Carbon dioxide rise in the atmosphere

wow 5 pages
any mention of autotrophs?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, you have. You don't know this because you haven't read them.

You have labeled some information you found in the mass media "propaganda", when instead it is sound reporting of what is in the peer reviewed and scientifically valid literature. If you evaluate it as you claim to evaluate propaganda, you will mislead yourself. And you have.

Why do you make so many false presumptions about people on this forum, do you think? I think it because so much of your argumentation depends on other people thinking and acting according to your preconceptions of them. That's what you have instead of physical reality, for support.

No, it didn't support any of your claims, anywhere in it. Your claims regarding child labor were all false, and contradicted by physical evidence as well as theoretical analysis, and in particular contradicted by the contents of my several links. You live in a science fiction dreamworld, essentially, where free markets never get stuck in globally "irrational" and suboptimal equilibria, and the essential infrastructure of market exchange is provided and maintained by the markets themselves, and capitalistic corporations do not share the flaws of other human organizations such as governments.

Where did you get the idea that my opinions are the line of any US "party"? Why do you think you are contradicting "the mainstream" in my media world? You are not. The US media is strongly influenced by the well-funded and tirelessly repetitive media operations of the corporate authoritarian Right. That your posting on the climate change matter is perfectly aligned with the paid propaganda of the authoritarian corporate rightwing media operatives in the US is simply a fact - nobody needs to tell me this. Living in the US I am bombarded with stuff from them, and when you post the very same stupid crap in the very same language it is right in front of me, right here in the mainstream, for comparison.

Every single assertion you have made on this forum about the Left in the US is ridiculously false - including your assumptions of my allegiance to it.

You seem to be operating under the idiotic delusion that Clinton is a leftwing politician. The only people who believe that are the gullible victims of rightwing propaganda. And that propaganda is also the main source of vocabulary like "Hitlary". That is you posting wingnut propaganda using wingnut vocabulary. So your sources of "information" are obvious.

They were anyway, with this notion that all the feedback effects from the CO2 boost were dubious speculation, that the reports of climate researchers on their findings and modelings were dominated by political pressure to increase the power of the State, that since the planet was colder than ideal this current AGW would be a benefit, and so forth. This is not what someone evaluating the evidence would be likely to come up with on their own. You have a source or sources for this, and there's only one set that matches all whorls.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you think that some of my claims are rejected by some peer-reviewed papers, give a link to theses papers (with free access, I cannot pay phantasy prices for things which should be public domain).

Of course, propaganda sites sometimes report also reliable information, in a way which is typical for propaganda sources. To identify such correct information distributed by propaganda sources as nonetheless reliable is a difficult job. Up to now, I have only your claim, and you are also not known to me as a reliable source.

Up to know, I do not think I make false presumptions about people on this forum. I judge from what I see. And the evidence in form of scientific papers you have presented here up to now has suggested that you have read the abstract, but not the paper itself.

That you claim that physical reality is on your side, while on my side are only preconceptions, fits into a quite general criterion - claims about the own superiority are a strong indication that it does not exist in reality. Those who have reality on their own side have no need to make such claims, and can leave the decision to the reader.

Ok, enough. This is already joepistole level. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Rest deleted without reading.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

400 ppm = Happy well fed autotrophs:

During the Pliocene, the Earth was around 2C warmer than it is today and atmospheric CO2 levels were around 350-400 parts per million (ppm), similar to the levels reached in recent years.

Shall we consider the equable climate models, and guess at the temperature gradients by latitude and altitude?
..............
alternately:
Let us examine the autotrophs a tad more closely:
Stomata:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Recent stomata studies show that CO2 was more variable and the average CO2 concentrations have been significantly higher during our Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) than are indicated by the ice core record.

 

Not really. Try.

If you were capable of recognizing a reliable source in this matter, you would have, and we would not be having this exchange. Consider the number of times you have attempted to argue by asserting characteristics of me I do not possess, or features of my arguments not present within them, or aspects of physical reality in my region of North America not in existence, and re-evaluate - or remain in confusion, posting blather from wingnut sources and vocabulary from the geniuses of hate radio, for the duration.

