Kano
<0.7c rise in 150yrs is statistically insignificant.>
Actually,it is statistically significant.
Using the HADCRUT4 datatset
Trend: 0.051 ±0.007 °C/decade (2σ)
http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Apart from the fact that warming is not happening, 0.7c rise in 150yrs is statistically insignificant.
1 insects are a major part of earths ecology, we need them
2 Fungi are essential in the breakdown of organic material, without them we would not have soil
3 yes humans and animals can suffer from heat stress and from cold stress, cold kills more
4 Yes plants need water in hot conditions, but need less when CO2 is higher
5 No plants and creatures rely on daylight (photoperiodism) for coordination and all are evolved to be adaptable
Your only need to look at the difference between the tropics and cold temperature areas, fauna and flora numbers and species outnumber the cold areas by a thousand to one, obviously life flourishes in warmth and struggles to survive in cold
You are trying to raise our taxes and enact insane tyrannical laws based on those six ambiguous points?
"More active' that is real scientific. It doesn't mean anything. More active could be better or it could be worse.
"Grow faster' Woo! That is real scary.
"Many insects are harmful' Yes, some are. Take the mosquito for example. It carries Malaria. It becomes active in warm weather. But they can be killed by DDT, which, as you know, was outlawed by your side. So which is more harmful to the human race, a 0.7 rise in temperature of the banning of DDT.
Ha! Ha! Flunky, are you a frustrated school teacher? Your questions are posed as such. You and that school marm Peggy should get together!
The realities of life can be overwhelming at times.
More CO2 in plants requires less water for continued growth.
" Across a variety of FACE experiments, growth under elevated CO2 decreases stomatal conductance of water by an average of 22% (Ainsworth & Rogers 2007). This would be expected to decrease overall plant water use, although the magnitude of the overall effect of CO2 will depend on how it affects other determinants of plant water use, such as plant size, morphology, and leaf temperature. Overall, FACE experiments show decreases in whole plant water use of 5–20% under elevated CO2. This in turn can have consequences for the hydrological cycle of entire ecosystems, with soil moisture levels and runoff both increasing under elevated CO2 (Leakey et al. 2009)."
1) All of life is more active with warmer temperatures. Is more activity a bad thing?
2) ditto
3) This has always happened.
4) If a temperature rise of 0.7C happens in one hour, one day, or even one year it doesn't have that much of an effect on anything. Are you going to cease to exist with a temperature rise of 0.7C in one hour?
5) answered already
6) Ah! Nature! A beautiful thing!
Some rhetorical questions back at ya : What exactly is the best temperature for all of life to flourish? 0.7C cooler than it is now? 5C warmer? 5C cooler? Is 280ppm the perfect CO2 content in our atmosphere (at 150ppm plants go on strike and refuse to grow)? Is biomass growth on our planet a bad thing?
If people ever figure out that CO2 increases will cause trees to grow faster, create more oxygen around them, use less water, and eventually tower over their homes while keeping it cooler, then they might then realize that they want a more CO2 enriched atmosphere. The trees and plants will do it for them and the extra 1C will hardly be noticeable. It's a balancing act by good ol' mother earth. :-)
That's a whole lot of maybes. The entirety of WGII of the IPCC is all about trying to scare people. The key is to throw up as many negatives as they can, doesn't matter the likelihood. All you need is one thing for a person to be scared, even if he thinks the rest is no big deal. Maybe some people get frightened by the concept of sea level rise, others ocean acidification, droughts, hurricanes, rainforest disappearing, glaciers melting, ice-free North Pole, smaller frogs, thermohaline circulation, crop damage,
etc. However, when a few of these end up being based on reports from Greenpeace, or it becomes obvious that they have hyped a non-story, then the whole thing loses credibility.
So no, I am not convinced by your scenarios, or that you have put in the time to verify them yourself personally.
It is really pretty funny that you cherry pick the animals that you don't like and even acknowledge that warm is better for them yet you seem to refuse to acknowledge that warming is better generally for the vast majority of organisms particularly since we are talking a degree or two. Obviously animals surviving at the extremes of their habitat might be affected if it is at the hot extreme but there will be an equal or greater number at the cold extreme that will benefit. Why don't you mention or consider them?
The Paleo record more than backs up the warmer is better hypothesis, what warming are you talking about? Global temperatures have been flat for 17 years now.
There are doubtless isolated exceptions to each of these six overall conclusions, so of course the YA low level denier wannabes of the "I just shoveled global warming off my driveway" mentality, unwilling to acknowledge, if even capable of grasping, the difference between general trend and cherry-picked variation, would dispute any and all of them without the slightest hesitation or lifetime dream of ever cracking a science textbook or learning Kindergarten level honesty. You'd need a "in general" or "in most cases" qualifier to each point, in order to properly collect yet another set of the thousands of -as you put it- "fingers in ears, saying la la la" type "answers" already avalanched upon this category of this website.
If I were you I'd worry about my knowledge of science. Every thing you listed is conducive to warming. "A Basic ingredient for survival".
Are trying to disprove AGW?
I'm genuinely starting to worry about you, you're losing it. xx
Certain Parties seem so focused on the idea that "warmer is better" that they seem to be utterly mystified at the idea that warming could possibly harm any life forms. But, consider the following:
1. Insects are more active in warm than cold temperatures, at least up to their actual physiological limits.
2. Similarly, most fungi grow faster in warm conditions than in cold conditions.
3. Many insects and fungi are harmful to humans directly, or carry pathogens, or do harm to their livestock, crops, or stored food, as well as to economically or ecologically desirable plants and animals.
4. Plants and animals (and humans) can suffer from heat stress, if normal summer temperatures for an area are exceeded.
5. Increased temperatures increase evaporation, which increases water use in plants and decreases fresh water supplies.
6. Most plants and pollinators or other symbiotes rely on environmental cues to coordinate flowering with pollinator hatching, migration, and so on, but plants and their symbiotes may use different cues (for example, day length vs temperature), so changes in climate may cause plants and pollinators to be, in effect, misaligned.
Do you dispute any of those things? Given those things, is there any other conclusions you can draw besides that warming at least might cause harm to humans, and/or to the plants and animals that we depend on? Any other thoughts?
Why are you obsessed with the idea that the globe is warming when it's not?
-----------------------
