Is "Consensus" shifting?

[SH3RL0CK]

I could agree if the changes being suggested gave no benefits other than mitigating AGW effects, but I think moving immediately to more sustainable energy sources and pollution reduction makes sense even if our AGW fears are out of proportion, even though the evidence suggests they are not. I'm not heavily swayed by the arguments about "throwing trillions of dollars away" when many of the changes proposed will mean more responsible use of resources no matter what happens to the global climate.

 

I support the immediate implementation because many of the changes should have taken place 30 years ago but were suppressed by lobbyists and never had their fair chance at shifting market stances.

 

 

I think we are pretty much in agreeement here. I've never been against responsible use of our resources which would include the immediate use of renewable energy (such as wind power). CaptainPanic makes a real good point too regarding the economics.

 

Edit to include/clarify:

 

I do have serious questions regarding the effectiveness of carbon trading (it sounds expensive and ineffective to me). And then there are some of the crazy ideas that are out there such as artificially introducing sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere to introduce an artificial cooling. Or pulling CO2 out of the air to pump underground (just where will the energy for this come from? Its better to stop CO2 emissions at the source, energy production).

[Sisyphus]

I could agree if the changes being suggested gave no benefits other than mitigating AGW effects, but I think moving immediately to more sustainable energy sources and pollution reduction makes sense even if our AGW fears are out of proportion, even though the evidence suggests they are not. I'm not heavily swayed by the arguments about "throwing trillions of dollars away" when many of the changes proposed will mean more responsible use of resources no matter what happens to the global climate.

 

I support the immediate implementation because many of the changes should have taken place 30 years ago but were suppressed by lobbyists and never had their fair chance at shifting market stances.

 

This is my feeling as well. AGW is the big fear, but it's not like most of the steps taken to mitigate it would be money in the toilet if it weren't true. Clean, sustainable, domestic energy is a primary goal, and I would support it as very high priority even if there were no such thing as global warming. And while I certainly sympathize with a desire for more concrete information before we do something drastic (and what would that be?), time is a factor here. What evidence would be satisfactory? How long will that take to confirm? How much damage would be done in the meantime? Etc.

[SH3RL0CK]

Everyone, including myself (in case I did not make myself clear) seems to be in agreement that clean energy is a good thing regardless of GW concerns. And I agree we should immediately implement them. As one example, I think we could have and should have had hybrid electric cars (and the corresponding 50+ mpg) 30 or 40 years ago which is just that much more pollution and wasted gasoline. I think the technology to do so existed then. Had we taken this one step during the oil crisis of the 1970's who knows how much more efficient these cars would be today after an additional 30 years of development?

[jryan]

jryan,

 

I too am skeptical (which I will discuss in more detail below) about the global warming theory. But it is undeniable that today's climate is warmer than it was in the past. To argue otherwise is being ignorant. And no, that is NOT intended as an insult to you, unless you want to deny this point. Either stop denying the climate has changed relative to 10, 50, 100 years ago; or provide actual evidence it hasn't changed.

 

I'm not arguing that the current climate isn't warmer than the past, I am arguing that the warming is not anthropogenic in nature, or the portion that is anthropogenic is likely very small. As it is, the actual warming of the planet in the last 150 years (a time of recovery from the LIA) is agreed to be 0.7 C +/- .16 C (last I checked... I'm having trouble tracking down a quote that lists the error range).

 

I am saying that the portion, even assuming it exists, of the climate increase that is anthropogenic falls within the error range of the observed warming.

 

Another question I have regarding AGW is this: absent industrialization, what do climatologist assume would be the current global climate? Are we assuming a continuation of the LIA? Are we assuming 150 years of stasis? Or are we assuming a lesser warming trend? If the latter, how much less?

 

It would seem to me if you want to argue an affirmative affect of human action you should have a good idea of what it would look like i the absence of human action.

 

 

 

My skepticism is in regards to some (not all) of the claims by those insisting and demanding on huge, expensive, complex changes immediately. There needs to be more debate and research on what to do in response to this climate change. Sure, there is a problem but how big of a problem is it? How can we fix (or mitigate) it? Lets count the cost and benefits for proposed actions and determine what actions are sensible (and before we can really do this, we need to understand our climate better than we currently do).

 

This is an excellent point, and it also plays a role in my skepticism. But I take it further than that. If it is found that the extremely costly actions we take now were worthless in regard to AGW, I fear the public support for alternative energy dies with AGW.

 

If there are very good reasons for alternative fuel not connected to AGW (and I believe there are) then argue THOSE points for alternative energy rather than AGW fear mongering.

 

 

It is ignorant, IMO, of people to presuppose massive changes to our economy are absolutely necessary without having even a shred of research regarding if this will even result in anything positive let alone pass a cost/benefit analysis. Panic does not solve problems.

 

Exactly right.

 

I know someone who installs solar hot water systems for a living and he just can't understand why they aren't taking off without government subsidy. The problem is, though, that for a family of 5 in Pennsylvania you are looking at a $10,000 investment minimum, and 80 sqr feet of solar array on your roof that you will need to sweep off every time it snows or run on normal electricity until it melts.

