The IPCC has released another report which will eventually be part of the IPCC’s sixth assessment report (expected next year), AR6.

Specifically it is Working Group 1’s report: The Physical Science Basis.

I’ve not read the full report yet, just the technical summary and summary for policy makersm

Some main points:

Best estimate of global warming since the 1850-1900 average is 1.09 deg C.

It is virtually certain that the global upper ocean (0–700 m) has warmed since the 1970s and extremely likely that human influence is the main driver. It is virtually certain that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main driver of current global acidification of the surface open ocean. Human influence is very likely the main driver of the global retreat of glaciers since the 1990s and the decrease in Arctic sea ice area between 1979–1988 and 2010–2019 (about 40% in September and about 10% in March).

In 2019, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were higher than at any time in at least 2 million years
(high confidence), and concentrations of CH4 and N2O were higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years
(very high confidence).

Global surface temperature has increased faster since 1970 than in any other 50-year period over at
least the last 2000 years (high confidence). Temperatures during the most recent decade (2011–2020) exceed
those of the most recent multi-century warm period, around 6500 years ago13 (.2°C to 1°C relative to 1850–
1900)(medium confidence). Prior to that, the next most recent warm period was about 125,000 years ago
when the multi-century temperature (0.5°C to 1.5°C relative to 1850–1900) overlaps the observations of the
most recent decade (medium confidence).

It is virtually certain that hot extremes (including heatwaves) have become more frequent and more
intense across most land regions since the 1950s, while cold extremes (including cold waves) have become
less frequent and less severe, with high confidence that human-induced climate change is the main driver14 of
these changes.

Almost every region of the globe experienced more intense and more frequent hot extremes since the 1950s century reference period.. Approximately a third of the world’s regions experienced an increase in drought, whereas only one experienced a decrease in drought (Northern Australia).

The report considered 5 emission models: the only one that gave an expected long term increase of 1.5 deg C, which has been a stated international goal for a while, is one in which emissions drop to 50% of current levels by 2035, and to zero by 2055, followed by a period of net negative emissions.

Since Kyoto, and only since Kyoto, the IPCC has openly, deliberately and systematically ignored every good consequence of increased CO2 emissions, such as the greatly increased forest growth, greatly enlarged whale and fish feeding grounds, greatly reduced frost damage to plants, and the positive effect of sea level rise on coral reefs.

Before Kyoto, the IPCC did address such issues.

Does this “science basis” address this bias? If so, then I’ll read it.

I live in hope.

mollwollfumble said:

Since Kyoto, and only since Kyoto, the IPCC has openly, deliberately and systematically ignored every good consequence of increased CO2 emissions, such as the greatly increased forest growth, greatly enlarged whale and fish feeding grounds, greatly reduced frost damage to plants, and the positive effect of sea level rise on coral reefs.

Before Kyoto, the IPCC did address such issues.

Does this “science basis” address this bias? If so, then I’ll read it.

I live in hope.

Hope isn’t goood enough. We cannot coordinate a useful response to covid. How are we ever going to tackle climate change?

mollwollfumble said:

Since Kyoto, and only since Kyoto, the IPCC has openly, deliberately and systematically ignored every good consequence of increased CO2 emissions, such as the greatly increased forest growth, greatly enlarged whale and fish feeding grounds, greatly reduced frost damage to plants, and the positive effect of sea level rise on coral reefs.

Before Kyoto, the IPCC did address such issues.

Does this “science basis” address this bias? If so, then I’ll read it.

I live in hope.

i’d expect the broader troubles are from the reduction in structure, structure that goes to system/s, the broader structure might be said to have evolved

structure that was happened upon over very long time scales

two perhaps more obvious cycles with structure, that can usefully be seen as part of a larger system are the hydrological cycle and the carbon cycle

transition said:

mollwollfumble said:

Since Kyoto, and only since Kyoto, the IPCC has openly, deliberately and systematically ignored every good consequence of increased CO2 emissions, such as the greatly increased forest growth, greatly enlarged whale and fish feeding grounds, greatly reduced frost damage to plants, and the positive effect of sea level rise on coral reefs.

Before Kyoto, the IPCC did address such issues.

Does this “science basis” address this bias? If so, then I’ll read it.

I live in hope.

i’d expect the broader troubles are from the reduction in structure, structure that goes to system/s, the broader structure might be said to have evolved

structure that was happened upon over very long time scales

two perhaps more obvious cycles with structure, that can usefully be seen as part of a larger system are the hydrological cycle and the carbon cycle

Carbon cycle. Gee. I haven’t seen that mentioned since early high school.

Tamb said:

transition said:

mollwollfumble said:

Since Kyoto, and only since Kyoto, the IPCC has openly, deliberately and systematically ignored every good consequence of increased CO2 emissions, such as the greatly increased forest growth, greatly enlarged whale and fish feeding grounds, greatly reduced frost damage to plants, and the positive effect of sea level rise on coral reefs.

Before Kyoto, the IPCC did address such issues.

Does this “science basis” address this bias? If so, then I’ll read it.

