I’m sorry that you found my first response insultative — I was only trying to parody the inimitable…
Paul Reed
11

On storms : the theory has been more heat more energy for storms.

There hasn’t been an increase and in fact as shown by MIT professor Lindzen conclusively there is neither evidence of increase in storm intensities or frequency. The explanation is rather simple. As the poles warm more than the tropics the difference in energy between them decreases. This is a major cause of atmospheric disturbances and the source of energy for storms.

The co2 effect on agricultures is extremely well understood. In fact people use it constantly to boost agriculture in greenhouses. The effect has been studied a lot and used a lot in the real world by farmers. The effect on different plants is different. A study by NASA showed that since 1979 Earth overall biotic plant mass has increased by 30% as observed by satellites. This includes not just food but every form of plant including forests and plains. A recent study came out ( I refer to the exact study in a recent blog at my blog site) that showed the increase in co2 would not result in any agricultural loss because even if it gets drier ( bizarre prediction of climate models which also hasn’t happened) co2 feeds plants more resulting in the plants transpiring less water out surviving droughts better. Not only does co2 massively boost plant growth but it also makes them more immune to droughts. They showed that this effect completely prevented the effect that the Ipcc studies concluded would result in agricultural failure by 2080. We know in co2 studies from greenhouses that plants boost their output in most species up to 1400 ppm. So we will get more plant output more forests more biotic life in general up to 1400 ppm. This has NOT been properly accounted for by climate models in the sense that they do not show the planet getting more life, lots more life as has been demonstrated by satellites but the opposite.

As you point out agricultural efficiency has risen enormously. The world in the last 70 years has tripled its food output. Without co2 we likely would have only doubled food output leaving a huge shortfall. The rate of agricultural productivity plus co2 over the next 80 years may be astounding. We are on the cusp with genetics and other technologies to boost agricultural even more dramatically than the last 70 years yet the ipcc predicts in 2080 we will have less food. This is one of the most absurd predictions of the ipcc in my estimation. The most likely scenario is that we could triple food production again in the next 80 years if we wanted and have so much food with leveling of world population that we will have excess food by 2080 yet the ipcc makes predictions based on poor studies that don’t take into account any of these factors.

Climate modelers will admit that the models are extremely bad at regional phenomenon or predicting anything but temperature. Of course they are fit to temperature so saying they fit temperature is a tautology. If they didn’t predict temperature they would change them until they did. However the fact they show no efficacy at predicting regional phenomenon means prediction food supply based on them is absurd.

Lastly there is a simple formula like the one you use for storms. More energy = more life. If the planet warms it is inevitable there will be more life. The counter argument is if there are more deserts maybe not but every climate scientist will admit that higher heat will increase humidity. This is major factor in the climate models to get the extra heat as you must know. So rain increasss theoretically. In fact studies have shown that increasing rain over the last 30 years is increasing the water in aquifers worldwide sufficiently to raise land by 0.27mm/year offsetting some of the sea rise expected.

In history when it gets warmer it hasn’t resulted in more deserts generally. In fact the world has become more lush and more tropical resulting in expansion of life. Some species may suffer others will gain. New species will be created and some will die. This is nature. However overall it is hard to believe that life will decrease.

Over the last 60 million years half of that time temperatures were 4–10C warmer than today (8–20F Warner ) and this is when most life on earth has evolved with much higher levels of co2 as well ( up to 4000ppm ) this is when life evolved. The idea if temps went up 1C or even 2C more that life would suffer is not obvious. It would need to be proved that life would suffer because the assumption has to be that rising energy will produce more life especially as a key ingredient of life is co2. A critical resource of plants which is also a key resource of animals. The whole idea that the world collapses under another 1C is incredibly absurd looking at it from history in this light.

You talk about sea ice. Yes you are correct as I was that melting sea ice has not been demonstrated to cause any negative effect. Or to put it another way there is no known benefit of sea ice to the planet other than it apparently is used sometimes by some animals. Losing it has no effect we know of.

Land ice is different. As you point out but somethings that global warming people didn’t think of initially.

1) melting land glaciers and ice acts in some ways like Archimedes because the decreasing mass of the melting ice going into the ocean allows the continents to “lift” somewhat again offsetting the water rise.

2) filling aquifers raises land

3) silt from runoff of glaciers and mountains in general as erosion takes place increases land area on continents and islands. Not understood before.

4) volcanic processes and plate tectonics causes land area to grow and shift resulting in bigger islands.

5) man builds coastline and moves soil. The effect is significant.

Overall the result is even with sea level rise over the last 30 years overall land area and coastal area of the world is INCREASING not decreasing. Islands sizes are INCREASING not decreasing.

You will NOT see this reported in the MSM. They refuse to print anything which runs counter to the thesis the world is going to be destroyed by man and global warming. There is a huge bias in many people from the environment movement that man is bad bad bad that things must be getting worse and that anything man does must result in evil consequences. Sometimes that is true but not always.

The bottom line. I have demonstrated enough mistruth by the press to show a major major major scandal that is disinformation people have been subjected to in their filter bubble that leads to the errors that societies make. That causes people to completely misread an election or what policy will produce what result. Frequently the expected result is not what you get.

In 1970s the club of Rome used computer models to predict where the world would go. These are MIT professors and Harvard who put huge effort and they were 100% wrong on every count. The policy they told us to take would have resulted in a much less rich world and more problems not less. The same is true of computer models of the climate. They have been extremely poor at predicting anything. If you know anything of mathematics the reason for this is obvious.

We have spent many many billions on computer models which are useless and are way off even on temperature now. Really really bad. Waste. Huge waste of money and thousands of press articles in the MSM use the computer models. Look at all the stories. Computer models say this will happen or this will happen all bad and all wrong. Every one. Not a single thing right. NADA. it should be a huge scandal but the filter bubble prevents most people from seeing the enormous failure of this science.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated John the TIB’s story.