 

They are better off installing a natural gas tankless system for $700 and saving energy that way in the short term while the government cash goes to an R&D award systems much like in military contracting. Give goals, and reward the best design to meet those goals... or those that come closest.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Everyone, including myself (in case I did not make myself clear) seems to be in agreement that clean energy is a good thing regardless of GW concerns. And I agree we should immediately implement them. As one example, I think we could have and should have had hybrid electric cars (and the corresponding 50+ mpg) 30 or 40 years ago which is just that much more pollution and wasted gasoline. I think the technology to do so existed then. Had we taken this one step during the oil crisis of the 1970's who knows how much more efficient these cars would be today after an additional 30 years of development?

 

 

I'm not a fan of hybrid electric cars because they are not as efficient as the newer diesel engines being created in Europe. The efficiency of any car is not simply in the cost of ownership, or the energy expended in ownership. It is in the cost of production as well.

 

The cost, in energy, of a hybrid vehicle is very high given the amount of production that goes into the battery system alone.

 

If I can get 50+ MPG from an all combustion diesel I would rather limit the need for damaging nickle mines as much as possible.. as well at the added energy expenditures in creating the car in the first place.

 

Heck, if we moved to more diesel in the country we could reduce the need to expensive refinery conversions every year as they switch from gasoline to diesel and back again.

 

Better mileage, cheaper gas... what a curious idea!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I could agree if the changes being suggested gave no benefits other than mitigating AGW effects, but I think moving immediately to more sustainable energy sources and pollution reduction makes sense even if our AGW fears are out of proportion, even though the evidence suggests they are not. I'm not heavily swayed by the arguments about "throwing trillions of dollars away" when many of the changes proposed will mean more responsible use of resources no matter what happens to the global climate.

 

I support the immediate implementation because many of the changes should have taken place 30 years ago but were suppressed by lobbyists and never had their fair chance at shifting market stances.

 

 

Again, I fully agree with all of this with only one caveat: CO2 is not a pollutant no matter if we just labeled it as such.

 

Other than that, what I see right now is that the alternative energy sources that are being foisted on the country are far from being ready for prime time with the ONLY justification for the pain of use is the AGW mitigation and cost mitigation through Government subsidies (which is itself a function of AGW).

 

I saw a funny statistic the other day in Consumer Reports that showed the Smart Car had the lowest dependability ratings of all cars tested... yet they had some of the highest owner satisfaction ratings (I read it as "self satifaction" ratings).

 

In such a situation where a car is only pleasing so long as it has a "higher purpose", it ceases to be pleasing as soon as the intended purpose vanishes.

 

Similarly I read a report that Geo Metros are making a comback... not NEW Geo Metros, but old 1980s Geo Metros. This is because they get 40-50 mpg, and can be had for $3000.

 

I don't know if you have ever owned or ridden in a Metro... but I assure you that the ONLY reason to endure such a thing is as a sacrificial gesture to Gaia.

Edited July 10, 2009 by jryan
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

Another question I have regarding AGW is this: absent industrialization, what do climatologist assume would be the current global climate? Are we assuming a continuation of the LIA? Are we assuming 150 years of stasis? Or are we assuming a lesser warming trend? If the latter, how much less?

 

It would seem to me if you want to argue an affirmative affect of human action you should have a good idea of what it would look like i the absence of human action.

 

Every model I've seen incorporates non-human factors, and isolates human influence. Have you looked at any actual papers?

[swansont]

But you aren't examining the counter claims, you are using moon landing deniers to rationalize why you don't examine counter claims. More to the point, when people like Mann are taken to task for poor statistics by actual statisticians, rather than examine the counter claim those like you go running to biographies to see is the person ever worked for an energy company.

 

The existence of many threads on GW shows that counter-claims are being examined. Looking for conflicts of interest, because they do happen, is but one of the ways the claims are examined.

 

You know why I know you haven't treated it skeptically? Because when such claims are made you provide no actual rationale, except for a graph that shows more misunderstanding of the subject than it displays understanding. But that is more between me and bascule than you and me.

 

A very broad claim with no actual backing to it, and one that is contradicted with even a cursory examination of GW discussions here.

 

 

 

 

 

So, since, other than the blip on the radar we call "The Age of Man" the CO2 has been MUCH higher than today and life and continued and has been very diverse... as well as absent of runaway global warming... 25% isn't that big a deal as far as "saving the Earth" goes.

 

Strawman. The issue isn't saving the planet — the planet's going to survive just fine. It's the humans on the planet that most are concerned about. Where they are going to live and their accessibility to food and drinkable water, etc. Which is why data from virtually all of that graph is irrelevant and merely represents a distraction. Yes, CO2 has been higher in the remote past. Humans weren't alive then. So life existing then is anther strawman. Please explain how CO2 is the "basic fuel" of life, and how limiting it to pre-industrial values would be a bad thing (from the "life surviving" point of view)

 

 

 

And mathematicians, actually. Again, are you arguing that correction must come from within and not from overlapping disciplines? Climatology, after all, is really a subset of geology, and they all fall under Earth Sciences.

 

So do we simply accept whatever gerrymander allows you to cut out the opposing voices?

 

The "opposing voices" aren't going through the proper channels to voice scientific concerns. Anybody can write a book — they are published because someone thinks they can make money doing so. You are implying that not reading this book is a failure of skepticism. Why? I've read critiques of the book that say it's crap. Why should I spend time reading something that isn't from someone in the field? And no, climatology is not a subset of geology. Climatology is often paired with meteorology in atmospheric sciences, not geology.

