Solar and Wind Will Not "Save" the Climate

[Red + 252]

1 minute ago, Wastral said:

So, according to YOU, Hansen, NOAA, IPCC, are all wrong?

Please keep typing...  This is getting interesting

I have never mentioned any of them.

I deal with specific claims on climate science.

Your comments are devoid of any rational understanding of climate science.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

15 minutes ago, NickW said:

You are making the claim so its incumbent on you to back this up with some real links to the research that shows this. 

I can fully accept that rice will grow faster in a CO2 enriched environment. What I'm calling BS on is your claim that a CO2 enriched environment will reduce the requirements for micro nutrients. 

I am happy to be proven wrong - but lets see the evidence😊

SO, no, you refuse to read.  Ok.  I could post all day long.  If you refuse to read.  Nothing I can do.  You COULD just do as I said and look at RICE... rather famous journal article about the end of the world as rice was going to die... but that would require YOU to do WORK

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, Wastral said:

SO, no, you refuse to read.  Ok.  I could post all day long.  If you refuse to read.  Nothing I can do.  You COULD just do as I said and look at RICE... rather famous journal article about the end of the world as rice was going to die... but that would require YOU to do WORK

You make a claim - its incumbent upon you to back it up with evidence.

In the grown up world this is how research works and indeed if you look at other areas involving scrutiny of evidence such as courts or Tribunals. 

Post that specific article on rice. That shouldn't be too difficult. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

4 minutes ago, Red said:

I have never mentioned any of them.

I deal with specific claims on climate science.

Your comments are devoid of any rational understanding of climate science.

So far, you have claimed infinity and shown nothing.  Not even basic understanding of Albedo and Hanson's original NASA paper. 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 minutes ago, Wastral said:

SO, no, you refuse to read.  Ok.  I could post all day long.  If you refuse to read.  Nothing I can do.  You COULD just do as I said and look at RICE... rather famous journal article about the end of the world as rice was going to die... but that would require YOU to do WORK

Why should I? You are making the claim. To back this up with the typical google it / look at WIki is extremely poor form. 

You wouldn't have much luck writing a research paper with that approach😄

[Red + 252]

2 minutes ago, Wastral said:

So far, you have claimed infinity and shown nothing.  Not even basic understanding of Albedo and Hanson's original NASA paper. 

That is untrue, apart from again reflecting your gross ignorance .

Albedo as a concept was never Hanson's, however it remains an important factor affecting climate change.

Perhaps you also overlooked the comment where I linked a paper from your preferred website and showed why what it proposed was not a reflection of how the real world affects climate science issues.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

Just now, NickW said:

You make a claim - its incumbent upon you to back it up with evidence.

In the grown up world this is how research works and indeed if you look at other areas involving scrutiny of evidence such as courts or Tribunals. 

Post that specific article on rice. That shouldn't be too difficult. 

Fine... Took me 3 seconds: https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/22315/PDF

Scroll through to the conclusion:  1st Paragraph.  "Increase in resource efficiency".... Duh, increased Photosynthesis energy available allowing one not to waste resources. 

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

It should be noted that some plants already have an efficient uptake of minerals pathway and will not increase in efficiency.  Why there is this distinction, no one knows.  These plants are in different category.  Same goes for photosynthesis.  Most of those plants are weeds.  Generally the fast growing slightly woody stem variety.  Always the danged weeds...

[Red + 252]

40 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Fine... Took me 3 seconds: https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/22315/PDF

Scroll through to the conclusion:  1st Paragraph.  "Increase in resource efficiency".... Duh, increased Photosynthesis energy available allowing one not to waste resources.

Your link failed to address the specific issue asked.

Do you understand anything in the sciences?

[David Jones + 84]

12 hours ago, Wastral said:

Bull Shit: http://www.co2science.org

Rice, wheat, etc LOVE it at 1000ppm.  Grow 100%-->300% and more than today, using less water, fertilizer, bigger grain of higher quality over a much wider temperature range.  Vegetables go Bananas at higher CO2 levels. 

