Earth just recorded its hottest 12-month streak (November 2022-October 2023). Analysis using Climate

LOL. Nobody is discounting “results” of science. I’m simply attempting to get you to reject fallacy.

Logical fallacies are….get this…rejection of logic. And logic is essentially a basic science. You are actively rejecting science by insisting that use of a logical fallacy is a valid debate tool or a valid method of examining evidence.

I understand it’s easier to just pick an authority to appeal to than to use logic and reason to evaluate evidence. But appeal to authority has no place in science. It is itself a rejection of logic, a basic science.

I’m sorry you are unable to base posts on logic and reason in the science forum. If it were me, and I didn’t have the ability to base posts on science in the science forum I would go find a forum that better fit my knowledge base and natural abilities.

At the very least I would refrain from disparaging the basic science of logic by continuing to ADVOCATE for use of logical fallacy in matters of science.

You are allowed to use fallacy. I’m just pointing out if one wants to be taken seriously in matters of science they must reject fallacy and embrace logic and reason (evidence). It would be nice if the environmental movement wasn’t desecrated by advocation for rejection of basic science.

 

Thanks for your confirmation. I appreciate it.

 

What concession? Your inability to use science to support your position is a concession on your part. I’ve multiple times now presented evidence that appeal to authority arguments are fallacious. That evidence is the result of centuries of study of logic and reason. I’ve posted it in totality and in pull quotes.

I’ve presented EVIDENCE as usual and as usual you have provided nothing but your UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION.

Again, you are welcome to value unsubstantiated opinions over evidence. But advocating for logical fallacy is rejecting science pure and simple. That’s what you have done. If you believe your rejection of basic science is a victory there isn’t much I can do to help you. You are victorious as a science denier.

Congratulations.

 

The data are from the FAO. Your post is mere denial.

 

Here are some papers for you.
Net Benefit: Rising CO2 Improves Essential Crop Yields 3% Per Year – Critical to Feeding The World
By Kenneth Richard on 12. September 2022

The elevated CO2 fertilization effect is driving global greening trends, pushing back deserts, enhancing photosynthesis by 30 to 50%, improving water use efficiency, and boosting crop yields by about 3% every year since 1961.
Recently atmospheric CO2 has been rising at a rate of about 3 ppm per year. While activists claim this is an existential problem for the climate, there will be a critical need for food production as the world population grows by another billion in the coming decades.

The good news heralded by a new study finds gross primary production increased by over 30% over the 2oth century, and the global maize, rice, soybean, wheat yields have increased by ~3% per year since 1961.

There are 2 main reasons for the rapid increase in crop yields in recent decades: “technological progress and CO2 fertilization” (Altimonti et al., 2022). Likewise, the root of the modern global greening phenomenon “pushing back deserts around the world” and improving water-use efficiency is “the increase of atmospheric CO2.”



Image Source: Alimonti et al., 2022
Another new study documents a 30 to 50% increase in photosynthesis with elevated CO2 (eCO2, 451 to 720 ppm) and a ~25% increase in crop yield. The authors cite results indicating grain yield may increase 54% when CO2 concentrations rise from 400 to 700 ppm. In the study the highest temperatures (21-25°C) were associated with the best yields, whereas the lowest temperatures (<15°C) were linked to the worst yields.