 

Calling this gerrymandering is just another example of a logical fallacy (guilt by association). It's also moving the goalposts, since it was your implication that only people outside of climatology would be able to falsify AGW. You have not supported this by showing that the climatologists are e.g. perpetrating fraud or are incompetent. Why must the criticism come from an outside source?

Edited July 10, 2009 by swansont

[Phi for All]

Again, I fully agree with all of this with only one caveat: CO2 is not a pollutant no matter if we just labeled it as such.

Just because there are traces of CO2 in the air we breathe and that much of it is produced naturally, it doesn't mean an increased level of CO2 isn't a pollutant. Increased CO2 can lead to Hypercapnia in humans, and has been shown to reduce micronutrients in our crop foods. Just because CO2 is emitted from natural sources like volcanoes adn other organisms, it doesn't mean an excess of it isn't a pollutant in the human environment.

 

Other than that, what I see right now is that the alternative energy sources that are being foisted on the country are far from being ready for prime time with the ONLY justification for the pain of use is the AGW mitigation and cost mitigation through Government subsidies (which is itself a function of AGW).

 

I saw a funny statistic the other day in Consumer Reports that showed the Smart Car had the lowest dependability ratings of all cars tested... yet they had some of the highest owner satisfaction ratings (I read it as "self satifaction" ratings).

 

In such a situation where a car is only pleasing so long as it has a "higher purpose", it ceases to be pleasing as soon as the intended purpose vanishes.

 

Similarly I read a report that Geo Metros are making a comback... not NEW Geo Metros, but old 1980s Geo Metros. This is because they get 40-50 mpg, and can be had for $3000.

 

I don't know if you have ever owned or ridden in a Metro... but I assure you that the ONLY reason to endure such a thing is as a sacrificial gesture to Gaia.

Strawmen, all. Again, lobbying by the fossil fuel industries have suppressed normal market development of alternatives. We're 30 years behind where we should be due to complacency, political maneuvering and spin/scare tactics. It's easy to point to the failures and claim they represent the alternatives; there were a lot of failures and problems when oil's infrastructure was being developed. It's part of the process and sustainable energy has had to fight an entrenched oil and gas lobby that has suppressed technology and advancement at every turn.

[jryan]

Every model I've seen incorporates non-human factors, and isolates human influence. Have you looked at any actual papers?

 

Actually, they don't. Or not that I have seen. They claim to isolate out human influence... but in every paper I have read the "human influence" is nothing more than a catchall for whatever they believe to be unexplainable by the natural influences they have determined.

 

It's just another issue I have with the science.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just because there are traces of CO2 in the air we breathe and that much of it is produced naturally, it doesn't mean an increased level of CO2 isn't a pollutant. Increased CO2 can lead to Hypercapnia in humans, and has been shown to reduce micronutrients in our crop foods. Just because CO2 is emitted from natural sources like volcanoes adn other organisms, it doesn't mean an excess of it isn't a pollutant in the human environment.

 

Well, using the Hypercapnia argument why don't we label water a pollutant? I hear too much of than in the lungs is bad for you too.

 

As for the reduction in mitronutrients in plants... well then, lets deny those plants CO2.

 

Kidding aside, the concentration of CO2 in the air we breathe needed to bring on hypercapnia is absurdly high if you are projecting that to the whole atmosphere. It's nowhere near the 383ppm we have now.

 

Strawmen, all. Again, lobbying by the fossil fuel industries have suppressed normal market development of alternatives. We're 30 years behind where we should be due to complacency, political maneuvering and spin/scare tactics. It's easy to point to the failures and claim they represent the alternatives; there were a lot of failures and problems when oil's infrastructure was being developed. It's part of the process and sustainable energy has had to fight an entrenched oil and gas lobby that has suppressed technology and advancement at every turn.

 

Talk about strawmen...

Edited July 10, 2009 by jryan
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

Actually, they don't. Or not that I have seen. They claim to isolate out human influence... but in every paper I have read the "human influence" is nothing more than a catchall for whatever they believe to be unexplainable by the natural influences they have determined.

 

It's just another issue I have with the science.

 

It's not just a "catch-all," because it's also predictive. Here's a decent overview:

 

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/Sect16_2a.html

 

 

Well, using the Hypercapnia argument why don't we label water a pollutant? I hear too much of than in the lungs is bad for you too.

 

No substance is inherently a "pollutant." It's a pollutant if it causes detrimental effects. It's like the oft-repeated and oft-forgotten "the dose makes the poison."

[Phi for All]

Well, using the Hypercapnia argument why don't we label water a pollutant? I hear too much of than in the lungs is bad for you too.

CO2 *is* being increased in the air we breathe and methods of curbing the human causes are available to us. Water *is not* being increased in the air we breathe, unless you have evidence to the contrary, so bringing it up here is a Red Herring logical fallacy known as Strawman, and is a poor argument.

 

As for the reduction in mitronutrients in plants... well then, lets deny those plants CO2.

Denying them CO2 would kill them, and was not part of my argument. *Increased* CO2 levels are what reduces the micronutrients, and since we can't stop anything other than our own additions to the pollutant levels, this is what we should concentrate on, what the AGW solutions will help fix along with any actual AGW trends. I mention it because it shows that the solutions are not just throwing our money away on something that may or may not be true. We *know* that excess CO2 is harmful to us.

