CO2 emitted due to the the consumption of fossil fuels is what they cry about while they are throwing red paint on people wearing fur or leather. Turns out like everything else in their one step thinking they're f__king wrong again. It's what they deserve for putting a billionaire fat ass traitor Algore in as their science officer.
The myth that CO2 is a pollutant is patently false. CO2 is in our every breath, in the carbonated sodas and waters that we drink and in the dry ice that helps us keep our food cold and safe.
People are confusing smog, carbon monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas CO2 in our atmosphere.
We breathe in 385 parts per million and then exhale 40,000 parts per million with no ill effects. We breathe the 40,000 ppm into victims needing CPR and it does not cause them to die!
The monitoring systems in U.S. submarines do not provide an alert until CO2 levels reach 8,000 ppm which is higher that natural CO2 levels have been on Earth in the last 540 million years.
CO2 is a great airborne fertilizer which, as its concentrations rise, causes additional GREEN plant growth and causes plants to need less water. Without CO2 there would be no life (food) on Earth. The 100 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has caused an average increase in worldwide plant growth of 12 percent and of 18 percent for trees.
When we look back at conservative concerns they can all be backed up. Hindsight is 20-20 and they have played out just as they were recorded in the past. Let's don't forget the many liberal versions of the sky is falling:
Umm, this is just further scientific support about how man-induced factors effect our planet's ecology and climate, which in the global warming discussion, adds further validity to the claim the blatant correlation between MAN-MADE emission of fossil fuels and higher global temperatures and melting polar ice suggests a causal relationship. In other words, these findings further stigmatize the concept of natural planetary cycles as it pertains to explaining phenomena such as rising temperatures, melting ice caps and rising sea levels.
Huh? Consciousness can be completely unaffected well up to 10,000 ppm. Asphyxiation doesn't start happening until 5ish%. At 8000 ppm, a hell of a lot is going to depend on the other 992,000 parts and how they are inhaled.
I'm missing the point, I guess. That is, how does this counter AGW concerns? I don't think anyone, including alarmists, thought otherwise. 12% additional growth in whatever vegetation survives development is proof of what, exactly? That plants will be able to scrub out rising CO2, neutralizing possible AGW? 12% additional growth (and therefore additional CO2 need and uptake) seems like a rather low cap.
Are we going to start fertilizing the entire vegetative natural world (to provide other growth limiting nutrients) in order to exceed 12%? Exceed it by how much, exactly? Discounting that idea, how long before 12% (and more ) of present vegetative bio mass is paved over in future development, negating the roughly 12% increase in growth?
I'm thinking the Navy where nitrogen narcosis AND oxygen deprivation are a consideration. We're/you're talking hypercapnia, right?
Maybe in Europe, happens in garages much more often on this side of the pond.
Again, hypercapnia, right? Not at 0.8% (again, assuming other concentrations are appropriate) and I say this as someone who has huffed dry ice, spent time in/around greenhouses and has probably been exposed to excessive amounts of CO2 acutely and chronically.
Edit: We're not confusing you; 8.000,00/1.000.000,00 = 0,8%, right?
It won't. Most people, literally, get more/less concerned with the weather. Nothing except a future that doesn't come to pass will assuage all concerns.
Jim Hansen is crazy, that makes it hard to know what he's thinking. However, he asserts that it's possible that you could get feed forward loops to generate a runaway greenhouse effect here on Earth. Assuming the runaway greenhouse effect isn't only in Jim Hansen's mind (which it pretty much is) this is a pretty clear indication that there are feedback mechanisms that weren't or aren't known to have been at play on Venus and that these feedback mechanisms are largely controlled by the descendants of the organisms that brought about the oxygen catastrophe.
It's almost like, since the little ice age (and possibly long before), the climate has been too hostile for the majority of life and now it's returning to a climate like the one that originally produced life and fostered it's growth. Like the plants couldn't liberate the carbon they had fixed that had become trapped underground... and we're just a pawn (OK, maybe two pawns, a bishop at the most) in global homeostatic mechanisms.
Your talking about a 12% upswing in the fixation side of a fix/emit cycle that is orders of magnitude larger than what humans emit. If humans emit 10 tonnes of CO2 every year and the biosphere emits and then fixes 1000 tonnes, it'd be a pretty big deal if the biosphere suddenly started emitting and fixing 1100 tonnes or emitting 1000 and fixing 1100.