Every single assertion you have made about my behavior, background, or political stance, has been in error, I think. At least, I cannot remember a single correct one.

Including the times where I referred to matters from the contents, not visible in the abstract? Including the times where you were corrected in false inferences you made from misunderstanding the contents, not the abstract, and contradicting the abstract (the child labor paper I think you are referring to, among the several)? Including the times you read a couple of sentences from the first two paragraphs of extended monographs or books and refused to investigate further, rejecting claims based explicitly on the bulk of the content (the Picketty book, several other references)?

It was an observation about your posting, in matters in which you have no personal information about the physical reality. It was accurate - you present assertions about other people, their political stances and behavior and so forth, rather than physical reality, quite often. And you are always wrong, in my case. Always. Far more often than chance would indicate.

Look: I normally choose references in which the abstract contains the support for my point, because I do not expect you or anyone to read long articles for content every time I want to show literature support. It's a courtesy, sometimes a time saver for myself. If I can't get to the content, I say so. One would think that if both myself and the authors of these papers agree - as is visible in the abstract - that your take on that content is mistaken, you would pause for thought. Instead, as is normal with you:

So? Seriously: are you failing to follow this matter on purpose? Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene_climate It's on freaking Wiki. Everybody knows this. Everybody. It's not information other people have failed to consider.

 

I would probably have stopped much earlier any communication, not?

Personal remarks are always only cheap polemics, nothing serious. As if you have made any correct assertion about me. I would prefer communication with people who would not make any personal attacks at all, but this is wishful thinking today, and the only question is how to react - completely without any tit for tat or not.

After reading such summaries of things I have quite different memories about, I ask myself if such communications make sense at all. I have a strong prejudice that one should answer all arguments proposed, so I tend to answer almost everything, but it becomes more and more obvious that this is simply a loss of time.

Of course, reading abstracts only is a time saver. But if some paper claims in the abstract things I think are wrong, I tend to read the content. Your problem. In politically distorted sciences, I would never believe an abstract, because I know that abstracts are, in such sciences, distorted toward the politically correct position. And you would better not believe abstracts too.

No, this was an emotional reaction to the joepistole level attack before.

Anyway, there was not much to respond, as I see now. If one classifies Hitlary as left or whatever is irrelevant anyway, that I use propaganda sources from all sides I have explained many times. If there is some difference between the mainstream propaganda in Europe and US is something I cannot evaluate, here in Germany everything 100% pro climate change propaganda, one never even hears that some people exist who doubt climate change, and if they are mentioned at all, then only together with Holocaust deniers. And it is, of course, standard policy for me to look at what these defamed guys claim, before writing even a single side remark about this question. So that all your identifications of some of my arguments or my vocabulary being used from your personal enemies is quite irrelevant too. Yes, I read everything, from Mein Kampf to Das Kapital, there is no forbidden reading for me.

And then I estimate the arguments proposed by the different sides by myself. Sometimes I read more (to see if the temperature change depends really only logarithmically on CO2), sometimes I think the situation is sufficiently clear (for example that more plant growth is positive, that temperature increase is better than decrease, or that change in general makes costs). Depends.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Stomata may be a better guide to atmospheric CO2.
If accurate, "pre-industrial 280ppm seems to be a simple minded myth.

 

They occupy center stage in your posting, normally. And they are always wrong - factually inaccurate - when directed to me.

I haven't. I don't argue like that. You do. See for example #95 and #99.

Yours didn't. Review if you don't believe me. For example: You were and are simply convinced - a priori - that child labor could not survive free market capitalist development because consequent economic growth would lead to increasing prosperity and therefore the end of child labor, and if in some dire circumstance that did not happen then the child labor was thereby shown to be the best option available - so that government interference with it necessarily harmed, rather than helped, the laborers involved. You were in error theoretically, as linked for you (recall "suboptimal equilibrium"), and denied the examples posted based on your mistaken theoretical position.

You quite often refuse to read content linked for you, and you often misread content, usually after failing to read more than a couple of sentences - I know this because you post that information here. You are not capable of detecting political distortion in an abstract in any of the fields in which we have exchanged posts, because you don't know enough about the topics - this thread being a very clear example (check out you insisting on "1 degree from doubling CO2, anything else is speculative").