 

Talk about strawmen...

How are my comments about the oil lobby Strawmanning with regards to your comments about automobile failures? I fail to see your reasoning here.

[bascule]

I'm not pretending the graph is a lie. I am stating that to state anthropogenic global warming is happening based on a 30 year graph is silly when the most recent third is displaying cooling.

 

And you're wrong. This is disinformation. It's disinformation that even the incredibly misinformed author of the WSJ didn't even have the audacity to state. At least she claimed warming has "flat lined", and only for the most recent decade. That's wrong, but even she didn't claim there was cooling, let alone a 30 year period of cooling.

 

Bottom line, yes I am [a skeptic]. I believe that questions about the theory of global warming can and do originate from both inside and outside the field of climatology, and I read both the pro and con of the theories with an open mind.

 

You're actively disseminating disinformation. That doesn't make you a skeptic. It makes you a liar.

[GutZ]

CO2 is not a pollutant no matter if we just labeled it as such.

 

Would contaminants be better? It fits the definition of a pollutant.

 

What would make you change your mind on that. There are videos on youtube where you can watch someone prove it live. Something you could do at home if you have the equipment.

 

It traps heat.

 

"Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

 

"Carbon dioxide emissions cause ocean acidification, the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans as CO2 becomes dissolved."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution#Ecosystems

 

I don't get why you are rejecting that aspect as if CO2 is like inconsequential.

 

I can see the your doubt in how it will play out but...It's not something we have the ability to collect data on human contributions. This is the only time that we know of that any species evolved to start having an effect on the environment, there are other examples that express that we do make an affect.

 

Of course if you feel that what we do is inconsequential to overall ecosystem than you kind of have to prove that I would think.

[jryan]

CO2 *is* being increased in the air we breathe and methods of curbing the human causes are available to us. Water *is not* being increased in the air we breathe, unless you have evidence to the contrary, so bringing it up here is a Red Herring logical fallacy known as Strawman, and is a poor argument.

 

Huh... global warming without an increase in water vapor? That's not what I read.

 

Denying them CO2 would kill them, and was not part of my argument. *Increased* CO2 levels are what reduces the micronutrients, and since we can't stop anything other than our own additions to the pollutant levels, this is what we should concentrate on, what the AGW solutions will help fix along with any actual AGW trends. I mention it because it shows that the solutions are not just throwing our money away on something that may or may not be true. We *know* that excess CO2 is harmful to us.

 

Ok, well, please do better than the Wiki article about CO2, then, because as I read it also covers the "co2 is used in plant respiration and is essential to photosynthesis" argument as well.

 

Note also that it says that a 5% concentration of CO2 is when get into the serious side effects of hypercapnia... which is equivalent to 50,000ppm compared to the current 380ppm.

 

As for the micronutrient effects from a CO2 imballance... if you read the actual thesis here rather than the blurb in Wikipedia, you see that the study is a mathematical support for a theory with no actual proofing in the actual world ecosystems being done yet.

 

So don't hang you hat on that theory just yet.

 

How are my comments about the oil lobby Strawmanning with regards to your comments about automobile failures? I fail to see your reasoning here.

 

Because I made no claim about oil companies or the imaginary advances that could have happened in their absence. You are claiming that my argument is a strawman while making an argument I didn't make and shooting it down with "Who Killed the Electric Car" arguments.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And you're wrong. This is disinformation. It's disinformation that even the incredibly misinformed author of the WSJ didn't even have the audacity to state. At least she claimed warming has "flat lined", and only for the most recent decade. That's wrong, but even she didn't claim there was cooling, let alone a 30 year period of cooling.

 

"Spreading falsehoods"... hmmm...

 

You are completely misrepresenting or misunderstanding my argument and then calling it disiformation.

 

It's almost not worth discussing with you anymore, but I will soldier on as the point is worth making.

 

First, I never claimed that there is 30 years of cooling. Go back and reread the posts. I stated that the final third of that graph is cooling... which is to be expected as it cuts off in the middle of a La Nina. After all, you tried to adminish me for not taking La Ninas into account in my argument while showing a graph whose trend line is HEAVILY influenced by a single El Nino.

 

I am not the one disregarding La Ninas, amigo.

 

 

You're actively disseminating disinformation. That doesn't make you a skeptic. It makes you a liar.

 

No at the moment I am disseminating contrary information that you seem to be misreading.

 

I do hold out hope that agree on terms at some point and we can properly address the graph you have provided.

Edited July 10, 2009 by jryan
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

First, I never claimed that there is 30 years of cooling. Go back and reread the posts. I stated that the final third of that graph is cooling...

Ermm... That's wrong, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And here is part of the reason why people advocate action now:

 

 

Edited July 10, 2009 by iNow

[Phi for All]

Huh... global warming without an increase in water vapor? That's not what I read.

Fair enough. My point was basically that it's not good to throw off the mixture in the air we breathe. If more water vapor is present in the air due to global warming (since the total amount of water itself doesn't change), then it makes sense to do what we can about global warming.