I live in hope.

i’d expect the broader troubles are from the reduction in structure, structure that goes to system/s, the broader structure might be said to have evolved

structure that was happened upon over very long time scales

two perhaps more obvious cycles with structure, that can usefully be seen as part of a larger system are the hydrological cycle and the carbon cycle

Carbon cycle. Gee. I haven’t seen that mentioned since early high school.

and there’s a nitrogen cycle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle

“The nitrogen cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which nitrogen is converted into multiple chemical forms as it circulates among atmosphere, terrestrial, and marine ecosystems. The conversion of nitrogen can be carried out through both biological and physical processes. Important processes in the nitrogen cycle include fixation, ammonification, nitrification, and denitrification. The majority of Earth’s atmosphere (78%) is atmospheric nitrogen, making it the largest source of nitrogen. However, atmospheric nitrogen has limited availability for biological use, leading to a scarcity of usable nitrogen in many types of ecosystems.

The nitrogen cycle is of particular interest to ecologists because nitrogen availability can affect the rate of key ecosystem processes, including primary production and decomposition. Human activities such as fossil fuel combustion, use of artificial nitrogen fertilizers, and release of nitrogen in wastewater have dramatically altered the global nitrogen cycle. Human modification of the global nitrogen cycle can negatively affect the natural environment system and also human health”

Actually, dv, that would make a good project.

Do a direct one to one comparison of the present IPCC science basis report with the Kyoto IPCC science basis report.

To see what, if anything, has been deliberately omitted from the present IPCC report.

This is the report of the Science Basis used for Kyoto. It’s a good report, IMHO the best report published by the IPCC. And it’s only 588 pages long. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf

mollwollfumble said:

Actually, dv, that would make a good project.

Do a direct one to one comparison of the present IPCC science basis report with the Kyoto IPCC science basis report.

To see what, if anything, has been deliberately omitted from the present IPCC report.

This is the report of the Science Basis used for Kyoto. It’s a good report, IMHO the best report published by the IPCC. And it’s only 588 pages long. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf

The new report is here. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
Or in one piece here. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf

But good luck downloading it in one piece. I’ve downloaded it chapter by chapter. I’m currently on my sixth attempt to download it in a single piece. Nope, failed again. Have to stick to chapter by chapter.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Actually, dv, that would make a good project.

Do a direct one to one comparison of the present IPCC science basis report with the Kyoto IPCC science basis report.

To see what, if anything, has been deliberately omitted from the present IPCC report.

This is the report of the Science Basis used for Kyoto. It’s a good report, IMHO the best report published by the IPCC. And it’s only 588 pages long. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf

The new report is here. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
Or in one piece here. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf

But good luck downloading it in one piece. I’ve downloaded it chapter by chapter. I’m currently on my sixth attempt to download it in a single piece. Nope, failed again. Have to stick to chapter by chapter.

Most of global wearning is anthropogenic. But that doesn’t immediately imply that most of climate change (particularly regional rainfall) is anthropogenic. I am dearly hoping that the new report will tell me how much of climate change is anthropogenic.

Chapters in 1995 vs chapters in 2021.

Chapters in 1995.

Chapters in 2021.

So

• chapters 9 and 10 from 1995 end up in chapter 5 in 2021
• chapter 8 from 1995 ends up as chapter 3 in 2021
• chapter 7 becomes chapter 9
• chapter 6 becomes chapter 4
• chapter 2 becomes chapter 7
• chapter 3 becomes chapter 2
• chapter 4 becomes sort of chapters 6 & 8 & 10 etc.

Chapter 5 from 1995 is missing from 2021. I’ve noticed this before, scientists get so wrapped in their mathematical models that they forget to independently evaluate the accuracy of those models. It’s a classic problem throughout the whole of science. Anyway, there may be something in the text that explains how crummy these mathematical models really are, keeping in mind that climate modelling is less accurate than weather forecasting.

To me, the whole key to climate change is Chapters 9 and 10 from 1995. If climate chage is good for terrestrial and marine life then we should be encouraging it rather than stopping it.

And on the other hand, if Chapter 10 in 2021 shows only a weak link between anthropogenic global warming and regional rainfall then the whole need for intervention becomes moot.

mollwollfumble said:

Since Kyoto, and only since Kyoto, the IPCC has openly, deliberately and systematically ignored every good consequence of increased CO2 emissions, such as the greatly increased forest growth, greatly enlarged whale and fish feeding grounds, greatly reduced frost damage to plants, and the positive effect of sea level rise on coral reefs.

Before Kyoto, the IPCC did address such issues.

Does this “science basis” address this bias? If so, then I’ll read it.

I live in hope.

Nope. The latest IPCC report has totally omitted the most important consequence of increased greenhouse gases. And I mean totally.

The most important consequence can be found in a reference from the 1995 IPCC science report.

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 results in a 70% increase in world photosynthesis in C3 plants, which includes all trees.
The news is even better than that, because this also results in a factor of two improvement in water utilisation by plants. (Kimball, Mauney, Nakayama & Idso, 1993)

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Since Kyoto, and only since Kyoto, the IPCC has openly, deliberately and systematically ignored every good consequence of increased CO2 emissions, such as the greatly increased forest growth, greatly enlarged whale and fish feeding grounds, greatly reduced frost damage to plants, and the positive effect of sea level rise on coral reefs.

Before Kyoto, the IPCC did address such issues.

Does this “science basis” address this bias? If so, then I’ll read it.

I live in hope.

Nope. The latest IPCC report has totally omitted the most important consequence of increased greenhouse gases. And I mean totally.

The most important consequence can be found in a reference from the 1995 IPCC science report.

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 results in a 70% increase in world photosynthesis in C3 plants, which includes all trees.
The news is even better than that, because this also results in a factor of two improvement in water utilisation by plants. (Kimball, Mauney, Nakayama & Idso, 1993)

And why do you think this is the most important consequence, even if it works that way in practice?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Since Kyoto, and only since Kyoto, the IPCC has openly, deliberately and systematically ignored every good consequence of increased CO2 emissions, such as the greatly increased forest growth, greatly enlarged whale and fish feeding grounds, greatly reduced frost damage to plants, and the positive effect of sea level rise on coral reefs.

