media over science are reaching the point where there are no defenses to support their choice. They've been able to guess at a few questions that needed tracking down and science has done that. Truth always overwhelms lies in time.

The Flat Earth Society, at this point in time, merely provides background noise for the doers that are building mankind's future.

Now that they've reached scientific, engineering, and business irrelevance, more noise merely whittles away at their political relevance.

And that, is a good thing.

 

[westwall]

Clearly those who choose to believe political media over science are reaching the point where there are no defenses to support their choice. They've been able to guess at a few questions that needed tracking down and science has done that. Truth always overwhelms lies in time.

The Flat Earth Society, at this point in time, merely provides background noise for the doers that are building mankind's future.

Now that they've reached scientific, engineering, and business irrelevance, more noise merely whittles away at their political irrelevance.

And that, is a good thing.

Wrong again....

 

[IanC]

Clearly those who choose to believe political media over science are reaching the point where there are no defenses to support their choice. They've been able to guess at a few questions that needed tracking down and science has done that. Truth always overwhelms lies in time.

The Flat Earth Society, at this point in time, merely provides background noise for the doers that are building mankind's future.

Now that they've reached scientific, engineering, and business irrelevance, more noise merely whittles away at their political irrelevance.

And that, is a good thing.

Haven't you heard? The Flat Earth Society fully backs CAGW! Hahahaha.

Solar wind, etc has failed miserably even with massive subsidies.

Even with draconian cuts to energy use the projected cuts to temperature rise are minuscule.

And from that you conclude the problem is solved? Luckily there is no serious problem except for the trillions of dollars people like you want to waste.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's see plants grow faster with CO2, and therefore pollinating plants will occur faster as well... Wow, you guys are real geniuses for that one... Bet they spent billions on research for that... ROFL

"Let's see plants grow faster with CO2"

Only if CO2 is the limiting factor. If you expose plants limited by water, or sunshine, or critical nutrients, as examples, giving them more CO2 won't do a thing.

Actually, if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere they need less water. You really need to do some basic research there dude. Your ignorance is showing yet again...

Literally thousands of laboratory and field experiments have conclusively demonstrated that enriching the air with carbon dioxide stimulates the growth and development of nearly all plants. They have also revealed that higher-than-normal CO2 concentrations dramatically enhance the efficiency with which plants utilize water, sometimes as much as doubling it in response to a doubling of the air's CO2 content. These CO2-induced improvements typically lead to the development of more extensive and active root systems, enabling plants to more thoroughly explore larger volumes of soil in search of the things they need. Consequently, even in soils lacking sufficient water and nutrients for good growth at today's CO2 concentrations, plants exposed to the elevated atmospheric CO2 levels expected in the future generally show remarkable increases in vegetative productivity, which should enable them to successfully colonize low-rainfall areas that are presently too dry to support more than isolated patches of desert vegetation.

Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 also enable plants to better withstand the growth-retarding effects of various environmental stresses, including soil salinity, air pollution, high and low air temperatures, and air-borne and soil-borne plant pathogens. In fact, atmospheric CO2 enrichment can actually mean the difference between life and death for vegetation growing in extremely stressful circumstances. In light of these facts, it is not surprising that Earth's natural and managed ecosystems have already benefited immensely from the increase in atmospheric CO2 that has accompanied the progression of the Industrial Revolution; and they will further prosper from future CO2 increases.
Plants Need CO2 - Carbon Dioxide Emissions - Global Warming Climate Change Facts

Which goes back to arguments made many pages ago. Some scientists are contemplating the benefits of increased CO2 such as possible reversal of desertification processes and boosts in new plant growth and healthier rain forests. And while the plants feed on CO2, what do they emit? Pure oxygen. In fact, photosynthesis is the ONLY source of breathable oxygen we have on the planet.

These are things the AGW religionists don't want to talk about though.

