UN sounds alarm over record-breaking temperature rise

[up2u2]

Yes just decades to pollute the atmosphere with CO₂ by burning Fossil Fuels that if the Earth proceeded along the natural Carbon Cycle would take between 5,000 to 21,000 (glaciation rate will dictate time frame) years to accumulate. Given that modern day 'civilised' Humans have only existed over the past 6000 years it is possible given 5,000 to 21,000 years we could survive a mass extinction. To plonk modern humans right into the beginning of the Permian Mass Extinction (+8^Oc) would be un-survivable as a species. It would not be an extinction from natural progression it would actually be a swift extinction of our own doing.

A Carbon Tax is simply a 'price signal' to the market that restricts the economic profitability of conducting a tertian activity. It doesn't generate any Tax revenue it is an artificial impediment. It also creates a launching pad for new technologies to gradually find a niche in the market place.

It would be pointless to build windmills. They are actually used to grind grain into flour. So they will reverse nothing.

If the Oceans continue to warm Coral and Coral Reefs will become extinct. However the Coral larvae that construct Coral reefs may survive in the Oceans and in a few million years the conditions may make it possible for the larvae to recolonise and establish Coral Reefs as we know them today. The Coral larvae have done this over 500M years in the past. Even our ancient mitochondrial ancestors survived the Permian Mass Extinction but they had hundreds of thousands of years to evolve and adapt to able to survive at oxygen levels that of being on top of Mount Everest without dying. Place any of us or our great great grandchildren on top of Everest they will simply perish within 15 minutes.

What level of atmospheric CO2 would be acceptable in your opinion? 400 ppm ? 300ppm ? 200 ppm? 75 ppm ? 50 ppm ?

If it was possible to bring the level of CO2 down to 20 ppm or even 10 ppm... should we do that ? ?

280ppm Atmospheric CO₂

Humans could not reduce the CO₂ level to 20ppm where would you put it all.

we would all freeze solid anyway. Too cold.

[up2u2]

If it was possible to bring the level of CO2 down to 20 ppm or even 10 ppm... should we do that ? ?

^^

Hardly. Plants can't survive at all under about 150ppm. That's why greenhouses pump CO2 in up to 1000ppm or more -- the plants love it.

We're only at 400ppm today, but already the benefits are being felt.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries has just published a study titled "Greening of the Earth and its Drivers" in the journal Nature Climate Change showing significant greening of a quarter to one-half of the Earth's vegetated lands using data from the NASA-MODIS and NOAA-AVHRR satellite sensors of the past 33 years.

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-co2-fertilization-greening-earth.html#jCp

Yes.... I agree. In my area we have a huge greenhouse industry. They actually buy CO2 generators and go to the expense because they get a great return on plant growth. The financial return is higher than the expense.

Depending on the crops raised in the greenhouses...flowers, and vegetables are favourites around here... and tomatoes and peppers especially, but also other vegtables... they raise the CO2 level to between 800ppm - 1300ppm.

And yes..... the plants do love it..

Plants choke on too much CO2.

The plants have reduced Nitrogen content and lose the ability to extract nutrients from the soil.

Both wheat and rice crops are suffering from increased atmospheric CO2 levels.

[Catoni]

>>Good grief Catoni. Port Colbourne Quarries just up Second Concessions Road, (Nope! Wrong quarry.... .wrong road.... but they may have some nice specimens also.... I'll have to check.)

right. It's a bloody QUARRY!!!

No shit ! ! Of course it's a quarry. Does that somehow disqualify it from having coral fossils ? ?

By the way.... you're about four and a half miles from the old quarry my boys and I got our fossil corals....... the old quarry on Quarry Road. Mostly filled with water now.... but you can still find some nice specimens. Lot of work to get them from the rock though without breaking the specimen.

>> Dead Coral Extinct Coral it is no more or any longer.

Really? Could have fooled me. I thought it was still all alive and just appeared to be a dead 350 million year old fossil.

555555 ;-)

>>If it has been dated to 350M years ago (when it was alive)

Didn't I already mention that ? ?

>>it would have formed during the Devonian Period and it would have been extinct after the Late Devonian Extinction. Not Global Warming but Global Cooling killed all the Coral Reefs.

>>Holocene, Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods. No they were only short and regional only not global.

