Very interesting read, but with some very disturbing information.
“The extinctions don’t really start to kick in until about 2 degrees, and then they start to accelerate rapidly beyond 2 degrees.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-08-31/climate-change-fossil-record/10172532
PermeateFree said:
Very interesting read, but with some very disturbing information.“The extinctions don’t really start to kick in until about 2 degrees, and then they start to accelerate rapidly beyond 2 degrees.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-08-31/climate-change-fossil-record/10172532
“The changes that they’re looking at happened over 5,000-10,000 years, and the changes that we’re looking at are happening over a century scale,” Dr Sniderman said.
Business-as-usual scenario ‘basically unmanageable’
—-
Meanwhile, new PM Scummo is continuing to insist that Australia will meet its (pathetically inadequate) Paris climate commitments “in a canter” despite the government having no emissions reduction policies to achieve that result.
Ian said:
PermeateFree said:
Very interesting read, but with some very disturbing information.“The extinctions don’t really start to kick in until about 2 degrees, and then they start to accelerate rapidly beyond 2 degrees.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-08-31/climate-change-fossil-record/10172532
“The changes that they’re looking at happened over 5,000-10,000 years, and the changes that we’re looking at are happening over a century scale,” Dr Sniderman said.
Business-as-usual scenario ‘basically unmanageable’
—-
Meanwhile, new PM Scummo is continuing to insist that Australia will meet its (pathetically inadequate) Paris climate commitments “in a canter” despite the government having no emissions reduction policies to achieve that result.
If they can meet the current target “in a canter”, and they recognise that climate change is a actually a real problem (which they say they do), then obviously they should raise the target.
That or come clean that their real aim is to hide the short term costs, and pass on hugely increased costs to future generations.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Ian said:
PermeateFree said:
Very interesting read, but with some very disturbing information.“The extinctions don’t really start to kick in until about 2 degrees, and then they start to accelerate rapidly beyond 2 degrees.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-08-31/climate-change-fossil-record/10172532
“The changes that they’re looking at happened over 5,000-10,000 years, and the changes that we’re looking at are happening over a century scale,” Dr Sniderman said.
Business-as-usual scenario ‘basically unmanageable’
—-
Meanwhile, new PM Scummo is continuing to insist that Australia will meet its (pathetically inadequate) Paris climate commitments “in a canter” despite the government having no emissions reduction policies to achieve that result.
If they can meet the current target “in a canter”, and they recognise that climate change is a actually a real problem (which they say they do), then obviously they should raise the target.
That or come clean that their real aim is to hide the short term costs, and pass on hugely increased costs to future generations.
What sort of sacrifice or compromise would most Australians be willing to cop to do our part in minimising climate change I wonder
Cymek said:
What sort of sacrifice or compromise would most Australians be willing to cop to do our part in minimising climate change I wonder
Stop breathing?
mollwollfumble said:
Cymek said:What sort of sacrifice or compromise would most Australians be willing to cop to do our part in minimising climate change I wonder
Stop breathing?
Probably too extreme, but I wonder if you could wean us off our high meat consumption for a start and cease all logging except for specifically grown trees for that purpose. Make people on community service clean up specific areas of rubbish instead of stupid feel good projects, free labour just waiting to be used.
Cymek said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Ian said:“The changes that they’re looking at happened over 5,000-10,000 years, and the changes that we’re looking at are happening over a century scale,” Dr Sniderman said.
Business-as-usual scenario ‘basically unmanageable’
—-
Meanwhile, new PM Scummo is continuing to insist that Australia will meet its (pathetically inadequate) Paris climate commitments “in a canter” despite the government having no emissions reduction policies to achieve that result.
If they can meet the current target “in a canter”, and they recognise that climate change is a actually a real problem (which they say they do), then obviously they should raise the target.
That or come clean that their real aim is to hide the short term costs, and pass on hugely increased costs to future generations.