Image Source: Gardi et al., 2022
Gardi et al., 2022
“An increase in atmospheric CO2 generally exerts beneficial effects on plant biomass by increasing net photosynthesis by 30 to 50% and reducing photorespiration (Drake et al. 1997; Poorter and Navas 2003; Schapendonk et al. 2000). This has been studied for cereals including barley, wheat, rice, oat, and rye (Conroyac et al. 1994; Kimball et al. 2002; Long et al. 2006). For instance, in a meta-analysis comprising 79 crops and wild species, Jablonski et al. (2002) documented an increase in yield of 28% averaged across crops and wild species due to elevated CO2 (eCO2). A climate chamber experiment with 700 ppm CO2 on barley reported an increment of grain yield by 54% compared to 400 ppm (Alemayehu et al. 2014), while 47% enhancement of grain yield averaged across two genotypes was reported by Schmid et al. (2016) under eCO2 level of 550 ppm. Moreover, Manderscheid and Weigel (2006) evaluated the effects of eCO2 on barley using Free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) at 550 ppm, and obtained yield increases of 7 and 15% under the combination of eCO2 with low and high N supply respectively.”
“CO2 enrichment increased aboveground biomass (23.8%), grain number (24.8%), and grain yield (27.4%). The magnitude of the responses to eCO2 was affected by genotype, temperature, nitrogen, and CO2 exposure methods. Genotype “Anakin” shows the highest CO2 response of aboveground biomass (47.1%), while “Bambina” had the highest grain number (58.4%). Grain yield response was observed to be higher for genotypes “Alexis” (38.1%) and “Atem” (33.7%) under eCO2. The increase of aboveground biomass and grain yield was higher when plants were grown under eCO2 in combination with higher N (151–200 kg ha−1). The interaction between eCO2 and three different temperature levels was analyzed to identify the impacts on barley yield components. The results revealed that the CO2-induced increase in grain number and grain yield was higher in combination with a temperature level of 21–25 °C as compared to lower levels (< 15 and 16–20 ℃).”
Another just-published study indicates “wheat yields could be enhanced while crop water use is reduced because of climate change” in the coming decades. Wheat yields dramatically improve in tandem with increases in human CO2 emissions, increasing by 23%, 29%, and 54% for the lowest to highest emissions scenarios, respectively.

Govere et al., 2022
“Climate change is a major concern in wheat agroecosystems as it can affect productivity and crop water use. This study used the AquaCrop model to evaluate climate change impacts on the wheat yield, crop water use and water footprint of wheat production in the Middle-Manyame sub-catchment of Zimbabwe. Climate scenarios were based on simulations from the NCC-NorESM1-M, CCCma-CanESM2 and MOHCHadGEM2-ES General Climate Models downscaled using three Regional Climate Models (RCA4, RegCM4 and CRCM5) under two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The results showed that, compared to the baseline climate (1980–2010), yield may increase by 22.60, 29.47 27.80, and 53.85% for the RCP4.5 2040 s, RCP4.5 2080 s, RCP8.5 2040 s and RCP8.5 2080 s scenarios, respectively. Crop water use may decrease by 1.68, 1.25, 3.7 and 6.47%, respectively, under the four scenarios, respectively. Consequently, the blue water footprint may decrease by 19, 23, 24 and 38%, respectively, under the four scenarios. Sensitivity analysis attributed the increase in yields and the decrease in crop water use to the CO2 fertilization effect, which had a dominant effect over high-temperature effects. The results suggest that future wheat yields could be enhanced while crop water use is reduced because of climate change.”
Scientists affirm there is “undoubtedly a ‘fertilization effect of CO2′” in improving the growth and yield of fruit trees (Fischer et al., 2022). Plants grow 30% faster with 600-750 ppm CO2, and “1,000 ppm of CO2 will be optimal for the photosynthesis of various plant species”.

Fischer et al., 2022
“Generally, elevated CO2 (e-CO2) positively affected fruit trees, such as increased photosynthesis, efficient use of water, growth, and biomass. Therefore, in many cases, the yield and the quality of fruits also increased. With an e-CO2 of 600-750 ppm, most C3 plants will grow 30 % faster. A total of 1,000 ppm of CO2 will be optimal for the photosynthesis of various plant species. Fruit trees typically grown in Colombia, such as citrus, grapevines, strawberry, papaya, and pitaya, would benefit from these positive effects, as e-CO2 alleviates stress due to drought and waterlogging. However, the increased growth of fruit trees due to e-CO2 requires more nutrients and water. Thus, selecting genotypes that benefit from e-CO2 and have high efficiency in using nitrogen and water is very important. Ideally, they must have a high sink strength to avoid the accumulation of carbohydrates in the chloroplast. The authors conclude that there is undoubtedly a “fertilization effect of CO2” on fruit species that increases with the advance of climate change. Still, much research is lacking for fruit species compared to many other crops. Hence, future studies are required to measure the direct effects of atmospheric e-CO2 and its interactions with environmental variables such as rainfall, temperature, soil moisture, and nutrient availability.”

 

Have any of those scientists managed to figure out how to work around the fact that "climate change" violates empirically derived laws of physics and thermodynamics which prove physics denial is a fraud at the core?

