Jump to content
drumbo

Split from Climate Change

Recommended Posts

It is an important issue. Carbon dioxide is important for life to flourish. Right now we have too little carbon dioxide. Watch the video below by the scientist William Happer. William Happer is an American physicist who has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy. He is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, and a long-term member of the JASON advisory group, where he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. From 1991 to 1993, Happer served as director of the Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of the George H.W. Bush administration. In 2018, Happer joined the National Security Council of the Trump Administration.

https://youtu.be/U-9UlF8hkhs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, drumbo said:

Right now we have too little carbon dioxide.

Too little for what?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
 

Quote

The negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.

The best way to put this in perspective is to compare the positives of global warming to the negatives

See link for the comparisons and below video for more. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, drumbo said:

It is an important issue. Carbon dioxide is important for life to flourish. Right now we have too little carbon dioxide.

Define “too little”

Quote

Watch the video below by the scientist William Happer.

Summarize the points you want to discuss. It’s 50 minutes long.

 

Quote

William Happer is an American physicist who has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy. He is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, and a long-term member of the JASON advisory group, where he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. From 1991 to 1993, Happer served as director of the Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of the George H.W. Bush administration.

Notably, not a climatologist or biologist.

 

Quote

In 2018, Happer joined the National Security Council of the Trump Administration.

‘nuff said

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, drumbo said:

Watch the video below by the scientist William Happer.

From WIKI
"In 2018, Happer, who is not a climate scientist and who rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, joined the National Security Council of the Trump Administration to counter evidence..."
Why would I watch that?

 

4 hours ago, drumbo said:

Right now we have too little carbon dioxide.

What harm is the "lack" of carbon dioxide doing?

On 6/16/2020 at 7:55 AM, FishandChips said:

I am really confused now one guy was telling me its a hoax fabricated by socialists and feminists. What are your thoughts ?

Who is more likely to be able to fund a conspiracy, the hippies or the oil companies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

What harm is the "lack" of carbon dioxide doing?

From the first google result for the search "minimum CO2 levels for plant growth"

      http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/climate.html

"He accepts that most of the rise of CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm is caused by human CO2 emissions."
"Even at today's concentration of 400 ppm plants are relatively starved for nutrition. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is about 5 times higher."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MigL said:

From the first google result for the search "minimum CO2 levels for plant growth"

      http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/climate.html

"He accepts that most of the rise of CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm is caused by human CO2 emissions."
"Even at today's concentration of 400 ppm plants are relatively starved for nutrition. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is about 5 times higher."

That’s not a full answer. Is “optimum for plant growth“ the goal? Why should that be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MigL said:

From the first google result for the search "minimum CO2 levels for plant growth"

      http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/climate.html

"He accepts that most of the rise of CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm is caused by human CO2 emissions."
"Even at today's concentration of 400 ppm plants are relatively starved for nutrition. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is about 5 times higher."

Odd that he left Greenpeace because he didn't like their 'belief that humans are the enemies of the earth' and yet he is more concerned about the success of plants rather than the negative effects on humans. 

And, of course, he is ignoring the effect of increased temperature and other climatic changes (too much or too little rain, depending on location, for example) on important food crops. Rice yields, for example, are reduced by relatively small increases in temperature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this thread about? Is it about climate change (as the title suggests) or about plant ability to make sugars (as I understand the first post)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

What is this thread about? Is it about climate change (as the title suggests) or about plant ability to make sugars (as I understand the first post)?

Or is it just a nice illustration of Argument from Authority as a fallacy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s not a full answer. Is “optimum for plant growth“ the goal? Why should that be?

No, it isn't.
I just attempted to answer John's question.
Apparently the minimum level of CO2 needed for plant growth is approx. 150 ppm.

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Odd that he left Greenpeace because he didn't like their 'belief that humans are the enemies of the earth' and yet he is more concerned about the success of plants rather than the negative effects on humans. 

Yet we are trying to control AGW for the benefit of humans.
The flora and fauna of this world was much more abundant and diverse when CO2 levels were much higher, as were temperatures.

So do you consider us 'enemies of the Earth' ?
If we are, then AGW is a good thing, as it will reduce our numbers or even wipe us out.
If we are not then reducing AGW is to our benefit, at the expense of the world's ecosystem.
So I don't see how his position is conflicted; he is not advocating for higher CO2 levels, just stating facts about plant growth.

 

PS  This thread need a new title, as it has little to do with climate change.

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, MigL said:

So I don't see how his position is conflicted; he is not advocating for higher CO2 levels, just stating facts about plant growth.

Really? "I submit that much of society has been collectively misled into believing that global CO2 and temperature are too high when the opposite is true for both."

(Nice crossover the with racial language thread here as he preempts accusations of "denialism" by claiming that is an ad-hominem.) 

44 minutes ago, MigL said:

If we are not then reducing AGW is to our benefit, at the expense of the world's ecosystem.

It is not at the expense of the ecosystem. The current ecosystem has evolved to (something close to) the current (well, recent past) CO2 levels. Global warming (plus ocean acidification[1] due to CO2) is a contributing fact in, for example, the dying-off of corals.

