… at least I haven’t seen it asked.
What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere to allow the sustainable continuance of the human population with something approximating current lifestyles?
The Rev Dodgson said:
… at least I haven’t seen it asked.What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere to allow the sustainable continuance of the human population with something approximating current lifestyles?
That’s the crux of it, isn’t it. Human survival is paramount. Yet we are behaving exactly the same as any other organism does when the environment is favourable…breeding like hell and fouling the nest as well.
The Rev Dodgson said:
… at least I haven’t seen it asked.What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere to allow the sustainable continuance of the human population with something approximating current lifestyles?
you mean if death rates suddenly equaled birth rates?
what sinister thing are you considering, what have you word-shifted into sustainable continuance
About 300 ppm I believe.
The Rev Dodgson said:
… at least I haven’t seen it asked.What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere to allow the sustainable continuance of the human population with something approximating current lifestyles?
https://sci-hub.do/10.1016/j.jplph.2015.07.003
Spiny Norman said:
About 300 ppm I believe.
Between 280 and 350ppm.
roughbarked said:
Spiny Norman said:
About 300 ppm I believe.
Between 280 and 350ppm.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-ideal-level-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-human-life
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
… at least I haven’t seen it asked.What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere to allow the sustainable continuance of the human population with something approximating current lifestyles?
you mean if death rates suddenly equaled birth rates?
I mean if birth rates eventually equalled death rates.
transition said:
what sinister thing are you considering, what have you word-shifted into sustainable continuance
I am not considering any sinister thing, and I have not word-shifted anything into or out of that phrase.
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
Spiny Norman said:
About 300 ppm I believe.
Between 280 and 350ppm.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-ideal-level-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-human-life
Thanks for the link.
I was hoping for something more considered than “it has been 280-350 in the recent past, so that must be the optimum” though.
The Rev Dodgson said:
… at least I haven’t seen it asked.What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere to allow the sustainable continuance of the human population with something approximating current lifestyles?
I think there is such a broad range that it would be hard to pick an optimum.
Anyway we’re well past it and now we need to choose “what’s the least bad case we can manage?”
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
… at least I haven’t seen it asked.What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere to allow the sustainable continuance of the human population with something approximating current lifestyles?
I think there is such a broad range that it would be hard to pick an optimum.
Anyway we’re well past it and now we need to choose “what’s the least bad case we can manage?”
Just don’t bother the Chinese about it.
We should all remember that, per head of population, they’re doing ever so well.
captain_spalding said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
… at least I haven’t seen it asked.
What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere to allow the sustainable continuance of the human population with something approximating current lifestyles?
I think there is such a broad range that it would be hard to pick an optimum.
Anyway we’re well past it and now we need to choose “what’s the least bad case we can manage?”
Just don’t bother the Chinese about it.
We should all remember that, per head of population, they’re doing ever so well.
clearly the solution is to add more heads which is why they saved everyone of theirs from the mild hayfever episode
(bonus is now everyone else looks worse because their denominators Let It Rip)
SCIENCE said:
captain_spalding said:
dv said:
I think there is such a broad range that it would be hard to pick an optimum.
Anyway we’re well past it and now we need to choose “what’s the least bad case we can manage?”
Just don’t bother the Chinese about it.
We should all remember that, per head of population, they’re doing ever so well.
clearly the solution is to add more heads which is why they saved everyone of theirs from the mild hayfever episode
(bonus is now everyone else looks worse because their denominators Let It Rip)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-14/china-three-child-policy-competition-for-slogans/100372766
what do they mean, like, obviously Marketing slogans work on Australian women
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
… at least I haven’t seen it asked.What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere to allow the sustainable continuance of the human population with something approximating current lifestyles?
I think there is such a broad range that it would be hard to pick an optimum.
Anyway we’re well past it and now we need to choose “what’s the least bad case we can manage?”
OK, but I’m thinking more of some time in the future, when the CO2 level is stable, there will be an opportunity to raise or lower it, for the comfort and convenience of mankind (or the human population, as we might refer to it these days).
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
… at least I haven’t seen it asked.What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere to allow the sustainable continuance of the human population with something approximating current lifestyles?
you mean if death rates suddenly equaled birth rates?