 

[PMZ]

Clearly those who choose to believe political media over science are reaching the point where there are no defenses to support their choice. They've been able to guess at a few questions that needed tracking down and science has done that. Truth always overwhelms lies in time.

The Flat Earth Society, at this point in time, merely provides background noise for the doers that are building mankind's future.

Now that they've reached scientific, engineering, and business irrelevance, more noise merely whittles away at their political irrelevance.

And that, is a good thing.

Haven't you heard? The Flat Earth Society fully backs CAGW! Hahahaha.

Solar wind, etc has failed miserably even with massive subsidies.

Even with draconian cuts to energy use the projected cuts to temperature rise are minuscule.

And from that you conclude the problem is solved? Luckily there is no serious problem except for the trillions of dollars people like you want to waste.

What I conclude is that the problem is being solved. Despite the efforts of the Flat Earth Society.

"Being solved" is a big increase in the odds of a sustainable future over doing nothing.

I don't expect it to follow any more of a no unsuccessful experiments path than any other technology. Learning curves are a fact of engineering.

We learn valuable things from every unsuccessful experiment, as well as every successful one.

What we don't learn a thing from is doing nothing.

 

[PMZ]

"Let's see plants grow faster with CO2"

Only if CO2 is the limiting factor. If you expose plants limited by water, or sunshine, or critical nutrients, as examples, giving them more CO2 won't do a thing.

Actually, if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere they need less water. You really need to do some basic research there dude. Your ignorance is showing yet again...

Literally thousands of laboratory and field experiments have conclusively demonstrated that enriching the air with carbon dioxide stimulates the growth and development of nearly all plants. They have also revealed that higher-than-normal CO2 concentrations dramatically enhance the efficiency with which plants utilize water, sometimes as much as doubling it in response to a doubling of the air's CO2 content. These CO2-induced improvements typically lead to the development of more extensive and active root systems, enabling plants to more thoroughly explore larger volumes of soil in search of the things they need. Consequently, even in soils lacking sufficient water and nutrients for good growth at today's CO2 concentrations, plants exposed to the elevated atmospheric CO2 levels expected in the future generally show remarkable increases in vegetative productivity, which should enable them to successfully colonize low-rainfall areas that are presently too dry to support more than isolated patches of desert vegetation.

Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 also enable plants to better withstand the growth-retarding effects of various environmental stresses, including soil salinity, air pollution, high and low air temperatures, and air-borne and soil-borne plant pathogens. In fact, atmospheric CO2 enrichment can actually mean the difference between life and death for vegetation growing in extremely stressful circumstances. In light of these facts, it is not surprising that Earth's natural and managed ecosystems have already benefited immensely from the increase in atmospheric CO2 that has accompanied the progression of the Industrial Revolution; and they will further prosper from future CO2 increases.
Plants Need CO2 - Carbon Dioxide Emissions - Global Warming Climate Change Facts

Which goes back to arguments made many pages ago. Some scientists are contemplating the benefits of increased CO2 such as possible reversal of desertification processes and boosts in new plant growth and healthier rain forests. And while the plants feed on CO2, what do they emit? Pure oxygen. In fact, photosynthesis is the ONLY source of breathable oxygen we have on the planet.

These are things the AGW religionists don't want to talk about though.

The major intellectual differences between climate realists and climate regressives is captured in the phrase "all things are connected".

The consideration of one thing at a time is easy, but inconclusive, and "inconclusive" is the goal of climate regressives.

Climate regressives root for negative feedbacks and boo positive feedbacks.

Realists accept all things provably true, and reject things provably false, and then investigate how things are connected.

Nobody that I know believes that AGW won't benefit some of us. Our point is that it will deprive more of us, of what is taken for granted today.

Perhaps the reason people adapt climate regression is their belief that they, personally, will be among the favored. Or, perhaps more likely, that's what they are told by their cult media.

 

[itfitzme]

Simpler for me? *By using inappropriate examples that use incorrect mathematics and exaggerated precision?