Nope, grazing animals will do that, just like they did before. We'll probably eat more of them in the process, but that remains to be seen.
Given the leveling of population growth, the advance in industrial farming technology to the point that we need less land to produce the same amount of food (and less fuel to farm less land...), and the fact that our highway systems are becoming obsolete as transportation becomes more specialized and advanced, I gotta ask, are you upset that we're probably gonna survive and/or avert a 'climate catastrophe' or do you just dislike data (or even just ideas) that might run against popular notions?
That's just it, what does this particular data run against? It's a concession that CO2 ( a known greenhouse gas) levels ARE rising in the atmosphere. I don't recall the details, but in a bio 101 class I'd read about an experiment where introduced CO2 levels produced additional growth in a patch of land, relative to surrounding land. AS the text made clear, well great, the vegetation experienced some additional growth by making use of some portion of the CO2 that was experimentally introduced. And yes, this larger biomass would then use more CO2. However, that's rather limited by the absence of nutrients that aren't in turn introduced in surplus.
Noting this increase in plant growth due to rising CO2 levels requires noting that a known greenhouse gas, CO2, is increasing.
It seems that the implication being made is something along the lines of, "See, plants will keep up with rising CO2, therefore neutralizing a warming effect."
I wasn't aware that scientific discussion of AGW involved extinction of the human race. So,
The 'climate catastrophe' you also aimed towards me is more like "who is going to get screwed, and who is going to benefit." My understanding of serious climate change discussion doesn't include the last remaining human beings surviving Mad Max style. It's more like some regions will benefit from the change in climate (crops and livestock, etc.) while others could very well lose entire industries (crops and livestock, etc.)
Then we have the problem of wild habitats become more and isolated. Like ever smaller islands, increasingly further apart. How much wild life, plant and animal, will survive the migrations which will be necessary with a changing climate, when the habitats to sustain them on their journey are increasingly broken up and isolated?
Nature has a way to balance things out. Lets not forget that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past yet the planet somehow managed to survive. Turning deserts into forests is probably not a bad thing.
Few deny this. More deny that it's predominantly man-made or that it's causatively linked to warming. More still think the increase and the source are irrelevant to what, if anything, we should actually do. And this is true even within climate science community. A number climate scientists assert that we would see a larger payoff and a much more effective near-term and possibly long term temperature drop if we focused on reducing methane concentrations and ignore CO2.
Which runs counter to some of the IPCC's assertions and, because of the 'tribal' or 'cargo cult' methods in which models are constructed, tested, and used in the climate community, there's no real way to know which particular parts of which models this runs against.
Sorry, I can't keep track of all the various flavors of 'consensus' and who subscribes to what. At least with Catholics, the faithful know what their stance should be. Certainly, several of the most vocal proponents of AGW theories have asserted or implied, if not out and out stated as much.
Again, one part of the "consensus' serious discussion" involves the sea levels potentially rising and making for some potentially uncomfortable real estate situations while other parts of the discussion make reference to turning the Earth into Venus in the next few centuries.
Some parts of our world have been screwed, crops and livestock-wise, since the beginning of civilization all the way up to present day. Some have been screwed right up until we gained the advanced technology and infrastructure that came along with the industrial revolution. This data actually suggests that some of those regions that have classically been screwed might benefit from the changing climate without the technology and infrastructure.
Sigh, I knew I was wrong.
Nothing will assuage all concerns. Once we get passed AGW, we'll worry about the climbing population or, since that's leveling off, the collapsing or aging population, or go back to worrying about the demise of the Y-chromosome...
What you asserted above, the fractionation of habitat with intolerable desert migrations, 1. doesn't agree with or isn't in any way asserted by 'consensus' and 2. is sorta wrong, historically, biologically and geographically. 3. We (and technically the ecosystem we brought with us) were far more destructive to species during our colonial/empirial days than we are today. Outside of Australia, on continental mainlands of the world, the number of species driven extinct since well before the industrial revolution is on par with the number of species we've saved and is well below the number we've saved, 're-introduced', and modified or created.
Lastly, I gotta ask again, what is the particular fear about fewer species?