I mean if birth rates eventually equalled death rates.
transition said:
what sinister thing are you considering, what have you word-shifted into sustainable continuanceI am not considering any sinister thing, and I have not word-shifted anything into or out of that phrase.
I was being humorous
still sustainable continuance i’d guess is very much related population numbers, what is sustainable without too much added challenges from climate change, or variability related that way
The Rev Dodgson said:
… at least I haven’t seen it asked.What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere to allow the sustainable continuance of the human population with something approximating current lifestyles?
It isn’t asked because people don’t want you to know the answer.
> What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Twice pre-industrial levels. That’s why Kyoto set that as their target.
But that’s not “current lifestyles”, not at all. That’s improved lifestyles, better lifestyles than we have now.
Beyond a doubling of CO2, lifestyles begin to degrade again, back to what we have now and eventually below.
At a doubling of CO2 we have 60% better growth of native forests, resulting in more wild animals around the world.
35% increase in crop yields (staving off a Malthusian catastrophe for another generation).
A big increase in phytoplankton, feeding zooplankton, fish and cetaceans all around the world.
You can read all this in the references included in the 1995 IPCC report.
Plants require less water to grow (lower transpiration) so reducing the stress on world water supplies.
Global warming itself causes a slight increase in world water supplies (2021 IPCC report).
A rate of sea level rise 6 times what it is now (up from the present 1.3 mm to 1 cm per year) is the optimum for coral reef growth.
Less frost so double cropping and longer growing seasons.
More farmland becomes available in arctic regions.
No increases worldwide in either droughts or severe storms.
A win win win win win sutuation.
Beyond a doubling of pre-industrial CO2, your major problem is with bushfires. (Than you, Hanrahan).
The next major problem is heat stress and loss of mountain-top habitats.
(Loss of mountain-top habitats is not a problem for doubling CO2 because plants can’t live on glaciers anyway).
Sea level rise starts causing people to trickle away from the coast, in Miami, Venice, etc.
Plants don’t grow significantly faster at 3 times pre-industrial CO2 than at 2 times CO2.
mollwollfumble said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
… at least I haven’t seen it asked.What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere to allow the sustainable continuance of the human population with something approximating current lifestyles?
It isn’t asked because people don’t want you to know the answer.
> What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Twice pre-industrial levels. That’s why Kyoto set that as their target.
But that’s not “current lifestyles”, not at all. That’s improved lifestyles, better lifestyles than we have now.
Beyond a doubling of CO2, lifestyles begin to degrade again, back to what we have now and eventually below.At a doubling of CO2 we have 60% better growth of native forests, resulting in more wild animals around the world.
35% increase in crop yields (staving off a Malthusian catastrophe for another generation).
A big increase in phytoplankton, feeding zooplankton, fish and cetaceans all around the world.
You can read all this in the references included in the 1995 IPCC report.
Plants require less water to grow (lower transpiration) so reducing the stress on world water supplies.
Global warming itself causes a slight increase in world water supplies (2021 IPCC report).
A rate of sea level rise 6 times what it is now (up from the present 1.3 mm to 1 cm per year) is the optimum for coral reef growth.
Less frost so double cropping and longer growing seasons.
More farmland becomes available in arctic regions.
No increases worldwide in either droughts or severe storms.A win win win win win sutuation.
Beyond a doubling of pre-industrial CO2, your major problem is with bushfires. (Than you, Hanrahan).
The next major problem is heat stress and loss of mountain-top habitats.
(Loss of mountain-top habitats is not a problem for doubling CO2 because plants can’t live on glaciers anyway).
Sea level rise starts causing people to trickle away from the coast, in Miami, Venice, etc.
Plants don’t grow significantly faster at 3 times pre-industrial CO2 than at 2 times CO2.
Thanks moll.
Would any climate sceptics here care to offer an alternative view?
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
… at least I haven’t seen it asked.What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere to allow the sustainable continuance of the human population with something approximating current lifestyles?
It isn’t asked because people don’t want you to know the answer.
> What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Twice pre-industrial levels. That’s why Kyoto set that as their target.
But that’s not “current lifestyles”, not at all. That’s improved lifestyles, better lifestyles than we have now.
