Global heating pushes tropical regions towards limits of human livability

[tecoyah]

If climate deniers are correct then we have nothing to worry about, if not then we cannot do anything about it anyway....here...hold my beer.

 

[Lord of Planar]

This is a gross oversimplification. As has been noted increasing CO2 is, essentially a food or "fertilizer" for the plants meaning that if the added CO2 did NOTHING to the climate it might result in improved crop yields. But virtually NO ONE believes that added CO2 won't affect the climate. It WILL lead to more warming (which can either negatively or positively affect the crop yeild), it WILL LIKELY also alter patterns of precipitation in various regions, meaning that added CO2 could very well lead to decreased water availability for the plants.

The classic example is: put the plants in a greenhouse, don't add water, allow the temp to skyrocket, just pump up the CO2 and see how quickly the plants die.

CO2 might alter precipitation pasterns, but this is just an unproven hypothesis. Regardless, natural cycles and responses are always in play as well, so it’s impossible to state if CO2 is a problem or not when we do see pattern changes. CO2 isn’t like a wind farm, which offers added resistance to the wind flow, therefore, increasing the likelihood of the wind changing direction, by choosing a lesser resistive path.

Allowing the temperature in a greenhouse to get too warm would-be from neglect. Not from CO2. I’ll bet adding CO2 in a greenhouse adds no extra radiative forcing, If CO2 has such an effect inside a greenhouse, it would be insignificant, as it is the glass of the greenhouse is opaque to the longwave already. CO2 and other similar vibrational gas molecules are called greenhouse gasses because the act like a greenhouse.

 

[istodolez]

CO2 might alter precipitation pasterns, but this is just an unproven hypothesis.

Changing climates can result in changing precipitation patterns. This is PROVEN THROUGHOUT HISTORY.

Regardless, natural cycles and responses are always in play as well, so it’s impossible to state if CO2 is a problem or not when we do see pattern changes.

It is impossible to say that CO2 can ONLY have beneficial effects on plant growth for the reasons already stated. Ceteris paribus is not our guarantee.

Allowing the temperature in a greenhouse to get too warm would-be from neglect. Not from CO2.

NOR DID I SAY IT WAS. I was making an example of UNCONTROLLED VARIABLES which COULD LEAD to additional CO2 not helping at all. The obvious conclusion is that added CO2 MAY in our real-world climate result in climate change including but not limited to increased temperatures. Increased temperatures can kill a plant even if you give it lots of "food".

 

[Lord of Planar]

Changing climates can result in changing precipitation patterns. This is PROVEN THROUGHOUT HISTORY.

Yes, but that isn't quite what you said.

It is impossible to say that CO2 can ONLY have beneficial effects on plant growth for the reasons already stated. Ceteris paribus is not our guarantee.

True. However, we have seen that the planet was a very lush planet the millions years back with more CO2.

NOR DID I SAY IT WAS. I was making an example of UNCONTROLLED VARIABLES which COULD LEAD to additional CO2 not helping at all. The obvious conclusion is that added CO2 MAY in our real-world climate result in climate change including but not limited to increased temperatures. Increased temperatures can kill a plant even if you give it lots of "food".

Yet, the implication was there for someone who doesn't know better.

 

[istodolez]

Yes, but that isn't quite what you said.

I didn't realize I needed to state the obvious.

True. However, we have seen that the planet was a very lush planet the millions years back with more CO2.

That doesn't mean that more CO2 will lead to a lusher planet. But let's assume it does. That does not mean that it will lead to a planet that has our society as part of it. Lush vegetation is NOT ALL EDIBLE VEGETATION. Also millions of years ago different plants were around.

It is irrational to point at a time in earth's history where parts of the planet had lush vegetation and we had higher CO2 to simply assume that would be someplace WE could live.

Yet, the implication was there for someone who doesn't know better.

Sorry, if you don't read for detail you will miss important points and subtlety. That is why I attempt to be technically robust in my points. I cannot help the lack of reading skills of those who read my posts.

