EXXON Contradicts its Own Scientists

[_Res Ipsa]

Suppose agricultural science finds a way to deal with the collapse of pollinator food webs in "4-5 generations." In the intervening time, that will cause a substantial drop in food productivity. That in turn will cause famines for poor populations and economic devastation for wealthier ones. Not only is the potential suffering from this fact alone very troubling, those are the sort of conditions that tend to cause autocratic political movements and wars.

Plants were pollinated just fine during the Jurassic period. Yet another unwarranted and silly claim.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mesozoic/j ... clife.html There were no flowering plants. None of the plants we live off of were alive.

[_Res Ipsa]

Tobin, EA covered what I would have said in your last long post. The only thing I would add is that growing food isn't just a matter of temperature. We didn't make the fertile area where we grow food. We took naturally fertile areas and enhanced them. In addition, global warming isn't just a matter of increasing the average temperature everywhere by the same number. It will change ocean currents, air currents, and precipitation patterns. There is published literature on all this, and it doesn't say "don't worry; be happy.

Didn't we have ocean currents, air currents and precipitation patterns during the Jurassic period?

Yes. Do you really not understand the impact of rapid change on ecosystems?

[_Tobin]

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mesozoic/jurassic/jurassiclife.html There were no flowering plants. None of the plants we live off of were alive.

So what? Are plants adverse to more CO2? Or warmth? Or more precipitation? What in your mind is going to kill off our flowering plants if we increase the CO2 concentration and the average temperature of the planet a few degrees?

I hope you can see I really can't take alarmist reactions like this seriously.

[_Tobin]

Yes. Do you really not understand the impact of rapid change on ecosystems?

Uhm, major portions of the North America, Europe, and Asia were covered in ice and life survived just fine. Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but ice isn't good for plants. If it gets +8 degrees warmer, I think they'll be just fine. And as far as us humans... Guess what? If it gets too hot somewhere, we can MOVE. I know. Shocking isn't it?

[_EAllusion]

Plants were pollinated just fine during the Jurassic period. Yet another unwarranted and silly claim.

Flowering plants and pollinator species that co-evolved with them didn't even exist in the Jurassic period. Further, the pollinator/angiosperm radiation occurred in the late Cretaceous. So, way to fail hard on that one. Perhaps trying BSing in a forum where people who appear to be scientifically educated aren't posting? But even if this weren't true, it wouldn't change the fact that current food webs with current species are adapted to current ecological conditions and rapidly changing them will cause a collapse. Evolution will eventually rebound in one form or another, but there would be a predictable loss of life in the intervening period. Loss of life = less food production.

Perhaps you're prepared to live on a steady diet of ferns, but if we are talking about the modern types of planets people eat, there is an on-going dependency on pollinators and the food-webs that sustain them. If you think that radically altering habitats doesn't ever affect population numbers of species, feel free to point me in the direction of the nearest passenger pigeon flock.

[_Tobin]

Flowering plants and pollinator species that co-evolved with them didn't even exist in the Jurassic period. Further, the pollinator/angiosperm radiation occurred in the late Cretaceous. So, way to fail hard on that one. Perhaps trying BSing in a forum where people who appear to be scientifically educated aren't posting? But even if this weren't true, it wouldn't change the fact that current food webs with current species are adapted to current ecological conditions and rapidly changing them will cause a collapse. Evolution will eventually rebound in one form or another, but there would be a predictable loss of life in the intervening period. Loss of life = less food production.

You have yet to explain what will kill off these flowing plants and their pollinators? If anything, it sounds like things will be more ideal for them.

But let's suppose you are right, and there is no reason to think you are. Humans aren't beholden to the whims of nature any longer. We have developed technology and genetically modified crops that don't require pollination. Yes, you might not have many apples for a while, but human-beings won't starve either.

[_Res Ipsa]

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mesozoic/jurassic/jurassiclife.html There were no flowering plants. None of the plants we live off of were alive.

So what? Are plants adverse to more CO2? Or warmth? Or more precipitation? What in your mind is going to kill off our flowering plants if we increase the CO2 concentration and the average temperature of the planet a few degrees?

I hope you can see I really can't take alarmist reactions like this seriously.

That's the problem, Tobin. Everything with you on this topic boils down to "I just can't believe it; therefore, I won't take it seriously. It's one big argument from incredulity.

I'll ask again: how much time have you spent looking at the scientific literature on this? I'm not making an argument that earth's vegetation will become like the vegetation in the Jurassic. I'm saying that your "what, me worry" argument based on the Jurassic is a bad one.

All of the questions you are asking have been investigated in the scientific literature. Why don't you take a look before staking out these kinds of strident positions?

[Guest]

Yes. Do you really not understand the impact of rapid change on ecosystems?

Uhm, major portions of the North America, Europe, and Asia were covered in ice and life survived just fine. Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but ice isn't good for plants. If it gets +8 degrees warmer, I think they'll be just fine. And as far as us humans... Guess what? If it gets too hot somewhere, we can MOVE. I know. Shocking isn't it?

So, the answer to my question is "no."

by the way, we aren't talking about whether "life" in some form will do fine. We're talking about people.

[_Res Ipsa]

Yes. Your original argument was that it was much, much hotter in the Jurassic and everything was fine. If it was not as much hotter than you claimed, that undercuts your argument.

My original argument was that at 1500-2500 ppm CO2 concentration, life thrived just fine. You then revealed the actual temperature at those level is at most +8 degrees C. Great!

That's because you aren't taking into account the brightening of the sun. How much brighter do astronomers say the sun is today than it was in the Jurassic?

[_Tobin]

That's the problem, Tobin. Everything with you on this topic boils down to "I just can't believe it; therefore, I won't take it seriously. It's one big argument from incredulity.

I'll ask again: how much time have you spent looking at the scientific literature on this? I'm not making an argument that earth's vegetation will become like the vegetation in the Jurassic. I'm saying that your "what, me worry" argument based on the Jurassic is a bad one.

All of the questions you are asking have been investigated in the scientific literature. Why don't you take a look before staking out these kinds of strident positions?

I think if you can rationally and reasonably state why increasing CO2 concentrations to 1500 ppm is dangerous and have facts to back that up, I'm more than willing to listen. However, as I've pointed out repeatedly, it will take us centuries to reach that level and we'll exhaust our fossil fuel reserves to do it. It just isn't something that will happen tomorrow.

Now, the arguments I've seen against it are:

1) Plants and pollinators won't survive or will be greatly diminished. This will lead to mass starvation of human-beings. However, I've yet to have anyone state a good reason why that would be true in the least. If anything, increasing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere will be good for plants as will increasing the average temperature.

2) Human beings won't be able to adapt. Again, that seems baseless. Human-beings already live in a variety of climates and if it gets too hot somewhere for us to live, we can move.

I just don't see anything credible that is dangerous about increasing global CO2 concentrations. But I'd be happy to be informed differently.