Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 835 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostTue Mar 21, 2017 3:51 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Keep in mind there are some benefits to both higher CO2 levels and warmer temperatures, in many places.  Globally averaged, the net result might be positive.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1281 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostTue Mar 21, 2017 8:54 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The only places that would be expected to have a genuine benefit are places that are too cold most of the year now, and not many people live in such places. And some of them, like in many parts of Alaska, are not liking it even now. Other places might prefer a warmer winter but not a warmer summer, but you get both. In the short term agriculture will benefit in colder areas, but other factors could overwhelm that after a few decades. Tropical agriculture will struggle all the way as more heat will do that no good. And humans in places that are already hot will definitely do poorly.

The underlying factor is that for both natural ecosystems and human civilizations and it's infrastructure, these things evolved and developed for roughly the climate we have now. If major changes come about, system theory shows that the great majority will not benefit and only a small minority do benefit. The beneficiaries are widely expected to be insects, who evolve very rapidly. The slower you evolve, the less likely you are to benefit. Guess where we humans fit in that spectrum. You might also guess that bacteria evolve even more rapidly than insects.

I also read that poison oak absolutely loves more CO2. So there.  rant.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 835 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostWed Mar 22, 2017 8:02 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
In the short term agriculture will benefit in colder areas

In the short term it looks like the entire planets agriculture will benefit from modest warming.  The high and mid latitudes improve some while the tropics improve slightly or don't change much.  It helps that the radiation budget percentage change of a bit of IR blanketing is largest at higher latitudes.

Quote:
human civilizations and it's infrastructure, these things evolved and developed for roughly the climate we have now.

Completely true.  I agree.  If it was an easy option, I'd prefer not to change things(because why try to fix whats not broken?).

Quote:
I also read that poison oak absolutely loves more CO2. So there.

Most plants love more CO2... of the large number of research projects in this area, most plants in most situations respond positively to increased CO2, and few or none respond negatively.  The earth is currently near the very bottom of its historical CO2 and temperature range... one of the many reasons why a bit of CO2 caused warming does not concern me much.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1281 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostWed Mar 22, 2017 8:48 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
Quote:
In the short term agriculture will benefit in colder areas

In the short term it looks like the entire planets agriculture will benefit from modest warming.  The high and mid latitudes improve some while the tropics improve slightly or don't change much.  It helps that the radiation budget percentage change of a bit of IR blanketing is largest at higher latitudes.

Most of what I have read is that global warming is pretty much a negative for agriculture in the tropics from the start, except maybe for higher altitude areas. Most mass produced crops originate in temperate regions and are already above their ideal growing temperature in the tropics and further increases will create more problems than gains from CO2 fertilization. This balance between CO2 fertilization benefits and harm from warming changes the farther you go from the equator.

But it's one thing to compare the impact of CO2 fertilization with average warming, and much different when short term impacts are included. For example I have read that while CO2 fertilization could be a strong benefit for a lot of US agriculture for some years, one strong one-week heat wave with the high temps reaching 100 *F can cancel out the CO2 fertilization benefit for an entire growing season. It's also important to remember that places much farther north will get a longer growing season, but soils tend to be quite poor in the far north, and soil quality tends to outweigh anything. So they may be growing more food in Greenland than they do now, but Greenland is not the next Iowa any time soon.

The wild card though is genetic engineering, how much seeds can be modified to keep their yields in a different climate. Just how much this can do is impossible to predict.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 835 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostThu Mar 23, 2017 8:59 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I agree that at some point increasing temperatures outweighs the benefits of longer growing seasons/increased CO2 and that will hit the tropics and hot continental subtropics first.  But that point does not seem to be in the immediate future, as recent global greening does not show latitude dependence global greening


As for the marginal soils in some of the higher latitude locations, that's one of the easiest things for modern industry to take a bite out of: mass produced fertilizer is cheap and easy.  I can see the cringes from the organic shopping crowd, but it works.

Quote:
one strong one-week heat wave with the high temps reaching 100 *F can cancel out the CO2 fertilization benefit for an entire growing season.

True, but you could look at it the opposite way too: increased CO2 can cancel out a bunch of heat stress.  Basically I am saying those "social cost of carbon" things are generally nonsense.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10936 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Mar 23, 2017 10:42 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Bingo.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10936 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Mar 23, 2017 11:13 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
A climate report based not on models and comparisons with models and predictions, but on actual observations.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6393 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostThu Mar 23, 2017 4:11 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
Basically I am saying those "social cost of carbon" things are generally nonsense

Less so for people living in low lying areas , such as Bangladesh,  low elevation islands in Micronesia, New Orleans and south Florida. 

Maybe conservatives will develop a "belief"  that changes will have an impact when Mar-a-Lago gets flooded during a hurricane.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10936 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Mar 23, 2017 4:40 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
It's not like Florida has ever had floods from hurricanes before.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6393 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostThu Mar 23, 2017 6:36 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
It's not like Florida has ever had floods from hurricanes before.

Yeah and New Orleans never had any hurricanes before Katrina.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1281 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostFri Mar 24, 2017 8:27 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Florida now has floods when the sun is out, hurricanes not required. Cities with adequate funding are spending a lot to raise roads.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1281 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostFri Mar 24, 2017 8:35 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
A climate report based not on models and comparisons with models and predictions

The video says "the world's first climate survey based on observations, rather than models."

How ridiculous. There are zillions (1.45367 zillion to be exact) surveys of climate based on observations. They are discussed and reported on constantly.

As to this:

Quote:
As for the marginal soils in some of the higher latitude locations, that's one of the easiest things for modern industry to take a bite out of: mass produced fertilizer is cheap and easy.

You don't understand the scale and nature of the problem. Modern fertilizer use improves the production in soils that are already fairly decent. Often they are excellent soils that are depleted of certain nutrients. This is completely different from the gravel in the north that is lacking in even modest amounts of organic content. The volume of additives needed would be vastly cost-prohibitive for those soils. Modern fertilizer is not that cheap.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10936 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostFri Mar 24, 2017 8:57 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
MtnGoat wrote:
It's not like Florida has ever had floods from hurricanes before.

Yeah and New Orleans never had any hurricanes before Katrina.

Exactly my point!

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7567 | TRs
Location: state of confusion
joker
  Top

seeker
PostFri Mar 24, 2017 9:07 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I think you're actually missing *his* point...

In any case, the size and frequency of tidal surge style flooding is predicted to increase, and observation appears to already be bearing  out that prediction. Events like Sandy's flooding of NYC subways etc. are a good example of the sorts of costs that  will be borne to greater degrees going forward.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 835 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostFri Mar 24, 2017 10:12 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
DRM, true, there are going to be some places beyond the ability of modern industry to cheaply farm even with longer growing seasons in the north.  But some land that was worse will become better.

Quote:
Events like Sandy's flooding of NYC subways

Most of the surge damage from Sandy would have occurred without the benefit of global warming.  Sandy had something like 14 feet of storm surge(pretty impressive for a higher latitude hurricane in protected waters).  About a foot of that is the result of global warming induced sea level rise.  Since a foot on the high side is worth much more than a foot on the low side, you could say that perhaps 15% of the storm's surge damage can be directly attributed to global warming.  With the storm doing some unrelated rain and wind damage... a ballpark figure could claim that 10% of Sandy's damage was global warming induced.

Thats a lot of money(about 10 billion), but much less than the normal rate of storm damage.  And much much less than the economic value added by fossil fuels...
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday Beave, Gruenk!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy