Should professional kiters carbon offset their (many) flights?

[Pemba]

[
And why should they? There is no evidence present or past that increasing either the temperature or CO2 within reasonable limits will do any harm. In fact the evidence of doing so is that there will a benefit.

Global greening.png

I think there is evidence of harm: land getting flooded for instance. But that happens somewhere far away mostly.. Reasonable limits ? "Deniers" feel that we don't have any control in the first place, "believers" think that soon we won't unless... The argument is not about a situation in which temperature and CO2 remain within reasonable limits but about things going/being out of control I think.

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 ?

[Matteo V]

But that is not where it ends. With the current geopolitical situation, warming IS NO THREAT. It will actually allow for more people on this earth, and self sufficiency of most countries/ideologies with a comparatively few exceptions. Cooling is instant death and destruction for pretty much all of humanity, and the Earth's ecosystems with the current human population.

Just curious, if you don't trust climate models, how will a warmer earth allow for more people?

First, with a warmer global climate, there is more rainfall globally.

Second, as others have said, there is also more arable (suitable for food production) land available.

And third, warming releases CO2 locked up in the ocean which is also key to growing more crops with higher yields.



The first two statements above are general statements. There could definitely be loss or change in rainfall locally with warming. But there would be a net gain in arable land. Also, given that higher latitudes would become more productive, or even newly productive land previously too cold for farming could be utilized, more food production is probable.

But 'Its a trap!" Increasing population with increasing agricultural production simply sets humanity up for famine should the climate shift cooler once again. Because in a cooling climate, there is WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, less arable land and food production in general. Thus the real concern is future cooling because of less rainfall and less food production would be even more devastating given a higher population.

So arguments can definitely be made against "warming being good", at least in the long run when faced with inevitable cooling. Another argument would be that a higher population would simply pollute more, and with less restrictions when the population increase is in 2nd and 3rd world countries.

[Matteo V]

I think there is evidence of harm: land getting flooded for instance. But that happens somewhere far away mostly.

This is another piece of propaganda that "climate change enthusiasts" are constantly caught presenting in a very unscientific way (actually they just lie about it). They specifically and intentionally confuse sea level rise with erosion. Erosion is a constant. It will not stop, even when sea levels drop. Any land near sea level will be eroded by wave action up to the maximum height of waves that come in contact with it. Sand and dirt erode at extremely high rates, but are replaced by flooding at high rates too. This is how river deltas form. Dams that hold back sediment prevent deltas from replacing newly eroded soil/sand with new material from upstream. But many places exist around the globe that have naturally lost their means of sediment replenishment long ago. These places are eroding, and have been eroding for sometimes millions of years. To present them as the victim of a single centimeter of sea level rise, is a blatant lie.

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 ?

Most likely due to more annual rainfall from natural or human caused warming where humans are not a direct influence on the land. Where humans are a direct influence on the land (irrigation or in some cases irrigated urban environments) much of that is due to providing water (canals or wells) to the surface to grow more plants (often not just for food). However, those plants grown by humans, and those increasing naturally, would owe a small amount of extra growth per plant to additional available CO2.

[Blackened]

Seriously what is wrong with you? Why repeat the question. Climate models do not predict outcomes for those climate changes. There is current, historical, archeological, paleontological, geological, and even extraterrestrial evidence for the effects of different climates. Tegirinenashi has just given you some of that evidence. If you want to bury your head in the sand, why not just not participate in any of this discussion.

Most people won't change their behaviour when it inconveniences them or slightly modifies their lifestyles.

And why should they? There is no evidence present or past that increasing either the temperature or CO2 within reasonable limits will do any harm. In fact the evidence of doing so is that there will a benefit.

Global greening.png

Pardon! Forgive me, I do forget sometimes subtlety isn't well understood. I will endeavor to limit ambiguity by using simple language in short sentences. There wasn't any evidence presented. Asking rhetorical questions is not evidence. If you would like to have a science based discussion, you will need to have science based evidence to back your claims. To address this particular response, if you do accept the climate is warming, then you will need to provide a model of what the future climate will look like. As it has been pointed out multiple times by anti-AGW, the climate is too complex to properly model. If they reject our current models, I'm curious as to how they can know what will happen? Simply stating more CO2 = warm = rain = green is not an acceptable.

