Forum Replies Created
December 31, 2014 at 4:06 am in reply to: What If The World Can’t Cut Its Carbon Emissions? #17973SnowleopardParticipant
@ GO: Hi. Hoping you are well too. I’ve been busy IRL, and don’t post much these days. But sometimes, when I have time, defenders of the big lies can motivate me!
@ Swanson: Thanks for the warm welcome!
I have two family members who own/manage different greenhouse operations, so have long been aware of the CO2 greening effect. Liebeg’s Law notwithstanding,(and yes surely it imposes limits) I’ve had anecdotal reports from outdoor growers, hay makers and tree trimmers that increased growth is already happening. I’ve also noticed more rapid growth and increased cold tolerance in my own garden. While interesting and perhaps indicative these are “only” anecdotes. I suspect the effect is widespread and easy to confirm by those willing to do the work. One group has done a bit:
It is possible the global temperature drop in the last ice age was less severe than the GISP cores suggest, but there are no pre Eemian ice cores from Greenland, suggesting that the climate cycle is getting colder.
Yes, I made two errors in my Holocene comments, one was a typo, and I meant Holocene to start ~11.7Ky not ~12.7 Ky BP. I also forgot to subtract the pre YD sea level rise from the total. That said, neither error changes the main thrust of the argument. To restate: Both temperature and sea level changed rapidly from their ice age state to the interglacial state, CO2 did not cause these changes. The point of showing the ice core graphs is to illustrate where we are in the climate cycle and how fast things could change back to what has become Earth’s “normal” climate, Increasing CO2 may delay, but will not prevent an eventual rapid return to the ice age state.December 30, 2014 at 6:28 pm in reply to: What If The World Can’t Cut Its Carbon Emissions? #17965SnowleopardParticipant
“Many people, including more than a few prominent politicians, accept that global warming must be limited to no more than two degrees C above the pre-industrial mean, or a little more than one degree C above where we are now, to avoid dangerous interference with the Earth’s climate. Let’s assume these people are right, that the 2C threshold really does represent the climatic equivalent of a cliff and that bad things will happen if we drive off it”
This is indeed what has happened. Politicians made assumptions then hired “scientists” and created the IPCC to “validate” their assumptions. The so called consensus (a political, not scientific action) was in place even before the validation research began. Then a massive psyop was launched to program the sheeple. Many scientists wanting to do research to falsify the assumptions were denied funding and sometimes lost their positions.
Let’s withdraw the assumption(s).
We are indeed in a period of global warming, aka the Holocene interglacial, which started ~12.7ky BP with a “catastrophic” temperature rise of 8-11C in ~300yr and caused a sea level rise of ~400 ft.
Until ~3ky BP the average temperature of the Holocene was 2C above current. Until recently that period was called the Climactic Optimum. Since then it has been cooling and by most accounts we are nearing the end of this interglacial period:
If it were possible to continue that graphic to the present, it would show a small new spike above the trendline called “modern warming” and the beginning of a decline.
CO2 is often used in commercial greenhouses. It does not raise the greenhouse temperature but does increase plant growth and temperature tolerance. Optimum levels are 700-1000ppm depending on crop.
So bottom line, if we do indeed double atmospheric CO2 and it caused a 1.+C rise in average atmospheric temperature (doubtful) it would have the possible effect of delaying the oncoming ice age and the certain effect of increasing plant growth and temperature tolerance.