 

Ok, well, please do better than the Wiki article about CO2, then, because as I read it also covers the "co2 is used in plant respiration and is essential to photosynthesis" argument as well.

Again, I'd like to remind you that the argument is not for plants themselves, but for the air we humans breathe and the crops we grow for food. Plants may thrive in a more CO2 rich environment (albeit with less of the nutrients for use as food), but I'm more concerned about me. As swansont noted, the earth will survive just fine, it's the humans we're concerned with here.

 

Note also that it says that a 5% concentration of CO2 is when get into the serious side effects of hypercapnia... which is equivalent to 50,000ppm compared to the current 380ppm.

Does it need to get serious to be a concern? Considering that some of the early onset symptoms are reduced neural activity and increased blood pressure, isn't even a bit more unacceptable? Can you trust even your own judgment in this if your brain might not be running at full capacity due to prolonged exposure to higher than normal CO2 levels? And if it's unacceptable now, isn't now the time to do what we can to keep it from getting worse?

 

As for the micronutrient effects from a CO2 imballance... if you read the actual thesis here rather than the blurb in Wikipedia, you see that the study is a mathematical support for a theory with no actual proofing in the actual world ecosystems being done yet.

 

So don't hang you hat on that theory just yet.

From the article, "The first compilation, to my knowledge, of published data supports the claim and shows an overall decline of the (essential elements):C ratio. Therefore, high [CO2] could intensify the already acute problem of micronutrient malnutrition." So using science, this tells me that the best data we have at the present suggests the theory is sound, subject to further tests and review, of course. Right now the theory is a nail on a board rather than a fancy polished hook, but it'll hold my hat for now.

 

Because I made no claim about oil companies or the imaginary advances that could have happened in their absence. You are claiming that my argument is a strawman while making an argument I didn't make and shooting it down with "Who Killed the Electric Car" arguments.

You were arguing that the only factor in alternative energy sources "being foisted on the country" were those used in AGW mitigation, and then you started using examples of bad small cars. My argument against that is that these alternatives provide more than just AGW mitigation, and that they are in the early stages of development considering how they've been suppressed for the last 30 years through lobbying by the oil industry. Can you please point out the Strawman? I don't think there is one, my friend. Edited July 10, 2009 by Phi for All
removed duplicate post

[bascule]

First, I never claimed that there is 30 years of cooling. Go back and reread the posts.

 

Okay, my mistake.

 

I stated that the final third of that graph is cooling

 

This is still wrong, and to reiterate, it's a claim so audacious even the rather misinformed WSJ author in the OP didn't even make it. That author merely said it "flatlined", which is still wrong.

[jryan]

Fair enough. My point was basically that it's not good to throw off the mixture in the air we breathe. If more water vapor is present in the air due to global warming (since the total amount of water itself doesn't change), then it makes sense to do what we can about global warming.

 

The over all variation in water vapor, CO2 and even oxygen is far more prevalent in simple changes in latitude or altitude.. yet we do it all the time. If you don't want an increase in water vapor in the air you breathe then never travel to the tropics.

 

Again, I'd like to remind you that the argument is not for plants themselves, but for the air we humans breathe and the crops we grow for food. Plants may thrive in a more CO2 rich environment (albeit with less of the nutrients for use as food), but I'm more concerned about me. As swansont noted, the earth will survive just fine, it's the humans we're concerned with here.

 

Well, again, worries about atmospheric concentrations of water seems inconsequential when compared to traveling from, say, Washington DC to Albuquerque... that is a major change in atmosphere, but I do it all the time for work.

 

So if your primary worry is the effects on you personally, fear not. The Human species is very robust and can survive from the south pole to the north pole and everywhere in between.

 

The crop worries are very real, but is much more effected by a decline in temperature than in a rise in temperature. I don't think Brazil has any inherent handicap in growing corn versus Oklahoma even though Oklahoma is much cooler on average than Brazil.

 

 

Does it need to get serious to be a concern? Considering that some of the early onset symptoms are reduced neural activity and increased blood pressure, isn't even a bit more unacceptable? Can you trust even your own judgment in this if your brain might not be running at full capacity due to prolonged exposure to higher than normal CO2 levels? And if it's unacceptable now, isn't now the time to do what we can to keep it from getting worse?

 

Well, the current concentration of CO2 is .038%, the earliest onset of hypercapnia (drowsiness) is at 1%. That translates in a CO2 concentration of 10,000ppm over the current 380ppm.... or a 2,600% increase over current levels. The worst prediction by the IPCC, since you accept their findings, is a quadrupling of CO2... still far far below even early onset hypercapnia.

 

In other words, we will never have that much CO2 in the atmosphere even if we try.

 

 

From the article, "The first compilation, to my knowledge, of published data supports the claim and shows an overall decline of the (essential elements):C ratio. Therefore, high [CO2] could intensify the already acute problem of micronutrient malnutrition." So using science, this tells me that the best data we have at the present suggests the theory is sound, subject to further tests and review, of course. Right now the theory is a nail on a board rather than a fancy polished hook, but it'll hold my hat for now.

 

Nutrient deprivation in the soil has been a concern of humanity since the advent of farming. It is the reason for crop rotation and fertilizers. In this case the effect on humanity would be slim... if we are worrying about OUR food crops, a minor change in fertilizer corrects any imbalance if the study shows to be true.