Beyond a doubling of CO2, lifestyles begin to degrade again, back to what we have now and eventually below.At a doubling of CO2 we have 60% better growth of native forests, resulting in more wild animals around the world.
35% increase in crop yields (staving off a Malthusian catastrophe for another generation).
A big increase in phytoplankton, feeding zooplankton, fish and cetaceans all around the world.
You can read all this in the references included in the 1995 IPCC report.
Plants require less water to grow (lower transpiration) so reducing the stress on world water supplies.
Global warming itself causes a slight increase in world water supplies (2021 IPCC report).
A rate of sea level rise 6 times what it is now (up from the present 1.3 mm to 1 cm per year) is the optimum for coral reef growth.
Less frost so double cropping and longer growing seasons.
More farmland becomes available in arctic regions.
No increases worldwide in either droughts or severe storms.A win win win win win sutuation.
Beyond a doubling of pre-industrial CO2, your major problem is with bushfires. (Than you, Hanrahan).
The next major problem is heat stress and loss of mountain-top habitats.
(Loss of mountain-top habitats is not a problem for doubling CO2 because plants can’t live on glaciers anyway).
Sea level rise starts causing people to trickle away from the coast, in Miami, Venice, etc.
Plants don’t grow significantly faster at 3 times pre-industrial CO2 than at 2 times CO2.Thanks moll.
Would any climate sceptics here care to offer an alternative view?
I would take all Molll’s own ‘research’ with a grain of salt.
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:It isn’t asked because people don’t want you to know the answer.
> What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Twice pre-industrial levels. That’s why Kyoto set that as their target.
But that’s not “current lifestyles”, not at all. That’s improved lifestyles, better lifestyles than we have now.
Beyond a doubling of CO2, lifestyles begin to degrade again, back to what we have now and eventually below.At a doubling of CO2 we have 60% better growth of native forests, resulting in more wild animals around the world.
35% increase in crop yields (staving off a Malthusian catastrophe for another generation).
A big increase in phytoplankton, feeding zooplankton, fish and cetaceans all around the world.
You can read all this in the references included in the 1995 IPCC report.
Plants require less water to grow (lower transpiration) so reducing the stress on world water supplies.
Global warming itself causes a slight increase in world water supplies (2021 IPCC report).
A rate of sea level rise 6 times what it is now (up from the present 1.3 mm to 1 cm per year) is the optimum for coral reef growth.
Less frost so double cropping and longer growing seasons.
More farmland becomes available in arctic regions.
No increases worldwide in either droughts or severe storms.A win win win win win sutuation.
Beyond a doubling of pre-industrial CO2, your major problem is with bushfires. (Than you, Hanrahan).
The next major problem is heat stress and loss of mountain-top habitats.
(Loss of mountain-top habitats is not a problem for doubling CO2 because plants can’t live on glaciers anyway).
Sea level rise starts causing people to trickle away from the coast, in Miami, Venice, etc.
Plants don’t grow significantly faster at 3 times pre-industrial CO2 than at 2 times CO2.Thanks moll.
Would any climate sceptics here care to offer an alternative view?
I would take all Molll’s own ‘research’ with a grain of salt.
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
… at least I haven’t seen it asked.What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere to allow the sustainable continuance of the human population with something approximating current lifestyles?
It isn’t asked because people don’t want you to know the answer.
> What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Twice pre-industrial levels. That’s why Kyoto set that as their target.
But that’s not “current lifestyles”, not at all. That’s improved lifestyles, better lifestyles than we have now.
Beyond a doubling of CO2, lifestyles begin to degrade again, back to what we have now and eventually below.At a doubling of CO2 we have 60% better growth of native forests, resulting in more wild animals around the world.
35% increase in crop yields (staving off a Malthusian catastrophe for another generation).
A big increase in phytoplankton, feeding zooplankton, fish and cetaceans all around the world.
You can read all this in the references included in the 1995 IPCC report.
Plants require less water to grow (lower transpiration) so reducing the stress on world water supplies.
Global warming itself causes a slight increase in world water supplies (2021 IPCC report).
A rate of sea level rise 6 times what it is now (up from the present 1.3 mm to 1 cm per year) is the optimum for coral reef growth.
Less frost so double cropping and longer growing seasons.