What sort of sacrifice or compromise would most Australians be willing to cop to do our part in minimising climate change I wonder
A moderate increase in short term energy prices, with compensation for low income earners, allowing investment in energy infrastructure that makes good long term sense anyway, quite apart from climate change, doesn’t seem too much to ask.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Cymek said:
The Rev Dodgson said:If they can meet the current target “in a canter”, and they recognise that climate change is a actually a real problem (which they say they do), then obviously they should raise the target.
That or come clean that their real aim is to hide the short term costs, and pass on hugely increased costs to future generations.
What sort of sacrifice or compromise would most Australians be willing to cop to do our part in minimising climate change I wonder
A moderate increase in short term energy prices, with compensation for low income earners, allowing investment in energy infrastructure that makes good long term sense anyway, quite apart from climate change, doesn’t seem too much to ask.
No it doesn’t, does the fact energy production is a profit making enterprise cause problems about environmental responsibility.
Cymek said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Cymek said:What sort of sacrifice or compromise would most Australians be willing to cop to do our part in minimising climate change I wonder
A moderate increase in short term energy prices, with compensation for low income earners, allowing investment in energy infrastructure that makes good long term sense anyway, quite apart from climate change, doesn’t seem too much to ask.
No it doesn’t, does the fact energy production is a profit making enterprise cause problems about environmental responsibility.
Silly me of course it does, we go to wars over the control of energy production
Cymek said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Cymek said:What sort of sacrifice or compromise would most Australians be willing to cop to do our part in minimising climate change I wonder
A moderate increase in short term energy prices, with compensation for low income earners, allowing investment in energy infrastructure that makes good long term sense anyway, quite apart from climate change, doesn’t seem too much to ask.
No it doesn’t, does the fact energy production is a profit making enterprise cause problems about environmental responsibility.
Not necessarily, but the long term costs need to be visible, which in a “free market” means there needs to be a price on GHG emissions imposed by the regulator, which the current government refuses to do. Having it government controlled wouldn’t help because they’d still want to hide the long term costs.
Not that Labor will do much/any better, judging by what they currently choose to comment on.
Thought I’d look up ‘holistic climate model’ all-in-title in Google scholar. Three papers.
NOAA holistic climate and earth system model strategy. Phase I, Current state
Multi-model framework for modeling holistic climate and air quality strategies
To read that access it through https://sci-hub.tw/https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2539164
Climate Research: a Model for Holistic & Contextual Thinking
Let me know if you can get the whole article. The abstract looks promising, but a bit pie-in-the-sky:
“Public support of climate research is motivated by a desire to identify hazards and anticipate risks. Society’s future security and safety depend on predicting often unknown hazards. Laser-like focus on less than the total of Earth’s system of systems increases our vulnerability to change. Thus, El-Nino, the oceans and biosphere become essential elements for strategic planning under climate change. So, too, are seemingly impossible to predict elements of tectonics, global energy policy and technology, and public action. A grand challenge for climate research is to include holistic and contextual thinking while satisfying a public need to understand future risks attributable to climate.”
From http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/plantphysiol/73/3/555.full.pdf
“Ludlow’s measurements were made at an ambient CO2 concentration of 300 µl/l. At this CO2 concentration, C4 plants are CO2 saturated, but the quantum yield of C3 plants are still very much CO2 dependent. At a CO2 concentration of 300 µl/l, the slope of the relationship between quantum yield and CO2 concentration is 0.0003 mol CO2 /E/µl. This translates into a 0.008 mol CO2 / E decrease in quantum yield in changing from a 330 to a 300 µl/l CO2 atmosphere. This C02-dependent quantum yield reduction is sufficient to account for most of the differences in quantum yield between our data and those of Ludlow.”
So, how has this atmospheric CO2 dependence affected our food crops first of all?
From https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/photosynthesis-in-plants/photorespiration—c3-c4-cam-plants/a/c3-c4-and-cam-plants-agriculture
and
https://www.easybiologyclass.com/similarities-and-difference-between-c3-and-c4-plants-a-comparison-table/
and
https://sites.uni.edu/bergv/pp/unit_2/pp092-11.html
“The majority of plants are C3 plants”. “The C4 pathway is used in about 3% percent of all vascular plants”.