Before Kyoto, the IPCC did address such issues.

Does this “science basis” address this bias? If so, then I’ll read it.

I live in hope.

Nope. The latest IPCC report has totally omitted the most important consequence of increased greenhouse gases. And I mean totally.

The most important consequence can be found in a reference from the 1995 IPCC science report.

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 results in a 70% increase in world photosynthesis in C3 plants, which includes all trees.
The news is even better than that, because this also results in a factor of two improvement in water utilisation by plants. (Kimball, Mauney, Nakayama & Idso, 1993)

And why do you think this is the most important consequence, even if it works that way in practice?

I think he’s neglecting the factoid of one thousand years, which is the barre miinimum of tiime it will take to get the tree mass back up to anywhere near where it needs to be to stabilise our atmosphere.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Nope. The latest IPCC report has totally omitted the most important consequence of increased greenhouse gases. And I mean totally.

The most important consequence can be found in a reference from the 1995 IPCC science report.

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 results in a 70% increase in world photosynthesis in C3 plants, which includes all trees.
The news is even better than that, because this also results in a factor of two improvement in water utilisation by plants. (Kimball, Mauney, Nakayama & Idso, 1993)

And why do you think this is the most important consequence, even if it works that way in practice?

I think he’s neglecting the factoid of one thousand years, which is the barre miinimum of tiime it will take to get the tree mass back up to anywhere near where it needs to be to stabilise our atmosphere.

The typos in bare minimum of time shows some emotion.. It is because my pet peeve is restrictive science. It is a rock in space. It isn’t a physics exam.

I can forgive the IPCC a lot.

2021, Chapter 12, p. 3168

But when I went throught the list of nine references that supposedly dealt with the effect of sea level rise on coral reef growth, they were faulty. Not one of them dealt with the effect of sea level rise on coral growth. Seven of the nine were about mangroves. The only one that even mentioned coral was about mesozoic geology.

I can forgive a lot, but citing these references is not easily forgivable.

mollwollfumble, do you watch fox news?

mollwollfumble said:

I can forgive the IPCC a lot.

2021, Chapter 12, p. 3168

But when I went throught the list of nine references that supposedly dealt with the effect of sea level rise on coral reef growth, they were faulty. Not one of them dealt with the effect of sea level rise on coral growth. Seven of the nine were about mangroves. The only one that even mentioned coral was about mesozoic geology.

I can forgive a lot, but citing these references is not easily forgivable.

Fkn pathetic. When they acknowledge the positive effects of sea level rise I’ll read the thing.

Kingy said:

mollwollfumble, do you watch fox news?

There’s such a thing as Fox news? Never heard of it. Wouldn’t know where to find it. Wouldn’t watch it if you paid me.
Do you want to pay me?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Since Kyoto, and only since Kyoto, the IPCC has openly, deliberately and systematically ignored every good consequence of increased CO2 emissions, such as the greatly increased forest growth, greatly enlarged whale and fish feeding grounds, greatly reduced frost damage to plants, and the positive effect of sea level rise on coral reefs.

Before Kyoto, the IPCC did address such issues.

Does this “science basis” address this bias? If so, then I’ll read it.

I live in hope.

Nope. The latest IPCC report has totally omitted the most important consequence of increased greenhouse gases. And I mean totally.

The most important consequence can be found in a reference from the 1995 IPCC science report.

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 results in a 70% increase in world photosynthesis in C3 plants, which includes all trees.
The news is even better than that, because this also results in a factor of two improvement in water utilisation by plants. (Kimball, Mauney, Nakayama & Idso, 1993)

And why do you think this is the most important consequence, even if it works that way in practice?

Many reasons.

• One is that that’s what the results from NASA MODIS Earth observation satellites say.
• The second is that it’s been observed over and over again (at least 1000 times) in plants tested for the effect of CO2 in greenhouses.
• The third is that it’s a first order effect. The influence of greenhouse gases on plant growth via global warming is a third order effect, minuscule by comparison.
• The fourth is that we understand the chemical reactions involved in photosynthesis and that’s what they say.

I’m starting to delve into the IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf, starting to, it’s rather long. But first, I need to know exactly what the scope of this report is. Would it be fair to say that the scope is “bad environmental consequences of climate change due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases”? And not straying outside that scope?

eg. does the scope specifically exclude the revitalisation of coral reefs due to sea level rise, the effect of sea level rise in reducing the worldwide incidence of hurricanes, the 35% increase in crop yields from plant fertilisation by atmospheric CO2, the 60% increase in world photosynthesis and its positive effects on native forests and wildlife and the food web in the sea, the closing of stomatal pores resulting in greater drought tolerance of wild plants, the oxygenation of the Baltic Sea due to reduced fertiliser run-off, the effect of cleaner fuels and sulfur scrubbing that has reduced acid rain, the effects of catalytic converters in reducing NOx pollution, the reduction of soot and volatile organic compounds and foul smells, the cleaning of the world’s rivers, and less risk to wildlife all around the world because of enhanced biosecurity.

Are these missing from the IPCC report because they’re outside the scope of that report?

Kingy said:

mollwollfumble, do you watch fox news?