I wouldn't spend 2 seconds worrying about a mythical concept designed to destroy modern civilization and quite possibly in the worst case, all of humanity.

 

Your cites supported what I said.

I pointed that out to you.

 

LOL!

 

So you know how to work around that? Do tell.

 

No. They are in direct conflict with your unsubstantiated opinions.

 

And where exactly did I ever say it was "unreliable"? That is your own lack of understanding, I think I spoke rather clearly.

Here, let me break it down for you Barney Style.



All I said is that it is a proxy, and not hard data. And it should not be treated as hard data, but should be treated as proxy data. I said nothing more and nothing less. You are the one injecting that it is unreliable, not me.

As for how I know that? Holy freaking hell, you really do not understand how this science stuff works, do you?

Homo Sapiens evolved around 300kya. That is unquestionably two glacial cycles ago, possibly three. Or are you one of those denying that there have been no glacial cycles?

This once again is a classic example of why I hate dealing with the unscientific. They will twist things around that were never said, to try and force things to conform to their beliefs.

Well, guess what? I could not give a fig for your beliefs. Or anybody else's beliefs. Because that is only that, a personal belief. I only follow the science.

But do not twist my words around, and try to imply I said something I did not. I find that highly offensive, and it is dishonest and disgusting. And it is a guaranteed fail every time. If you think I said anything about proxy data being unreliable, that is your own failure to grasp science that caused that, because I never said that.

 

Problem is - plants don’t just live on Co2 and a slightly faster growth rate will not compensate for increased risk of drought and flood. BTW that is not a research paper but a blog on a discredited website and what exactly are the authors qualifications?

https://annielab.org/2022/01/05/inv...y-fuels-global-climate-change-misinformation/

 

@Bowerbird

Do you think Usain Bolts 100m record will be beaten?

Is Usain Bolt the fastest man ever, or when records started?

Early man, do you think someone in human history has faster?

Do you think the highest temp in Australia will be beaten?

What's the highest temperature since records started?

Do you think in Australia's history, the temperature has exceeded the current record?

 

Here’s a “blog” you may like. A bit of evidence for increased productivity from CO2 fertilization and other climate change metrics. It’s funny you are unaware of this information as you often cite this “blog” and claim to avidly read it.

https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg2/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf

 

Those are four peer-reviewed papers, quoted and linked. You are dodging.

 

In my opinion.....
all of this means that we are getting close to shockingly rapid cracking and sliding of chunks of ice off the land based Greenland Ice Sheet.....

and the eventual potentially rapid collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which to my thinking......

means that we must now ABANDON THE CARBON TAX PROPOSED BY MR. AL GORE AND WE MUST INSTEAD INVEST HEAVILY IN MEGA-SCALE SEA WATER DESALINATION TECHNOLOGY IN ORDER TO
DESALINATE a comparable amount of H2O as is in the volume of ice that merely needs to crack and slide off the land based Greenland Ice Pack.......

or the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.....
in order to cause a serious and rapid rise in ocean levels.....
and we must get desalinated water to fill the depleted underground aquifers that have been used up over these past decades.

The number one threat posed by a warming world......is rising ocean levels.... and a CARBON TAX WILL DO ESSENTIALLY NOTHING TO PREVENT OCEAN LEVELS FROM RISING BUT.....
desalinating ocean water on a massive scale can turn deserts green and replenish the water table in nations with lots of desert.....

which could at the minimum DELAY the threat posed by rising ocean levels to all real estate that is vulnerable to rising ocean levels.

Australia also has a massive area of land that is below sea level...that could rapidly be turned into a salt water marina... and a massive tourist attraction......
so perhaps the Australians are in the position to take point on trying to get all of into ways of tackling climate change that are practical and will actually work in a manner that is win, win, win, win, win, win.....

Frankly.... this alternative theory on stabilization of the climate is even relevant to the question of increasing economic cooperation... and decreasing tensions in the Middle East!!!

Should Sorek 2 be in Australia or California?

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...om-in-the-middle-east.614114/#post-1074469672


The Tate Plan for Shalom in the Middle East!

 

Of course, as always.

Like trying to claim I said that Proxy Data was "unreliable". Where I had to rather forcibly correct them as to what I had actually said. And amazingly, not even an apology for obviously not only incorrectly claiming I said something I never did, but that it is a simply fact that proxy data is not real data.

