The advantages of using fossil fuels

mmmmikey

JKenH wrote: »

Anyway what I was actually doing here was challenging mmmmikey using foul language.

Apologies to anyone who found the language offensive.

I'm never really quite sure whether Great Ape's posts are just deliberately provocative (i.e. trolling) or represent genuine held beliefs, or both. Given that his/her stated beliefs include the view that humanity isn't going to last much longer because we'll be overrun by malovalent AI robots (with no on/off switches) and that Chernobyl wasn't really a big deal in the general scale of things, it wouldn't surprise me if his/her views were genuine. These other views give me the impression that he/she is "a sandwich short of a picnic" and against this background it wouldn't surprise me if he/she truly believed that global warming wasn't an issue (just as it wouldn't surprise me if he/she thought that Elvis Presley is alive and well and living on the dark side of the moon).

As far as global warming is concerned, I would pick up on a point made earlier in this thread in regard to smoking. Long after the vast majority of people had accepted that smoking was injurous to health and potentially lethal, there was a body of people who refused to accept that, pointing to Great Aunt Ethel who lived to the age of 90 even though she smoked every day. No doubt, had the Internet been up and running in those days there would have been numerous threads with people providing lots of examples of Great Aunt Ethel, and completely convinced that they had proved smoking was harmless despite the overwhelming balance of evidence to the contrary.

The penny didn't seem to drop with these people that just because some people avoid lung cancer, a huge number didn't and died. Sadly, many of the people who took this view probably died themselves because of their misplaced beliefs.

I suspect that what is happening here in respect of global warming (with the exception of a few loonies who have lost their grasp of reality) is that some of the deniers don't want it to be a big issue and confirmation bias is leading them to convince themselves of this by focusing on a very small section of the evidence that appears in some small way to support their position. And, of course, there are those with a vested interest (such as Donald Trump and oil company executives) who are happy to put out spurious denials to support this view whether they actually believe it themselves or not.

Ken - I wonder if deep down you really have formed the view that global warming is no big deal, or whether what started as a defence of Great Ape's right to state that view has somehow morphed into a series of posts that make it appear like you support his/her position.

To be clear - do you support his/her position on global warming (in spite of the overwhelimg evidence that refutes it) or his right to express that position?

GreatApe

mmmmikey wrote: »

To be clear - do you support his/her position on global warming (in spite of the overwhelimg evidence that refutes it)

My position is that global warming is happening and likely humans play a part but that a slightly warmer world is not going to be a big net negative

That seems very uncontroversial to me
Doesn't even the IPCC documents say there is for instance no link or reason to think a warmer world will have more draughts? Despite many cheerleaders suggesting otherwise

Plus I highlight the simple fact that humans suffer much less today from climate disaster than 150 years ago when the world was cooler. This doesn't mean a hotter world is safer it means as we got richer nature's harms we can deal more easily with. This will be even more true in 50 years time the world will more or less be fully developed. hunger starvation pestilence disease climate problems like tornadoes and hurricanes and draughts will be less of an issue even if they are more frequent (no reason to think they will be) because the world will be more productive and more easily be able to deal with it


Plus as Marty boy has shown already many of the problems that's studies associate with a warmer world like rice having less nutrition actually will have no net negative impacts on humanity.
In fact trying to artificially force people into vegetarianism or veganism will cause more of a health impacts that will hurt people and families than less nutritious rice could do

GreatApe

mmmmikey wrote: »

I'm never really quite sure whether Great Ape's posts are just deliberately provocative (i.e. trolling) or represent genuine held beliefs, or both. Given that his/her stated beliefs include the view that humanity isn't going to last much longer because we'll be overrun by malovalent AI robots (with no on/off switches)

I do believe AI is close and we will not be its master but I don't ask you or anyone to change or adapt your behaviour from this knowledge. I don't even act as it's true because if I did I'd love a very hedonistic lifestyle which would be counterproductive if the AI never arrives and well it would probably be counterproductive even if it does arrive

It's something I have no power over so I just love a normal life but it's interesting to think about it sometimes

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Putting the politics aside, a couple of things jump out at me regarding this very narrow study of the effect of increases in CO2 levels on crops. Firstly; it looks at only one crop, admittedly a pretty important one at the moment; Secondly, it's assuming that the source of nutrition in 80 years time will be the same as today.