[1] "It's not 'acidification', it's 'less-alkalinisation'" they say. What, so it doesn't matter then?

44 minutes ago, MigL said:

PS  This thread need a new title, as it has little to do with climate change.

I gave it a more accurate title, initially. Then decided I should be polite.

The title is "Split from ..." because it is off-topic (and pretty nonsensical).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

No, it isn't.
I just attempted to answer John's question.
Apparently the minimum level of CO2 needed for plant growth is approx. 150 ppm.

John’s question was what harm is being done. 

 

Quote

Yet we are trying to control AGW for the benefit of humans.

We caused it, so...yes.

 

 

By phrasing it is “too high” Happer is re-framing the issue, rather than rebutting anything. The CO2 concentration is higher than in pre-industrial times, and that has an effect on climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MigL said:

PS  This thread need a new title, as it has little to do with climate change.

Yep, it does not make sense to split a thread and retain the same title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Strange said:

(Nice crossover the with racial language thread here as he preempts accusations of "denialism" by claiming that is an ad-hominem.) 

That was uncalled for.
I suggest you step down off that high horse, Strange.
This thread has little to do with climate change, and is about levels of CO2 required for plant growth.
If I'm mistaken, then why was it split off ???

If you go looking for 'confrontation' as a means to signal your virtue, you always find it ( even when it isn't there )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, swansont said:

John’s question was what harm is being done. 

Who is John ?

Was he a baptist?

20 hours ago, swansont said:

Define “too little”

I agree

7 hours ago, swansont said:
18 hours ago, MigL said:

From the first google result for the search "minimum CO2 levels for plant growth"

      http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/climate.html

"He accepts that most of the rise of CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm is caused by human CO2 emissions."
"Even at today's concentration of 400 ppm plants are relatively starved for nutrition. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is about 5 times higher."

That’s not a full answer. Is “optimum for plant growth“ the goal? Why should that be?

None of us here actively participating (including by video) are paleobiologists or paleoclimatologists.

Perhaps we should all read what they have to say ?

Carbon dioxide is (apparantly) not a limiting a factor.

Plants did not delvelop from the oceans and land margins for half a billion years.

When they did, plants had no leaves.

In fact plant development did not blossom until plants developed solar panels (leaves).

This was followed by  a rapid development of plants in a period of declining carbond dioxide levels.

Again apparantly the whole process is controlled firstly by the KNOX gene and subsequently by the HIC gene.
(MY note there is probably more to it than this)

Reference

The Emerald Planet

David Beerling.

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, swansont said:

By phrasing it is “too high” Happer is re-framing the issue, rather than rebutting anything. The CO2 concentration is higher than in pre-industrial times, and that has an effect on climate.

There is another opinion. Not concentration  increase in CO2 causes warming, but rather warming increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, due to the fact that the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with increasing temperature, i.e. by heating of the global ocean dissolved CO2 goes into the atmosphere.

 

Perform a simple experiment, pour carbonated water into a glass and heat it slowly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

There is another opinion. Not concentration  increase in CO2 causes warming, but rather warming increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, due to the fact that the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with increasing temperature, i.e. by heating of the global ocean dissolved CO2 goes into the atmosphere.

 

Perform a simple experiment, pour carbonated water into a glass and heat it slowly.

This is science, so not opinion. These effects can be quantified. Where is the science that backs this up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

William Happer is a world renowned Physicist. He is not some internet shmuck with an ill-founded opinion..
He has worked on optical pumping mechanisms used in atomic clocks ( which Swansont may be familiar with ).
If he has an opinion, I'm sure considerable thought has gone into it. I may not agree with it, but I would be an idiot ( according to INow :) ), or completely blindered ( biased, intolerant of other opinions, prejudiced, insert whichever you want ) if I didn't read it.
And while he may be 'guilty by association' ( with D Trump ), that does not automatically make him 'wrong by association'.

Similarly Patrick Moore, the author of the link I posted, might not be a paleobiologists or paleoclimatologists, as Studiot noted, but he does have a PhD in ecology. Again, not some internet shmuck, so I will take his opinion under consideration as to minimum levels of CO2 needed by current flora ( not the flora of previous eras, which was vastly different ) and possibly do more research on my own, if I have any doubts.
I will not cover my eyes and refuse to even read it.

I'm not saying anyone has to agree with their opinions because I'm not invoking their 'authority'.
Just the fact that when they form an opinion, considerable thought goes into it.

 

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

These effects can be quantified. Where is the science that backs this up?

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja01861a033#

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think claiming CO2 decline is a current existential risk and we need mass burning of fossil fuels to save us is about on par with the "global warming is saving the world from the next ice age (glaciation)" argument; they sound convincing to people who don't want to have to deal with global warming (and don't care if the science is right or wrong) or otherwise have no clue. I am not convinced that Happer himself has done any serious research to reach that conclusion or even necessarily believes it - he doesn't accept climate science (and that is telling) and/or the predicted consequences of rising CO2 levels. Perhaps he feels that his physics background puts his guesses ahead of the expert knowledge of "lesser" scientists.

