Quote from: Cnut237 on Today at 07:55:59 PM

Quote from: Poker Player on Today at 04:00:28 AM

I suppose Cnut247 will come up with some data on the subject.

Whilst we're waiting for that guy, I'll have a go Cheesy

But for this one, we don't even really need data; common sense does the job for us.

Quote from: BADecker on May 30, 2021, 11:11:23 PM

German Study Shows Added CO2 Has Led to 14% More Vegetation Over the Past 100 Years

Okay. Maybe. Not really worth studying because this has zero relevance to human-caused climate change.

How in the world negative can you be? If, for sure, people cause CO2 increases, it shows that we have at our disposal, methods to increase food around the world without even trying.

Quote from: Cnut237 on Today at 07:55:59 PM

Quote from: BADecker on May 30, 2021, 11:11:23 PM

The evidence is compelling that CO2 emissions are beneficial, rather than harmful, and the “social cost of carbon” is negative.

No, and no. How does this follow from the quote above? Answer: it doesn't.

Did you forget to read at least the basic links in the article?
Beneficial = more plants = more food.
Beneficial = Automatic = We don't have to work at getting more food as the population rises.
Detrimental (my idea) = Those who want to reduce populations will have a harder time at it.
Detrimental (my idea) = Fertilizer companies will not be able to sell as much fertilizer.

Quote from: Cnut237 on Today at 07:55:59 PM

Quote from: BADecker on May 30, 2021, 11:11:23 PM

Almost everyone with even just a fraction of a science education knows Co2 is fertilizer to vegetation and that the added 100 or so ppm in our atmosphere over the past decades have been beneficial to plant growth and thus led to more greening of the continents.

Yet, some alarmists still sniff at this fact, or deny it.

I have many years of science education, thanks. 'CO₂ helps plants to grow' is hardly an earth-shattering revelation. Not sure who these unnamed 'some alarmists' are, but they're more likely to be from the ranks of the climate-skeptics, rather than from the ranks of climate scientists (climate scientists being people who, you know, understand stuff).

You contradict yourself, sort of. The links in the article alone show loads of scientists who have done studies just like the OP says. So, is your education some kind of niche education? Or are you simply focusing on one side of what you learned?

Quote from: Cnut237 on Today at 07:55:59 PM

Quote from: BADecker on May 30, 2021, 11:11:23 PM

Crop yields will rise by up to 15% by 2050

You can often spot the nonsensical, misleading claims through the use of phrases such as 'up to'. A rise of 'up to 15%' could include a drop of 50%, and still meet the condition. Ridiculous.
... But again, irrelevant. Personally I would expect to see crop yields rise by considerably more than 15% through genetic engineering of drought-resistant strains, etc. And this will be needed to feed the world's population, given the ever-worsening effects of human-caused climate change.

I agree with the part that anybody can make climate predictions, and crop predictions to 2050... even you.

Quote from: Cnut237 on Today at 07:55:59 PM

You do realise that temperatures are rising, right? Maybe you could take a look at this study in Nature (summarised here), which uses science, data, and statistical analysis to predict that

Quote

a global temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius would lead to a worldwide decline in wheat yield by between 4.1 and 6.4 percent.

Maybe you also understand that sea levels are rising? Might that cause a few problems? And we can go on and on, but I'll stop there as this post is already long enough.
If you want to consider what the effects of human-caused climate change will be, start from a summary such as this one, or perhaps this one, which includes the quote below:

Quote

While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

But please, have a read, then come back, and we can debate some more. Don't just cherry-pick one fact and remove it from its context.

Did you get today's forecast... for the weather? Meteorologists are getting quite good at predicting the weather a couple days in advance. Here in Arizona, you can beat the weatherman for rain prediction. You can actually out-predict him/her.

All you have to do is go outside and watch the military spraying the chemtrails around the sky. Then you can watch for the weatherman's rain prediction which you know he is going to do. And, of course, it rains. But the weatherman's rain prediction doesn't happen correctly when there are no chemtrails being sprayed.

Did you get that? They barely can predict rain when the military helps them. How is anybody going to predict benefits or catastrophes when they can barely even predict the weather from day to day?

There is at least as much beneficial sense in the idea of benefits from heightened CO2, as there is disastrous sense. More CO2 makes for:
- warmer weather, which,
- puts more water into the atmosphere, which,
- blocks more cosmic radiation, which,
- causes more natural H2O2 in the atmosphere, which,
- kills off more diseases, naturally, which,
- gets rid of the need for some of the medical, which,
- opens these former medical people up to other jobs,
- which jobs include farming the no-longer deserts of the world,
- because the moisture in the air rained on them,
- so that more people can become more populous,
- because CO2 produced more food,
- thereby becoming happier because they have more land and joyful children,
- so that they have no animosity against people of other races,
- because Siberia was made habitable as was Antarctica,
- so there are more lands for them to go to for free living,
- as the winds move the moisture into the air rather than letting it eat up the coastlands with larger oceans,
- which air-moisture also blocks a little of the sun thereby making an equilibrium regarding how much heat comes to the earth,
- and on and on.

You are simply looking at the the propaganda they have been calling training. They do it because governments might totally lose control if the earth warmed enough so lands were opened up to freedom. It has been the plan of Satan to kill off all people right from the beginning when God made the heavens and the earth. And the people in big government often like to help Satan... Stalin, Hitler, Mau, even Genghis Khan.

No model is strong enough to predict what is going to happen one way or the other in 30 years. There are too many points that aren't being included, and nobody can get them all. Besides...

Climate Change (meaning global warming) is so much BS that it's remarkable that simple, humble, honest scientists could even begin to think that there is a problem. Why? Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_of_the_19th_century.

Why do I pick the 19th Century? Because Krakatoa happened then, and at least one other that was as big. What happened when these volcanoes blew their tops? They threw so much dust into the air, blocking the sun, so that we had weather that looked like little ice ages, for decades.

Our scientists can easily identify big ocean volcanoes that are easily ready to blow. Nuke a couple of them into activity, and forget all this global warming nonsense. Let the CO2 exist for more plants for more populations.

Cool