Pemba wrote:Reasonable limits ?
Yes, I can not just state "any" warming will be harmless. Have you seen Venus? I think 2-4C could be reasonable maybe even up to 6C. A lot would depend how that increase is distributed, for to know that we would need accurate climate models, which unfortunately we don't have. If warming is mainly concentrated to the poles and limited at the tropics then the higher levels of warming could be beneficial. The models and much of the consensus predict this but again these are not to be trusted. We should seek to limit CO2 increase because of any uncertainty.
I think there is evidence of harm: land getting flooded for instance.
Harm to whom? Flooding does not make a space unuseful. The majority of life here is after all adapted to live in water. If humans can not see a slow trend to rising sea levels and so adapt to it, and then suffer outcomes that are bad for them, then too bad. Evolution plays it's hand usually much harder and faster. If people can not build dikes or even just stop new development in low areas, then they are too stupid to be of use.
"Deniers" feel that we don't have any control in the first place
First labeling people deniers is not constructive. This is a broad brush that is misused to try discount anyone that disagrees with any part of the Alarmism. We have plenty we can control, the President could order a nuclear strike today and have to climate issue, and any environmental issue resolved tomorrow. The thing is in spite of that being morally horrific, that will not solve the real issue we face as a species and every other life on this planet faces, which is that even if we do or don't wipe out most other life and make the climate or environment uninhabitable we will eventual face that occurring naturally and so are dead if we stay here. Yes it is not a problem likely for a long time but if we f*** up now who says we get another chance?
Is the "evidence" you refer to of there "being a benefit", the increase in leaf area between 1982 and 2015, the assumption being that it was caused by increase in CO2 or temperature rise ?
I think both are involved, CO2 is a huge factor though. Plants are practically starving at the historic low declining levels of CO2 until we changed that. You can look at much research in plant growth and increased CO2 levels,even up 1000ppm and more is of huge benefit. We can also observe increased plant growth rates and chemical changes associated with increased CO2. There is no doubt CO2 is not the only factor, human irrigation, planting and I think another factor that is huge is the introduction of foreign species. Foreign plants that become invasive are more adapted to the environments they are introduced to which is why they can be so invasive. It is likely given the long trends of lowering CO2 that plants have already had to evolve to survive for them, we will likely see some interesting things as plants adapt to higher levels. It has long been speculated how plants grew enough to sustain the dinosaurs.
Matteo V wrote:
would owe a small amount of extra growth per plant to additional available CO2.
I think CO2 is the major cause, but others can't be ignored. If you look at studies on the effect of different CO2 levels on different plants then you will see it has a huge effect on growth rate and yields. The pollution of climate research around CO2 makes finding info on it harder.
you will need to have science based evidence to back your claims
You can actually search and find your own, even look out the window you can spot some. Like how was life going before it snowed and now after.
Blackened wrote:Why are you participating?
That should be obvious.
Blackened wrote:Ignored every instance of criticism of the above
Not ignored just not replied. You make general logic mistakes and so it is not worth the effort. You also can not stick to debate singular points, a logic error again. You won't improve your understanding if you can't get through things systematically.
If they reject our current models, I'm curious as to how they can know what will happen?
Well they don't, neither side does. The models would be more trust worthy if they did predict more accurately. Altering the input data and smoothing things so they "look" more accurate is not convincing to the more investigative, but for the majority maybe.
Blackened wrote:You have done nothing but exclaim that AGW is not real
No I have never done that. You can't seem to grasp my position can you? You need to understand another persons position if you are to have meaningful conversation. To restate it for you, I believe in global warming, climate change, AGW etc. I however disagree, with "some" of the science being done around it. I don't think we understand climate enough to isolate Mans effect completely. I disagree with the outcome of predicted warming. I disagree with some of the predictions for warming and think the lower predictions are more accurate. I do think there is a potential for a bad outcome but that is not highly likely. Given we currently have one planet, even with a small risk to a bad outcome from AGW it would be wise to limit our effect until we are more certain otherwise. I do not think the propaganda surrounding this issue is productive to science or doing something about it. I think all efforts to solve this issue should be put to improving battery technology.
So there is my position again but hey feel welcome to not grasp it again( I posted it before) and I might just feel welcome to not reply to you.