 

[longview]

This is a gross oversimplification. As has been noted increasing CO2 is, essentially a food or "fertilizer" for the plants meaning that if the added CO2 did NOTHING to the climate it might result in improved crop yields. But virtually NO ONE believes that added CO2 won't affect the climate. It WILL lead to more warming (which can either negatively or positively affect the crop yeild), it WILL LIKELY also alter patterns of precipitation in various regions, meaning that added CO2 could very well lead to decreased water availability for the plants.

The classic example is: put the plants in a greenhouse, don't add water, allow the temp to skyrocket, just pump up the CO2 and see how quickly the plants die.

CO2 does cause some warming and helps plants grow, but plant to some extent like warmer weather as well, and so do better.
The only study that I read that said that AGW was harming crops, was basically saying that because plants were growing so much faster,
the crops had less time to pick up nutrients from the soil. Forget the fact that the same amount of land is producing more crops.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I didn't realize I needed to state the obvious.

LOL… You call Longview’s post to be a “gross oversimplification,” then claim you “state the obvious.” You are just too funny. LOL…

That doesn't mean that more CO2 will lead to a lusher planet. But let's assume it does. That does not mean that it will lead to a planet that has our society as part of it. Lush vegetation is NOT ALL EDIBLE VEGETATION. Also millions of years ago different plants were around.

It is irrational to point at a time in earth's history where parts of the planet had lush vegetation and we had higher CO2 to simply assume that would be someplace WE could live.

It’s as rational as your perspective that CO2 will be a problem.

Sorry, if you don't read for detail you will miss important points and subtlety. That is why I attempt to be technically robust in my points. I cannot help the lack of reading skills of those who read my posts.

But you bring in a silly hyperpolarized example of letting a greenhouse get too hot, and your wording lets people assume it’s due to the extra CO2 in it.

 

[istodolez]

LOL… You call Longview’s post to be a “gross oversimplification,” then claim you “state the obvious.” You are just too funny. LOL…

You forgot to define your words in that sentence. Please define every single word that isn't within quotes.

But you bring in a silly hyperpolarized example of letting a greenhouse get too hot, and your wording lets people assume it’s due to the extra CO2 in it.

You wish to excoriate people for "imprecise use of language" yet you don't seem capable of reading precisely.

That is not my problem.

I don't want to discuss this any further with a junior high school kid on a computer. Thanks.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You forgot to define your words in that sentence. Please define every single word that isn't within quotes.



You wish to excoriate people for "imprecise use of language" yet you don't seem capable of reading precisely.

That is not my problem.

I don't want to discuss this any further with a junior high school kid on a computer. Thanks.

I'm pointing out your biased narrative.

 

[istodolez]

I'm pointing out your biased narrative.

Again, not interested in debating junior high schoolers. Thanks

 

[Lord of Planar]

Again, not interested in debating junior high schoolers. Thanks

And there you go being a bully again. Belittling me.

 

[istodolez]

And there you go being a bully again. Belittling me.

I just got tired of being belittled.

That’s what the golden rule is all about. You’ll figure it out when you get older.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I just got tired of being belittled.

That’s what the golden rule is all about. You’ll figure it out when you get older.

But it appears you are speaking out of spite, rather than constructive criticism. Besides, I didn't say anything belittling. I said you had a biased narrative. So please don't school me on the golden rule when you are the one violating it.

 

[istodolez]

But it appears you are speaking out of spite, rather than constructive criticism.

How is it constructive to constantly attack someone by slyly questioning their bona fides? How exactly?

If you want me to believe you are an adult...act like one.

 

[Lord of Planar]

How is it constructive to constantly attack someone by slyly questioning their bona fides? How exactly?

If you want me to believe you are an adult...act like one.

When is the last time I did that? Is it right to continually attack a person and say its because of something they did in the past... For how many years do you think that's appropriate? What is the expiration on that?

It is you who are not acting like an adult here, and everyone is seeing that!

 

[istodolez]

When is the last time I did that?

Oh, did you forget? It must be hard making excuses for yourself all the time. That won't be helpful when you grow up and get a job.

For how many years do you think that's appropriate? What is the expiration on that?

You needing to assuage your guilt? Sorry, can't do that for you right now. Ask me later. I'm still stinging from the long period of personal attacks.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm still stinging from the better part of a year of attacks.