There’s such a thing as Fox news? Never heard of it. Wouldn’t know where to find it. Wouldn’t watch it if you paid me.
Do you want to pay me?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Nope. The latest IPCC report has totally omitted the most important consequence of increased greenhouse gases. And I mean totally.

The most important consequence can be found in a reference from the 1995 IPCC science report.

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 results in a 70% increase in world photosynthesis in C3 plants, which includes all trees.
The news is even better than that, because this also results in a factor of two improvement in water utilisation by plants. (Kimball, Mauney, Nakayama & Idso, 1993)

And why do you think this is the most important consequence, even if it works that way in practice?

I’m not sure that I understand your question. Are you asking why photosynthesis is so important, or are you asking why I think that the direct effect of CO2 fertilisation of plants exceeds everything due to climate change.

If you’re asking why photosynthsis is so important. It’s because it affects all major ecosystems on Earth. It affects crops. I was just thinking tonight that the increase in crop yields due to increased atmospheric CO2 would be a major reason why we’re not all in the middle of a Malthusian castrophe. Also with crops, it allows plants to survive with less transpiration, resulting in less environmental pressure on scarce water resources. It affects forests. A massive increase in forest growth worldwide would have flow on effects to wildlife numbers and hence wildlife survival (including invertebrates and fungi). Also with forests, it helps forests to take over from grasslands, because the fastest growing grasses are C4 as against slow growing grasses and all trees which are C3. The growth of phytoplankton feeds into food chains in the sea. More zooplankton, more food for baby fish to eat, more food for whales to eat.

Global warming also has a positive effect on plant growth, mainly due to less frost damage and longer growing seasons. But the effect through global warming is much smaller.

If you asking why I think that the direct effect of CO2 fertilisation of plants exceeds everything due to climate change. Many reasons.

• One is that that’s what the results from NASA MODIS Earth observation satellites say. Changes in everything except the greening of the Earth are negligible by comparison.
• The second is that it’s been observed over and over again (at least 1000 times) in plants tested for the effect of CO2 in greenhouses.
• The third is that it’s a first order effect. The influence of greenhouse gases on plant growth via global warming is a third order effect, minuscule by comparison.
• The fourth is that we understand the chemical reactions involved in photosynthesis and that’s what they say.

I’m starting to delve into the IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf, starting to, it’s rather long. But first, I need to know exactly what the scope of this report is. Would it be fair to say that the scope is “bad environmental consequences of climate change due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases”? And not straying outside that scope?

eg. does the scope specifically exclude the revitalisation of coral reefs due to sea level rise, the effect of sea level rise in reducing the worldwide incidence of hurricanes, the 35% increase in crop yields from plant fertilisation by atmospheric CO2, the 60% increase in world photosynthesis and its positive effects on native forests and wildlife and the food web in the sea, the closing of stomatal pores resulting in greater drought tolerance of wild plants, the oxygenation of the Baltic Sea due to reduced fertiliser run-off, the effect of cleaner fuels and sulfur scrubbing that has reduced acid rain, the effects of catalytic converters in reducing NOx pollution, the reduction of soot and volatile organic compounds and foul smells, the cleaning of the world’s rivers, and less risk to wildlife all around the world because of enhanced biosecurity.

Are these missing from the 2021 IPCC report because they’re outside the scope of that report?

How do coral reefs get revitalised by sea levels rising?

Kingy said:

mollwollfumble, do you watch fox news?

Why would anyone watch Fox news?

mollwollfumble said:

Kingy said:

mollwollfumble, do you watch fox news?

There’s such a thing as Fox news? Never heard of it. Wouldn’t know where to find it. Wouldn’t watch it if you paid me.
Do you want to pay me?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Nope. The latest IPCC report has totally omitted the most important consequence of increased greenhouse gases. And I mean totally.

The most important consequence can be found in a reference from the 1995 IPCC science report.

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 results in a 70% increase in world photosynthesis in C3 plants, which includes all trees.
The news is even better than that, because this also results in a factor of two improvement in water utilisation by plants. (Kimball, Mauney, Nakayama & Idso, 1993)

And why do you think this is the most important consequence, even if it works that way in practice?

I’m not sure that I understand your question. Are you asking why photosynthesis is so important, or are you asking why I think that the direct effect of CO2 fertilisation of plants exceeds everything due to climate change.

If you’re asking why photosynthsis is so important. It’s because it affects all major ecosystems on Earth. It affects crops. I was just thinking tonight that the increase in crop yields due to increased atmospheric CO2 would be a major reason why we’re not all in the middle of a Malthusian castrophe. Also with crops, it allows plants to survive with less transpiration, resulting in less environmental pressure on scarce water resources. It affects forests. A massive increase in forest growth worldwide would have flow on effects to wildlife numbers and hence wildlife survival (including invertebrates and fungi). Also with forests, it helps forests to take over from grasslands, because the fastest growing grasses are C4 as against slow growing grasses and all trees which are C3. The growth of phytoplankton feeds into food chains in the sea. More zooplankton, more food for baby fish to eat, more food for whales to eat.

Global warming also has a positive effect on plant growth, mainly due to less frost damage and longer growing seasons. But the effect through global warming is much smaller.

If you asking why I think that the direct effect of CO2 fertilisation of plants exceeds everything due to climate change. Many reasons.

• One is that that’s what the results from NASA MODIS Earth observation satellites say. Changes in everything except the greening of the Earth are negligible by comparison.
• The second is that it’s been observed over and over again (at least 1000 times) in plants tested for the effect of CO2 in greenhouses.
• The third is that it’s a first order effect. The influence of greenhouse gases on plant growth via global warming is a third order effect, minuscule by comparison.
• The fourth is that we understand the chemical reactions involved in photosynthesis and that’s what they say.