More farmland becomes available in arctic regions.
No increases worldwide in either droughts or severe storms.A win win win win win sutuation.
Beyond a doubling of pre-industrial CO2, your major problem is with bushfires. (Than you, Hanrahan).
The next major problem is heat stress and loss of mountain-top habitats.
(Loss of mountain-top habitats is not a problem for doubling CO2 because plants can’t live on glaciers anyway).
Sea level rise starts causing people to trickle away from the coast, in Miami, Venice, etc.
Plants don’t grow significantly faster at 3 times pre-industrial CO2 than at 2 times CO2.Thanks moll.
Would any climate sceptics here care to offer an alternative view?
Do we have any climate sceptics here?
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:It isn’t asked because people don’t want you to know the answer.
> What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Twice pre-industrial levels. That’s why Kyoto set that as their target.
But that’s not “current lifestyles”, not at all. That’s improved lifestyles, better lifestyles than we have now.
Beyond a doubling of CO2, lifestyles begin to degrade again, back to what we have now and eventually below.At a doubling of CO2 we have 60% better growth of native forests, resulting in more wild animals around the world.
35% increase in crop yields (staving off a Malthusian catastrophe for another generation).
A big increase in phytoplankton, feeding zooplankton, fish and cetaceans all around the world.
You can read all this in the references included in the 1995 IPCC report.
Plants require less water to grow (lower transpiration) so reducing the stress on world water supplies.
Global warming itself causes a slight increase in world water supplies (2021 IPCC report).
A rate of sea level rise 6 times what it is now (up from the present 1.3 mm to 1 cm per year) is the optimum for coral reef growth.
Less frost so double cropping and longer growing seasons.
More farmland becomes available in arctic regions.
No increases worldwide in either droughts or severe storms.A win win win win win sutuation.
Beyond a doubling of pre-industrial CO2, your major problem is with bushfires. (Than you, Hanrahan).
The next major problem is heat stress and loss of mountain-top habitats.
(Loss of mountain-top habitats is not a problem for doubling CO2 because plants can’t live on glaciers anyway).
Sea level rise starts causing people to trickle away from the coast, in Miami, Venice, etc.
Plants don’t grow significantly faster at 3 times pre-industrial CO2 than at 2 times CO2.Thanks moll.
Would any climate sceptics here care to offer an alternative view?
Do we have any climate sceptics here?
I certainly hope so.
It seems there’s Witty and I at least who are sceptical that moll is providing a balanced picture.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Thanks moll.
Would any climate sceptics here care to offer an alternative view?
Do we have any climate sceptics here?
I certainly hope so.
It seems there’s Witty and I at least who are sceptical that moll is providing a balanced picture.
Oh sorry, I’ve got moll on autoblook on some topics. We’ve been through it all before and life’s too short
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:Do we have any climate sceptics here?
I certainly hope so.
It seems there’s Witty and I at least who are sceptical that moll is providing a balanced picture.
Oh sorry, I’ve got moll on autoblook on some topics. We’ve been through it all before and life’s too short
I’ll add you to the sceptic list as well then.
>>At a doubling of CO2 we have 60% better growth of native forests, resulting in more wild animals around the world.<<
Although CO2 is a fertiliser to vegetation a radical change will advantage short-lived fast growing species and disadvantage slower harder timbered varieties and with the extra fuel load create larger wildfires. It will change the entire ecosystem of the forest by its smothering rapid growth displacing many low growing, annual and ephemeral species and will be detrimental to most wildlife from microbes to large mammals.
——————————————————————————————————————-
>>35% increase in crop yields (staving off a Malthusian catastrophe for another generation).<<
Not with temperatures approaching 50 degrees C, or in drought conditions that will become more common and intense.
—————————————————————————————————————————
>>A big increase in phytoplankton, feeding zooplankton, fish and cetaceans all around the world.<<
Not if ocean currents and their upwellings are reduced or stop completely due to large amounts of freshwater from melting glaciers and ice-covered rocky environments.
————————————————————————————————————————-
>>Plants require less water to grow (lower transpiration) so reducing the stress on world water supplies.<<
Not with high temperatures and drought conditions. Plants in such conditions require more water.