I am all for making simplifications that clarify underlying first principles but that is not what you are doing.

*You are quite welcome to demonstrate your superior math skills. *I've been trying to engage you, anyone, for that matter.

*But so far, all you've been able to muster are vague and generalize statements that amout to "You're wrong because I said so." The difference this makes is obvious. *

I emailed a couple of people re the apparent linear trend on temp v CO2 and got clear, succinct, and detailed resonces within an hour. *They included complete linear regressions with r^2 and p-values as well as the basic reference to the radiation physics that leads the modelers to utilize the ln function. *Everyone with the full knowledge of fundamentals gets why the in atmosphere measures present themselves as linearly related and makes no quibble re a linear function. *The difference is that of seeing the math and theory as tools or as some authority. *It's all just tools in the toolbox.

To the contrary, you present nothing of substance. *You simply make vague and generalized objections, complaining about things like the accuracy amd precision of Mauna Loa CO2 measures without actually knowing what the precisionmof the measures are. *If you want to claim they aren't good enough, you have to demonstrate with specific value, how they aren't good enough? *But you can't because you can be sure that Keeling went through extra-ordinary effort to assure that the Mauna Loa measurements accurately and precisely represent the global changes in atmospheric CO2.

Quick, in basic terms, what does the derivative and the integral represent? What's the derivative of a*ln(x)? *What is the slope at 350 and 400? *How does the difference between the variation in slope over the range 350 to 400 compare to the range from 1 to 51? *What does this tell us about the regression of temp to CO2 for the range of CO2 as measured in the atmosphere?

*That you can't predict temp anomoly doesn't mean no one else can. Your lack of knowledge doesn't mean everyone else lacks the knowledge. *That you can't only means that you can't.

 

[PMZ]

Simpler for me? *By using inappropriate examples that use incorrect mathematics and exaggerated precision?

I am all for making simplifications that clarify underlying first principles but that is not what you are doing.

*You are quite welcome to demonstrate your superior math skills. *I've been trying to engage you, anyone, for that matter.

*But so far, all you've been able to muster are vague and generalize statements that amout to "You're wrong because I said so." The difference this makes is obvious. *

I emailed a couple of people re the apparent linear trend on temp v CO2 and got clear, succinct, and detailed resonces within an hour. *They included complete linear regressions with r^2 and p-values as well as the basic reference to the radiation physics that leads the modelers to utilize the ln function. *Everyone with the full knowledge of fundamentals gets why the in atmosphere measures present themselves as linearly related and makes no quibble re a linear function. *The difference is that of seeing the math and theory as tools or as some authority. *It's all just tools in the toolbox.

To the contrary, you present nothing of substance. *You simply make vague and generalized objections, complaining about things like the accuracy amd precision of Mauna Loa CO2 measures without actually knowing what the precisionmof the measures are. *If you want to claim they aren't good enough, you have to demonstrate with specific value, how they aren't good enough? *But you can't because you can be sure that Keeling went through extra-ordinary effort to assure that the Mauna Loa measurements accurately and precisely represent the global changes in atmospheric CO2.

Quick, in basic terms, what does the derivative and the integral represent? What's the derivative of a*ln(x)? *What is the slope at 350 and 400? *How does the difference between the variation in slope over the range 350 to 400 compare to the range from 1 to 51? *What does this tell us about the regression of temp to CO2 for the range of CO2 as measured in the atmosphere?

*That you can't predict temp anomoly doesn't mean no one else can. Your lack of knowledge doesn't mean everyone else lacks the knowledge. *That you can't only means that you can't.

Without any math at all, it seems intuitively obvious that the odds of a photon colliding with a carbon dioxide molecule is directly proportional to the number of them per unit volume. No?

A good pool table analogy?

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder how much the quadruplets are being paid to spam every point in this thread and ensure that no flow of discussion of any issue can take place?

 

[westwall]

Actually, if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere they need less water. You really need to do some basic research there dude. Your ignorance is showing yet again...