Holocene Climate Optimum Warm Period.... Lasted about 4,000 years and was global in scale. But if you want to claim it was only short term and local, be my guest.

Roman Warm Period.... do you call about 650 a short period of time ? Only regional? How about also the American southwest ?

Stephen A. Hall, William L. Penner 2012: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology] http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017d411151ba970c-pi

>>The last Glaciation was 10K years ago not 25K. The Great Barrier Reef was still growing. It has been forming over the last 500K years.

Please correct yourself.. The last Glacial Period was at its maximum about 25,000 years ago, as I said. But perhaps I was off a bit... let's say maximum was about 23,000 years ago. Would that be better? The last Glacial Period lasted for about 100,000 years.. Nice huh ?

By 20,000 years ago... it was starting to retreat, as sea level began to rise from the melt-back. Sea level 23,000 years ago was about 420 feet lower than today. Where was the Great Barrier Reef at the time?

I've got some news for you. The CRC Reef Research Centre estimates the age of the present, living reef structure at only 6,000 to 8,000 years old.

CRC Reef Research Centre Ltd. "What is the Great Barrier Reef?"

>>Little Ice Age was regional not global. Didn't effect Global Temperatures to any great extent.

Little Ice Age had effects around the globe... It was global. Even sea floor cores taken off the coast of Japan show the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period, and the Minoan Warm Period.

At the latter end of the record report that "SST minima centered at ca. 0.3 ka and ca. 1.5 ka are correlated with the Little Ice Age and the Dark Ages Cold Period in Europe, respectively, whereas the SST maximum centered at ca. 1.0 ka is correlated with the Medieval Warm Period." From data presented in the authors' Figure 2, we estimate that the MWP was about 1°C warmer than the Current Warm Period." [Dai Isono, Masanobu Yamamoto, Tomohisa Irino, Tadamichi Oba, Masafumi Murayama, Toshio Nakamura, Hodaka Kawahata 2009: Geology] http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017d42937ba9970c-pi

The Antarctic Vostok Cores show the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm periods.... and also show the coolings... including the Little Ice Age...

No..... they were NOT regional.....

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a51156dcd4970c-pi

The Medieval Warm Period...... Also Global in extent:

Here's a nice map of the world, with clickable charts and graphs... showing the Medieval Warm Period around the world.. Enjoy :-) 5555555

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.htmx

Edited June 6, 2016 by Catoni

[RickBradford]

Plants choke on too much CO2.

Only in Warmist World.

Back here on Planet Earth, as has already been pointed out, crops and vegetation do just splendidly with the increased levels of CO2 at the present time.

Even the cosplay fetishists at SkS Kidz, normally keen to rubbish anything that might suggest benefits from global warming, can't find much bad to say about increased CO2 levels.

[Catoni]

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries has just published a study titled "Greening of the Earth and its Drivers" in the journal Nature Climate Change showing significant greening of a quarter to one-half of the Earth's vegetated lands using data from the NASA-MODIS and NOAA-AVHRR satellite sensors of the past 33 years.

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-co2-fertilization-greening-earth.html#jCp

Yes.... I agree. In my area we have a huge greenhouse industry. They actually buy CO2 generators and go to the expense because they get a great return on plant growth. The financial return is higher than the expense.

Depending on the crops raised in the greenhouses...flowers, and vegetables are favourites around here... and tomatoes and peppers especially, but also other vegtables... they raise the CO2 level to between 800ppm - 1300ppm.

And yes..... the plants do love it..

Plants choke on too much CO2.

The plants have reduced Nitrogen content and lose the ability to extract nutrients from the soil.

Both wheat and rice crops are suffering from increased atmospheric CO2 levels.

What is "...too much CO2." ? ? As I said... in my area, the greenhouse industry raises levels anywheres from 800ppm - 1300ppm, depending on what it is they are growing...

The farmers certainly find it worth going to the trouble and expense of raising CO2 levels to those points.

But perhaps you know better than they do. Maybe you should get in touch with them and let them know they are wasting time and money boosting the levels to 800ppm - 1300ppm.

For most crops here... saturation point is around 1000ppm - 1300ppm.... that being the point where adding further CO2 no longer produces higher yields...