Crops that are C3 plants include wheat, rye, oats, rice, cotton, sunflower, beans, potatoes, most temperate crops, all woody trees.
Crops that are C4 plants include sugarcane, corn, sorghum. Mostly limited to grasses.
So, increasing atmospheric CO2 greatly increases the productivity of wheat, rye, oats, rice, cotton, sunflower, beans, potatoes, most temperate crops, and all woody trees but does not increase the productivity of sugarcane, corn or sorghum.
Since 97% of vascular plants are C3 plants, all of these would benefit from higher atmospheric CO2 levels, unless some other factor such as drought, increasing cloud cover or increasing temperature intervenes.
(Warning, devil’s advocate mode) ¿Have you considered the possibility that Malthus might have been right if it wasn’t for climate change – i.e. the possibility that we may all have been starving right now if it weren’t for the anthropogenic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere? I don’t believe it, but it doesn’t look impossible, because crop yields have increased not just due to fertiliser and better farming methods, but also due to higher atmospheric CO2. It would take some calculation to figure out.
Have just downloaded the IPCC Climate Change 2014 5th Synthesis Report to see what it says about this.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf
“The IPCC is now 95 percent certain that humans are the main cause of current global warming.”
Huh? I’m 100% certain. I don’t know anyone who isn’t 100% certain.
The IPCC synthesis report doesn’t mention plants at all ! There is certainly no mention of the effect of atmospheric CO2 on plant growth !
The word “plant” in the IPCC report is limited to “nuclear power plants”, “coal-fired power plants”, “natural gas combined-cycle power plants”, “combined heat and power plants”, “power plants with CCS” and “fossil fuel power plants without CCS”.
Don’t they realise that plants are part of the environment?
mollwollfumble said:
From http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/plantphysiol/73/3/555.full.pdf“Ludlow’s measurements were made at an ambient CO2 concentration of 300 µl/l. At this CO2 concentration, C4 plants are CO2 saturated, but the quantum yield of C3 plants are still very much CO2 dependent. At a CO2 concentration of 300 µl/l, the slope of the relationship between quantum yield and CO2 concentration is 0.0003 mol CO2 /E/µl. This translates into a 0.008 mol CO2 / E decrease in quantum yield in changing from a 330 to a 300 µl/l CO2 atmosphere. This C02-dependent quantum yield reduction is sufficient to account for most of the differences in quantum yield between our data and those of Ludlow.”
So, how has this atmospheric CO2 dependence affected our food crops first of all?
From https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/photosynthesis-in-plants/photorespiration—c3-c4-cam-plants/a/c3-c4-and-cam-plants-agriculture
and
https://www.easybiologyclass.com/similarities-and-difference-between-c3-and-c4-plants-a-comparison-table/
and
https://sites.uni.edu/bergv/pp/unit_2/pp092-11.html“The majority of plants are C3 plants”. “The C4 pathway is used in about 3% percent of all vascular plants”.
Crops that are C3 plants include wheat, rye, oats, rice, cotton, sunflower, beans, potatoes, most temperate crops, all woody trees.
Crops that are C4 plants include sugarcane, corn, sorghum. Mostly limited to grasses.So, increasing atmospheric CO2 greatly increases the productivity of wheat, rye, oats, rice, cotton, sunflower, beans, potatoes, most temperate crops, and all woody trees but does not increase the productivity of sugarcane, corn or sorghum.
Since 97% of vascular plants are C3 plants, all of these would benefit from higher atmospheric CO2 levels, unless some other factor such as drought, increasing cloud cover or increasing temperature intervenes.
