You utterly ignore, in this misleadingly worded question, the NET effect of CO2 going to levels beyond what it has been in human history, because it helps you deny the science that shows that that NET effect is strongly negative. A PhD in statistics from an unknown university is no comparison to 200 Nobel Prizes in science. For at least the fourth time, I strongly suggest you stop denying the science and making fibs about it, and use your PhD brain to learn something about it, and from the scientific literature, not the nitwit anti-science blogs that talk about "alarmists" as if science has anything to do with personal moods.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
http://jcmooreonline.com/2013/01/31/engi...
Welcome to the carbon cycle. Finally, someone that understands that removing CO2 from the ground where its has been for 100s of millions of years and pumping it so rapidly into the atmosphere it has actually resulted in the earth warming faster than it has since before people walked the Earth is not part of a "natural cycle."
You are right that there has been more CO2 in the air, but this was well before humans came on the scene and since humans have been around, the build up and change in was more gradual so it was easier for the ecosystems to adjust (plants take a long time to move and animals typically follow the plants). This is part of why humans were able to thrive and become the dominate species on the planet.
When you say 8 degrees, you are a little vague, 8 C or F? Also, the landmasses were in different locations, ocean current were different, etc when CO2 was 2200 ppm (besides humans did not existence yet). I don't disagree that the impact on climate at 2200 ppm is less than some people would expect - the relationship between warming and ppm CO2 is non-linear.
You jump to the erroneous conclusion that plants have to be better off at 400 ppm than at 280 ppm. In a GREENHOUSE this may be true, but in the real world, you have to look at limiting factors. If CO2 does not limit plant growth, does water, nitrogen (or some other nutrients) soil factors, etc. Some of this will (especially water) will negate any impact that CO2 fertilization will have. Otherwise, the farmers in CA would be doing great instead of fighting not to loose everything. You can't say that global warming is good for plants because CO2 is plant food. You have to look at the environment the plant live in to see what impact climate change has on the limiting factors of plant growth. Some, farmers can control and some they cannot. In the "natural" environment, the plants need time to migrate. Yes, people can help, but that will not be enough. The current change is fast compared to anything the earth has seen within the past million years, and that is a problem. The amount of time the change occurs over is extremely important. That can determine whether species migrates or goes extinct. Right now, the rate of extinction is thought to be 1000 times greater than the historic background rate. This may accelerate with climate change.
I agree that the land area for farming may increase (more land at higher latitudes can be farmed) but some land currently farmed will not be useable. The absolute land area may actually increase, but should the government seize this land and move farmers to it? Again, slowing the change ca help insure economic stability, increase food security, and reduce geopolitical issues that arise form changing natural resources. Slower change is better and makes changes easier to manage.
Right now, the rate appears to be very fast. The hope is reducing emissions make help slow the rate of change.
If you don't believe CO2 causes plants to grow faster, watch this short video.
It is both good and bad it can and somewhat is causing the polar caps to melt and raise the sea level and as humans we can't handle the temperature that was in the Jurassic period we would need time to adapt.
Being that the sea will Rais due to it, some places like California and Florida and other places near water will be under water and other areas will be more lush with trees plant life so both good and bad
I look at it this way.
If we were to increase the level of CO2 to present day +300 ppm (i.e. to 700 ppm) then I don't think there would be any problem. On the other hand, if we were to reduce the level of CO2 by the same amount to 100 ppm then we would all soon be dead. The plants would not grow.
Which sounds like the better option?
No not really, because CO2 will not gives us any warming, okay it might be beneficial for a green productive planet, but dont expect it to warm up earth, it has very little effect in doing that, a warmer earth gives us more CO2 like in the Jurassic but not the other way around.
Is global warming good? - The bad outweighs the good. [1]
Should we increase the amount of atmospheric CO2? - Not unless we are prepared to deal with the negative externalities. [2] (Surely no self respecting capitalist would suggest to ONLY privative the profits and socialize the costs. [3])
We can live in a dream world, sit around the camp fire singing Kumbaya and hope people would behave ethically. Sadly the real world requires regulation and if we are going to make rules lets do so on the best science we have available.
So much stupidity - so little time. So, let's just go with this one:
>>Global warming can cause less extremes in the weather.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art... <<
This may be the best example of the Denier Idiot-blind leading the Idiot-blind in all of Denier-dumb.
The article is not even about the subject you and whatever idiot Denier blog you mindlessly allow to do you thinking for you believe it to be.
Let's start with the lead author's description of his research interests:
"I am interested in long term issues of resilience in societies, and their response to challenges climatic change, landscape degradation, volcanoes and episodes of disease and rapid population change. My research is focused primarily on these issues in Iceland, where tephrochronology is used to date and quantify episodes of landscape change and evaluate the human impact on the landscape over long time scales."
http://www.gheahome.org/cgi-bin/ghea_mem...
I'll try to type slow so maybe you can understand what your referenced article is really about.
The article is based on the assumption that tephrochronology can be used to identify points of critical rapid climate change (tipping points) and attempts to apply this geochronological technique to the study of human-environment interaction (in a specific location). The technique has nothing to do with the relationship between global warming and weather extremes - nor the authors make such a stupid claim.
The authors use tephrochronology specifically to identify periods of rapid climate change.