Here is a government document on the practice of CO2 enrichment in the industry.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses

Factsheet ISSN 1198-712X Queen's Printer for Ontario

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

[up2u2]

Plants choke on too much CO2.

Only in Warmist World.

Back here on Planet Earth, as has already been pointed out, crops and vegetation do just splendidly with the increased levels of CO2 at the present time.

Even the cosplay fetishists at SkS Kidz, normally keen to rubbish anything that might suggest benefits from global warming, can't find much bad to say about increased CO2 levels.

The most recent scientific evidence does not support your view.

Increased atmospheric CO2 levels decreases the Nitrogen levels in plants blocking its ability to extract nutrients from the soil. Increasing nutrients / fertilisers doesn't overcome the problem. So that is the actual reality back here on planet Earth.

[RickBradford]

The most recent scientific evidence does not support your view.

Please post a link to some science which states that plants "choke" on too much CO2.

It would be rather surprising if there was any, given that "choke" is not exactly a scientific word when it comes to plants.....

Edited June 6, 2016 by RickBradford

[ilostmypassword]

If it was possible to bring the level of CO2 down to 20 ppm or even 10 ppm... should we do that ? ?

^^

Hardly. Plants can't survive at all under about 150ppm. That's why greenhouses pump CO2 in up to 1000ppm or more -- the plants love it.

We're only at 400ppm today, but already the benefits are being felt.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries has just published a study titled "Greening of the Earth and its Drivers" in the journal Nature Climate Change showing significant greening of a quarter to one-half of the Earth's vegetated lands using data from the NASA-MODIS and NOAA-AVHRR satellite sensors of the past 33 years.

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-co2-fertilization-greening-earth.html#jCp

Increasing the input of one nutrient into an ecosystem always a great idea. And did you actually read fully what your link connects to? Here's a bit of it.:

"The beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilization in promoting plant growth has been used by contrarians, notably Lord Ridley (hereditary peer in the UK House of Lords) and Mr. Rupert Murdoch (owner of several news outlets), to argue against cuts in carbon emissions to mitigate climate change, similar to those agreed at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP) meeting in Paris last year under the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC). "The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold.... studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time," says co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, Associate Director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suvYvette, France and Contributing Lead Author of the Carbon Chapter for the recent IPCC Assessment Report 5."

[up2u2]

What is "...too much CO2." ? ? As I said... in my area, the greenhouse industry raises levels anywheres from 800ppm - 1300ppm, depending on what it is they are growing...

The farmers certainly find it worth going to the trouble and expense of raising CO2 levels to those points.

But perhaps you know better than they do. Maybe you should get in touch with them and let them know they are wasting time and money boosting the levels to 800ppm - 1300ppm.

For most crops here... saturation point is around 1000ppm - 1300ppm.... that being the point where adding further CO2 no longer produces higher yields...

Here is a government document on the practice of CO2 enrichment in the industry.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses

Factsheet ISSN 1198-712X Queen's Printer for Ontario

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

What happened to the Arctic and Antarctic Polar caps in the Greenhouse? What were the impacts on Greenland in the Greenhouse? How much did the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans rise inside the Greenhouse? What was the effect of the rising sea levels on the major coastal cities inside the Greenhouse? What were the Oceans acidity increase and the impact on the Marine biology inside the Greenhouse? What was the Earth's atmospheric and Oceanic Oxygen levels inside the Greenhouse. Did the frozen Methane clathrate beds off the Polar continental shelf gasify inside the Greenhouse? What were the condition of the Global Glaciers inside the Greenhouse?

Get back to me.

[up2u2]

If it was possible to bring the level of CO2 down to 20 ppm or even 10 ppm... should we do that ? ?

^^

Hardly. Plants can't survive at all under about 150ppm. That's why greenhouses pump CO2 in up to 1000ppm or more -- the plants love it.

We're only at 400ppm today, but already the benefits are being felt.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries has just published a study titled "Greening of the Earth and its Drivers" in the journal Nature Climate Change showing significant greening of a quarter to one-half of the Earth's vegetated lands using data from the NASA-MODIS and NOAA-AVHRR satellite sensors of the past 33 years.