This study actually takes us back to GA's assertion - more use of fossil fuels will make the world wealthier therefore a subsistence diet of rice will be unnecessary at the turn of the century.

Not one study, not one crop, not new news (see New Scientist article from 2007, or US trials starting in 1998). Perhaps rather than constantly fire fighting, you should just drop the denialist arguments?

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

Limiting factors
However, while experiments on natural ecosystems have also found initial elevations in the rate of plant growth, these have tended to level off within a few years. In most cases this has been found to be the result of some other limiting factor, such as the availability of nitrogen or water.

The regional climate changes that higher CO2 will bring, and their effect on these limiting factors on plant growth, such as water, also have to be taken into account. These indirect effects are likely to have a much larger impact than CO2 fertilisation.

For instance, while higher temperatures will boost plant growth in cooler regions, in the tropics they may actually impede growth. A two-decade study of rainforest plots in Panama and Malaysia recently concluded that local temperature rises of more than 1ºC have reduced tree growth by 50 per cent (see Don’t count on the trees).

New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants'

The Stanford scientists set up 132 plots of flowers and grass in California and introduced varying levels of carbon dioxide, temperature, water, and nitrogen. The scientists conducted the experiments over 16 growing seasons between 1998 and 2014. They found that only higher nitrogen levels resulted in higher plant productivity, while higher temperatures caused it to decline.

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone

It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on this, 'skeptics' make their claims of benefical botanical effects in the world at large. Such claims fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops.

‘Global Greening’ Sounds Good. In the Long Run, It’s Terrible.

Extra Carbon Dioxide Can Make Plants Less Nutritious

A number of studies indicate that plants that grow in extra carbon dioxide often end up containing lower concentrations of nutrients such as nitrogen, copper and potassium.

As more carbon dioxide gets into the atmosphere, the problem will grow. “There’s definitely strong evidence that quality will be affected,” said Dr. Campbell.

It’s not clear why this happens. In a paper published in the journal Current Opinion in Plant Biology in June, Johan Uddling of the University of Gothenburg in Sweden and his colleagues speculated that microbes are to blame.

Just as carbon dioxide speeds up photosynthesis, it may also increase the rate at which soil microbes take up nutrients, leaving less for plants to suck in through their roots.

If we eat food that lacks nutrients, we become more vulnerable to a host of diseases. Recently, a team of researchers at Stanford University studied how future changes to crops could affect the world’s health. The findings were grim.

In Southeast Asia, for example, the researchers estimated that the rate of iron deficiency may rise from 21.8 percent to 27.9 percent by 2050.

Deficiencies in iron and other nutrients could make millions of people more vulnerable to diseases including malaria and pneumonia, leading to many premature deaths.

Are you done, or are you really going to defy the science and persist with this denialism claim that CO2 is good for crops?

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Sorry Mart but I am getting fed up with you labelling everything as a trolling thread just because it doesn’t promote/support your point of view. You post some absolute rubbish political YouTube clips and I don’t challenge all of those. You have this left wing view of the world that respects no one’s point of view other than your own. As someone posted a while back, we can all make our minds up about what we read without a helpful soul like you deciding what is trolling and what is not.

Anyway what I was actually doing here was challenging mmmmikey using foul language. Is that really what you want to see on here? Oh yes, you ‘thanked’ mmmmikey’s post so, purely on a hypothetical basis, I suppose you wouldn’t feel too offended if I called you one as well. I wouldn’t do that of course.

It certainly would lower the tone of discussion if we all used that term when we didn’t like something but that is the way this forum is heading with some of the intolerant personal comments being made - “morally bankrupt” being another that springs to mind.

While your intention may be to devalue the comments made by certain individuals, what you are really doing is devaluing the whole forum. As I have pointed out before a casual visitor will just think what a load of losers.

Ken, are you really trying to sell that tosh?

GA is trolling a green and ethical thread, as simple as that.

You, who are happy to pick and snipe at the smallest thing that I post, never challenge the outright lies and denialist nonsense that GA posts.

You are simply an enabler for the troll who should take his views and comments to an appropriate board, or site.


Edit - Oh, and to be clear, I'm not 'labelling everything as a trolling thread', just GA's trolling threads.

What you need to note is that everything was pretty peaceful on here, yes we had GA move over from energy threads with a new account as he was being ignored, but .... we just ignored him.

Then you arrived with your 'games' and (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) Nick fell for it.