Then stop doing it, and especially stop basing your arguments on things like that. Every time I point out that your vocabulary appears to be confusing you, you say it's not important. Then you type another paragraph of confusion based on muddled vocabulary.

But you don't. You parrot exclusively rightwing corporatist authoritarian propaganda, along with juvenile vocabulary from US wingnut radio.

The trouble here is:
that nothing you could have read in the actual literature would have told you that the expected temperature change from the CO2 boost depended logarithmically on the amount of extra CO2 only;

that any presumption that CO2 leads automatically or directly or simply to more plant growth is mistaken, and any presumption that more plant growth of any kind can only be positive is in error (you can't be that naive, surely?);

and that temperature increase in itself, at any rate or distribution, is not the issue. Whether or not warmer is better than colder is almost completely irrelevant, and has nothing to do with this thread or any AGW discussion.

 

Better in the sense of higher resolution. Stomata also respond to temperature and water vapor deficit, of course - as with the ice cores, there are complications.

From the stomata data, which are much higher resolution than the ice core data, pre-industrial CO2 seems to fluctuate around 290 - 300 rather than 280. Is that what you mean?

Actually, if you look at the modern CO2 level data traces in more detail, you can see large local fluctuations day by day and month by month - like this: Notice that any stomatal readings in which plants were forming their stomata in response to local CO2 would be bouncing as much as 40 ppm from one month or even year to the next. So you would want to know a lot about where and when, for determining meaningful averages of spotty data sampled from that changeable bag.

Another worry, of course, would be that the stomatal record was not in need of careful correction, but instead completely accurate. That would imply the current warming trend was a result of much greater climate sensitivity to CO2 than we all hope exists - and the incoming changes that much more threatening.

 

I would not expect that you agree with them.

So what I remember is that I have considered the theoretical model of the suboptimal equilibrium and have found unreasonable assumptions there. While I have never denied that suboptimal equilibria are in principle possible, they do not play a role for child labor, at least your link has not shown it (even if it has made such a claim).

Of course, if I find weak places in sources you like, this is a case of "misreading". How much I actually read you don't know. Usually it is more than I comment about.

LOL, of course you are always right. You, again, remember joepistole. That we have disagreements about what is established and what is yet speculative is quite natural - but for people like you and joepistole it is clear that such disagreements happen only because their opponents don't know the truth.

Sorry, but I'm not a politically correct writer, I couldn't care less about using the IYO politically correct classiification of your enemies. And I don't care enough about the reft/light distinction to care if Hitlary is this or that. IMHO what matters is that she is extremely dangerous for the survival of mankind, to elect her as a president would increase the chance of a nuclear war and a possible extinction of mankind as a consequence by an order of magnitude.

Of course it depends logarithmically on the whole CO2.

That it leads to more plant growth (without your adjectives) is quite clear, that more plant growth is positive in general is clear too, "can only be positive" is a strawman, because I have already acknowledged that some weeds may profit more that useful plants, but this is simply a possible minor issue.

And what is IYO the issue? That the evil capitalist pigs have caused it?

 

"Agreement" has nothing to do with it. You are in conflict with physical reality. Again.
Like this:

Political correctness has nothing to do with the meanings of ordinary words, you have no idea who my "political enemies" are, and so forth. Again, this conflict with reality.

That explains why you can't make any sense of it - you don't care - but it doesn't explain why you keep using this distinction you don't care about as a basis of your claims. Why are your posts based on stuff you don't care about?

You found the same assumptions you were using in your claims about free markets and child labor, and have used throughout in your defense of free market economics. And you found these assumptions well-validated by agreement with documented examples - theory checked against evidence.

I only go by what you tell me - you often tell me that you have read just this much and no more, that you have no interest in reading something, that you know this or that by common sense without reading my links, that you see no point in reading something and so you didn't, and so forth. That's all I was talking about - your assertions, taken at their word, for what you read.

Sure. You are ignorant, and you are going to have disagreements with people who aren't every time you make one of those goofball claims.

And all the feedback effects. Which you regard as "speculative" - all of them - because you are ignorant in the matter, and have not - as you claimed you had - read up on it.