Here are a couple sentences from another paper by the lead author that clearly identifies his research objectives and his acknowledgement that we are being affected by current rapid climate change:
"Our own global society uses hugely greater resources than medieval arctic farmers but has yet to show greater resilience or more willingness to expand sources of TEK or the ability to resolve conflicts between climate change and core social ideology...Norse Greenland may serve to broaden the perspectives and knowledge base of modern planners seeking sustainable futures in a contemporary world affected by rapid climate change and the historical conjunctures of economic stress and culture conflict."
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/0...
What do you get when idiots teach idiots? You get an exponential growth in stupidity - and Deniers are evidence that there are people who have boldly gone beyond the Stupidity Tipping Point into a world of pathological, terminal, and eternal stupidity.
====
Maxx –
>>If you don't believe CO2 causes plants to grow faster, watch this short video.<<
I once did a study with a famous Denier scientist in which he force-fed CO2 to greenhouse trees and I sampled certain trees in a certain environment. We both identified similar growth trends.
That being said, your statement is simple-minded and incorrect. The fact that an adult from a developed nation can be so stupid is really quite a remarkable accomplishment.
>>In spite of what Warmists say, there is no correlation to show CO2 drives temperature<<
And the hits just keep coming. If you mean a mathematical correlation, no one has ever said that there was – so you are lying. If you mean there is no empirical, experimental, or scientific evidence that CO2 drives temperature then you are either stupid and/or lying (it does matter which because it is nonsense either way).
"Please note that during the Jurassic period the plant life was far more lush than we currently have."
This is a silly argument. 90% of the last million years have been spent in ice ages. By your argument, it would be good if we had another ice age. Canada and Siberia would be completely gone, as would the top of the USA and Europe.
"Good" is not defined by weather in the past.
"Good" is consistency.
"Good" is being able to live, and grow our food, where we do today.
"Good" is not having to move large populations because of inhospitable climate.
The Sahara is growing every year.
Sea level is rising, slowly to be sure, every year.
If you live south of New Orleans, or in southern Florida, that's not good.
"Alarmists" are not alarmed because of the absolute temperature.
They're worried because of the changes that will happen to populations around the world.
Populations of humans, plants, and animals.
We know that it was warmer during the Jurassic.
We point out that that is not the issue.
But it comes up again and again and again and again.
Do deniers never learn anything at all?
Are they the 50 First Dates equivalent in the global warming arena?
Do they all have slip on shoes so they don't have to relearn how to tie shoe laces every day?
OR, does reality not matter to them?
Are they actually dumb enough to believe what the Koch brothers pay liars to say?
How 'bout this argument?
"All the snow and rain that has fallen west of the Mississippi is, or at least might be, a very good thing. Maybe it will, to some degree, help to recharge the Ogallala aquifer a bit."
That's an argument that has some rationality behind it.
Rio: "Moderation works, extremist views don't. IMO its the fanatical eco nut jobs that are destroying their own agenda. The question begs to be asked: Just how much control should fanatics be allowed? "
Who's the fanatic? Someone who doesn't care how much a system is changed?
Someone who's trying to maintain the status quo?
We don't want it to get hotter, nor do we want it to get colder.
We just want to maintain the environment that allows us to grow food where we do.
We want the sea levels to allow seaports to remain where they are.
We want people to continue to live where they do today.
That's not fanatic, that's moderation. That's what is helpful for our society.
Raisin: "Fossil fuels are not artificially created man-made chemicals."
Neither is arsnic. Or malaria. How 'bout some reality/sanity.
"Greater CO2 concentrations are KNOWN to cause plants to grow better."
Yep -- in greenhouses, where all of the other necessities are provided.
In the real world, in every environment, something limits growth.
In the tropics, it's minerals. The ground in the rain forest is severely mineral deficient.
In the Sahara, it's water.
There is no place where CO2 is the naturally limiting factor.
If there were, with the 40% increase in CO2, plant life would be going wild.
It's not -- because CO2 is not the limiting factor.
Finally, I did see that you said this was a devil's advocate question.
However, you'll notice how the deniers jumped all over it.
Moderation works, extremist views don't. IMO its the fanatical eco nut jobs that are destroying their own agenda.
The question begs to be asked: Just how much control should fanatics be allowed?
This is more of a devil's advocate question, but I place it out here because I notice that every single news article about "climate change" is negative, when the truth is that it is not and cannot be all negative.
Please note that during the Jurassic period the plant life was far more lush than we currently have. The Jurassic period was about 8 degrees warmers and had a CO2 concentration of 2200 ppm, as compared to the 400 ppm we currently have.
Fossil fuels are not artificially created man-made chemicals. They are literally carbon from the past that has been buried.
Greater CO2 concentrations are KNOWN to cause plants to grow better.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094
So we are literally placing back the CO2 in the atmosphere that has been buried AND changing the atmosphere to being closer to the time when plant life thrived much more fully than it does now.
Global warming can cause less extremes in the weather.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004976?np=y
Global warming can increase the area of land that is able to be farmed with the ability to farm in more northern region and at higher elevations.
Plant food...What a hoot. One of the coal executives told us around 1960 that Not only was CO2 good for plants, it is good for people too.