I'm not talking about crops, I'm discussing sequestration of CO2 by plants in general and across the globe. Losing the land based sequestration efficiency gains that we have had with higher CO2 concentrations would be a serious line to cross and will likely lead to increases in the airborne fraction of CO2 and consequently more warming. In turn, this additional heat content could trigger feedbacks such as water vapor content and methane release from permafrost and so on and so forth.

In addition, if the airborne fraction of CO2 rises as a consequence of the above, the change in relative concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere vis a vis the ocean will likely result in more CO2 being sequestered in the oceans. Oceans are not a safe place to store our excess CO2. This will result in anoxia (dead zones) and acidification increases threatening the basis of life on this planet. This btw also answers the question of whether CO2 is a pollutant. Pollutants are defined as follows on Wikipedia (feel free to provide another definition if this source is insufficient for you or the definition is inaccurate, I doubt that it is):

A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values.

Since the oceans and atmosphere are primary resources and higher CO2 concentrations clearly lead to issues in humans, anoxia leads to death pockets in oceans and acidification leads to death of choral based ecosystems which contain large portions of oceanic life. CO2 is clearly a pollutant. In fact, it is a pollutant on an entirely new level. A civilization/planetary ecosystem level threat. Current forms of life have adapted to our current climate and concentration levels.

Life needs hundreds of thousands of years or even millions of years to readapt so whatever was before, is not applicable in a short frame of a few hundred years or even just a few decades.

Edited February 9, 2019 by David Jones

[DanilKa + 443]

17 hours ago, David Jones said:

,000 ppm: this indicates unusual air conditions where high levels of other gases could also be present. Toxicity or oxygen deprivation could occur. This is the permissible exposure limit for daily workplace exposures.

simple "yeah, got it wrong" would earn you more respect than digging the heels and contradicting yourself

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

8 hours ago, Red said:

Your link failed to address the specific issue asked.

Do you understand anything in the sciences?

Learn how to read dude.  Or learn how many types of plants grows.  Increased photosynthesis efficiency does what.... What is photosynthesis again.... ?  Its all about resources the plant uses.  Efficiency definition is what?  Less resources used for tonnage of rice grown...  

Here is a Chinese paper regarding desert plants for you....  If CO2 increases by 400%, water efficiency of some desert plants increases by 400%.  So, many plants need 25% less water to survive... http://www.co2science.org/articles/V22/feb/a3.php

Water transport between root/leave respiration means less minerals being transported because minerals are soluable in ...... wait for.... wait... wait..... water...

Edited February 9, 2019 by Wastral

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

2 hours ago, David Jones said:

I'm not talking about crops, I'm discussing sequestration of CO2 by plants in general and across the globe. Losing the land based sequestration efficiency gains that we have had with higher CO2 concentrations would be a serious line to cross and will likely lead to increases in the airborne fraction of CO2 and consequently more warming. In turn, this additional heat content could trigger feedbacks such as water vapor content and methane release from permafrost and so on and so forth.

In addition, if the airborne fraction of CO2 rises as a consequence of the above, the change in relative concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere vis a vis the ocean will likely result in more CO2 being sequestered in the oceans. Oceans are not a safe place to store our excess CO2. This will result in anoxia (dead zones) and acidification increases threatening the basis of life on this planet. This btw also answers the question of whether CO2 is a pollutant. Pollutants are defined as follows on Wikipedia (feel free to provide another definition if this source is insufficient for you or the definition is inaccurate, I doubt that it is):

A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values.

Since the oceans and atmosphere are primary resources and higher CO2 concentrations clearly lead to issues in humans, anoxia leads to death pockets in oceans and acidification leads to death of choral based ecosystems which contain large portions of oceanic life. CO2 is clearly a pollutant. In fact, it is a pollutant on an entirely new level. A civilization/planetary ecosystem level threat. Current forms of life have adapted to our current climate and concentration levels.