 

If it is the third world farmer that you are worried about, I would suggest that there are several concerns to handle first that are orders of magnitude higher than a drop in micronutrients. Like dependable irrigation, steady access to fertilizers, and proper pest controls. In other words, I would worry first about the output of the farm before the level of micronutients.

 

I can't locate it at the moment, but I remember studying a disorder back in my neuropsychology courses in college that struck large swaths of people in Europe for many generations.. it resulted in a high rate of what was thought to be retardation. This lead early Europeans to think the ground was haunted, and later scientists to believe in weak genetics.... turned out is was a nutrient deficiency in the soil.

 

Changes in farming eliminated the disorder within a generation.

 

So, again, humans are adaptable.

 

Given all that, I would still wait for actual numbers to start rolling in before I take this seriously. That isn't to say I take it as a joke, just that I don't yet see enough to be concerned.

 

Should we study it? Sure! So long as the studies are done appropriately and all data and calculations and samples are provided to the world to evaluate. If they come back and say "The study has proven that micronutrients have dropped dramatically... but we won't release our data to just anyone... we have IP concerns, you know!" I will start to become skeptical of their study just as I have with work by Jones, Mann, Hansen, et al. who require FOI filings just to release their data and calculations.

 

One other nagging question I am still trying to answer about this study is it sounds like the concentration in micronutrients in the plant is a factor of increased mass of the plant itself. That is to say, there is enough CO2 to promote increased growth but not enough soil trace nutrients to provide the same concetrations in the plants that grow.

 

It is interesting and you have given me a new thing to research, so thanks for that. If it turns out that plants are getting too big or growing too fast as it sounds right now, I would have to start wondering what the worry is.

 

 

You were arguing that the only factor in alternative energy sources "being foisted on the country" were those used in AGW mitigation, and then you started using examples of bad small cars. My argument against that is that these alternatives provide more than just AGW mitigation, and that they are in the early stages of development considering how they've been suppressed for the last 30 years through lobbying by the oil industry. Can you please point out the Strawman? I don't think there is one, my friend.

 

Nowhere else will you find products in the "Early Stages of Development" being pushed as the new standard in any industry.

 

Also, even accepting the notion that the oil companies suppressed alternative energies (we can debate that elsewhere), that is not a viable reason for pushing for installation of admittedly stunted technology "in the wild".

 

If your claim were true, then let the Government help fund and protect alternative energy STUDIES until they can compete in price and availability with natural gas, oil, nuclear and coal. I don't want the federal government funding alternative energy INSTALLATION if the tech isn't ready to compete.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Fair enough. My point was basically that it's not good to throw off the mixture in the air we breathe. If more water vapor is present in the air due to global warming (since the total amount of water itself doesn't change), then it makes sense to do what we can about global warming.

 

The over all variation in water vapor, CO2 and even oxygen varies far more through travel yet it happens all the time. If you don't want an increase water vapor in the air then definitely never travel to the tropics.

 

Again, I'd like to remind you that the argument is not for plants themselves, but for the air we humans breathe and the crops we grow for food. Plants may thrive in a more CO2 rich environment (albeit with less of the nutrients for use as food), but I'm more concerned about me. As swansont noted, the earth will survive just fine, it's the humans we're concerned with here.

 

Well, again, worries about atmospheric concentrations of water seems inconsequential when compared to traveling from, say, Washington DC to Albuquerque... that is a major change in atmosphere, but I do it all the time for work.

 

So if your primary worry is the effects on you personally, fear not. The Human species is very robust and can survive from the south pole to the north pole and everywhere in between.

 

The crop worries are very real, but is much more effected by a decline in temperature than in a rise in temperature. I don't think Brazil has any inherent handicap in growing corn versus Oklahoma even though Oklahoma is much cooler on average than Oklahoma.

 

 

Does it need to get serious to be a concern? Considering that some of the early onset symptoms are reduced neural activity and increased blood pressure, isn't even a bit more unacceptable? Can you trust even your own judgment in this if your brain might not be running at full capacity due to prolonged exposure to higher than normal CO2 levels? And if it's unacceptable now, isn't now the time to do what we can to keep it from getting worse?

 

Well, the current concentration of CO2 is .038%, the earliest onset of hypercapnia (drowsiness) is at 1%. That translates in a CO2 concentration of 10,000ppm over the current 380ppm.... or a 2,600% increase over current levels. The worst prediction by the IPCC, since you accept their findings, is a quadrupling of CO2... still far far below even early onset hypercapnia.

 

In other words, we will never have that much CO2 in the atmosphere even if we try.

 

 

From the article, "The first compilation, to my knowledge, of published data supports the claim and shows an overall decline of the (essential elements):C ratio. Therefore, high [CO2] could intensify the already acute problem of micronutrient malnutrition." So using science, this tells me that the best data we have at the present suggests the theory is sound, subject to further tests and review, of course. Right now the theory is a nail on a board rather than a fancy polished hook, but it'll hold my hat for now.

 

Nutrient deprivation in the soil has been a concern of humanity since the advent of farming. It is the reason for crop rotation and fertilizers. In this case the effect on humanity would be slim... if we are worrying about OUR food crops, a minor change in fertilizer corrects any imbalance if the study shows to be true.