Why are you participating? You have done nothing but exclaim that AGW is not real without providing any coherent shred of evidence. So far you have:
1. Provided conspiracy websites as proof of your opinion
2. Clearly not read or understood the entirety of legitimate website articles you provided (even the preceding or subsequent paragraphs)
3. Clearly not understood any of the papers you referenced
4. Attempted to sound intelligent by using random unrelated references to things you clearly don't understand, such as physics or even basic evolutionary theory
5. Ignored every instance of criticism of the above
6. (my personal favourite) Didn't know that your favourite scientist, Asimov, was an AGW supporter back in the 80s, if not before. Not to mention you having to "rethink" your view of Hawking's intelligence because he supported AGW.

No, no it does not. There are plenty of things single countries can do, plenty of things individuals can do. Plenty of things you can do if you believe the climate outcomes from increased CO2 will be horrific. Plenty of things you can do that do not involve reducing CO2 at all or even reducing the rate of CO2 increase.

Subtlety again! I am really bad at this. Apologies. I implied by the entire statement that a single individual is unable to make a meaningful overall impact by simple lifestyle changes. To spell it out, assuming AGW is true and we need to completely cut our excess emissions, my personal 10 tons of carbon reduction will not make an impact if the remaining 37000000000 tons of human emissions are not cut.

[tegirinenashi]

To address this particular response, if you do accept the climate is warming, then you will need to provide a model of what the future climate will look like. As it has been pointed out multiple times by anti-AGW, the climate is too complex to properly model. If they reject our current models, I'm curious as to how they can know what will happen? Simply stating more CO2 = warm = rain = green is not an acceptable.

The distrust to climate models hinges on the temperature increase value they predict. So far they didn't have the track record to take them seriously. To put it cynically, the climate computer modelling is a cushy government job, which benefits to society are questionable. As opposed to weather forecasting, which BTW is very relevant to our hobby.

Next, you have put equality symbols where you perhaps intended to have the cause-effect arrows. As it has been mentioned previously, the link CO2 -> warming has been established well before computer models; it was only the rate, that has been in doubt. It is still much in-doubt today, even with your "latest-and greatest" computer models. Nic Lewis derived climate sensitivity value from the observed temperature data. Given the fact that it took Nic a cursory glance to spot an error in major climate science publication, which has been consequently retracted, I tend to believe his climate sensitivity value rather than the models.

Now, if the climate is going to to warm at some unknown rate, and catastrophic warming is out of the picture, what the consequences in terms of vegetation health might be? It doesn't require any computer model to notice that plant hardiness map pretty much conform to annual temperature map.

[foilholio]

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.

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.

Why are you participating?

That should be obvious.

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.

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.

[Pemba]

I think there is evidence of harm: land getting flooded for instance. But that happens somewhere far away mostly.

This is another piece of propaganda that "climate change enthusiasts" are constantly caught presenting in a very unscientific way (actually they just lie about it). They specifically and intentionally confuse sea level rise with erosion. Erosion is a constant. It will not stop, even when sea levels drop. Any land near sea level will be eroded by wave action up to the maximum height of waves that come in contact with it. Sand and dirt erode at extremely high rates, but are replaced by flooding at high rates too. This is how river deltas form. Dams that hold back sediment prevent deltas from replacing newly eroded soil/sand with new material from upstream. But many places exist around the globe that have naturally lost their means of sediment replenishment long ago. These places are eroding, and have been eroding for sometimes millions of years. To present them as the victim of a single centimeter of sea level rise, is a blatant lie.

Rising seawater levels would obviously increase erosion. But there would be increased deposition as well. Are you saying that erosion is added to the equation but deposition isn't ? I think both would in many cases be very difficult to accurately predict.

[Pemba]

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 was being cynical. I think it is argued that things might reach a tipping point and get out of hand. No reasonable limits in that case.

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.

Well that need for building dikes would cause some harm to people in Bangladesh and some island nations I think. Areas that are now just above the limit for growing crops for instance will be just below that limit etc. But maybe not much of an issue on a global scale. What about coral bleaching at the great barrier and other reefs ? You feel there's no harm there or the harm isn't caused by rising CO2 levels and or temperatures ?

"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?

Labelling people is constructive in the sense that it saves me from having to accurately define each "group" which would take some effort and a lot of space. I think you misunderstood me there. If the label I used is offensive to you feel free to read it as "Group A" or "climate change cynicals" or whatever you feel is an appropriate description.

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.

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.

Ok, I'll take your word on that for now.

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.

Why are you participating?

That should be obvious.

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.

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.

I'm sure there will be others that say something else but this is equally interesting and probably little known to many people. So I take your point.

[tautologies]

cushy government job

aaaahhahahahahaha

[Bille]

*