I am about to just give up on several in here, to be honest. That level of dishonesty and refusal to even consider anything that does not completely fall in line with their preconceived beliefs is even hard to accept when it comes to religion. When it is then applied to what should be "science", it almost smacks of witch hunts and burning at the stake.

 

Uh, which in all reality would likely make things even worse. You are aware of that, right?

The salinity of the ocean is a very delicate thing. Either adding or subtracting from it can have huge issues for the planet.

For example, the Messinian Salinity Crisis saw pretty much the entire Mediterranean become a lifeless desert about 6 mya.

And the rapid dumping of huge volumes of fresh water into the oceans is believed to be one of the triggers for the Younger Dryas (and possibly all three of them).

So tell me, what exactly are we to do with that massive volume of water we remove from the oceans? Sorry, I often enjoy reading your posts but this one is almost nonsensical. Any water we remove will simply end up right back in the ocean, so that would literally achieve nothing. And removing and desalinating that massive volume then replacing it with fresh water will unquestionably have effects on the salinity of the oceans.

Heck, want to actually be more proactive, consider removing massive volumes of underwater sediment instead. That at least would be effective in actually removing the volume that you want the ice to replace, and can be put far inland so that it would likely never erode back to the ocean in meaningful amounts.

 

And I am going to address this once again.

293 cubic miles of ice is nothing. They compare it to Lake Erie, the smallest of the five great lakes. Meaningless, but how about a more accurate way to consider that volume?

If that much ice was to suddenly melt and run into the oceans, the total sea level rise would be 0.1 inch. Or 25mm.

It would actually be rather difficult to even measure that level of change globally. Even the tides during a month fluctuate more than that.

And we know glaciers are still being created and growing, so even bring up that small amount of new ice is pretty insignificant.

 

But the issue is that this much H2O has been added annually to Antarctica......
for many centuries......

Eventually...... it will cause the earth to wobble in our orbital pattern.....

There is evidence that suggests that has already began to happen.....

 

No.... the Sahara Desert is over one hundred degrees Fahrenheit in the afternoons.....

but cool by the next morning......

Where did all that heat go.....??????

Obviously .... INTO THE ATMOSPHERE!!!!!

TREES hold the key to cooling down the deserts......
desalinated water can assist more and more trees to grow in the world's deserts.....

Even getting H2O out of the world's oceans...

desalinating that water and getting fresh water into the depleted underground aquifers is a good thing.....

because fresh water that has been added to an underground aquifer cannot be on top of New Orleans..... The Netherlands.... The Maldive Islands.... Miami.....
Bermuda..... Bangladesh.... and on and on and on and on and on......

The Carl Cantrell theory is much better than the Al Gore Theory....
partly due to the fact that China and India will never take the kind of radical measures that have been done in Canada or the USA!!!!

The world's underground aquifers have been largely drained....
we can begin to fill them back up.....
pumping desalinated water to ridges so that desalinated water could flow down into parts of the Sahara or other deserts that have not had water in a long time is a least a safer place than for that H2O to be in the oceans.

As trees grow... they hold water in.... and they tend to cool the temperatures as opposed to what happens in an area without trees. The same is true for almost any type of plants. Living trees and plants are both a carbon sink... as well as a water sink.



https://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/globalW2.htm

Chaim Henry Tejman M. D. :

 

The nation of Israel has made great progress in figuring out what to do with the brine that is left over after the desalination process.

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet could rapidly collapse, [which would simply mean crack and slide]... and could in theory raise ocean levels rapidly.





https://www.waisworkshop.org/eos

Dr. James Hansen stated that the last time that earth's temperatures rose by three degrees.... ocean levels rose by more than twenty meters over about four centuries. Do you think that his statement on this was an error?

Thankfully... Israel has developed amazing sea water desalination technology.....

https://www.water-technology.net/projects/sorek-desalination-plant/

 

I don't get what your point is here.

There are more than 140 desalination plants in FL. There are over a hundred more in CA and TX, I think.

How water is obtained has a lot to do with sources and economics.

 

Can’t answer - laughing too hard

 

Then link to the actual peer reviewed papers not the cherry picking truth twisting twaddle