—————————————————————————————————————————
>>Global warming itself causes a slight increase in world water supplies (2021 IPCC report).<<
Highly irregular and often intense causing extreme flooding, not to mention not falling where it is required.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
>>A rate of sea level rise 6 times what it is now (up from the present 1.3 mm to 1 cm per year) is the optimum for coral reef growth.<<
Coral bleaching does not happen in the top few centimetres of water, but down many metres due to the top strata becoming too warm for hard coral to survive. Different corals have different tolerances, but none will survive increasingly warmer waters.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
>>Less frost so double cropping and longer growing seasons.<<
Global Warming can also include very cold winters or changes to climate patterns. If the Gulf Stream stops or reduces further, Europe will be thrown into artic winters not unlike Siberia. Plenty of extra frosts there.
———————————————————————————————————————————
>>More farmland becomes available in arctic regions.<<
The poles are experiencing temperature increases of up to twice those of lower latitudes that will likely make farming in these regions highly problematic with weather extremes being the norm.
————————————————————————————————————————————
>>No increases worldwide in either droughts or severe storms.<<
This must be another figment of your imagination.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
>>A win win win win win sutuation.<<
Should read: A lose lose lose lose situation.
>> No increases worldwide in either droughts or severe storms.<<
> This must be another figment of your imagination.
The 2021 IPCC report says so. Chaper 12.
mollwollfumble said:
>> No increases worldwide in either droughts or severe storms.<<> This must be another figment of your imagination.
The 2021 IPCC report says so. Chaper 12.
I think there would be a little more to it than your comment. I would be most interested to know the circumstances because your statement contradicts everything published, spoken or otherwise expressed about the subject.
PermeateFree said:
mollwollfumble said:
>> No increases worldwide in either droughts or severe storms.<<> This must be another figment of your imagination.
The 2021 IPCC report says so. Chaper 12.
I think there would be a little more to it than your comment. I would be most interested to know the circumstances because your statement contradicts everything published, spoken or otherwise expressed about the subject.
The references to a 35% yield increase, 60% growth of forests, and a reduction in plant water usage come from two papers given as references included in the 1995 IPCC report, Chapter 9. The 1995 IPCC report itself gives an increase in plant productivity with a doubling of CO2 of “increased growth responses of 15% to 71%”, without distinguishing between yield (marketable product, mostly seeds) and forest growth. So I had to look up the original IPCC references to separate out the two, because plant growth and seed production are far from synonymous. See “Kimball and Idso (1983)” and “Kimball, Mauney, Nakayama & Idso (1993)”.
> Not with temperatures approaching 50 degrees C.
I know you say 50 degrees C. Average world temperatures are closer to 50 degrees F.
56 degrees Fahreheit is taken as the average world temperature prior to global warming, rising to 57 degrees Fahrenheit averaged over the period 1951 to 1980.
mollwollfumble said:
PermeateFree said:
mollwollfumble said:
>> No increases worldwide in either droughts or severe storms.<<> This must be another figment of your imagination.
The 2021 IPCC report says so. Chaper 12.
I think there would be a little more to it than your comment. I would be most interested to know the circumstances because your statement contradicts everything published, spoken or otherwise expressed about the subject.
The references to a 35% yield increase, 60% growth of forests, and a reduction in plant water usage come from two papers given as references included in the 1995 IPCC report, Chapter 9. The 1995 IPCC report itself gives an increase in plant productivity with a doubling of CO2 of “increased growth responses of 15% to 71%”, without distinguishing between yield (marketable product, mostly seeds) and forest growth. So I had to look up the original IPCC references to separate out the two, because plant growth and seed production are far from synonymous. See “Kimball and Idso (1983)” and “Kimball, Mauney, Nakayama & Idso (1993)”.
> Not with temperatures approaching 50 degrees C.
I know you say 50 degrees C. Average world temperatures are closer to 50 degrees F.
56 degrees Fahreheit is taken as the average world temperature prior to global warming, rising to 57 degrees Fahrenheit averaged over the period 1951 to 1980.
I should have added that the 60% increase in forest growth is confirmed by both Wittwer (1986), and by NASA MODIS measurements of Net Primary Production (NPP).
mollwollfumble said:
PermeateFree said:
mollwollfumble said:
>> No increases worldwide in either droughts or severe storms.<<> This must be another figment of your imagination.
