[B0ycey]

I'll keep it simple SolarCross. Plant aren't competing for CO2 today - so there is a lull in the cycle and build up in the atmosphere is the result of this. And what conditions occurred in Earth's history is irrelevant. Life that exists now is dependent on today's conditions not yesteryear.

[anasawad]

@Ter

Lets talk about rice in two scenarios, the scenario that is predicted to happen in reality and the one predicted in the article.

In reality, Rice, Wheat and soybeans are all predicted to be on their way to extinction or atleast massive reduction in their supplies due to inability to grow them with the extreme changes in weather and climate.
That is, not only the climate will be different, but the extreme variations and scale in weather events and the rapid change will kill them.

Now, for the scenario in the article.
Rice does indeed grow in sub-tropical climates mainly, but that doesn't necessarily mean we'll be able to grow much of it if the said scenario came to be.
As observed currently, rice loses nutritional value the hotter the climate becomes and under a mini carbon era like the one described in the article, some areas will be colder and less humid than it requires to grow rice, while other areas will be hotter than it is required to grow rice inclining less nutritional value from it and more harvest failure, as well as the fact that in a mini carbon era rain will be much heavier which means more floods, and while rice does require high levels of rain and semi flooded low lands to grow, in a mini carbon era there will be too much rain and too much flooding for it to grow well.


@colliric
Rare cases of apes keeping pets doesn't mean they domesticate animals and is not enough for diseases to jump species like with domesticated animals.

[Ter]

@anasawad
Although I am also a pessimist and prepare for the apocalypse, I must say that your predictions for rice are too negative.
Let me first say that since many years there is an International Rice research Institute in the Philippines and they have produced a large variety of rice strains that can grow in different climatic conditions. For instance they have produced rice that can survive lengthy submersion during floods.
Secondly, as the climate will change over time, if at all, there will be tine to adapt to new circumstances and/or start growing it in new places.

[Potemkin]

Carbon Dioxide levels have been as high as 7000 ppm in the past forming as much as 25% of the atmosphere, currently levels are extremely low. The trend for falling CO2 levels is down to plants pulling it out of the air for
There is a general assumption that "nature knows best" and absent human tinkering would remain in a perfect paradisical equilibrium forever. However the truth is "nature" has no fucking clue what it is doing at all and it is quite capable of carrying out ultimately self-destructive arms races and blindly pursuing an extinction course, as can be seen by the irreversible decline of CO2 levels due to plants competing for carbon dioxide resources in the air and then failing to return it the atmosphere. The fossil fuels themselves are evidence of nature's inability to forward plan and pursue a sustainable course.

I dunno about that - after all, Nature produced us, to burn all those fossil fuels and release the trapped carbon, didn't she? Looks like we came along just in time....

[Rugoz]

[anasawad]

@Ter
True, and as I said in my prior posts, we'll probably have to genetically engineer all our crops and even consumption animals to be able to survive.

The real problem remains with diseases. Bacteria and viruses evolve much faster in hotter climates and they'll spread much faster.

[SolarCross]

That looks pretty good for a lot of countries: Europe, Canada and northern Asia are coming out ahead. Also that is assuming current agricultural practices and varieties remaining the same, I think it is a safe bet people will adapt those things to their changing circumstances, if we factor in adaption, new colonistation of polar realms and more carbon dioxide giving higher yields overall then that map is too pessimistic. No doubt the transition to a warmer world will present challenges but it will also present opportunities too.

[Victoribus Spolia]

That Map is silly.

Besides, who is to say that 2100 won't yield a map that is 100% green? Once ecology catches up to climate, given historic precedent, we should have epic bio-diversification.

[SolarCross]

That Map is silly.

Besides, who is to say that 2100 won't yield a map that is 100% green? Once ecology catches up to climate, given historic precedent, we should have epic bio-diversification.

Right on.

On a fundamental level what life needs is:

- Carbon for materials

- Liquid Water as a solvent

- Light as an energy source

The net effect of the ACC model is a quantitative increase in all three:

- More carbon from fossil fuel combustion

- More liquid water from warmer temperatures

- More useable light from retreating ice fields

On the macro-scale we are looking at a massive expansion of the biosphere and there is lot of potential win there for our species and its ever expanding population. It's funny to think of it but Antartica is the largest desert on earth, larger than the Sahara, because while it has gigatons of water it is all frozen and thus unusable to life as it is. What wonderful thing it would be to turn that desert from deathly white to verdant green?

[Rugoz]

That looks pretty good for a lot of countries: Europe, Canada and northern Asia are coming out ahead.

Sure, if you are a farmer in any of those places. Otherwise global food prices will still go up and you will pay for it.

No doubt the transition to a warmer world will present challenges but it will also present opportunities too.