Literally thousands of laboratory and field experiments have conclusively demonstrated that enriching the air with carbon dioxide stimulates the growth and development of nearly all plants. They have also revealed that higher-than-normal CO2 concentrations dramatically enhance the efficiency with which plants utilize water, sometimes as much as doubling it in response to a doubling of the air's CO2 content. These CO2-induced improvements typically lead to the development of more extensive and active root systems, enabling plants to more thoroughly explore larger volumes of soil in search of the things they need. Consequently, even in soils lacking sufficient water and nutrients for good growth at today's CO2 concentrations, plants exposed to the elevated atmospheric CO2 levels expected in the future generally show remarkable increases in vegetative productivity, which should enable them to successfully colonize low-rainfall areas that are presently too dry to support more than isolated patches of desert vegetation.

Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 also enable plants to better withstand the growth-retarding effects of various environmental stresses, including soil salinity, air pollution, high and low air temperatures, and air-borne and soil-borne plant pathogens. In fact, atmospheric CO2 enrichment can actually mean the difference between life and death for vegetation growing in extremely stressful circumstances. In light of these facts, it is not surprising that Earth's natural and managed ecosystems have already benefited immensely from the increase in atmospheric CO2 that has accompanied the progression of the Industrial Revolution; and they will further prosper from future CO2 increases.
Plants Need CO2 - Carbon Dioxide Emissions - Global Warming Climate Change Facts

Which goes back to arguments made many pages ago. Some scientists are contemplating the benefits of increased CO2 such as possible reversal of desertification processes and boosts in new plant growth and healthier rain forests. And while the plants feed on CO2, what do they emit? Pure oxygen. In fact, photosynthesis is the ONLY source of breathable oxygen we have on the planet.

These are things the AGW religionists don't want to talk about though.

The major intellectual differences between climate realists and climate regressives is captured in the phrase "all things are connected".

The consideration of one thing at a time is easy, but inconclusive, and "inconclusive" is the goal of climate regressives.

Climate regressives root for negative feedbacks and boo positive feedbacks.

Realists accept all things provably true, and reject things provably false, and then investigate how things are connected.

Nobody that I know believes that AGW won't benefit some of us. Our point is that it will deprive more of us, of what is taken for granted today.

Perhaps the reason people adapt climate regression is their belief that they, personally, will be among the favored. Or, perhaps more likely, that's what they are told by their cult media.

Wrong...

 

[westwall]

I wonder how much the quadruplets are being paid to spam every point in this thread and ensure that no flow of discussion of any issue can take place?

It says a lot about how effective we have been that the fraudsters are forced to resort to that tactic.

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy!

 

[IanC]

Simpler for me? *By using inappropriate examples that use incorrect mathematics and exaggerated precision?

I am all for making simplifications that clarify underlying first principles but that is not what you are doing.

*You are quite welcome to demonstrate your superior math skills. *I've been trying to engage you, anyone, for that matter.

*But so far, all you've been able to muster are vague and generalize statements that amout to "You're wrong because I said so." The difference this makes is obvious. *

I emailed a couple of people re the apparent linear trend on temp v CO2 and got clear, succinct, and detailed resonces within an hour. *They included complete linear regressions with r^2 and p-values as well as the basic reference to the radiation physics that leads the modelers to utilize the ln function. *Everyone with the full knowledge of fundamentals gets why the in atmosphere measures present themselves as linearly related and makes no quibble re a linear function. *The difference is that of seeing the math and theory as tools or as some authority. *It's all just tools in the toolbox.

To the contrary, you present nothing of substance. *You simply make vague and generalized objections, complaining about things like the accuracy amd precision of Mauna Loa CO2 measures without actually knowing what the precisionmof the measures are. *If you want to claim they aren't good enough, you have to demonstrate with specific value, how they aren't good enough? *But you can't because you can be sure that Keeling went through extra-ordinary effort to assure that the Mauna Loa measurements accurately and precisely represent the global changes in atmospheric CO2.