(Warning, devil’s advocate mode) ¿Have you considered the possibility that Malthus might have been right if it wasn’t for climate change – i.e. the possibility that we may all have been starving right now if it weren’t for the anthropogenic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere? I don’t believe it, but it doesn’t look impossible, because crop yields have increased not just due to fertiliser and better farming methods, but also due to higher atmospheric CO2. It would take some calculation to figure out.
Have just downloaded the IPCC Climate Change 2014 5th Synthesis Report to see what it says about this.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf“The IPCC is now 95 percent certain that humans are the main cause of current global warming.”
Huh? I’m 100% certain. I don’t know anyone who isn’t 100% certain.The IPCC synthesis report doesn’t mention plants at all ! There is certainly no mention of the effect of atmospheric CO2 on plant growth !
The word “plant” in the IPCC report is limited to “nuclear power plants”, “coal-fired power plants”, “natural gas combined-cycle power plants”, “combined heat and power plants”, “power plants with CCS” and “fossil fuel power plants without CCS”.
Don’t they realise that plants are part of the environment?
I discussed the problems of co2 and plants the other day, but as usual you ignore anything that conflicts with your preconceived and single dimensional views.
PermeateFree said:
I discussed the problems of co2 and plants the other day, but as usual you ignore anything that conflicts with your preconceived and single dimensional views.
I don’t think PermeateFree appreciates how much his/her/its posts mean to me. But that’s fine.
First. Science progresses by informed criticism. Without criticism, science is dead. It’s essential for younger and more enthusiastic scientists like PermeateFree to criticise the old guard, like me. That’s how science works. My PhD supervisor didn’t believe in plate tectonics – loss of perspective is a hazard of old age.
Second, without PermeateFree’s criticism I wouldn’t question my preconceived ideas. The criticism helps me to question these preconceived ideas and in so doing grow as a person. For example, the claim that “Research has shown faster plant growth due to co2 simulation causes disruption to forest ecosystems by encouraging rapid growth species” is a sensible hypothesis that needs testing. So I looked for confirmation. I didn’t find confirmation, but that doesn’t make it false.
Third, I see in PermeateFree an image of myself as I used to be before I became a cynical old fart. Back in the 1960s, I was protesting about lack of action in stopping the Crown of Thorns starfish from destroying the Great Barrier Reef. In the 1970s and 1980s I was an active anti-nuclear campaigner, protesting against the American ships carrying nuclear weapons into Australian cities. In the 1980s I was extremely concerned about global warming, long long before it became politicised.
Fourth, I don’t disagree with anything that PermeateFree says. Take this thread for example “The extinctions don’t really start to kick in until about 2 degrees, and then they start to accelerate rapidly beyond 2 degrees.” Absolutely true, unless zoos and botanic gardens around the world take a hand in saving the threatened species, which they will. The work done by zoos and reserves in saving species is wonderful.
mollwollfumble said:
PermeateFree said:I discussed the problems of co2 and plants the other day, but as usual you ignore anything that conflicts with your preconceived and single dimensional views.
I don’t think PermeateFree appreciates how much his/her/its posts mean to me. But that’s fine.
First. Science progresses by informed criticism. Without criticism, science is dead. It’s essential for younger and more enthusiastic scientists like PermeateFree to criticise the old guard, like me. That’s how science works. My PhD supervisor didn’t believe in plate tectonics – loss of perspective is a hazard of old age.
Second, without PermeateFree’s criticism I wouldn’t question my preconceived ideas. The criticism helps me to question these preconceived ideas and in so doing grow as a person. For example, the claim that “Research has shown faster plant growth due to co2 simulation causes disruption to forest ecosystems by encouraging rapid growth species” is a sensible hypothesis that needs testing. So I looked for confirmation. I didn’t find confirmation, but that doesn’t make it false.
Third, I see in PermeateFree an image of myself as I used to be before I became a cynical old fart. Back in the 1960s, I was protesting about lack of action in stopping the Crown of Thorns starfish from destroying the Great Barrier Reef. In the 1970s and 1980s I was an active anti-nuclear campaigner, protesting against the American ships carrying nuclear weapons into Australian cities. In the 1980s I was extremely concerned about global warming, long long before it became politicised.