First of all, it adds challenges to regions which aren't even capable of dealing with existing challenges. Even if you're indifferent about that, we won't be unaffected by what happens in those regions.

Second, fossil fuels will not be competitive with renewables in the future. It's hopeless. Their supply is limited while technology makes renewable energy more and more affordable. Temperatures will thus inevitably go back to normal in the long run. So it's either accelerating the development of renewable energy or going though massive global temperature changes. It's a no-brainer for anything who isn't retarded as fuck.

Third, renewables will make Europe independent from fossil fuel producer, which is not only future-proof but also strategically beneficial.

Forth, it's already too hot.

[Pants-of-dog]

That Map is silly.

Besides, who is to say that 2100 won't yield a map that is 100% green? Once ecology catches up to climate, given historic precedent, we should have epic bio-diversification.

Please present evidence for the claim that glibal warming will lead to more bio-diversity.

Please note that the OP article does not support this claim, as we already discussed.

————————

@SolarCross

Please present evidence that global warming will result in more crop yields for most of the world. Thanks.

By evidence, I mean a scientific study that includes a methodology, etc.

[SolarCross]

Please present evidence that global warming will result in more crop yields for most of the world. Thanks.

By evidence, I mean a scientific study that includes a methodology, etc.

You misread me, I said increased carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use will result in growth of the biomass which incidently will increase crop yields. Higher temperatures would cause an increase in liquid water availability due to polar melting.

The use of carbon dioxide to increase yields is widely done by cannabis growers who must cultivate their plants indoors to avoid attention from the po-po. You've probably already smoked your fair share of CO2 boosted bifters.

----

Unfortunately we aren't guaranteed the higher temperatures because CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and there are many other stronger factors that can shift temperatures. We can have as much as CO2 as we want though. The buried sources of Carbon are much larger by mass than the biosphere current size.

----

One wildly speculative solution, I just thought of, to mitigate rising sea levels might be by allowing drilled out oil wells and coal deposits to fill up with sea water, it would require extra drilling to connect those spaces except in the case offshore wells.

[Pants-of-dog]

You misread me, I said increased carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use will result in growth of the biomass which incidently will increase crop yields. Higher temperatures would cause an increase in liquid water availability due to polar melting.

The use of carbon dioxide to increase yields is widely done by cannabis growers who must cultivate their plants indoors to avoid attention from the po-po. You've probably already smoked your fair share of CO2 boosted bifters.

----

Unfortunately we aren't guaranteed the higher temperatures because CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and there are many other stronger factors that can shift temperatures. We can have as much as CO2 as we want though. The buried sources of Carbon are much larger by mass than the biosphere current size.

----

One wildly speculative solution I just though of mitigate rising sea levels might be to allow drilled out oil wells and coal deposits to fill up with sea water, it would require extra drilling to connect those spaces except in the case offshore wells.

Please provide evidence for your claims.

Otherwise, this seems like idle speculation from someone with a very simplistic idea of botany.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Please provide evidence for your claims.

Here we fuckin' go. POD has his troll hat on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions. The harasser who uses this tactic also uses fake civility so as to discredit their target.[1][2][3] The term arises from a 2014 edition of the webcomic Wondermark, where a character expresses a dislike of sea lions and a passing sea lion repeatedly asks the character to explain

[Pants-of-dog]

@Victoribus Spolia

You repeatedly claim that global warming will lead to more bio-diversity.

You have no evidence for this claim.

A quick Google search leads to this:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... diversity/

Climate change will be the fastest-growing cause of species loss in the Americas by midcentury, according to a new set of reports from the leading global organization on ecosystems and biodiversity.

Climate change, alongside factors like land degradation and habitat loss, is emerging as a top threat to wildlife around the globe, the reports suggest. In Africa, it could cause some animals to decline by as much as 50 percent by the end of the century, and up to 90 percent of coral reefs in the Pacific Ocean may bleach or degrade by the year 2050.

The reports, released last week by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), included a sweeping set of biodiversity assessments for four major regions around the world, with contributions from more than 500 experts. A separate report on global land degradation, which was launched yesterday, included more than 100 authors. Both were approved by IPBES’s 129 member states at an ongoing plenary session in Medellín, Colombia.

So, you were wrong.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You repeatedly claim that global warming will lead to more bio-diversity.

You have no evidence for this claim.

I claimed that previous hot-house climates were full of bio-diversity based on the article. I quoted the article and you dismissed it.

The quote you just provided is no relevant because its not basing its predictions on the basis of the previous hot-house states given in the article.

The claim made by me in the OP is based on the article which argues what future hot-houses would be like based on prior ones, thus any predictions on future hot-house states that do not correspond to the only historic examples we have, are purely speculative and ignore actual evidence regarding such states.

Likewise, the 2050 shift has already been addressed above.