His putting his oar in is a statement of political position, not science. A bit like Dyson.

There is no Loss of CO2 crisis - there wasn't at the start of the Industrial revolution and we have a lot more CO2 now. It looks like an attempt to raise up a false crisis in mockery of the climate crisis, by people convinced that the climate crisis is a fake crisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, MigL said:

William Happer is a world renowned Physicist. He is not some internet shmuck with an ill-founded opinion..
He has worked on optical pumping mechanisms used in atomic clocks ( which Swansont may be familiar with )

And Linus Pauling won Nobel prizes, but that doesn’t mean his opinions on vitamin C were valid. This is simply argument from authority 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Another partial answer. Solubility is one step, but the claim wasn’t limited to saying CO2 is soluble in water. The important part - by far - is yet to be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Yep, it does not make sense to split a thread and retain the same title.

!

Moderator Note

That's just the way we do things round here. Sometimes we add a more descriptive prefix. Sometimes we can't be bothered. Especially when it is a junk thread like this one.

But feel free to start a thread in the appropriate forum if you want to suggest a change.

 
3 hours ago, MigL said:

That was uncalled for.
I suggest you step down off that high horse, Strange.
This thread has little to do with climate change, and is about levels of CO2 required for plant growth.
If I'm mistaken, then why was it split off ???

If you go looking for 'confrontation' as a means to signal your virtue, you always find it ( even when it isn't there )

I'm not sure why you think it was confrontational. I was just amused by the fact that people who deny climate change (which I admit is not the case here) reject the title "denialist".  It was just a side comment, so let's not waste time on it.

Yes, maybe plants would be happier with higher levels of CO2. And would eventually adapt to the higher temperatures and more arid and/or wetter conditions. But many animal species would be forced into extinction by the ecological changes. And there would be vast amounts of human suffering. As I say, an odd stance from someone who complained that Greenpeace as too "anti-humanist".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again, Ken brings the argument back to global warming and climate change.
So why did we split off this thread ???

And Swansont asks for CO2 solubility data relative to temperature, but what he's obviously after is the 'chicken or the egg' scenario posed by SergUpstart, as to which comes first. I simply gave solubility data as you requested.
The real answer to your real question would be a temperature plot of the last 500 years, superimposed over a CO2 level plot during the same period, and note which leads and which trails.

Strange is unequivocal in his disdain for this thread, and can't be bothered as he considers it 'junk' !
 

There are plenty of scientific articles ( if you can be bothered to look ) that relate plant growth rates to CO2 levels.
None of them have anything to do with you guys getting so 'stressed' about what it means for climate change science.

Addendum:
I note that my consideration of these scientists' opinions were labelled 'arguments from authority', previously by Strange.
Yet John ( not the Baptist, Studiot ) previously dismissed W Happer's opinions because of his association with D Trump.

22 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

"In 2018, Happer, who is not a climate scientist and who rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, joined the National Security Council of the Trump Administration to counter evidence..."
Why would I watch that?


Also note that Swansont works for the Navy, whose Commander in Chief happens to also be D Trump.
I may have disagreements with Swansont's opinion on occasion but I always consider it; and I would never even think of dismissing his science.
What makes me wrong for giving W Happer the same consideration ?

 

As to our previous 'confrontation', Strange, forgive my forceful language.
You caught me at a bad time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MigL said:

 

And Swansont asks for CO2 solubility data relative to temperature, but what he's obviously after is the 'chicken or the egg' scenario posed by SergUpstart, as to which comes first. I simply gave solubility data as you requested.

Where did I ask for solubility data?

The claim was that the excess CO2 came from the ocean as it warmed. I asked for the science that backed that up. Solubility is only a small part of that answer. One needs to show that there was enough CO2 in the water to begin with, and that warming would release it. Also that humans aren’t releasing enough CO2 into the atmosphere to account for the increase.

 

41 minutes ago, MigL said:


The real answer to your real question would be a temperature plot of the last 500 years, superimposed over a CO2 level plot during the same period, and note which leads and which trails.

That would be insufficient.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, swansont said:

That would be insufficient.

Why would it be insufficient to explain which is the causal factor ?
( I imagine that is what SergUpstart was alluding to )
Please explain.

Or don't, as that belongs in a thread about climate change, not a thread about optimal CO2 concentrations for plant growth.

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, MigL said:

belongs in a thread about climate change, not a thread about optimal CO2 concentrations for plant growth.

That’s of course ONE interpretation of what this thread (the post which led to its split) was about. 

Another possible path is what context to consider when discussing AGW and optimal CO2 levels... do we focus more on humans and other life on the planet we’re destroying at a remarkable rate, or do we focus solely on plant life and their needs?

Given that the post was introduced into a thread about AGW, the latter seems a better choice (tho my first choice is he was just a climate denying troll trying to get people who normally get along together quite well to turn against each other over spurious bullshit). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.