Life needs hundreds of thousands of years or even millions of years to readapt so whatever was before, is not applicable in a short frame of a few hundred years or even just a few decades.

Ah yes, the Ocean acidification baloney...

Here ya go: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V22/feb/a1.php

Creating algae... zooplankton,.... fish food.  Poor fishies are going to get 50% more food.  What will they possibly do! Der fishies are gonna get fat! 

As for death of the ocean... Most of the worlds coral islands were grown when the earth was 10->15C higher than today with 2X-->7X higher CO2 levels.  You reek of desperation dude.  SO desperate you are forgetting a little thing called Geology.  

Oceans store CO2 creating giant beds of methalates.

Then there is the laughing stock known as idiots who claim Methane is 20X stronger GHG than CO2... well if you are brain dead and do not have any oxygen in the atmosphere in your little make believe world.... Known as morons trying to obtain funding so they do not get fired.  What is even MORE incredible is so called "scientists" in supposedly "science" peer reviewed journals actually publish this crap without any repercussions.....

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

14 hours ago, MUI said:

I beg to differ. An internal combustion engine does perform better when it's operating temperature is increased (hence the reason for thermostats in the cooling system) but that has nothing to do with cold weather performance once the engine has reached operating temperature (thermostat has opened at least once). After this initial warm-up period, the engine will perform better in cold weather due to the air charge being more dense (contracted due to being colder). It is simply the fact that there is more oxygen in a given volume of said air at lower temps. This is why manufacturers go to the expense of installing intercoolers on turbocharged engines.

It is also the reason airplanes fly at high altitudes.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Fascinating, reading the discussion.  Do continue, please.

[Red + 252]

10 hours ago, Wastral said:

Learn how to read dude.  Or learn how many types of plants grows.  Increased photosynthesis efficiency does what.... What is photosynthesis again.... ?  Its all about resources the plant uses.  Efficiency definition is what?  Less resources used for tonnage of rice grown...  

Here is a Chinese paper regarding desert plants for you....  If CO2 increases by 400%, water efficiency of some desert plants increases by 400%.  So, many plants need 25% less water to survive... http://www.co2science.org/articles/V22/feb/a3.php

Water transport between root/leave respiration means less minerals being transported because minerals are soluable in ...... wait for.... wait... wait..... water...

Your linked article makes the liar out of you, and here are some of its concluding comments:

"... long-term exposure, for many C3 plants such as rice, can lead to a down-regulation of photosynthetic processes. Though photosynthetic acclimation may be a mechanism to increase resource use efficiency under high assimilation rates [9, 61], it still means that some species may not be able to take full advantage of the increased CO2 levels projected for the later part of this century."

"Temperatures above the optimum for growth and development of plant species can be detrimental. Although high temperatures generally stimulate plant growth, they also speed up development thus shortening the life cycle. This means that tissues and organs have less time to acquire photoassimilates, which can result in fewer and/or smaller organs leading to less biomass accumulation."

On the specific issue of micronutrients the authors clearly noted it was "not [in] the scope of this review."

Edited February 9, 2019 by Red
scope of review

[NickW + 2,714]

12 hours ago, Wastral said:

Fine... Took me 3 seconds: https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/22315/PDF

Scroll through to the conclusion:  1st Paragraph.  "Increase in resource efficiency".... Duh, increased Photosynthesis energy available allowing one not to waste resources. 

 

I feel for you. You must have struggled at School.

I did a word search of that document and there is not a singular reference to the following:

Fertiliser

Nitrogen

Phosphates

Potassium

So clearly it hasn't answered you claim that increasing atmospheric CO2 reduces needs for micro nutrients

 

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, Wastral said:

Ah yes, the Ocean acidification baloney...

Here ya go: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V22/feb/a1.php

Creating algae... zooplankton,.... fish food.  Poor fishies are going to get 50% more food.  What will they possibly do! Der fishies are gonna get fat! 

