Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nikov]

I was a little hesitant since the study was deliberately targeting weeds growing faster due to global warming and causing a food crisis... but what the hell. It's a borrowed bullet.

Needless to say a study focusing on how to enhance crop growth through adjusting CO2 levels would be a lot better use of the USDA's money.

[Criptfeind]

1: How are your charts worthwhile? As I pointed out a chart of what happened in the past not only is not necessarily helpful for the now, but even if we only go to the record high, that will still displace millions. Your chart covers so very much, it would be helpful if it only showed the relevant data, perhaps in lives destroyed instead of inches of water?

2: Two centimeters? Where did that come.

3: .4 is much more then ether of us were talking about. That would be quite a dramatic rate of increase. I think that is more likely to happen in 20 years then ten. Your figures give it 40 years and who knows what will have happened by then.

4: I am not talking about giant world flooding in a year. I am just talking about millions of people being displaced in twenty years. I am going to be honest, Al gore was before my time, I have no idea what you are talking about with him. Presumably billions of people fleeing from many feet of water? Cause that would take that long.

5: Can we use this plant stuff to grow giant man eating trees?

[Phmcw]

Well, nikov, I think we're clause enough on the scientific point of view.
 Now we both know that something is caused by humans but we don't know the scope. What do?

[Aqizzar]

Leafsnail, I hate to say this, but Nikov has a point. The "the totality of relevant scientists" has been very truly and thoroughly wrong before, and recently. See: Plate Tectonics, Asteroid Impacts being responsible for Extinctions. Do I think they're wrong this time? No, but that fact they agree alone isn't enough. That said, I still think the evidence itself lies with them at this point, and the "climategate" emails don't really cast much doubt on that.

I'm sorry, but no, that's not a real argument.  Of course "the totality of relevant scientists" have been totally wrong before.  There was a time when science said evil spirits dwelled in the head, and drilling holes in the skull with consecrated antler bone would let them out.  That's the point of scientific research - it gets better over time.  There's exponentially more brainpower and instrumentation studying the climate now than scientists in the 1960s could have imagined, and you don't need fancy satellites and PhDs to take notice that every major glacier flow outside the Arctic Circle has melted to practically nothing in the last 90 years.

I am of course a bit biased on the subject, if indeed having a little faith in the collaborative work of thousands of highly educated people can be called a bias.  It's a bias I'm proud to stand behind.

[Criptfeind]

I retract number 2. I forgot centimeters were the big ones and not the small ones.

Damn metrics.

[Taricus]

I retract number 2. I forgot centimeters were the big ones and not the small ones.

Damn metrics.

Join the rest of the world already.

[Phmcw]

I retract number 2. I forgot centimeters were the big ones and not the small ones.

Damn metrics.

Hehe, to get a good reminder cent is one hundred and mille is one thousand in French, so one centimeter is 1/100 of one meter  and one millimeter is 1/1000 of one meter. (Dix is ten so one decimeter is 1/10 of one meter).

[Criptfeind]

I retract number 2. I forgot centimeters were the big ones and not the small ones.

Damn metrics.

Join the rest of the world already.

NOOOO VIVA LA IMPERIA

[Taricus]

I retract number 2. I forgot centimeters were the big ones and not the small ones.

Damn metrics.

Join the rest of the world already.

NOOOO VIVA LA IMPERIA

Too late, we've already won

[Criptfeind]

We still have Burma and Liberia!

Also I thought you lived in the UK?

Because that would not mean you have won so much as YOU HAVE BOWED DOWN TO YOUR FRENCH MASTERS!

[Taricus]

Wrong country again!

We aussies will teach you the error of your ways.

[Criptfeind]

UK.

Australia.

Some difference as far as frenchafabowdownaca.

[Nikov]

1: How are your charts worthwhile? As I pointed out a chart of what happened in the past not only is not necessarily helpful for the now, but even if we only go to the record high, that will still displace millions. Your chart covers so very much, it would be helpful if it only showed the relevant data, perhaps in lives destroyed instead of inches of water?

That would be shifting us into emotional arguments of really questionable relevancy, but regardless, 120 thousand years ago humans were hunter gatherers, not coast-dwelling farmers. So zero.

3: .4 is much more then ether of us were talking about. That would be quite a dramatic rate of increase. I think that is more likely to happen in 20 years then ten. Your figures give it 40 years and who knows what will have happened by then.

.4 meters of rise is double what has happened in the past 120 years. There's no reason to think there will be a 40cm rise in sea level over the next two decades, at all. The IPCC was estimating out to a century.

4: I am not talking about giant world flooding in a year. I am just talking about millions of people being displaced in twenty years. I am going to be honest, Al gore was before my time, I have no idea what you are talking about with him. Presumably billions of people fleeing from many feet of water? Cause that would take that long.

I had presumed you were familiar with "An Inconvenient Truth" (which requires 77 pages worth of court-ordered corrections to be shown in a UK classroom). Millions of people won't be displaced in twenty years due to two centimeters of water.

5: Can we use this plant stuff to grow giant man eating trees?

No.

[Shinziril]

Ah, the study on weeds growing faster from extra CO₂.  I think I remember reading that somewhere.  IIRC plants with lots of leaf area and not much else do the best (ie leafy vines like kudzu and poison ivy), since they don't have to spend much of the extra carbon on support structures and can instead spend it on increasing photosynthetic area (leaves). 

Hmm, upon reading, it appears that grains don't take quite as well to increased carbon dioxide as some of the other plants.  They end up with more starch and less protein, making them less digestible and nutritious.  Looks like no souped-up staple crops for us. 

Also, I don't see the 1000 ppmv/50x plant growth figure anywhere in that study. 

[Criptfeind]

You have a point Nikov, I think I misplaced a decimal point somewhere (damn metrics!)

Edit: Yup I found it, it would take 200 years at this rate for the effects I was talking about, not 20.

So who cares, I will be dead then.