I’m starting to delve into the IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf, starting to, it’s rather long. But first, I need to know exactly what the scope of this report is. Would it be fair to say that the scope is “bad environmental consequences of climate change due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases”? And not straying outside that scope?

eg. does the scope specifically exclude the revitalisation of coral reefs due to sea level rise, the effect of sea level rise in reducing the worldwide incidence of hurricanes, the 35% increase in crop yields from plant fertilisation by atmospheric CO2, the 60% increase in world photosynthesis and its positive effects on native forests and wildlife and the food web in the sea, the closing of stomatal pores resulting in greater drought tolerance of wild plants, the oxygenation of the Baltic Sea due to reduced fertiliser run-off, the effect of cleaner fuels and sulfur scrubbing that has reduced acid rain, the effects of catalytic converters in reducing NOx pollution, the reduction of soot and volatile organic compounds and foul smells, the cleaning of the world’s rivers, and less risk to wildlife all around the world because of enhanced biosecurity.

Are these missing from the 2021 IPCC report because they’re outside the scope of that report?

“I’m not sure that I understand your question. Are you asking why photosynthesis is so important, or are you asking why I think that the direct effect of CO2 fertilisation of plants exceeds everything due to climate change.”

Since we are discussing a report on the overall effects of increasing GHG in the atmosphere, clearly the latter.

Firstly we should note that your claim is inherently paradoxical, and hence illogical:
- If increased levels of CO2 are overall a good thing, then increased photosynthesis is a bad thing, because it reduces the increase in CO2.
- If increased levels of CO2 are overall a bad thing, which is the conclusion of the report, then increased photosynthesis remains a bad thing, because although it reduces the bad effects of increasing CO2 levels, the overall effects remain bad, so long as CO2 is increasing, and you don’t get the increased photosynthesis unless the CO2 does increase.

Secondly, searching for any possible beneficial effects of increasing GHG levels, treating those as absolutely certain, and totally ignoring everything else, is the very opposite of scepticism.

Finally, I haven’t read the report, and I don’t intend to, but assuming future CO2 projections are based at least in part on historical records, which include all effects such as increased photosynthesis and deforestation, then these effects are included, whether specifically referenced or not.

Re-post with quotes fixed:

mollwollfumble said:

Kingy said:

mollwollfumble, do you watch fox news?

There’s such a thing as Fox news? Never heard of it. Wouldn’t know where to find it. Wouldn’t watch it if you paid me.
Do you want to pay me?

The Rev Dodgson said:

And why do you think this is the most important consequence, even if it works that way in practice?

I’m not sure that I understand your question. Are you asking why photosynthesis is so important, or are you asking why I think that the direct effect of CO2 fertilisation of plants exceeds everything due to climate change.

If you’re asking why photosynthsis is so important. It’s because it affects all major ecosystems on Earth. It affects crops. I was just thinking tonight that the increase in crop yields due to increased atmospheric CO2 would be a major reason why we’re not all in the middle of a Malthusian castrophe. Also with crops, it allows plants to survive with less transpiration, resulting in less environmental pressure on scarce water resources. It affects forests. A massive increase in forest growth worldwide would have flow on effects to wildlife numbers and hence wildlife survival (including invertebrates and fungi). Also with forests, it helps forests to take over from grasslands, because the fastest growing grasses are C4 as against slow growing grasses and all trees which are C3. The growth of phytoplankton feeds into food chains in the sea. More zooplankton, more food for baby fish to eat, more food for whales to eat.

Global warming also has a positive effect on plant growth, mainly due to less frost damage and longer growing seasons. But the effect through global warming is much smaller.

If you asking why I think that the direct effect of CO2 fertilisation of plants exceeds everything due to climate change. Many reasons.

• One is that that’s what the results from NASA MODIS Earth observation satellites say. Changes in everything except the greening of the Earth are negligible by comparison.
• The second is that it’s been observed over and over again (at least 1000 times) in plants tested for the effect of CO2 in greenhouses.
• The third is that it’s a first order effect. The influence of greenhouse gases on plant growth via global warming is a third order effect, minuscule by comparison.
• The fourth is that we understand the chemical reactions involved in photosynthesis and that’s what they say.

I’m starting to delve into the IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf, starting to, it’s rather long. But first, I need to know exactly what the scope of this report is. Would it be fair to say that the scope is “bad environmental consequences of climate change due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases”? And not straying outside that scope?

eg. does the scope specifically exclude the revitalisation of coral reefs due to sea level rise, the effect of sea level rise in reducing the worldwide incidence of hurricanes, the 35% increase in crop yields from plant fertilisation by atmospheric CO2, the 60% increase in world photosynthesis and its positive effects on native forests and wildlife and the food web in the sea, the closing of stomatal pores resulting in greater drought tolerance of wild plants, the oxygenation of the Baltic Sea due to reduced fertiliser run-off, the effect of cleaner fuels and sulfur scrubbing that has reduced acid rain, the effects of catalytic converters in reducing NOx pollution, the reduction of soot and volatile organic compounds and foul smells, the cleaning of the world’s rivers, and less risk to wildlife all around the world because of enhanced biosecurity.

Are these missing from the 2021 IPCC report because they’re outside the scope of that report?

“I’m not sure that I understand your question. Are you asking why photosynthesis is so important, or are you asking why I think that the direct effect of CO2 fertilisation of plants exceeds everything due to climate change.”