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-co2-fertilization-greening-earth.html#jCp

Increasing the input of one nutrient into an ecosystem always a great idea. And did you actually read fully what your link connects to? Here's a bit of it.:

"The beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilization in promoting plant growth has been used by contrarians, notably Lord Ridley (hereditary peer in the UK House of Lords) and Mr. Rupert Murdoch (owner of several news outlets), to argue against cuts in carbon emissions to mitigate climate change, similar to those agreed at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP) meeting in Paris last year under the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC). "The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold.... studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time," says co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, Associate Director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suvYvette, France and Contributing Lead Author of the Carbon Chapter for the recent IPCC Assessment Report 5."

Well I do deeeeclaaare. Fancy that Lord Ridley and Murdoch. The dynamic duo of Climate Deniers and Fossil Fuel shills. lol

[boomerangutang]

What is "...too much CO2." ? ? As I said... in my area, the greenhouse industry raises levels anywheres from 800ppm - 1300ppm, depending on what it is they are growing...

The farmers certainly find it worth going to the trouble and expense of raising CO2 levels to those points.

But perhaps you know better than they do. Maybe you should get in touch with them and let them know they are wasting time and money boosting the levels to 800ppm - 1300ppm.

For most crops here... saturation point is around 1000ppm - 1300ppm.... that being the point where adding further CO2 no longer produces higher yields...

Here is a government document on the practice of CO2 enrichment in the industry.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses

Factsheet ISSN 1198-712X Queen's Printer for Ontario

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

What happened to the Arctic and Antarctic Polar caps in the Greenhouse? What were the impacts on Greenland in the Greenhouse? How much did the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans rise inside the Greenhouse? What was the effect of the rising sea levels on the major coastal cities inside the Greenhouse? What were the Oceans acidity increase and the impact on the Marine biology inside the Greenhouse? What was the Earth's atmospheric and Oceanic Oxygen levels inside the Greenhouse. Did the frozen Methane clathrate beds off the Polar continental shelf gasify inside the Greenhouse? What were the condition of the Global Glaciers inside the Greenhouse?

Get back to me.

You're asking those reasonable questions of people who are determined to not admit to a greenhouse effect. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but methane is many times more effective at that. Currently lots of methane is tied up in tundra and in frozen state deep in the oceans. Some of that is already getting released at increasing amounts. In many parts of the tundra, it can be seen bubbling up in pools of water. Pretty much everyone, including skeptics, agree that once warming gets going in earnest, it will increase in intensity at a fast clip. Greenland is one place where big changes are happening at a very fast pace already, climatically-speaking. There are vast shallow lakes in Greenland where before there was just ice. Part of Greenland's ice surface is darkened by soot/dust (guess where that comes from), which speeds up melting. Glaciers are receding and getting smaller in width and depth. Rivers and sinkholes are abundant in Greenland (and other parts of the Arctic) where there was just ice not long ago. It's not just vast amounts of ice melting (about 60 cubic miles/year just in the northern hemisphere), but it's ice which is generally not getting replaced.

In Antarctica, there have been some large icebergs calved in recent years. One was about the size of Manhattan. Larger regions of ice are on the brink of calving, as miles-long cracks are seen from the air - growing fast. Again, that's ice which is largely not being replaced, as Antarctica is effectively a desert in terms of precipitation.

It's happening folks, though it will speed up year by year. Anyone who denies serious warming affects in the Arctic regions either hasn't kept up with the latest scientific data, and/or is determined to not want to see what's really going on.

[RickBradford]

You're asking those reasonable questions of people who are determined to not admit to a greenhouse effect.

More idiotic make-believe. That is simply not the skeptic position, and never has been.

The question is: how much warming will be caused by extra CO2, and what will the effects of that be, both good and bad?

If you can understand that much, then we have made progress.

[ilostmypassword]

You're asking those reasonable questions of people who are determined to not admit to a greenhouse effect.

More idiotic make-believe. That is simply not the skeptic position, and never has been.

The question is: how much warming will be caused by extra CO2, and what will the effects of that be, both good and bad?

If you can understand that much, then we have made progress.

I guess by "good" you mean the silly notion the greener is better. Or to put it another way, the greater the total quantitiy of plants the better.

[NumbNut]

^^

Hardly. Plants can't survive at all under about 150ppm. That's why greenhouses pump CO2 in up to 1000ppm or more -- the plants love it.

We're only at 400ppm today, but already the benefits are being felt.