As for death of the ocean... Most of the worlds coral islands were grown when the earth was 10->15C higher than today with 2X-->7X higher CO2 levels.  You reek of desperation dude.  SO desperate you are forgetting a little thing called Geology.  

Oceans store CO2 creating giant beds of methalates.

Then there is the laughing stock known as idiots who claim Methane is 20X stronger GHG than CO2... well if you are brain dead and do not have any oxygen in the atmosphere in your little make believe world.... Known as morons trying to obtain funding so they do not get fired.  What is even MORE incredible is so called "scientists" in supposedly "science" peer reviewed journals actually publish this crap without any repercussions.....

Meanwhile in the real World....

NOAA position

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time-Series

The Royal Society

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-15/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAkfriBRD1ARIsAASKsQLBkCzNfzvkOD2YLvVQ7mxjwwE1kkTpDUilHb3myU_8fHSBwcILqTEaAt3kEALw_wcB

Woods Hole Oceanographic

http://www.whoi.edu/ocean-acidification/

NERC

https://nerc.ukri.org/planetearth/stories/265/

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, Wastral said:

Learn how to read dude.  Or learn how many types of plants grows.  Increased photosynthesis efficiency does what.... What is photosynthesis again.... ?  Its all about resources the plant uses.  Efficiency definition is what?  Less resources used for tonnage of rice grown...  

Here is a Chinese paper regarding desert plants for you....  If CO2 increases by 400%, water efficiency of some desert plants increases by 400%.  So, many plants need 25% less water to survive... http://www.co2science.org/articles/V22/feb/a3.php

Water transport between root/leave respiration means less minerals being transported because minerals are soluable in ...... wait for.... wait... wait..... water...

We are well aware that that an increased atmospheric CO2 level may reduce water consumption. The mechanisms are well known and apply to C3 plants rather than C4. With higher levels of CO2 the plants stomata do not need to be open for as long and this reduces evapotranspiration. 

Now at normal atmospheric temperatures on Earth water will evaporate - this is how plants lose water tharough Evapotranspiration. Can you please explain how Calcium Phosphate (a common micronutrient in plants) is going to evaporate along with that water when its melting point is >1000 degrees C? 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, Wastral said:

Ah yes, the Ocean acidification baloney...

Here ya go: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V22/feb/a1.php

Creating algae... zooplankton,.... fish food.  Poor fishies are going to get 50% more food.  What will they possibly do! Der fishies are gonna get fat! 

As for death of the ocean... Most of the worlds coral islands were grown when the earth was 10->15C higher than today with 2X-->7X higher CO2 levels.  You reek of desperation dude.  SO desperate you are forgetting a little thing called Geology.  

Oceans store CO2 creating giant beds of methalates.

Then there is the laughing stock known as idiots who claim Methane is 20X stronger GHG than CO2... well if you are brain dead and do not have any oxygen in the atmosphere in your little make believe world.... Known as morons trying to obtain funding so they do not get fired.  What is even MORE incredible is so called "scientists" in supposedly "science" peer reviewed journals actually publish this crap without any repercussions.....

So we are supposed to disbelieve the collective works of authors of this document on the basis of what someone who dropped out of 'Fisiks' aged 12 says on this website?

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

20 hours ago, Wastral said:

Fine... Took me 3 seconds: https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/22315/PDF

Scroll through to the conclusion:  1st Paragraph.  "Increase in resource efficiency".... Duh, increased Photosynthesis energy available allowing one not to waste resources. 

 

Read the abstract... 

"Carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse' gases continue to increase in the earth's atmosphere at a relatively rapid rate. Because of this, atmospheric general circulation models predict substantial increases in atmospheric temperature and changes in regional precipitation patterns by the later part of this century... Scientific evidence already indicates that the earth's near-surface temperature has increased about 0.6°C- just over the past three decades."

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

10 hours ago, Wastral said:

Ah yes, the Ocean acidification baloney...