 

If it is the third world farmer that you are worried about, I would suggest that there are several concerns to handle first that are orders of magnitude higher than a drop in micronutrients. Like dependable irrigation, steady access to fertilizers, and proper pest controls. In other words, I would worry first about the output of the farm before the level of micronutients.

 

I can't locate it at the moment, but I remember studying a disorder back in my neuropsychology courses in college that struck large swaths of people in Europe for many generations.. it resulted in a high rate of what was thought to be retardation. This lead early Europeans to think the ground was haunted, and later scientists to believe in weak genetics.... turned out is was a nutrient deficiency in the soil.

 

Changes in farming eliminated the disorder within a generation.

 

So, again, humans are adaptable.

 

Given all that, I would still wait for actual numbers to start rolling in before I take this seriously. That isn't to say I take it as a joke, just that I don't yet see enough to be concerned.

 

Should we study it? Sure! So long as the studies are done appropriately and all data and calculations and samples are provided to the world to evaluate. If they come back and say "The study has proven that micronutrients have dropped dramatically... but we won't release our data to just anyone... we have IP concerns, you know!" I will start to become skeptical of their study just as I have with work by Jones, Mann, Hansen, et al. who require FOI filings just to release their data and calculations.

 

 

You were arguing that the only factor in alternative energy sources "being foisted on the country" were those used in AGW mitigation, and then you started using examples of bad small cars. My argument against that is that these alternatives provide more than just AGW mitigation, and that they are in the early stages of development considering how they've been suppressed for the last 30 years through lobbying by the oil industry. Can you please point out the Strawman? I don't think there is one, my friend.

 

Nowhere else will you find products in the "Early Stages of Development" being pushed as the new standard in any industry.

 

Also, even accepting the notion that the oil companies suppressed alternative energies (we can debate that elsewhere), that is not a viable reason for pushing for installation of admittedly stunted technology "in the wild".

 

If your claim were true, then let the Government help fund and protect alternative energy STUDIES until they can compete in price and availability with natural gas, oil, nuclear and coal. I don't want the federal government funding alternative energy INSTALLATION if the tech isn't ready to compete.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This is still wrong, and to reiterate, it's a claim so audacious even the rather misinformed WSJ author in the OP didn't even make it. That author merely said it "flatlined", which is still wrong.

 

No it's not. If you take an average from the peak of the 98 El Nino to present the temperature is definitely declining.

 

You can argue that a time slice that takes advantage of an El Nino start and La Nina finish is an unfair comparison... but that would also be my point in a 30 year time slice dominated by the 98 El Nino.

 

So, I guess what I am trying to say is let the current La Nina finish and then let's look at the trend, and make time slice comparisons that aren't by choice biased by either El Ninos or La Ninas.

Edited July 12, 2009 by jryan

[iNow]

The over all variation in water vapor, CO2 and even oxygen is far more prevalent in simple changes in latitude or altitude.. yet we do it all the time. If you don't want an increase in water vapor in the air you breathe then never travel to the tropics.

 

Well, again, worries about atmospheric concentrations of water seems inconsequential when compared to traveling from, say, Washington DC to Albuquerque... that is a major change in atmosphere, but I do it all the time for work.

Water vapor is much less of a concern, because, well... once it's built up too far, it leaves the atmosphere in this nifty little phenomenon which I like to call "rain."

 

 

 

 

The crop worries are very real, but is much more effected by a decline in temperature than in a rise in temperature.

This is irrelevant since nobody is talking about a decline in temperature, and you've just conceded yourself that a rise in temperature still has a negative impact on crops.

 

 

 

If you take an average from the peak of the 98 El Nino to present the temperature is definitely declining.

 

No, it's not. You keep stating this as if it's a fact, but it is nothing more than a lie inaccurate understanding on your part.

Every major dataset shows the global temperature trend is still upward, even from 1998 to the present.

 

[swansont]

The over all variation in water vapor, CO2 and even oxygen is far more prevalent in simple changes in latitude or altitude.. yet we do it all the time. If you don't want an increase in water vapor in the air you breathe then never travel to the tropics.

 

 

 

Well, again, worries about atmospheric concentrations of water seems inconsequential when compared to traveling from, say, Washington DC to Albuquerque... that is a major change in atmosphere, but I do it all the time for work.

 

 

I don't think the spatial variation is the issue. It's the temporal variation at a particular location. The CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa, for example. Is water vapor showing the same kind of increase?

 

So if your primary worry is the effects on you personally, fear not. The Human species is very robust and can survive from the south pole to the north pole and everywhere in between.

 

The crop worries are very real, but is much more effected by a decline in temperature than in a rise in temperature. I don't think Brazil has any inherent handicap in growing corn versus Oklahoma even though Oklahoma is much cooler on average than Brazil.

 

This misses or ignores the concerns. The issue isn't whether humans can tolerate a change in temperature, it's the effects of that increase. Rising ocean levels, for example, would displace a lot of people, at a large cost. Desertification will yield areas unable to grow crops.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

No it's not. If you take an average from the peak of the 98 El Nino to present the temperature is definitely declining.

 

Cherry-picking will tend to do that.

 

You can argue that a time slice that takes advantage of an El Nino start and La Nina finish is an unfair comparison... but that would also be my point in a 30 year time slice dominated by the 98 El Nino.