LOL... And when you attacked me many moons back, you said I must have thin skin, or something to that effect when I retaliated.

LOL...

Funny, how every thing you claim on my part, seems to be your projections.

 

[watsup]

And there you go being a bully again. Belittling me.

There is only one person who us a bully and who belittles you with posts. Got a mirror handy?

 

[watsup]

CO2 might alter precipitation pasterns, but this is just an unproven hypothesis. Regardless, natural cycles and responses are always in play as well, so it’s impossible to state if CO2 is a problem or not when we do see pattern changes. CO2 isn’t like a wind farm, which offers added resistance to the wind flow, therefore, increasing the likelihood of the wind changing direction, by choosing a lesser resistive path.

Allowing the temperature in a greenhouse to get too warm would-be from neglect. Not from CO2. I’ll bet adding CO2 in a greenhouse adds no extra radiative forcing, If CO2 has such an effect inside a greenhouse, it would be insignificant, as it is the glass of the greenhouse is opaque to the longwave already. CO2 and other similar vibrational gas molecules are called greenhouse gasses because the act like a greenhouse.

These are denier sentiments. If you don't with to be termed a denier, quit making denier statements.

 

[Lord of Planar]

These are denier sentiments. If you don't with to be termed a denier, quit making denier statements.

LOL... This, coming from a follower of the AGW cult?

LOL...

Denier statements.

LOL...

Any time anyone says something in conflict with your religion of AGW is a denier. You don't see how similar your viewpoints and responses are to a religious cult. Do you. You can't even acknowledge that my wording is that of open mindedness.

Yes, I am a heretic regarding the cult of AGW.

 

[watsup]

LOL... This, coming from a follower of the AGW cult?

LOL...

Denier statements.

LOL...

Any time anyone says something in conflict with your religion of AGW is a denier. You don't see how similar your viewpoints and responses are to a religious cult. Do you. You can't even acknowledge that my wording is that of open mindedness.

Yes, I am a heretic regarding the cult of AGW.

"Cult". Yet another quite common DENIER TALKING POINT.
Thanks for proving my statements.

 

[watsup]

LOL... This, coming from a follower of the AGW cult?

LOL...

Denier statements.

LOL...

Any time anyone says something in conflict with your religion of AGW is a denier. You don't see how similar your viewpoints and responses are to a religious cult. Do you. You can't even acknowledge that my wording is that of open mindedness.

Yes, I am a heretic regarding the cult of AGW.

I imagine that thousands of climate scientists on a worldwide basis would not be actually insulted as much as they would get a chuckle out of you calling them a "cult". So go for it. Those who understand the basis and the existential threat of AGW know who the real "cult" is. The deniers.

 

[Lord of Planar]

"Cult". Yet another quite common DENIER TALKING POINT.
Thanks for proving my statements.

Maybe if you stopped calling me a denier, I wouldn't call you a cultist!

Treat people as you wish to be treated. I'm only treating you like you want to be treated....

 

[watsup]

Maybe if you stopped calling me a denier, I wouldn't call you a cultist!

Treat people as you wish to be treated. I'm only treating you like you want to be treated....

Another right winger standard: lame excuses.
I'm quite sure that I am neither the first nor the last person that you will refer to as an AGW cultist, so quit acting like it is individual to me. And I refer to those who deny the solid science of AGW as ascertained by climate scientists on a worldwide basis as deniers. I don't apologize for that. If the shoe fits, just wear it and quit complaining.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Climate change have already a negative effect on farming and the effects can get a lot worse.

Rapid global heating is hurting farm productivity, study finds

Research shows rising temperatures since 1960s have acted as handbrake to agricultural yield of crops and livestock

www.theguardian.com

Climate change has cut Australian farm profits by 22% a year over past 20 years, report says

Agriculture department report says changes in climate since 2000 have reduced revenue of cropping farms by $1.1bn a year

www.theguardian.com

Brazil faces crops loss due to climate change and unsustainable farming practices

Brazil should prepare for a future heating of 3-6C and more unpredictable weather, which could severely affect its position as one of the world’s largest exporters of food. Scientists from the Brazilian Panel on Climate Change (PBMC) have predicted that the South American nation might experience...

blueandgreentomorrow.com