Re: Socialism in SF

On Apr 9, 1:37 pm, William Hyde <wthyde1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

*What* problem?  'Warmer' is a not a synonym for 'worse'.  Neither is
'change' a synonym  for 'bad'.

It may shock you to hear this, but I agree that  neither of those are
synonyms. Change is almost always a matter of some gains and some
losses. The question is, what is  the overall effect?

But the more we look, the more problems we find, and the fewer
benefits.


Yeah, well, there is money in scaring people (cf any news program) but
not in reassuring them. With money (grants and research funds) being
paid for finding 'problems' and money being devoted to looking for
'problems' while no one pays attention to the benefits, it is not
exactly news that you find problems and not benefits.

As an economist I can't help by note the absence of discussion of
benefits (large, warmer weather is good for people) and the overhyped
costs of the 'problems' (gee, glaciers are melting...), not to mention
that some benefits are called problems for no justifiable reason (gee,
galciers are melting, why would anyone consider that a bad thing? Is
it a mere 'change is bad'?).

There is no economic justification for spending dollar one to stop
global warming. There is considerable justification for programs to
accelerate it.



Here is an example, not one I expect you to understand, but one that
interested me.

One of the touted benefits of higher CO2 levels is the "CO2
fertilization effect".   Plants use CO2 to grow, so more CO2 might
allow more productive use of farmland, and so forth.  Experiments in
the lab confirmed  this for some  plants.  The problem was, field
experiments did not always show this effect, and in particular
Soybeans show a lesser, and possibly negative, effect from higher CO2
levels in the field.


In other words higher CO2 levels promote plant growth, which is a good
thing. (not surprising, plants use C2 as food). Yes, I do recall the
'unexplained' global greening phenomenon that was in the news some
years ago...

Note that you pay very close attention to one study of one plant, and
very little attention to the effects on other plants, or to other
studies of that plant, to arrive at the 'conclusion' that higher CO2
is bad. You look for cost, don't look for benefits, and (surprise,
surprise, surprise...) you find costs ratehr than benefits.

BTW-

http://www.co2science.org/subject/a/summaries/agsoypollution.php

(long, more from me after)

Miller et al. (1998) grew soybeans for one season in pots within open-
top chambers maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 370, 482,
599 and 713 ppm in combination with atmospheric O3 concentrations of
20, 50 and 79 ppb. By harvest time (113 days after planting),
elevated CO2 had significantly increased all biomass and growth
variables measured, with the greatest percentage enhancements
occurring at the highest CO2 and O3 concentrations. Plants grown at
20 ppb O3 and 713 ppm CO2, for example, displayed total dry weights
that were 48% greater than their ambient-air-grown counterparts, while
plants grown at 79 ppb O3 and 713 ppm CO2 exhibited dry weights that
were 53% greater than their ambient-air counterparts. Likewise, in
the same experiment, Heagle et al. (1998) found that plants grown at
20 ppb O3 and 713 ppm CO2 displayed seed dry weights that were 20%
greater than their ambient-air-grown counterparts, while plants grown
at 79 ppb O3 and 713 ppm CO2 exhibited seed dry weights that were 74%
greater than their ambient-air counterparts.

In a similar study, Reid et al. (1998) grew soybeans in open-top
chambers maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 371 and 708
ppm and O3 concentrations of 24 and 81 ppb. In the ambient-CO2 air,
elevated O3 exposure reduced the amount and activity of rubisco per
unit leaf area, as well as leaf starch content. In the elevated-CO2
air, on the other hand, elevated O3 exposure had no effect on these
three leaf parameters, demonstrating a total amelioration of potential
O3-induced damage by atmospheric CO2 enrichment.

In another such study, Reid and Fiscus (1998) grew soybeans for a
single season in pots placed within open-top chambers maintained at
either ambient (365 ppm) or elevated (727 ppm) concentrations of
atmospheric CO2 and below-ambient (20 ppb) or 1.5 times ambient (74
ppb) levels of ozone. In doing so, they found that elevated CO2
enhanced rates of photosynthesis in the presence or absence of ozone
and typically ameliorated the negative effects of ozone on carbon
assimilation.