Since we are discussing a report on the overall effects of increasing GHG in the atmosphere, clearly the latter.

Firstly we should note that your claim is inherently paradoxical, and hence illogical:
- If increased levels of CO2 are overall a good thing, then increased photosynthesis is a bad thing, because it reduces the increase in CO2.
- If increased levels of CO2 are overall a bad thing, which is the conclusion of the report, then increased photosynthesis remains a bad thing, because although it reduces the bad effects of increasing CO2 levels, the overall effects remain bad, so long as CO2 is increasing, and you don’t get the increased photosynthesis unless the CO2 does increase.

Secondly, searching for any possible beneficial effects of increasing GHG levels, treating those as absolutely certain, and totally ignoring everything else, is the very opposite of scepticism.

Finally, I haven’t read the report, and I don’t intend to, but assuming future CO2 projections are based at least in part on historical records, which include all effects such as increased photosynthesis and deforestation, then these effects are included, whether specifically referenced or not.

I’m now starting to read the IPCC 2021 report from the beginning (summary for policymakers). The first obvious error is amusing, even endearing, and I would have skipped over it except that when the same type of error occurred again it became annoying.

Consider the sentences:
“A causes B” therefore “B is caused by A”. This seems harmless until you substitute actual words for A and B. “Explosion causes movement” is true, but “Movement is caused by explosion” is generally false. It’s a standard logical fallacy taken straight out of Chapter 2 of Thouless book “Straight and crooked thinking”.

As I say, it’s an endearing type of error, but not one that should be repeated,

The first part of the IPCC 2021 report that screamed “no” to me is the Summary for Policymakers page 36 and continued on 37. There are multiple errors here. Let’s analyse it in detail.

> “there is a near-linear relationship between cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the global warming they cause”.

Perfectly correct. But highly misleading. Laboratory measurements of CO2 infrared absorption (due to molecule bending and stretching resonances) tell us that the ratio of temperature increase to CO2 increase cannot be linear. The temperature increase must drop as the CO2 concentration increases. If I understand my infrared spectroscopy correctly, the temperature rise decreases exponentially as the CO2 concentration increases (if I don’t understand correctly, the temperature rise still decreases rapidly as CO2 increases). It only appears linear because of the small range of CO2 values, because of other extraneous influences on global temperature such as soot and CFCs, and because the observation curve fluctuates up and down a lot. Don’t use a least squares linear fit to a wonky data curve as a basis for extrapolation, use the theoretically correct curve. The global warming extrapolated in Figure 10 based on a linear fit could be a factor of two too large.

> “Each 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative CO2 emissions is assessed to likely cause a 0.27°C to 0.63°C increase in global surface temperature”.

This is a shockingly high level of inaccuracy. Surely, 50 years of accurate observations together with chemical theory can pin the value down more accurately than that!

> “Every tonne of CO₂ emissions adds to global warming.”

Perfectly correct. But highly misleading. CO2 in the atmosphere has a limited lifespan. In order to freeze global warming at a specific atmospheric CO2 concentration, such as 700 microliters per litre (is that the value specified in the Kyoto protocol?), we need to reduce CO2 emissions to match the natural removal rate of CO2 from the atmosphere. We do not need zero emissions. A big advantage of matching CO2 emissions to removal rate is that it grows the biosphere without causing global warming.

mollwollfumble said:

> “Every tonne of CO₂ emissions adds to global warming.”

Perfectly correct. But highly misleading. CO2 in the atmosphere has a limited lifespan. In order to freeze global warming at a specific atmospheric CO2 concentration, such as 700 microliters per litre (is that the value specified in the Kyoto protocol?), we need to reduce CO2 emissions to match the natural removal rate of CO2 from the atmosphere. We do not need zero emissions. A big advantage of matching CO2 emissions to removal rate is that it grows the biosphere without causing global warming.

Excuse me for picking just one point (I should be working), but that’s probably why everyone talks about nett zero emissions, rather than zero emissions.

mollwollfumble said:

I’m now starting to read the IPCC 2021 report from the beginning (summary for policymakers). The first obvious error is amusing, even endearing, and I would have skipped over it except that when the same type of error occurred again it became annoying.

Consider the sentences:
“A causes B” therefore “B is caused by A”. This seems harmless until you substitute actual words for A and B. “Explosion causes movement” is true, but “Movement is caused by explosion” is generally false. It’s a standard logical fallacy taken straight out of Chapter 2 of Thouless book “Straight and crooked thinking”.

As I say, it’s an endearing type of error, but not one that should be repeated,

The first part of the IPCC 2021 report that screamed “no” to me is the Summary for Policymakers page 36 and continued on 37. There are multiple errors here. Let’s analyse it in detail.

> “there is a near-linear relationship between cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the global warming they cause”.

Perfectly correct. But highly misleading. Laboratory measurements of CO2 infrared absorption (due to molecule bending and stretching resonances) tell us that the ratio of temperature increase to CO2 increase cannot be linear. The temperature increase must drop as the CO2 concentration increases. If I understand my infrared spectroscopy correctly, the temperature rise decreases exponentially as the CO2 concentration increases (if I don’t understand correctly, the temperature rise still decreases rapidly as CO2 increases). It only appears linear because of the small range of CO2 values, because of other extraneous influences on global temperature such as soot and CFCs, and because the observation curve fluctuates up and down a lot. Don’t use a least squares linear fit to a wonky data curve as a basis for extrapolation, use the theoretically correct curve. The global warming extrapolated in Figure 10 based on a linear fit could be a factor of two too large.