Here ya go: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V22/feb/a1.php

Creating algae... zooplankton,.... fish food.  Poor fishies are going to get 50% more food.  What will they possibly do! Der fishies are gonna get fat! 

As for death of the ocean... Most of the worlds coral islands were grown when the earth was 10->15C higher than today with 2X-->7X higher CO2 levels.  You reek of desperation dude.  SO desperate you are forgetting a little thing called Geology.  

Oceans store CO2 creating giant beds of methalates.

Then there is the laughing stock known as idiots who claim Methane is 20X stronger GHG than CO2... well if you are brain dead and do not have any oxygen in the atmosphere in your little make believe world.... Known as morons trying to obtain funding so they do not get fired.  What is even MORE incredible is so called "scientists" in supposedly "science" peer reviewed journals actually publish this crap without any repercussions.....

Brush up on infrared spectroscopy...

[Personal Coach + 16]

On 2/7/2019 at 9:02 PM, Red said:

  Carbon sequestration is a viable means to reduce GHG levels ...

Sorry bro'. I'm just not with you on that one.  Even AOC in her Green New Deal Manifesto is against man-made carbon sequestration devices. Her position "Plant More Trees" for carbon sequestration. 

 

Looking at the big picture: The Sun just wrapped up the biggest and longest run of solar activity EVER recorded, as measured by sunspot counts in Cycles 17-23.  Now we are going into a prolonged decline of solar activity... like the 1600's....  This is just part of the natural 400 year solar activity cycle.  The Spaceweather site has been keeping tabs ever since weak Solar Cycle 24 started with 268 sunspot-free days in 2008, and 260 sunspot-free days in 2009.  Cycle 24 is winding down, and all eyes on the start of Cycle 25 in 2019-2020.  I'm preparing for increasing cold weather, worldwide cold-weather related crop losses, and increased precipitation leading to increased floods. 

 

 

Edited February 9, 2019 by Personal Coach

[Red + 252]

10 minutes ago, Personal Coach said:

Sorry bro'. I'm just not with you on that one.  Even AOC in her Green New Deal Manifesto is against man-made carbon sequestration devices. Her position "Plant More Trees" for carbon sequestration. 

As I have never mentioned "man-made carbon sequestration devices", ever, in any posts across many different forums, it is odd you would have that idea.

10 minutes ago, Personal Coach said:

Looking at the big picture: The Sun just wrapped up the biggest and longest run of solar activity EVER recorded, as measured by sunspot counts.  Now we are going into a prolonged decline of solar activity... like the 1600's.... 

And your evidence for this claim is where, exactly?

10 minutes ago, Personal Coach said:

I'm preparing for increasing cold weather, worldwide cold-weather related crop losses, and increased precipitation leading to increased floods.

Good for you.  Maybe learn about radiative forcing effects and you will realise that your idea about cooling is almost impossible at generation time scales.

Edited February 9, 2019 by Red
to be nice

[NickW + 2,714]

16 minutes ago, Personal Coach said:

Sorry bro'. I'm just not with you on that one.  Even AOC in her Green New Deal Manifesto is against man-made carbon sequestration devices. Her position "Plant More Trees" for carbon sequestration. 

 

Looking at the big picture: The Sun just wrapped up the biggest and longest run of solar activity EVER recorded, as measured by sunspot counts.  Now we are going into a prolonged decline of solar activity... like the 1600's....  This is just part of the natural 400 year solar activity cycle.  The Spaceweather site has been keeping tabs ever since weak Solar Cycle 24 started with 268 sunspot-free days in 2008, and 260 sunspot-free days in 2009.  Cycle 24 is winding down, and all eyes on the start of Cycle 25 in 2019-2020.  I'm preparing for increasing cold weather, worldwide cold-weather related crop losses, and increased precipitation leading to increased floods. 

 

 

Without questioning the validity of that 2nd graph it is interesting that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record occurred after the year 2000. 

Of course this might suggest there is a disconnect between sunspot levels and global temperatures