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-co2-fertilization-greening-earth.html#jCp

Increasing the input of one nutrient into an ecosystem always a great idea. And did you actually read fully what your link connects to? Here's a bit of it.:

"The beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilization in promoting plant growth has been used by contrarians, notably Lord Ridley (hereditary peer in the UK House of Lords) and Mr. Rupert Murdoch (owner of several news outlets), to argue against cuts in carbon emissions to mitigate climate change, similar to those agreed at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP) meeting in Paris last year under the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC). "The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold.... studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time," says co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, Associate Director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suvYvette, France and Contributing Lead Author of the Carbon Chapter for the recent IPCC Assessment Report 5."

Well I do deeeeclaaare. Fancy that Lord Ridley and Murdoch. The dynamic duo of Climate Deniers and Fossil Fuel shills. lol

lol

[ilostmypassword]

Plants choke on too much CO2.

The plants have reduced Nitrogen content and lose the ability to extract nutrients from the soil.

Both wheat and rice crops are suffering from increased atmospheric CO2 levels.

What is "...too much CO2." ? ? As I said... in my area, the greenhouse industry raises levels anywheres from 800ppm - 1300ppm, depending on what it is they are growing...

The farmers certainly find it worth going to the trouble and expense of raising CO2 levels to those points.

But perhaps you know better than they do. Maybe you should get in touch with them and let them know they are wasting time and money boosting the levels to 800ppm - 1300ppm.

For most crops here... saturation point is around 1000ppm - 1300ppm.... that being the point where adding further CO2 no longer produces higher yields...

Here is a government document on the practice of CO2 enrichment in the industry.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses

Factsheet ISSN 1198-712X Queen's Printer for Ontario

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

So many reason greenhouse agriculture is not relevant. For one thing, CO2 is only one of the nutrients needed by plants. 2 of the other most important ones are nitrogen and water. These are also limiting factors. You can give plants all the CO2 you want, but if the other nutrients aren't present in sufficient quantities it will make no difference. in a greenhouse you can give nitrogen in the form of fertilizer. Do you think we have enough ammonium nitrate to fertilize the world outside of green houses? Are you planning to sprinkle the planet with water gauged to the proper anount for each ecosystem. What nonsense.

Edited June 6, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[tartempion]

They see the results in flooding of coastal cities, massive arctic ice melt and the largest coral die-off in recorded history.

I see typical UN BS.

At last the end is near, just a pity we managed to destroy a lot more than our species, but nature will recover (without the help of the gods)

[RickBradford]

You're asking those reasonable questions of people who are determined to not admit to a greenhouse effect.

More idiotic make-believe. That is simply not the skeptic position, and never has been.

The question is: how much warming will be caused by extra CO2, and what will the effects of that be, both good and bad?

If you can understand that much, then we have made progress.

I guess by "good" you mean the silly notion the greener is better. Or to put it another way, the greater the total quantitiy of plants the better.

No, I don't.

[ilostmypassword]

I guess by "good" you mean the silly notion the greener is better. Or to put it another way, the greater the total quantitiy of plants the better.

No, I don't.

Really, you wereN'T toutiing the virtues of CO2 in promoting plant growth? Or was it some hacker who broke into your account and wrote "We're only at 400ppm today, but already the benefits are being felt.'

[RickBradford]

I guess by "good" you mean the silly notion the greener is better. Or to put it another way, the greater the total quantitiy of plants the better.

No, I don't.

Really, you wereN'T toutiing the virtues of CO2 in promoting plant growth? Or was it some hacker who broke into your account and wrote "We're only at 400ppm today, but already the benefits are being felt.'

Try to keep up. Or at least read posts before you reply to them.

I was addressing the question of global warming in all its manifestations, not just in terms of CO2's effect on plant fertility. There are other benefits from (mild) global warming other than that.

[ilostmypassword]

No, I don't.

Really, you wereN'T toutiing the virtues of CO2 in promoting plant growth? Or was it some hacker who broke into your account and wrote "We're only at 400ppm today, but already the benefits are being felt.'

Try to keep up. Or at least read posts before you reply to them.

