We have no proxies of detailed granularity enough to state that there has never been as rapid rise as we're seeing now. Don't forget your Confucius:
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."
We simply don't know, millions of years back. Depending on how severe the problem of gas diffusion in ice cores really is we might not even know it over the holocene.
Someone should see how many of these "scientists" are willing to spend an hour in a chamber with 10% CO2. Then we can ask them if they still think it's not potentially a pollutant depending on concentration afterwards. We won't get much of an answer since they will have died painfully, of course.
On 2, define "overwhelms" and post supporting data.
(We've had an order of magnitude higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere before* during Earth's history without the systems having been "overwhelmed", at least if the definition of it would have anything to do with Venus.. )
Recent climatic changes have enhanced plant growth in northern mid-latitudes and high latitudes. However, a comprehensive analysis of the impact of global climatic changes on vegetation productivity has not before been expressed in the context of variable limiting factors to plant growth. We present a global investigation of vegetation responses to climatic changes by analyzing 18 years (1982 to 1999) of both climatic data and satellite observations of vegetation activity. Our results indicate that global changes in climate have eased several critical climatic constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production increased 6% (3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years) globally. The largest increase was in tropical ecosystems. Amazon rain forests accounted for 42% of the global increase in net primary production, owing mainly to decreased cloud cover and the resulting increase in solar radiation.
CO2 in the concentrations we are outputting, coupled with the rate of deforestation, will lead to a run-away warming of the planet in the not too distant future (similar to the state Venus is in)
Posts like these make me worried. While there's absolutely no credible science anywhere that would support your statement, I'm quite sure you believe it yourself.
Sorry, the only ones getting paid are the AGW shills:) You know, as I do, that my three points that you didn't respond to completely invalidates your original reply, the point you now try to repeat.
Your post builds entirely upon a faulty preposition, "Let's say [...]Sahara".
Please try to actually think through what scientists hypothesize (based on historical facts) changes in arable land means, distribution wise. The bread basket might move between states, not continents, in your case.
It says exactly what I think it says. Life in the ocean already today experience pH levels that vary far more than the boundaries of what we think we might change over a century. It's a very important find since no one expect human society 2100 to be the same as human society 2000, especially technologically.
Is this where I should post headlines about "great floods" over the last few years?
I'd rather report on science. I agree with "Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible", that captures current scientific knowledge on the topic.
While your writing is coherent, the content is sadly lacking.
1) Error bars. 2) No one believes CO2 to have been dominant millions of years ago, at least not with a climate sensitivity even near what we're discussing today 3) Displaying a rapid increase today in a graph that could've had many just like it before, we just don't know because of proxy resolution, is deceptive
Sorry, I should've linked to the actual paper of course.
High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison
These biome-specific pH signatures disclose current levels of exposure to both high and low dissolved CO2, often demonstrating that resident organisms are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100
There is no credible scientific projection that we would ever be able to reach those temperatures. The answer to your question is that I prefer fact over fiction. Don't you?
(For one thing, we're not projected to keep using oil as we are now - no matter what policies we might implement - thanks to normal human technological development)
Denial? Are you claiming there are climate scientists who disagree with the image I linked to Holocene temperature variations? If so, please support that claim.
You do know it doesn't take humans a century to build a farm, right? It's also a very parallelizable activity. There's simply no basis in facts for your statement, which makes me wonder what your intention with posting it would be.
You cannot simply average different proxies to get a representative mean since they might be out of sync and thus cancel each other out. You'd lose all the peaks and troughs, even though they are perfectly valid values.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I read that. I see no "painful death" in those sources.
You might be right, but I'd be happier if you sourced the statements so that I can read about it myself :)
We have no proxies of detailed granularity enough to state that there has never been as rapid rise as we're seeing now. Don't forget your Confucius:
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."
We simply don't know, millions of years back. Depending on how severe the problem of gas diffusion in ice cores really is we might not even know it over the holocene.
Someone should see how many of these "scientists" are willing to spend an hour in a chamber with 10% CO2. Then we can ask them if they still think it's not potentially a pollutant depending on concentration afterwards. We won't get much of an answer since they will have died painfully, of course.