> “Each 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative CO2 emissions is assessed to likely cause a 0.27°C to 0.63°C increase in global surface temperature”.

This is a shockingly high level of inaccuracy. Surely, 50 years of accurate observations together with chemical theory can pin the value down more accurately than that!

> “Every tonne of CO₂ emissions adds to global warming.”

Perfectly correct. But highly misleading. CO2 in the atmosphere has a limited lifespan. In order to freeze global warming at a specific atmospheric CO2 concentration, such as 700 microliters per litre (is that the value specified in the Kyoto protocol?), we need to reduce CO2 emissions to match the natural removal rate of CO2 from the atmosphere. We do not need zero emissions. A big advantage of matching CO2 emissions to removal rate is that it grows the biosphere without causing global warming.

>>The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is the sixth in a series of reports intended to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information concerning climate change. 234 scientist contributed to the final report.<<

So you think you are smarter and know far more than the 234 climate scientists that put this report together?

You continually talk rubbish, but think just because it came to you in a fleeting moment of mental activity that not only must it be right, but that nobody else has ever thought of it. There are many papers written by people who has actually studied the subject over many years that prove that you do not know what you are talking about and worse are a bloody nuisance by continually trying to muddy the water about the most import thing that humanity has ever faced.

If you really want to appear intelligent then at least do a quick search to check what you say contains a modicum of truth. However you have never bothered before and I doubt you ever will, being so much in love with the crap that passes through you small mind.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m now starting to read the IPCC 2021 report from the beginning (summary for policymakers). The first obvious error is amusing, even endearing, and I would have skipped over it except that when the same type of error occurred again it became annoying.

Consider the sentences:
“A causes B” therefore “B is caused by A”. This seems harmless until you substitute actual words for A and B. “Explosion causes movement” is true, but “Movement is caused by explosion” is generally false. It’s a standard logical fallacy taken straight out of Chapter 2 of Thouless book “Straight and crooked thinking”.

As I say, it’s an endearing type of error, but not one that should be repeated,

The first part of the IPCC 2021 report that screamed “no” to me is the Summary for Policymakers page 36 and continued on 37. There are multiple errors here. Let’s analyse it in detail.

> “there is a near-linear relationship between cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the global warming they cause”.

Perfectly correct. But highly misleading. Laboratory measurements of CO2 infrared absorption (due to molecule bending and stretching resonances) tell us that the ratio of temperature increase to CO2 increase cannot be linear. The temperature increase must drop as the CO2 concentration increases. If I understand my infrared spectroscopy correctly, the temperature rise decreases exponentially as the CO2 concentration increases (if I don’t understand correctly, the temperature rise still decreases rapidly as CO2 increases). It only appears linear because of the small range of CO2 values, because of other extraneous influences on global temperature such as soot and CFCs, and because the observation curve fluctuates up and down a lot. Don’t use a least squares linear fit to a wonky data curve as a basis for extrapolation, use the theoretically correct curve. The global warming extrapolated in Figure 10 based on a linear fit could be a factor of two too large.

> “Each 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative CO2 emissions is assessed to likely cause a 0.27°C to 0.63°C increase in global surface temperature”.

This is a shockingly high level of inaccuracy. Surely, 50 years of accurate observations together with chemical theory can pin the value down more accurately than that!

> “Every tonne of CO₂ emissions adds to global warming.”

Perfectly correct. But highly misleading. CO2 in the atmosphere has a limited lifespan. In order to freeze global warming at a specific atmospheric CO2 concentration, such as 700 microliters per litre (is that the value specified in the Kyoto protocol?), we need to reduce CO2 emissions to match the natural removal rate of CO2 from the atmosphere. We do not need zero emissions. A big advantage of matching CO2 emissions to removal rate is that it grows the biosphere without causing global warming.

>>The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is the sixth in a series of reports intended to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information concerning climate change. 234 scientist contributed to the final report.<<

So you think you are smarter and know far more than the 234 climate scientists that put this report together?

You continually talk rubbish, but think just because it came to you in a fleeting moment of mental activity that not only must it be right, but that nobody else has ever thought of it. There are many papers written by people who has actually studied the subject over many years that prove that you do not know what you are talking about and worse are a bloody nuisance by continually trying to muddy the water about the most import thing that humanity has ever faced.

If you really want to appear intelligent then at least do a quick search to check what you say contains a modicum of truth. However you have never bothered before and I doubt you ever will, being so much in love with the crap that passes through you small mind.

Moll is pretty much the forum comic relief.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m now starting to read the IPCC 2021 report from the beginning (summary for policymakers). The first obvious error is amusing, even endearing, and I would have skipped over it except that when the same type of error occurred again it became annoying.

Consider the sentences:
“A causes B” therefore “B is caused by A”. This seems harmless until you substitute actual words for A and B. “Explosion causes movement” is true, but “Movement is caused by explosion” is generally false. It’s a standard logical fallacy taken straight out of Chapter 2 of Thouless book “Straight and crooked thinking”.

As I say, it’s an endearing type of error, but not one that should be repeated,

The first part of the IPCC 2021 report that screamed “no” to me is the Summary for Policymakers page 36 and continued on 37. There are multiple errors here. Let’s analyse it in detail.

> “there is a near-linear relationship between cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the global warming they cause”.