I was addressing the question of global warming in all its manifestations, not just in terms of CO2's effect on plant fertility. There are other benefits from (mild) global warming other

Here is your entire quote: "Hardly. Plants can't survive at all under about 150ppm. That's why greenhouses pump CO2 in up to 1000ppm or more -- the plants love it. We're only at 400ppm today, but already the benefits are being felt."

So if it wasn't increased plant production you were referring to, what are the benefits?

Edited June 6, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[RickBradford]

Educate yourself.

https://ideas.repec.org/p/sus/susewp/7515.html

[ilostmypassword]

Well I clicked on your link. Here's the absract of the paper:

Climate change will probably have a limited impact on the economy and human welfare in the 21st century. The initial impacts of climate change may well be positive. In the long run, the negative impacts dominate the positive ones. Negative impacts will be substantially greater in poorer, hotter, and lower-lying countries. Poverty reduction complements greenhouse gas emissions reduction as a means to reduce climate change impacts. Climate change may affect the growth rate of the economy and may trap more people in poverty but quantification is difficult. The optimal carbon tax in the near term is somewhere between a few tens and a few hundreds of dollars per tonne of carbon.

It does seem to endorse the idea of a carbon tax. If you count this as support for your position, your case is very weak indeed. The link to the full article didn't work.

I'd like to say that I don't understand why you're being so coy about listing not even one benefit of higher CO2. Unless, of course, you know I'll shoot it down just as I've shot down a couple of other claims of yours.

Edited June 6, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[NumbNut]

Well I clicked on your link. Here's the absract of the paper:

Climate change will probably have a limited impact on the economy and human welfare in the 21st century. The initial impacts of climate change may well be positive. In the long run, the negative impacts dominate the positive ones. Negative impacts will be substantially greater in poorer, hotter, and lower-lying countries. Poverty reduction complements greenhouse gas emissions reduction as a means to reduce climate change impacts. Climate change may affect the growth rate of the economy and may trap more people in poverty but quantification is difficult. The optimal carbon tax in the near term is somewhere between a few tens and a few hundreds of dollars per tonne of carbon.

It does seem to endorse the idea of a carbon tax. If you count this as support for your position, your case is very weak indeed. The link to the full article didn't work.

Tax? TAX? Perish the thought...

Edited June 6, 2016 by NumbNut

[RickBradford]

I'd like to say that I don't understand why you're being so coy about listing not even one benefit of higher CO2.

For the final time of asking, if you would read posts before replying to them, you will see that I have listed benefits of higher CO2 in posts #176, #179, #184.

The CO2 fertilisation effect is generally accepted science, and demonstrable practically. There are other benefits, to both terrestrial and marine systems, which you can research yourself.

The link to the full article didn't work.

I'm sorry if it's too complicated. To download the selected file, you need to click the button saying 'download the selected file', and you will receive a file called 'file.php', which contains information about CO2 fertilisation and many more of the benefits (and drawbacks) of climate change.

Enough of this. If you want to go round in circles, do it by yourself.

[up2u2]

Educate yourself.

https://ideas.repec.org/p/sus/susewp/7515.html

RB this research argued against your claims. Even more recent research is showing that the negative impacts of increased CO2 levels are being seen now and a basic understanding of why it is occurring. It actually wasn't expected to show the results it did.

In large scaled study on crops, grasslands and forests in 8 countries across 4 continents.

"The findings of the study are unequivocal. The nitrogen content in the crops is reduced in atmospheres with raised carbon dioxide levels in all three ecosystem types," Johan Uddling, a researcher with the University of Gothenburg.

More CO2 in the atmosphere the lower the Nitrogen in plants and the impact is the plant cannot extract nutrients from the soil. The plants actually grow themselves to death often withering before the growing season ends.

There isn't one example that you have presented on the topic of GW / CC that has, on investigation, proved to be of any substance.

[up2u2]

I'd like to say that I don't understand why you're being so coy about listing not even one benefit of higher CO2.

For the final time of asking, if you would read posts before replying to them, you will see that I have listed benefits of higher CO2 in posts #176, #179, #184.

The CO2 fertilisation effect is generally accepted science, and demonstrable practically. There are other benefits, to both terrestrial and marine systems, which you can research yourself.

The link to the full article didn't work.

I'm sorry if it's too complicated. To download the selected file, you need to click the button saying 'download the selected file', and you will receive a file called 'file.php', which contains information about CO2 fertilisation and many more of the benefits (and drawbacks) of climate change.

