The climate, and why you don't care about it

Since I now know that the ideas of feedback and amplification are flame-war advertisements (thanks Trippy!) I realise it is probably pointless to discuss climate change at all.

My opinion goes: "nobody really gives a fuck."
We will continue to monitor the "situation" and we will also continue to debate "what should be done", and we will continue to do nothing meaningful.
In about 100 years, give or take a few decades, it won't matter - either the whole issue will turn out to be 'a fraud", or it won't. If it isn't a fraud, and that means the people doing the monitoring, constructing "realistic" models, etc are in fact doing science, and maybe trying hard to be objective, then a lot of people will be able to say "holy shit - they were right!"

It won't matter to all the people who have died, before it gets to that point; it may be a problem for all the people who haven't died.

This is why the whole topic is so inconsequential - so what if billions of people drown or starve sometime in the future - should I care?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you care?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, I care a lot about having food to eat, something to cook it on, the usual living requirements.

I care more about the first subject in the mornings, for some reason.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is that a sarcastic "no" then?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's a response in keeping with the human paradigm - selfish preservation. I eat first, then I think about tomorrow.

 

Ah, so people aren't stupid, they just give opinions based on little actual grasp of the subject?

Like say, how could parts per billion of concentration affect the entire atmosphere? There must be some mistake. Except methyl mercaptan smells even at that low concentration - how could such a small amount trigger a response?

A: it's a fraud!
B. It's the mixing of gases and diffusion, the smell centers are sensitive enough to respond to ppb.

 

Ok I'll go into the flaws - because I have the time.

The analogy of mixing gases together - one of which "smells" - is flawed because... CO2 doesn't smell.
The smell centers respond by amplifying something - there is cooperative activity between groups of specialized neurons, this doesn't apply to atmospheric warming, because cooperative activity in neurons is different to cooperative activity in "gases in the atmosphere".

But neurons respond to temperature as well, which is something the climate "transmits" to neurons.
I think the flaws depend on how you think feedback works, how signals are amplified, and what neurons do when they respond. Amplification is, by definition, a response.

 

No.

 

Thanks for informing us of your egotistical state - what's your point? Or...was that it? You have no empathy or compassion for anyone but yourself in the status-quo or during catastrophe - great, keep it to yourself.

 

I don't give a rats's ass about climate change, for one reason, and one reason only;

I don't have children.

This works two fold, firstly, not breeding is the most environmentally friendly thing a person can do, cutting out that entire lineage of consumption, so I have a clear conscience, and secondly, having no investment in the future, it's everybody elses' kids that will suffer, so it's up to them to solve the problems, not me.

I don't understand why people deny climate change however. A population of seven billion consumers and steadily increasing, how long before we reach breaking point? Abstract that figure into the future, and use some imagination.

 

Lol, thanks. I needed a laugh this morning.

*pictures phlog in a cave wearing only a fig leaf.

 

I don't have any children and I don't intend to have any either, but I do care about the environment.
Not having any children doesn't strike me as a good reason for not caring about the environment at all.

 

I didn't say I didn't care about the environment, just that I don't give a rat's ass about climate change. Fuck humans, really. If we fuck the planet up so we can't live here it's tough shit on us. If we fuck it up so nothing can live here than I have a problem with that.

Of course it is. It's not my problem. Breeders need to solve it.

 

I don't get you here. Why would I be living in a cave? I'm not some environut tree hugger. I'm not a rabid careless consumer either, I recycle, use low energy bulbs, keep the thermostat down, try to make considered purchases of sustainable items, but the point is, it's not my fight. I've done my bit by not breeding, and it's up to breeders to ensure the safety of their offspring.

So when my partner and I are out and about in our 4x4, I don't feel guilty. We have a low carbon footprint, and have not added to the population burden this planet has to bear.

 

I agree with you here, and I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of the human race dying out anyhow. So self-preserve as you will, peoples of the planet.

 

Then you should know that plants grow better with higher concentrations of Co2, by as much as 40%.

The Direct and Indirect Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide on ...
The direct effects of increased carbon dioxide (CO2) on plant growth refers .... In other words, higher levels of CO2 increase the efficiency of water use ...
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm

The Direct Effect of an Increase in CO2
Over the years there have been numerous laboratory experiments which conclude that increases levels of CO2 result in increased plant growth no matter how that plant growth is quantified. Sylvan Wittwer in Food, Climate and Carbon Dioxide tabulates the results. He observes

The effects of an enriched CO2 atmosphere on crop productivity, in large measure, as positive, leaving little doubt as the benefits for global food security …. Now, after more than a century, and with the confirmation of thousands of scientific reports, CO2 gives the most remarkable response of all nutrients in plant bulk, is usually in short supply, and is nearly always limiting for photosynthesis … The rising level of atmospheric CO2 is a univesally free premium, gaining in magnitude with time, on which we can all reckon for the foreseeable future.​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

About 95 percent of all plants on Earth are of type C3. C4 plants constitude only 1 percent but the C4 crops of sugar cane, corn, sorghum and millet are economically significant. The other 4 percent of plants are not economically significant. They include desert plants such as cactus.


The Effect of Temperature on Plant Response to Higher Levels of CO2
Photosynthesis consists of chemical reactions. Chemical reactions procede at a higher rate at higher temperatures. The rule of thumb is that there is a doubling of the reaction rate for every 10°F rise in temperature. Plants grow faster at a higher temperature providing they have adequate levels of CO2, water, sunlight and plant nutrients. The C4 plants have a great response rate for a higher temperature than does the C3 plants.

A higher temperature without adequate level of the necessary ingredients for growth might produce no response or even damage. Sylvan Wittwer, quoted above, states that under most circumstances the availability of CO2 is the factor which limits growth. Thus with a higher level of CO2 in the air plants can grow faster with a higher temperature.

Plants transpire water vapor to keep an even temperature. There are tiny holes on the underside of plant leaves, called somata, which are the openings through which the plant absorbs CO2. With higher level of CO2 concentration in the air the somata do not have to be open as wide. The narrower opening means that less water is transpired and thus less water is required by the plants. In other words, higher levels of CO2 increase the efficiency of water use by plants. This was confirmed in experiments reported by K.E. Idso and S.B. Idso. They found that enhanced CO2 increased growth by 31 percent in plants with adequate moisture but it increase growth by 62 percent for plants in moisture-stressed condition. In effect, enhanced CO2 by reducing water loss created the same effect as providing more water. Thus the effect in moisture-stressed plants was the effects of enhanced CO2 plus the effect of increased water.

The effect of increased CO2 in narrowing the stomata of plants has the additional benefit that a lesser amount of pollutants in the air will make it through the narrower openings. Thus enhanced CO2 has the effect of protecting plants against damage from air pollutants such as ozone or sulfur dioxide.

The effect of enhanced CO2 is even greater for plants grown under low light conditions. The enhance growth is greater than 100 percent for a 100 percent increase in CO2. This compares to less than 50 percent for plants grown in normal light conditions.

The evidence that clinches the argument is that some greenhouse owner artificially elevate the CO2 level to triple what the level in the atmosphere is. ​

 

Right. The plants which are economically insignificant - we don't need them do we?

And artificial elevation of CO2 in a controlled greenhouse is exactly the same as artificial elevation of CO2 in a desert...?
Does the temperature go up inside a controlled greenhouse, when the CO2 is artificially increased, or don't the plants respond to temperature? If they do, how is the temperature controlled, along with the CO2 level, or doesn't it matter?

 

Ah gotcha

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well you said you'd have a problem with it if we fuck the environment up so nothing can live here. So that makes it kind of your problem too, right?