Perfectly correct. But highly misleading. Laboratory measurements of CO2 infrared absorption (due to molecule bending and stretching resonances) tell us that the ratio of temperature increase to CO2 increase cannot be linear. The temperature increase must drop as the CO2 concentration increases. If I understand my infrared spectroscopy correctly, the temperature rise decreases exponentially as the CO2 concentration increases (if I don’t understand correctly, the temperature rise still decreases rapidly as CO2 increases). It only appears linear because of the small range of CO2 values, because of other extraneous influences on global temperature such as soot and CFCs, and because the observation curve fluctuates up and down a lot. Don’t use a least squares linear fit to a wonky data curve as a basis for extrapolation, use the theoretically correct curve. The global warming extrapolated in Figure 10 based on a linear fit could be a factor of two too large.

> “Each 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative CO2 emissions is assessed to likely cause a 0.27°C to 0.63°C increase in global surface temperature”.

This is a shockingly high level of inaccuracy. Surely, 50 years of accurate observations together with chemical theory can pin the value down more accurately than that!

> “Every tonne of CO₂ emissions adds to global warming.”

Perfectly correct. But highly misleading. CO2 in the atmosphere has a limited lifespan. In order to freeze global warming at a specific atmospheric CO2 concentration, such as 700 microliters per litre (is that the value specified in the Kyoto protocol?), we need to reduce CO2 emissions to match the natural removal rate of CO2 from the atmosphere. We do not need zero emissions. A big advantage of matching CO2 emissions to removal rate is that it grows the biosphere without causing global warming.

>>The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is the sixth in a series of reports intended to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information concerning climate change. 234 scientist contributed to the final report.<<

So you think you are smarter and know far more than the 234 climate scientists that put this report together?

You continually talk rubbish, but think just because it came to you in a fleeting moment of mental activity that not only must it be right, but that nobody else has ever thought of it. There are many papers written by people who has actually studied the subject over many years that prove that you do not know what you are talking about and worse are a bloody nuisance by continually trying to muddy the water about the most import thing that humanity has ever faced.

If you really want to appear intelligent then at least do a quick search to check what you say contains a modicum of truth. However you have never bothered before and I doubt you ever will, being so much in love with the crap that passes through you small mind.

Moll is pretty much the forum comic relief.

I thought that was my job?

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m now starting to read the IPCC 2021 report from the beginning (summary for policymakers). The first obvious error is amusing, even endearing, and I would have skipped over it except that when the same type of error occurred again it became annoying.

Consider the sentences:
“A causes B” therefore “B is caused by A”. This seems harmless until you substitute actual words for A and B. “Explosion causes movement” is true, but “Movement is caused by explosion” is generally false. It’s a standard logical fallacy taken straight out of Chapter 2 of Thouless book “Straight and crooked thinking”.

As I say, it’s an endearing type of error, but not one that should be repeated,

The first part of the IPCC 2021 report that screamed “no” to me is the Summary for Policymakers page 36 and continued on 37. There are multiple errors here. Let’s analyse it in detail.

> “there is a near-linear relationship between cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the global warming they cause”.

Perfectly correct. But highly misleading. Laboratory measurements of CO2 infrared absorption (due to molecule bending and stretching resonances) tell us that the ratio of temperature increase to CO2 increase cannot be linear. The temperature increase must drop as the CO2 concentration increases. If I understand my infrared spectroscopy correctly, the temperature rise decreases exponentially as the CO2 concentration increases (if I don’t understand correctly, the temperature rise still decreases rapidly as CO2 increases). It only appears linear because of the small range of CO2 values, because of other extraneous influences on global temperature such as soot and CFCs, and because the observation curve fluctuates up and down a lot. Don’t use a least squares linear fit to a wonky data curve as a basis for extrapolation, use the theoretically correct curve. The global warming extrapolated in Figure 10 based on a linear fit could be a factor of two too large.

> “Each 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative CO2 emissions is assessed to likely cause a 0.27°C to 0.63°C increase in global surface temperature”.

This is a shockingly high level of inaccuracy. Surely, 50 years of accurate observations together with chemical theory can pin the value down more accurately than that!

> “Every tonne of CO₂ emissions adds to global warming.”

Perfectly correct. But highly misleading. CO2 in the atmosphere has a limited lifespan. In order to freeze global warming at a specific atmospheric CO2 concentration, such as 700 microliters per litre (is that the value specified in the Kyoto protocol?), we need to reduce CO2 emissions to match the natural removal rate of CO2 from the atmosphere. We do not need zero emissions. A big advantage of matching CO2 emissions to removal rate is that it grows the biosphere without causing global warming.

>>The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is the sixth in a series of reports intended to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information concerning climate change. 234 scientist contributed to the final report.<<

So you think you are smarter and know far more than the 234 climate scientists that put this report together?

You continually talk rubbish, but think just because it came to you in a fleeting moment of mental activity that not only must it be right, but that nobody else has ever thought of it. There are many papers written by people who has actually studied the subject over many years that prove that you do not know what you are talking about and worse are a bloody nuisance by continually trying to muddy the water about the most import thing that humanity has ever faced.

If you really want to appear intelligent then at least do a quick search to check what you say contains a modicum of truth. However you have never bothered before and I doubt you ever will, being so much in love with the crap that passes through you small mind.

Moll is pretty much the forum comic relief.

probably an attribution on your part, I wouldn’t completely write off any amateur effort at having a bash at questioning whatever, given the force of culture invested in a massive overpopulation overshoot, I mean there are approaching eight billion reasons to ignore that and dress it up some other way, it has a trajectory and momentum