Put the adjectives back in - they will help you in your further research, if you ever decide to become an informed person in this matter.

The effects of the rapid anthro CO2 boost, among them a rapid warming. The speed of it, more than the amount of it, is the problem with the warming. The rate makes it dangerous. You have been told this several times now, btw. What was going through your head when you asked?

 

I think we can all guess which of the two books you prefer. I'm sure that you also side with the Holocaust deniers, after all, they are the victims of "propaganda" in exactly the same way as climate change deniers.

Sad.

 

Conflicts with reality are not really a big problem, if its iceaura's reality or joepistole's reality.

You may not get the point - but my postings are not based on left/right distinctions. Sometimes I mention this distinction, if I, for example, mention some problems which are typical for the left but less typical for the right, or reverse. It would be not fair, say, to accuse all for errors typical for the left, resp. the right. But this does not change the point that this is not a difference I think is worth to care about. For me, this is comparable to the Shia/Sunni distinction.

No. And no.

This happens. If your link argues for something I do not question (not untypical) why should I read? The child labor article I have read, and have found there nice interesting things, beyond some simple economical error in his model.

I leave self-praise to those who need it.

You know about this by mind reading.

In your opinion, I will never be an informed person anyway, in my opinion, what I have read is sufficient to support my position, and why I should introduce your strawman adjectives I don't understand.

Of course, this is trivial. I'm a scientist, Das Kapital is econonic theory, which I'm interested in, even if this particular theory itself is wrong, Mein Kampf is mainly boring blabla. But, even if it was that easy, it seems you have guessed wrong.

As if there would be such a side. AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong, never cared about this), various Holocaust deniers propose quite different theories. More important, the differences between truth and the theories of various "Holocaust deniers" can be expected to be similar to that between truth and the official theory. Differences between Shia and Sunni, Catholics and Protestants, Stalinists and Nazis are examples of this type - they even kill each other, because of differences which are much smaller than the false beliefs they share with each other. You think I should take sides? I don't think so. Of course, once the state imprisons people who reject the official theory, one can be sure that the official theory is wrong. Simply because correct theories do not have to be defended with criminal law. But IMHO anyway all sides in that war are war criminals, murderers and liars. If I would have lived at that time, I would have to decide which murderer is more dangerous for my own life, and probably would have to take sides to survive. Up to now, I don't have to.

 

The climbing CO2 concentrtions and associated warming, especially in and near N. polar regions have started methane atmospheric concentration growing again:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No one is sure why their concentration was relatively flat for almost a decade, but I believe the natural increase from postive feed back with CO2 effects was offset by increasing concern about CH4 leaking from distrbution pipelines and some lack of flare CH4 burning at oil wells, both largely corrected during that "flat decade."

The accelerated rate of perma-frost melting is surely a factor, but one seldomed mentioned is that the half life of CH4 in the atmosphere is now increasing by 0.3years every year. - Not only is more CH4 being released, it is staying in the air longer too!

This is because the main mechanism of removal of CH4 is the chemical reaction with the OH- radical, which is formed at a quite steady rate by harsh solar UV in the high atmosphere. Until a few decades ago that constant formation rate was greater than the CH4 release rate so for 800,000 + years CH4 atmospheric concentration were three times lower than they are now;* but now that CH4 release rate is higher than the OH- formation rate CH4 so concentrations are rapidly climbing, with no upper limit insight.

This is serious as in the first decade after a puff of CH4 is released it does more than 100 times more green house warming than an equal mass puff of CO2 can do. (25 to 30 times more during the first 100 years.)

*See the left side graph below - a three fold increase over the last 800,000 year's concentration levels in only a few decades is a dramatic and scary increase.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not sure what you are talking about. "Deviations" do not require jailing, nor does denial. Plenty of people deny climate change, evolution and basic cosmology. This does not make them criminal, merely ignorant.

 

Try your irony detector.

 

Yes. You are a horrible person to entertain the Holocaust deniers.

