The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Carbon dioxide is good for plants, no?

Well, there's a side effect on the ability to absorb minerals.
Basically the more CO2, the less minerals in the plants, making them less nutritional.

https://elifesciences.org/articles/02245

We've already covered this question here in earlier posts.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If global warming paused or slowed might mean CO2 is not the main driving force behind climate change.
But the believers will refuse to even consider that as a possibility.

Explosive volcanic eruptions can not only mitigate global warming,they can drop mean average global temperatures down,all the way to the Equator,and bring on an ice age.
In the early 1970s,there was every indication that we were on the precipice of the next glaciation event.And it's why there was serious talk of Global Cooling.
Sulfate aerosols from coal-fired power plants ,suspended in the atmosphere today,are holding global temperature down a whole degree.If we shutdown coal,in a couple of months Earth will be at 60-F.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

aerohead — Sophistiopaths?

The conversation moves fast it was yesterday I posted this:

If the pilot plant is scalable to industrial levels then — hey, cheap gas!



We're all lucky they didn't push the button. Specifically, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

Off-topic:

So they take air,which is 99.98% not carbon,and combine it with hydrogen from the air,which is the most expensive fuel on Earth to derive,and using renewable energy,create a synthetic hydrocarbon which is cost-competitive which conventional fuels?
I'm not getting their arithmetic.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I have such little time each week on the computer,it would be a big favor if you would either re-post the data,or give a link.Otherwise,I just slip further behind.

Is it a self-imposed limitation on internet, or do you not have internet available at your abode. I can get you a laptop if you just don't have a computer.

Originally Posted by aerohead

You might consider those who died from rapidly-intensifying storms which 'came out of nowhere' recently.
With less anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,additional heat which made it into the Gulf of Mexico,might have dissipated into space,leaving cooler Gulf waters.Since it didn't,there was more available heat energy for hurricanes like Michael and Yutu.

Some say that we have benefited from global warming overall. Certainly we have benefited since the globe has been warming 14,000 years ago. Many more die of cold than from excessive heat.

The trick is determining what the ideal temperature is, all things considered, and then determining if keeping it near that temperature is feasible or beneficial given what we would have to sacrifice to achieve that temperature.

I don't dismiss the possibility/probability that some storms are more violent due to warming, but is it worse than the alternative of being too cold?

I tend to believe we have benefited from the warming, even to this day, especially given some predict continued net benefit until 2080, at which point we will have net negative consequences.

[oil pan 4]

I was watching the weather channel today and they said there hasn't been an EF4 or higher tornado in the US for about a year and a half.
That's the longest recorded EF4 break since they have been able to keep track of them.
So much for their being more severe storms with more stronger tornadoes due to so call man made climate change.
Another record breaking event for 2018, I think it's called mountain sky resort in VT is open, the earliest opening in its 64 year history.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

We'll all annex one another and end up with Star Fleet Command in charge of the whole planet.

I believe we will unfortunately pass through a big stair step down after the peak of the stroboscopic carbon pulse. Any new one world technocracy will have to rise from the remnants to come into being since there is no ability to sense any need to choose it before hand. The next societies after the crash will have significantly less energy and technology. Permaculture intentional communities eating locally grown food processed with muscle and firewood will become the living standard once again. Simplify now and beat the rush.

[redpoint5]

I had never heard of the criticism of the hockey stick before, or of Michael Mann. Turns out there is some controversy out there, and both Canadian and US courts dropped Mann's defamation of character lawsuits when he failed to supply his source climate data during the discovery phase of the lawsuit. There was a claim that it was proprietary information, though that is disputed because Mann obtained the data while working with government money, meaning all of the research should be public information.

I've not dived very deep into this yet, but I'm wondering if this has already been discussed in the past 3,500 posts? It seems strange that 1. The lawsuits were dropped due to failing to produce data during discovery, which implies something unflattering to the case might exist, and 2. that Mr. Mann retains his reputation as an unbiased climate change scientist. It seems both outcomes are incompatible.

[sendler]

There are other hockey sticks that are undeniable.
.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

[redpoint5]

...and as I've said before, it's not really interesting to debate if the warming is naturally occuring or not, as the answer of what to do about it would be the same.

It is interesting to me that the hockey stick has received criticism from scientists though, especially since it's in pop culture movies like "An Inconvenient Truth". Even if the overall results are the same, why was the data massaged in such a way that it didn't show the most accurate portrayal of climate change that it could?

[NeilBlanchard]

I think there is no scientific controversy about Mann's graph - it is accurate and all the data is in the public domain.