[Pants-of-dog]

I claimed that previous hot-house climates were full of bio-diversity based on the article. I quoted the article and you dismissed it.

The quote you just provided is no relevant because its not basing its predictions on the basis of the previous hot-house states given in the article.

Yes, we looked at those texts and we saw that the biodiversity was due to the fact that humans were only a few isolated groups of hunter gatherers at the time. It had nothing to do with global warming.

The same is not true today, so the claim that this same biodiversity will once again happen is based on a false assumption.

The claim made by me in the OP is based on the article which argues what future hot-houses would be like based on prior ones, thus any predictions on future hot-house states that do not correspond to the only historic examples we have, are purely speculative and ignore actual evidence regarding such states.

Likewise, the 2050 shift has already been addressed above.

No, they are not purely speculative and they do not ignore evidence. They are based on things like models which are rigourously tested against observed facts.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The same is not true today, so the claim that this same biodiversity will once again happen is based on a false assumption.

This is basically a concession you were wrong when I said the article supported the claim of higher bio-diversity during warmer higher c02 climates and you said it didn't. This is why no one takes you seriously BTW.

Also, What proof do you have that given the same climatic conditions repeating that bio-diversity will not increase?

This a wildly a-historical presumption given how nature has reacted to climate changes in the past which were often just as rapid as the one we are allegedly experiencing right now.

No, they are not purely speculative and they do not ignore evidence. They are based on things like models which are rigourously tested against observed facts.

If that were the case then their claims would take into account actual hot-house climates that have actually occurred in the past. They do not.

Global warming and rising sea level models have been wrong in the past BTW. the scientific research that contributed to Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" resulted in multiple inaccurate and failed predictions.

So paint me a skeptic on model accuracy. Same thing can be said about overpopulation and food-shortage models as well BTW.

[Pants-of-dog]

This is basically a concession you were wrong when I said the article supported the claim of higher bio-diversity during warmer higher c02 climates and you said it didn't. This is why no one takes you seriously BTW.

I was actually discussing your repeated claim that global warming would lead to more biodiversity.

Yes, the article mentions that there was more biodiversity in thenoast and that this happened at a time when the planet was hotter. But it also clearly points out that this biodiversity is due to limited human impact on the environment, and not caused by increased temperatures.

So, while the article supports the claim of higher bio-diversity during warmer higher c02 climates, it does not support the claim that higher CO2 levels will kead to more biodiversity. Correlation is not causation.

Also, What proof do you have that given the same climatic conditions repeating that bio-diversity will not increase?

I have already presented evidence in the form of an article from Scientific American.

Also, the article in the OP implies that this increased biodiversity was due to the lack of human impact. Since there is now highly significant amounts of human impact, the logical implication is that biodiversity will continue to decrease.

The study mentioned in the article corroborates this.

This a wildly a-historical presumption given how nature has reacted to climate changes in the past which were often just as rapid as the one we are allegedly experiencing right now.

Please present evidence that climate changes in the past occurred at the same rate as the current one.

As far as I know, the current rate of climate change is far fadter than most examples.

If that were the case then their claims would take into account actual hot-house climates that have actually occurred in the past. They do not.

How do you know they do not?

Global warming and rising sea level models have been wrong in the past BTW. the scientific research that contributed to Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" resulted in multiple inaccurate and failed predictions.

So paint me a skeptic on model accuracy. Same thing can be said about overpopulation and food-shortage models as well BTW.

How exactly have the models led to multiple inaccurate and failed predictions?

[Victoribus Spolia]

But it also clearly points out that this biodiversity is due to limited human impact on the environment, and not caused by increased temperatures.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

So, while the article supports the claim of higher bio-diversity during warmer higher c02 climates, it does not support the claim that higher CO2 levels will kead to more biodiversity. Correlation is not causation.

Well, if you want to go the route of cum hoc fallacies, we could pretty well dismiss all climate change research as its all cum hoc, post hoc, or guilty of inductive fallacies.

This charge is ad reductio unless you want to throw out 90% of science.

Which if fine by me actually.

Also, the article in the OP implies that this increased biodiversity was due to the lack of human impact.

Please Provide evidence for this.

Please present evidence that climate changes in the past occurred at the same rate as the current one.

I did not say that all did, but the mini ice age is one example, it was fairly rapid and came from an actual warm period.

Others posted charts on this already.

As far as I know, the current rate of climate change is far fadter than most examples.

It is faster than most examples, but there are some that have been similarly fast.

How do you know they do not?

Because I can read.

Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

How exactly have the models led to multiple inaccurate and failed predictions?

There have been many actually:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/sev ... edictions/

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-ye ... ing-point/

https://www.aei.org/publication/18-spec ... is-year-2/

The last link is definitely the best.