 

It's the reality with which this: "While I have never denied that suboptimal equilibria are in principle possible, they do not play a role for child labor, at least your link has not shown it (even if it has made such a claim)."
and this: "You have been told that everybody who rejects the party line is paid by the rightwing corporations, and so everybody which contradicts the mainstream is so perfectly aligned. "
and this: "That it leads to more plant growth (without your adjectives) is quite clear, that more plant growth is positive in general is clear too, "
and this: "Sometimes I read more (to see if the temperature change depends really only logarithmically on CO2), "
are in direct conflict.

Ha! "Typical for the left", indeed.

You do "sometimes mention" the distinction, like every third post or whenever you need to reject an aspect of reality, usually as a personal attack in lieu of argument. And these "problems" you regard as "typical for the left" are at the center of these postings, and they are not in fact relevant or applicable to the poster you are attacking, but rather to fantasies made necessary by your preconceptions (your fantasy of a US dominated by leftwing climate change propaganda from "state-owned media", for example).

And no, this does not happen "in reverse" as you claim - you are a one-way reposter of propaganda and drivel, never from the left, never even informed by leftwing views, but always from the authoritarian corporate rightwing wishbag, complete with the vocabulary and blinkered personality focus of the worst of the wingnut radio jocks in the US.

No, by your posting. If you had read up on the matter, at least the basics, you would make informed posts in this thread - one way or another (you might still in your screwball brain have the whole matter laid out as a conflict between propagandists, but you would at least know what the climate change alarmists were claiming, and what their issues were, instead of posting this: "And what is IYO the issue?" after someone had - gently, with civility, not pointing and laughing - reminded you that a preference for generally warmer over generally colder planetary temperatures was not exactly relevant).

 

Considering the many German translations of "entertain" I see nothing which fits with my points. I would guess, it means, I'm a horrible person if I do not participate in the everyday minutes of hate against the Holocaust deniers. No problem, if this is what makes me a horrible person for you, I prefer to be a horrible person.

So, the last point illustrates that nicely - your reality are your phantasies about what I have read. While I know what I have read.

The second is clearly ironical, if you have not got it.

The third is a clear case of a stawman - I have not questioned that there may be special circumstances where more plant growth may cause some harm - if the positive effect for weeds is much greater than for useful things - but this does not change the fact that in in general (that means everything else being equal, that means, weeds in general profit as much as crops) humans will profit from more plant growth. I have taken a look at some claims that the plant growth because of higher CO2 is not completely universal, but they have only claimed that the effects are limited and different for different plants, which is natural but does not change that more CO2 leads to more plant growth.

And, if you have some problems with the reality of our past discussion about child labor, give links here to support your claims.

The long rant which presents me as a rightwing is not worth to be discussed. As I have said, if I discuss with those from the left, I can use arguments from the right, if I argue with those from the right, I can use arguments from the left. The important political distinction - freedom vs. totalitarism - is almost orthogonal to the left-right distinction.

But this is an interesting question worth to think about - is there really some orthogonality or not? Traditionally the right prefers capitalism (economic freedom), while the left prefers sexual and cultural freedom. Let's look at the extremal points: A totalitarian world government can be based on a nationalistic or racist base, but it would be much more natural to base it on equality and humanism, because this prevents large groups of people becoming automatically enemies of the world government. At the other end, anarchy allows for communistic communes as well as for various small sects of nationalists, racists, religious fanatics and so on, because secession, separation is a basic right. While this seems comfortable with the right, it is clearly incompatible with one of the basic ideas of the left, namely equality. An anarchistic world is not a world of equality.

So, there may be, indeed, some underlying affinity between freedom and the right, and between totalitarism and the left. But this is, of course, only weak, with many counterexamples. So, orthogonality seems a good approximation, even if the angle between the left/right and the freedom/totalitarian axis may be 80 degrees or so.

In general, I'm thinking about ways to behave if one is confronted with people who use phrases like "your screwball brain" in their communication. It is certainly not worth to answer such parts. But this is hard for me, I have a strong urge to answer every objection. Sometimes one has to stop communication. I think about some basic level of argumentative communication, say 10%, and to stop communication if the argumentative content goes below. Another idea is to use some aspect - like the "you are a rightwing fanatic"-cries of iceaura here - as a sort of pretext for discussing some interesting question.

 

Schmelzer

The want to be clear is shouded by the past. I do not envy you. But I hope the best for you as a Human being.

river