The 2021 IPCC report says so. Chaper 12.
I think there would be a little more to it than your comment. I would be most interested to know the circumstances because your statement contradicts everything published, spoken or otherwise expressed about the subject.
The references to a 35% yield increase, 60% growth of forests, and a reduction in plant water usage come from two papers given as references included in the 1995 IPCC report, Chapter 9. The 1995 IPCC report itself gives an increase in plant productivity with a doubling of CO2 of “increased growth responses of 15% to 71%”, without distinguishing between yield (marketable product, mostly seeds) and forest growth. So I had to look up the original IPCC references to separate out the two, because plant growth and seed production are far from synonymous. See “Kimball and Idso (1983)” and “Kimball, Mauney, Nakayama & Idso (1993)”.
> Not with temperatures approaching 50 degrees C.
I know you say 50 degrees C. Average world temperatures are closer to 50 degrees F.
56 degrees Fahreheit is taken as the average world temperature prior to global warming, rising to 57 degrees Fahrenheit averaged over the period 1951 to 1980.
1995 IPPC report, Christ, how much water has gone under the bridge in the last 26 years and one of the papers you quote goes back a further 12 years. There have been numerous studies on the effects of CO2 in forest growth since these times. Why don’t you read them? They are on the net, just Google them.
I did not say 50 degrees C as the average temperature, I said, and you quoted me correctly above, “Not with temperatures approaching 50 degrees C.” as a reference to temperatures future growing crops will have to contend.
And lastly increased crop yields need good regular rainfall at a time when it is required, but with increasingly extreme and erratic weather conditions such ideal conditions become less likely.
mollwollfumble said:
mollwollfumble said:
PermeateFree said:I think there would be a little more to it than your comment. I would be most interested to know the circumstances because your statement contradicts everything published, spoken or otherwise expressed about the subject.
The references to a 35% yield increase, 60% growth of forests, and a reduction in plant water usage come from two papers given as references included in the 1995 IPCC report, Chapter 9. The 1995 IPCC report itself gives an increase in plant productivity with a doubling of CO2 of “increased growth responses of 15% to 71%”, without distinguishing between yield (marketable product, mostly seeds) and forest growth. So I had to look up the original IPCC references to separate out the two, because plant growth and seed production are far from synonymous. See “Kimball and Idso (1983)” and “Kimball, Mauney, Nakayama & Idso (1993)”.
> Not with temperatures approaching 50 degrees C.
I know you say 50 degrees C. Average world temperatures are closer to 50 degrees F.
56 degrees Fahreheit is taken as the average world temperature prior to global warming, rising to 57 degrees Fahrenheit averaged over the period 1951 to 1980.
I should have added that the 60% increase in forest growth is confirmed by both Wittwer (1986), and by NASA MODIS measurements of Net Primary Production (NPP).
Later studies give far greater clarity on the effects on the entire forest system. The cherry picking of old odd statistics is meaningless unless all the contributing factors are considered, which is something you never do and consequently never reach any true understanding. The environment is a highly interconnected system and cannot be understood by just examining its parts on their own.
Perhaps this question is unasked because it’s next to meaningless, at least without spelling out a lot of assumptions such as time, initial CO2 concentration, state of collapse of the biosphere…
A lot of moving parts.
PermeateFree said:
mollwollfumble said:
mollwollfumble said:The references to a 35% yield increase, 60% growth of forests, and a reduction in plant water usage come from two papers given as references included in the 1995 IPCC report, Chapter 9. The 1995 IPCC report itself gives an increase in plant productivity with a doubling of CO2 of “increased growth responses of 15% to 71%”, without distinguishing between yield (marketable product, mostly seeds) and forest growth. So I had to look up the original IPCC references to separate out the two, because plant growth and seed production are far from synonymous. See “Kimball and Idso (1983)” and “Kimball, Mauney, Nakayama & Idso (1993)”.
> Not with temperatures approaching 50 degrees C.
I know you say 50 degrees C. Average world temperatures are closer to 50 degrees F.
56 degrees Fahreheit is taken as the average world temperature prior to global warming, rising to 57 degrees Fahrenheit averaged over the period 1951 to 1980.