 

So, I guess what I am trying to say is let the current La Nina finish and then let's look at the trend, and make time slice comparisons that aren't by choice biased by either El Ninos or La Ninas.

 

Exactly what using a rolling average does. So why don't you do that?

Edited July 12, 2009 by swansont
Consecutive posts merged.

[jryan]

I don't think the spatial variation is the issue. It's the temporal variation at a particular location. The CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa, for example. Is water vapor showing the same kind of increase?

 

Talk about out of wack. I brought up water vapor as a counter to the claim that increasing CO2 is a pollutant. I couldn't care less whether water vapor is increasing in step with CO2 OR climate, though I would guess there is some correlation to the later.

 

It may have been an overly dry joke comparing drowning to hypercapnia as water and CO2 relate to the atmosphere. But the point remains. If you want to claim hypercapnia as a threat from rising CO2 you mights as will claim that rising water vapor will lead to drownings.

 

 

 

This misses or ignores the concerns. The issue isn't whether humans can tolerate a change in temperature, it's the effects of that increase. Rising ocean levels, for example, would displace a lot of people, at a large cost. Desertification will yield areas unable to grow crops.

 

It wasn't lost or ignored. Sea levels rise and fall and have historically. It would be quite a feat to keep them in stasis.

 

As for desertification, try an ice age. A global drop in humidity and the atmospheres ability to hold moisture does a real number on precipitation.

 

Cherry-picking will tend to do that.

 

It sure will.

 

 

Exactly what using a rolling average does. So why don't you do that?

 

Which is my point entirely... I was demonstrating that the 30 year time slice was not very helpful given it's bias toward upward pacific oscillations. I just didn't see you jump in with instruction to others that a 30 year time slice is not particularly helpful in discussing climate, but rather long term rolling averages are better.

 

If you want to talk 30 year average you might as well talk 10.

 

I'm glad you cleared that up for everyone.

Edited July 12, 2009 by jryan

[iNow]

If you want to talk 30 year average you might as well talk 10.

But your comments about temperature trends are inaccurate even at decadal scales, and further, using longer scales (like 30 years) helps account for shorter term changes from El Nino and La Nina, which is the point swansont was making and you readily ignored.

[swansont]

Talk about out of wack. I brought up water vapor as a counter to the claim that increasing CO2 is a pollutant. I couldn't care less whether water vapor is increasing in step with CO2 OR climate, though I would guess there is some correlation to the later.

 

So, are you going to answer the question? Is water vapor increasing with time, at a given location? Or is this a red herring?

 

 

 

It wasn't lost or ignored. Sea levels rise and fall and have historically. It would be quite a feat to keep them in stasis.

 

As for desertification, try an ice age. A global drop in humidity and the atmospheres ability to hold moisture does a real number on precipitation.

 

And in what way is this response not ignoring the point, too?

 

It sure will.

 

 

 

 

Which is my point entirely... I just didn't see you jump in with instruction to others that a 30 year time slice is not particularly helpful in discussing climate, but rather long term rolling averages.

 

What does the rolling average look like for the last 4,000 years?

 

No, I didn't jump in with a suggestion that we not only smooth out the noise but also the signal you're trying to measure by using a really long averaging time. What would be the point?

[jryan]

So, are you going to answer the question? Is water vapor increasing with time, at a given location? Or is this a red herring?

 

Well, it was never intended to be a red herring, Swansont. Just an example of another compound in the atmosphere that in high enough concentrations can be deadly but that seems awfully silly to claim as a pollutant.

 

I would say it is a fairly simple assumption that warming climate leads to more water vapor, though.

 

 

And in what way is this response not ignoring the point, too?

 

Here is the problem Swansnot, you are jumping into completely unrelated discussions, ignoring the reason the points were made in the first place, and then attacking them as if they were some central thesis.

 

Go back and look at the reasons I was making the points I was making.... maybe take someone to task for claiming a threat of hypercapnia.

 

 

No, I didn't jump in with a suggestion that we not only smooth out the noise but also the signal you're trying to measure by using a really long averaging time. What would be the point?

 

Are you asking what would be the point of a longer average time?

[insane_alien]

Well, it was never intended to be a red herring, Swansont. Just an example of another compound in the atmosphere that in high enough concentrations can be deadly but that seems awfully silly to claim as a pollutant.

 

but it can't reach that high due to rain. and there are people living in areas where relative humidity is regularly 100% for extended periods of time.

 

and CO2 is not classified as a pollutant for its toxic properties, it is classified as a pollutant because it can alter the environment from its natural equilibrium.

[bascule]

No it's not. If you take an average from the peak of the 98 El Nino to present the temperature is definitely declining.

 

Oh really? I think you're wrong. Can you find a source that backs this up? Despite cherry picking endpoints, I still say you're wrong. I want evidence. I want calculations.

 

See, this is what a real skeptic does. They don't take blind shots in the dark as you're doing. They look at an assertion and demand evidence.

 

I demand evidence. Please present me evidence.

 

And to reiterate: you are not a skeptic. You are a propagator of disinformation, which is about as far from a skeptic as you can get.

 

I am a skeptic. I am looking at assertions others are making and asking for supporting evidence. This is what skepticism is about.

 

But please, defend your assertion and show I am wrong in questioning it! Present evidence to defend it. I am waiting.