Quick, in basic terms, what does the derivative and the integral represent? What's the derivative of a*ln(x)? *What is the slope at 350 and 400? *How does the difference between the variation in slope over the range 350 to 400 compare to the range from 1 to 51? *What does this tell us about the regression of temp to CO2 for the range of CO2 as measured in the atmosphere?

*That you can't predict temp anomoly doesn't mean no one else can. Your lack of knowledge doesn't mean everyone else lacks the knowledge. *That you can't only means that you can't.

the slope of the curve is high between 1-50 ppm, with multiple doublings and a large impact on the radiative properties of the atmosphere. the slope of the curve between 351-400 is much flatter, with only a fraction of a doubling, and it has much less impact on radiative properties. the curve at 801-850 is even flatter and less significant. why are you making my point for me? I have already said that using a linear approximation at current levels will give you a reasonable figure, as long as you don't stray too far away from the current value. unfortunately you are claiming that it is a linear function, and also claiming exaggerated precision out to 3 or 4 sig figs.

I am sorry that I didn't more fully explain about CO2 measurements at Hawaii. I have no particular problem with them using Hawaii, or the precision or accuracy. what I have a problem with is that one 'number' is used as a realistic value for all areas of the earth. the variability of CO2 is much larger than implied, and the effect of CO2 also varies depending on latitude and temperature. it is another 'one size fits all' number like average global temperature, which loses a lot of information by being generic.

 

[IanC]

Simpler for me? *By using inappropriate examples that use incorrect mathematics and exaggerated precision?

I am all for making simplifications that clarify underlying first principles but that is not what you are doing.

*You are quite welcome to demonstrate your superior math skills. *I've been trying to engage you, anyone, for that matter.

*But so far, all you've been able to muster are vague and generalize statements that amout to "You're wrong because I said so." The difference this makes is obvious. *

I emailed a couple of people re the apparent linear trend on temp v CO2 and got clear, succinct, and detailed resonces within an hour. *They included complete linear regressions with r^2 and p-values as well as the basic reference to the radiation physics that leads the modelers to utilize the ln function. *Everyone with the full knowledge of fundamentals gets why the in atmosphere measures present themselves as linearly related and makes no quibble re a linear function. *The difference is that of seeing the math and theory as tools or as some authority. *It's all just tools in the toolbox.

To the contrary, you present nothing of substance. *You simply make vague and generalized objections, complaining about things like the accuracy amd precision of Mauna Loa CO2 measures without actually knowing what the precisionmof the measures are. *If you want to claim they aren't good enough, you have to demonstrate with specific value, how they aren't good enough? *But you can't because you can be sure that Keeling went through extra-ordinary effort to assure that the Mauna Loa measurements accurately and precisely represent the global changes in atmospheric CO2.

Quick, in basic terms, what does the derivative and the integral represent? What's the derivative of a*ln(x)? *What is the slope at 350 and 400? *How does the difference between the variation in slope over the range 350 to 400 compare to the range from 1 to 51? *What does this tell us about the regression of temp to CO2 for the range of CO2 as measured in the atmosphere?

*That you can't predict temp anomoly doesn't mean no one else can. Your lack of knowledge doesn't mean everyone else lacks the knowledge. *That you can't only means that you can't.

Without any math at all, it seems intuitively obvious that the odds of a photon colliding with a carbon dioxide molecule is directly proportional to the number of them per unit volume. No?

A good pool table analogy?

you have a naïve understanding of how CO2 works. the main radiative component is how certain wavelengths of IR get dispersed rather than escape directly into space. it has been completely dispersed after 10 meters, it cannot get any more dispersed than completely dispersed. that is why it is a logarithmic function rather than linear. while further CO2increases still have ever smaller impacts on the escape of radiation it is the CO2 closest to the surface that has the major impact.