Enough of this. If you want to go round in circles, do it by yourself.

You are cherry picking again RB the negatives far outweigh any positives. You are getting all excited over plants growing quickly then don't turn around to see they all died and the other negative impacts. Raising the Earth's CO2 level to 1300ppm would be catastrophic. If you want to see negative impacts brace yourself. If you put the entire Earth in your greenhouse it would be left in ruins.

[boomerangutang]

To believe in Climate Change (I prefer the older term 'global warming') is not necessarily to be a fan of carbon tax. Taxes are a separate or, at best, a side issue.

The core issue is the activities of people on an overpopulated planet. .....and how those activities are contributing to pollution, greenhouse effect, and a warming planet. The focus should be on the effects of a warming planet for current and future life. Most discussions revolve around the repercussions on just one species (humans) by my concern is wider than that. We are one of millions of species, yet we are trashing toxifying and decimating the environment as much as a large meteor strike, if that New Jersey sized meteor was also composed of PCB's, carbon monoxide, hormones, ten types of plastic, asbestos, .....you get the idea.

GW is part of the problem exacerbated by humans. Its ugly cousins are massive pollution, toxicity, nitrogen run-off, dead seas, species extinction, deformed human babies, torched oil wells, Fukushima, private jets, ......on and on.

[RickBradford]

Even more recent research is showing that the negative impacts of increased CO2 levels are being seen now

You have misunderstood the science in that paper.

Uddling is not saying that fertility reduces because of increased CO2, merely that the benefits are not as linear as might have been expected. That is why the paper is entitled "Constraints to nitrogen acquisition of terrestrial plants under elevated CO2"

That is also why the abstract begins:

A key part of the uncertainty in terrestrial feedbacks on climate change is related to how and to what extent nitrogen (N) availability constrains the stimulation of terrestrial productivity by elevated CO2 (eCO2), and whether or not this constraint will become stronger over time.

Edited June 7, 2016 by RickBradford

[ilostmypassword]

I'd like to say that I don't understand why you're being so coy about listing not even one benefit of higher CO2.

For the final time of asking, if you would read posts before replying to them, you will see that I have listed benefits of higher CO2 in posts #176, #179, #184.

The CO2 fertilisation effect is generally accepted science, and demonstrable practically. There are other benefits, to both terrestrial and marine systems, which you can research yourself.

This is truly bizarre. I specifically asked you about post #176 and you denied that "benefits" meant more plant matter. But what else could the positive fertilization effect of CO2 mean?

And you pretty much repeat this assertion in #179, this time referencing another poster's statements about greenhouses and CO2. I directly addressed his assertions. Here iit is again. CO2 is only one input. 2 others that are crucial are nitrogen and water. In a controlled and closed environment like a greenhouse you can add nitrogen in the form of fertilier and water to support the stimulative effects of more CO2. Otherwise the plant will not thrive. Do you propose to airlift nitrogen fertilizer and water worldwide to support this effect?

And post #184 is just more of the same.

And finally i will cite here again one of my responses to your assertions. It does raise the question, though, of the quality of your attention. Increasing the input of one nutrient into an ecosystem always a great idea. And did you actually read fully what your link connects to? Here's a bit of it.:

"The beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilization in promoting plant growth has been used by contrarians, notably Lord Ridley (hereditary peer in the UK House of Lords) and Mr. Rupert Murdoch (owner of several news outlets), to argue against cuts in carbon emissions to mitigate climate change, similar to those agreed at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP) meeting in Paris last year under the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC). "The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold.... studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time," says co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, Associate Director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suvYvette, France and Contributing Lead Author of the Carbon Chapter for the recent IPCC Assessment Report 5."

There are lots of other questions raised about the supposedly beneficial effects of CO2. It seems that you are either ignorant of them or just ignore them.

Edited June 7, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[RickBradford]

This is truly bizarre. I specifically asked you about post #176

If you were asking me about post #176, then why did you use my quote from post #192 instead?

Bizarre, indeed.

The question you posed to me was, then, did I think the "good" in climate change could be measured by the total amount of vegetable matter on the planet, or some such phrase.

The answer to that, of course is No, as the Richard Tol paper makes clear (as you will find when you manage to download it).