If you believe what GA is saying, and the denial arguments Nick has tried, and that the FF industry didn't act to undermine AGW science, then I truly feel sorry for you, but, again, is this an appropriate board for you to promote your views be they direct, or via a spokesperson such as GA?

I'd suggest that as the science is solid and complete, it doesn't matter what you believe, you should just let myself (and others who may be as daft as I) to go on believing in the 'religion' of AGW, in peace, and enjoy the wonderful world of RE, storage and BEV's. Thanks.

And once again, rather than wasting your time attacking everything I post, if you don't enjoy the articles, links, views etc, then pop me on ignore.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

I would question the whole idea however of having a sixteen year old (disability or not) heading up the fight against climate change. Surely it devalues the argument. It is putting emotion ahead of science. What is the source of Greta’s wisdom - something she has been taught at school? Trying to read a scientific paper on atmospheric physics is something that would cause most of us to give up after page one. Can a sixteen year old really understand the science? We might just as well put a GCSE economics student in charge of world economic policy.

And yet that sixteen year old understands and accepts the science, which puts her way ahead of many, including some on here.

Why Do Some Grown Men Hate Greta Thunberg?

mmmmikey

GreatApe wrote: »

My position is that global warming is happening and likely humans play a part but that a slightly warmer world is not going to be a big net negative

That seems very uncontroversial to me

These two sentences sum up my point perfectly.

It is almost universally accepted in the respected scientifc community that global warming is one of the biggest threats facing the world at the moment and urgent action is required. International bodies like the UN publish more and more evidence to this effect, summarising the extensive scientfic research that has been done. Whole communities stand to be lost as sea levels rise and engulf islands. Global leaders meet to discuss ways of mitigating the issues and risks. This is not a recent fad - the evidence and action have built up over a few decades. Most countries have started to put measures in place to combat this, but the scientfic research points to this being too little too late.

But your stated view is that this is really no big deal, and you post that view on a forum set up for discussion on Green & Ethical MoneySaving and say that you think you're not being controversial.

It seems to me that there are 2 possibilities - either you have completely lost your grasp of reality and genuinely believe what you say to be true, or you are trolling - i.e. making these posts with the deliberate intention of winding everyone up. I suspect that there is a bit of both.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Not one study, not one crop, not new news (see New Scientist article from 2007, or US trials starting in 1998). Perhaps rather than constantly fire fighting, you should just drop the denialist arguments?

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production



New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants'



Plants cannot live on CO2 alone



‘Global Greening’ Sounds Good. In the Long Run, It’s Terrible.




Are you done, or are you really going to defy the science and persist with this denialism claim that CO2 is good for crops?

Most of the above is as vague & far fetched as GA's AI posts.

Martyn1981

mmmmikey wrote: »

But your stated view is that this is really no big deal, and you post that view on a forum set up for discussion on Green & Ethical MoneySaving and say that you think you're not being controversial.

Hiya. Just for some scale/reference, as it can be hard to contemplate costs, I once saw a comment from an apparently very well informed individual who provides lots of AGW info. He said:

The cost to move the first village in the US due to global warming impacts will cost an estimated $180 million for 600 people.

The US alone has 1,400 cities and towns threatened by sea level rise.

If you own a house in Houston, or New Orleans, or Miami, or New York City or Boston along the coast, its value has already been affected by eight inches of global mean sea level rise.

What do you think is going to happen to a lot of valuable coastal real estate around the world when we have multiple meters of sea level rise over the next 1-300 years drowning most of our large cities?

I did some checking and found out this referred to the Alaskan village of Shishmaref, and further reading found an example of nearly $1m per head for a Louisiana community:

Alaskan village threatened by rising sea levels votes for costly relocation


To put it simply, we already face enormous future costs, but every day we delay action, or defend the status quo, or try to minimise expenditure, the future cost gets far worse. It's like arguing against the cost of a fire extinguisher, when the money could go towards the re-build, or arguing against the cost of repairing a life raft, when the cost/energy could go towards buying another boat ........ later on!

That's why I rail against delaying tactics like 'clean coal', 'fuel cell cars', and 'let's not spend it now, let's spend it later'.

The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago, the second best time is today.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Most of the above is as vague & far fetched as GA's AI posts.

Deny till you die.

Still, at least we no longer have to pretend what you are up to - science denial.