I should have added that the 60% increase in forest growth is confirmed by both Wittwer (1986), and by NASA MODIS measurements of Net Primary Production (NPP).
Later studies give far greater clarity on the effects on the entire forest system. The cherry picking of old odd statistics is meaningless unless all the contributing factors are considered, which is something you never do and consequently never reach any true understanding. The environment is a highly interconnected system and cannot be understood by just examining its parts on their own.
For PermeateFree, this paper from 2007 is well worth a read.
https://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Massen/conference_Mensa/HansenTestimonyCritique.pdf
For example,
mollwollfumble said:
PermeateFree said:
mollwollfumble said:I should have added that the 60% increase in forest growth is confirmed by both Wittwer (1986), and by NASA MODIS measurements of Net Primary Production (NPP).
Later studies give far greater clarity on the effects on the entire forest system. The cherry picking of old odd statistics is meaningless unless all the contributing factors are considered, which is something you never do and consequently never reach any true understanding. The environment is a highly interconnected system and cannot be understood by just examining its parts on their own.
For PermeateFree, this paper from 2007 is well worth a read.
https://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Massen/conference_Mensa/HansenTestimonyCritique.pdfFor example,
The references you gave relate to laboratory controlled investigations that were agriculturally based and did not relate to forests or other living ecosystems. Yes CO2 will stimulate increased plant growth, but this is not necessarily a good thing in a living forest environment. In fact it creates a number of problems affecting ecosystems and the survival of the flora and fauna diversity. You are cherry-picking facts and making totally unrealistic claims without investigating contributing factors.
mollwollfumble said:
PermeateFree said:
mollwollfumble said:I should have added that the 60% increase in forest growth is confirmed by both Wittwer (1986), and by NASA MODIS measurements of Net Primary Production (NPP).
Later studies give far greater clarity on the effects on the entire forest system. The cherry picking of old odd statistics is meaningless unless all the contributing factors are considered, which is something you never do and consequently never reach any true understanding. The environment is a highly interconnected system and cannot be understood by just examining its parts on their own.
For PermeateFree, this paper from 2007 is well worth a read.
https://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Massen/conference_Mensa/HansenTestimonyCritique.pdfFor example,
The authors of your reference Effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 on vegetation by Sherwood B. Idso and Craig D. Idso
S. B. Idso
“I find no compelling reason to believe that the earth will necessarily experience any global warming as a consequence of the ongoing rise in the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide concentration.”
And Craig D. Idso is SB Idso’s son.
https://www.desmog.com/sherwood-b-idso/
PermeateFree said:
mollwollfumble said:
PermeateFree said:Later studies give far greater clarity on the effects on the entire forest system. The cherry picking of old odd statistics is meaningless unless all the contributing factors are considered, which is something you never do and consequently never reach any true understanding. The environment is a highly interconnected system and cannot be understood by just examining its parts on their own.
For PermeateFree, this paper from 2007 is well worth a read.
https://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Massen/conference_Mensa/HansenTestimonyCritique.pdfFor example,
The authors of your reference Effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 on vegetation by Sherwood B. Idso and Craig D. Idso
S. B. Idso
“I find no compelling reason to believe that the earth will necessarily experience any global warming as a consequence of the ongoing rise in the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide concentration.”And Craig D. Idso is SB Idso’s son.
https://www.desmog.com/sherwood-b-idso/
Good catch.
watching from beginning that video in page above, they actually say our world is deficient in carbon dioxide, I was encouraged
https://youtu.be/ep5ptrPN6ns
The Greening of Planet Earth (1992)
transition said:
watching from beginning that video in page above, they actually say our world is deficient in carbon dioxide, I was encouragedhttps://youtu.be/ep5ptrPN6ns
The Greening of Planet Earth (1992)
The Greening of Planet Earth is a half-hour-long video produced by the coal industry
wiki.
Bogsnorkler said:
transition said:
watching from beginning that video in page above, they actually say our world is deficient in carbon dioxide, I was encouragedhttps://youtu.be/ep5ptrPN6ns
The Greening of Planet Earth (1992)The Greening of Planet Earth is a half-hour-long video produced by the coal industry
wiki.
yeah I know, I was being humorous