In a literature review of O3 and CO2 effects on soybean
photosynthesis, growth and yield, Morgan et al. (2003) state that
"meta-analytic techniques were used to quantitatively summarize the
response of soybean to an average, chronic ozone exposure of 70 ppb,
from 53 peer-reviewed studies," after which the net effect of
concurrently elevated O3 and CO2 (to unspecified concentrations
described as being "above 400 ppm") was similarly derived. They
report finding that "when both O3 and CO2 are elevated, the mean
decrease in photosynthesis is 7%," which "compares to a 20% loss for
plants grown at elevated O3 and the current ambient CO2." They also
report that "at maturity, the average shoot biomass was decreased 34%
and seed yield was 24% lower" in response to elevated O3 alone; but
they note that "seed yield decreases for plants grown in elevated O3
and elevated CO2 are only half of those for plants grown in current
ambient CO2 and elevated O3." Last of all, they note "there were
significant ozone responses in several plant parameters at low daily
average concentrations (less than 60 ppb)," which is less than current
concentrations in many locations. In fact, they report that in
studies where the O3 treatment average was less than 60 ppb, "seed
yield, shoot and root dry weight were all significantly decreased by
about 10%," which suggests that in these circumstances the degree of
atmospheric CO2 enrichment employed in the joint O3/CO2 experiments
likely would have completely eradicated the O3-induced losses in plant
production.

That this conclusion is indeed robust is suggested by the findings of
Booker et al. (2005a), who grew well watered and fertilized soybeans
from seeds that were sown either directly in the ground or in 15-liter
pots out-of-doors in open-top chambers maintained at all combinations
of low (24 ppb) or high (75 ppb) O3 concentrations and ambient (373
ppm) or elevated (699 ppm) CO2 concentrations in 1999, and in 21-liter
pots maintained at all combinations of low (24 ppb) or high (75 ppb)
O3 concentrations and ambient (369 ppm) or elevated (717 ppm) CO2
concentrations in 2000. In 1999, in the pot-grown plants, the 212%
increase in atmospheric O3 concentration decreased net photosynthesis
by approximately 21%; but when the air's CO2 concentration was
simultaneously boosted by 87%, the negative impact of the O3 increase
was more than ameliorated, with the result that the plants exposed to
elevated concentrations of both trace gases exhibited net
photosynthesis rates that were 26% greater than those exhibited by the
plants growing in low O3 and CO2 air. Likewise, in the ground-grown
plants, the 212% increase in atmospheric O3 concentration decreased
net photosynthesis by approximately 14%; but when the air's CO2
concentration was simultaneously boosted by 87%, the negative impact
of the O3 increase was again more than ameliorated, with the result
that the plants exposed to elevated concentrations of both trace gases
exhibited net photosynthesis rates that were 40% greater than those
exhibited by the plants growing in low O3 and CO2 air.

..


It turns out that the difference is due to predators that exist in the
wild, but not in  the lab experiments.


How about on a FARM...




The fact is that the plant and animal life on Earth is adapted to
current conditions, not future conditions.


Actually, they are adapted to past conditions, and will adjust as
conditions change. We have seen variation in CO2 levels far beyond
anything even in the nightmare scenarios, and life got along fine.
CO2 in anything but degenerate concentrations is innocuous to animals
and beneficial to plants. (and no, with the negative feedback from
plants, the real world can't attain levels that would be problematic
for animals...)


 Increasing CO2 increases
the acidity of water in contact with the atmosphere, and the chemical
reactions on which plants depend will change with this acidity.
Expecting the change to be for the better is like expecting a machine
to work better after you throw a spanner in the works.


No, it's expecting plants to grow better if you add fertilizer...



 Maybe you will
miss all vital parts and  the machine will go on as before, but it is
really unlikely that you'll make it work any better, and possible that
you will damage it.



The ENTIRE farming industry says you're wrong...



Virtually none of  the plants and animals that make up the biosphere
have been studied for this effect.  Possibly no other plant will be
affected.  That's not a good bet, however.  Many plants use jasmonic
acid, the hormone in question.