Fourth, I don’t disagree with anything that PermeateFree says. Take this thread for example “The extinctions don’t really start to kick in until about 2 degrees, and then they start to accelerate rapidly beyond 2 degrees.” Absolutely true, unless zoos and botanic gardens around the world take a hand in saving the threatened species, which they will. The work done by zoos and reserves in saving species is wonderful.
:)
This makes for sobering reading…
Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene
We explore the risk that self-reinforcing feedbacks could push the Earth System toward a planetary threshold that, if crossed, could prevent stabilization of the climate at intermediate temperature rises and cause continued warming on a “Hothouse Earth” pathway even as human emissions are reduced. Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene. We examine the evidence that such a threshold might exist and where it might be. If the threshold is crossed, the resulting trajectory would likely cause serious disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies. Collective human action is required to steer the Earth System away from a potential threshold and stabilize it in a habitable interglacial-like state. Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth System—biosphere, climate, and societies—and could include decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values.
mollwollfumble said:
PermeateFree said:I discussed the problems of co2 and plants the other day, but as usual you ignore anything that conflicts with your preconceived and single dimensional views.
I don’t think PermeateFree appreciates how much his/her/its posts mean to me. But that’s fine.
First. Science progresses by informed criticism. Without criticism, science is dead. It’s essential for younger and more enthusiastic scientists like PermeateFree to criticise the old guard, like me. That’s how science works. My PhD supervisor didn’t believe in plate tectonics – loss of perspective is a hazard of old age.
Second, without PermeateFree’s criticism I wouldn’t question my preconceived ideas. The criticism helps me to question these preconceived ideas and in so doing grow as a person. For example, the claim that “Research has shown faster plant growth due to co2 simulation causes disruption to forest ecosystems by encouraging rapid growth species” is a sensible hypothesis that needs testing. So I looked for confirmation. I didn’t find confirmation, but that doesn’t make it false.
Third, I see in PermeateFree an image of myself as I used to be before I became a cynical old fart. Back in the 1960s, I was protesting about lack of action in stopping the Crown of Thorns starfish from destroying the Great Barrier Reef. In the 1970s and 1980s I was an active anti-nuclear campaigner, protesting against the American ships carrying nuclear weapons into Australian cities. In the 1980s I was extremely concerned about global warming, long long before it became politicised.
Fourth, I don’t disagree with anything that PermeateFree says. Take this thread for example “The extinctions don’t really start to kick in until about 2 degrees, and then they start to accelerate rapidly beyond 2 degrees.” Absolutely true, unless zoos and botanic gardens around the world take a hand in saving the threatened species, which they will. The work done by zoos and reserves in saving species is wonderful.
For a start mollwollfumble, no scientist would make the ridiculous statements you do. If you really do know something about astronomy, then you know sod all about anything else, which would make you a savant at best. You might notice I do not comment on your astronomy posts simply because I know little about them to make sensible comment, yet that does not stop you from continually making pre-school comments about things you know nothing about in other posts.
Secondly this thread is about the influence climate change is having on this planets naturally occurring systems, not crops. Also you might stop changing the topic in order to fit your reading of a sister subject, which you then adversely relate to the original topic.
Thirdly, You think the environment can be explained by a simple linear answer where one solution will solve the entire problem. The environment is highly complex and involves many features that interact with each other and your simplistic outlook on everything contributes nothing but misinformation.
I liken your attempts to belittle anything environmental in the same way I viewed the Observer’s posts, except with him you knew where he was coming from (a confirmed GW denier), which makes someone with your attitude, nothing but a troll, if not a fool. In my opinion you suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect, a cognitive bias, which apparently is non-reversible, but despite that, I will not accept your pseudoscientic explanations. I trust I have made myself clear!
> The environment is highly complex and involves many features that interact with each other.
I totally agree. I couldn’t have put it better myself.