Could you explain why 10% would cause painful death in an hour? I can find scientific research on 3% for several days with no ill effects: http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/xmlui/handle/123456789/6045
On 2, define "overwhelms" and post supporting data.
(We've had an order of magnitude higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere before* during Earth's history without the systems having been "overwhelmed", at least if the definition of it would have anything to do with Venus .. )
*) see Geocarb III
reducing the number of plants
Recent climatic changes have enhanced plant growth in northern mid-latitudes and high latitudes. However, a comprehensive analysis of the impact of global climatic changes on vegetation productivity has not before been expressed in the context of variable limiting factors to plant growth. We present a global investigation of vegetation responses to climatic changes by analyzing 18 years (1982 to 1999) of both climatic data and satellite observations of vegetation activity. Our results indicate that global changes in climate have eased several critical climatic constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production increased 6% (3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years) globally. The largest increase was in tropical ecosystems. Amazon rain forests accounted for 42% of the global increase in net primary production, owing mainly to decreased cloud cover and the resulting increase in solar radiation.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/300/5625/1560.abstract
CO2 in the concentrations we are outputting, coupled with the rate of deforestation, will lead to a run-away warming of the planet in the not too distant future (similar to the state Venus is in)
Posts like these make me worried. While there's absolutely no credible science anywhere that would support your statement, I'm quite sure you believe it yourself.
I just don't get why.
Hotter = more humid = more rain
Sorry, the only ones getting paid are the AGW shills :) You know, as I do, that my three points that you didn't respond to completely invalidates your original reply, the point you now try to repeat.
Your post builds entirely upon a faulty preposition, "Let's say [...]Sahara".
Please try to actually think through what scientists hypothesize (based on historical facts) changes in arable land means, distribution wise. The bread basket might move between states, not continents, in your case.
You're of course free to fear the unknown.
It says exactly what I think it says. Life in the ocean already today experience pH levels that vary far more than the boundaries of what we think we might change over a century. It's a very important find since no one expect human society 2100 to be the same as human society 2000, especially technologically.
Is this where I should post headlines about "great floods" over the last few years?
I'd rather report on science. I agree with "Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible", that captures current scientific knowledge on the topic.
While your writing is coherent, the content is sadly lacking.
1) Error bars.
2) No one believes CO2 to have been dominant millions of years ago, at least not with a climate sensitivity even near what we're discussing today
3) Displaying a rapid increase today in a graph that could've had many just like it before, we just don't know because of proxy resolution, is deceptive
Sure, but there are no scenarios which would be outside what humans have adapted to either by evolution or by technology.
Sorry, I should've linked to the actual paper of course.
High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison
These biome-specific pH signatures disclose current levels of exposure to both high and low dissolved CO2, often demonstrating that resident organisms are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0028983
There is no credible scientific projection that we would ever be able to reach those temperatures. The answer to your question is that I prefer fact over fiction. Don't you?
(For one thing, we're not projected to keep using oil as we are now - no matter what policies we might implement - thanks to normal human technological development)
Easy, there is no ocean acidification to worry about according to science: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550304577138561444464028.html#printMode
You do understand that there was a point made regarding the length of "on record" from the Slashdot blurb?
It has nothing to do with anything "97% of climate scientists" believe.
Denial? Are you claiming there are climate scientists who disagree with the image I linked to Holocene temperature variations? If so, please support that claim.
You do know it doesn't take humans a century to build a farm, right? It's also a very parallelizable activity. There's simply no basis in facts for your statement, which makes me wonder what your intention with posting it would be.
You cannot simply average different proxies to get a representative mean since they might be out of sync and thus cancel each other out. You'd lose all the peaks and troughs, even though they are perfectly valid values.
Why are you under the impression that global warming won't increase the amount of arable land?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
... for very short values of record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Have you ever personally been voting for EU Parliament? Have you ever cared about voting for it?
I have, and that's why we have Pirates in the EU Parliament who are actively fighting to get information about ACTA out in the open.
http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/acta-is-borderline-on-fundamental-rights-at-best/