Note my previous point- you aren't looking for benefits...




Well,  Shawn did not read that, but it was fun to type.



Of course I read it. Basically, you argued that Con-Agra doesn't know
what the hell they're doing. In that they have billions of dollars, I
suspect they actually do.


The climate is merely returning to its long run steady state (to such
extent that the climate even has a steady state), from an unusually
cold period.  

This is certainly not true.   If we were returning to the warmth of,
say, two thousand years ago, ice shelves which have been around for
eleven thousand years would not be collapsing.


Sure they would. Ice takes time to melt. The end of an ice age
doesn't mean all the ice disappears at once, or that temperature
fluctuations stop.




And I already know that your models don't work (economists are ratehr
expert at analyzing models

Thanks for  the laugh. As you don't know any science, you'd be lost in
ten seconds attempting to analyze any climate model.


I suspect I have had rather more statistics than you have ever
imagined. And there is no complexity of a climate model not seen in
complex economic models.

That aside, I don't need to understand the underlying model to
understand the statistical tests of that model's accuracy. Certainly
to understand where the hidden potholes are going to be. I can
certainly see a short data stream, cyclical data, and a supposed
overlaid monotonic effect and note that pulling a trend out of that is
an exercise in 'here be dragons'.


But tell me, do YOU understand economic models well enough to state
comfortably that the effects of warming are necessarily, or even
probably, bad? What model would you use? Keynes? Ramsey? Solow?
Sidrauski? Tobin? Do you even know the difference's between them?
(if any?)

How would you set it up? Do the models include climate effects? Can
they? If so, which?




Here, read  this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Three-dimensional-Modeling-Washing...

and get back to me.



Thanks, but what is really relevant here is THIS book-

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw_4_12?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=econometrics+greene&sprefix=econometrics

Read it and get back to me...




 for how well they represent the uncertain

underlying forces) and that solar scientists have better climate
models than you do.

OK, what NADW predictions do these solar scientists get?  What kind of
Hadley cell?  How about transient eddies?  Can you connect me to some
graphics on this?


They have none of those things. What they have is a cycle in solar
output that mntches the cycle we have seen in temperatures. And they
don't have to ignore data that contradits the underlying theory.

Fundamentally CO2 enhanced warming will necessarily be from the
atmosphere down to the ground, that's where the CO2 is. What we
actually SEE is warming from the ground up. That's not indicative of
CO2 warming at all. That is indicative of solar warming.

Simple theories that acurately describe the phenomenon trump vastly
complex theories that don't.




As noted climate skeptic Richard Lindzen says, it isn't solar forcing
that is causing the warming.  Which we already knew, of course, but I
thought you should hear it from a skeptic.


That is your second logical fallacy in this post. The first was, of
course, 'it is too complicated for you to understand- trust me, I'm an
expert'. This one is another version. This time 'trust him, HE'S an
expert'.

Well, I am reasonably expert at statistical analysis of data to test
theories. More expert than either of you I suspect.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Giant Atlantic Pumpkins!
    ... photosynthesis, water, and carbon dioxide. ... almost all organisims in very high concentrations. ... Note that this does not apply to some of the unicellular plants, ... I wonder what makes CO2 toxic? ...
    (uk.rec.gardening)
  • Re: Socialism in SF
    ... One of the touted benefits of higher CO2 levels is the "CO2 ... Plants use CO2 to grow, ... It turns out that the difference is due to predators that exist in the ... An exception is algae. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: global warming
    ... CO2 emissions, ... record demonstrates that if you expose plants to higher CO2 levels, ... Plants optimize for available resources. ... anthropogenic global warming are not uniformly negative. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: global warming
    ... CO2 emissions, ... Plants optimize for available resources. ... suitable for food production will become more productive doesn't ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: forests on orbit
    ... In fact energy to build robots is no ... That is a lot of green space, 1/3 of the land surface which is desert would ... If we want to fix the CO2 dumping problem, ... In fact desert plants grow slowly ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading