agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
It's estimated that closer to 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. Pre-industrial CO2 for the last million years ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm. In the last century, CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~430 ppm. This increase is not due to natural CO2 sources.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2
So you're saying it went up from 0.038% of the atmosphere to 0.04%. Oh no.
My rebuttal to anyone who makes this argument is that percentage is not what matters...it's potency. I'm assuming you wouldn't want high levels of arsenic in your drinking water. Up to 0.00001% (100 ppb) can be toxic and that is why the EPA limit is 0.000001% (10 ppb). This is a very small percentage but potency is high. CO2 behaves the same way in the atmosphere even in trace amounts. It's extremely potent at trapping heat.
Such a tired argument. Proximity to the sun and particulate matter in the upper atmosphere from volcanic eruptions affect the surface temperature of the earth far more than 0.02 % more of the atmosphere consisting of CO2.
I'm not aware of changes in earth's proximity to the sun in the past century that would explain a 1.2C increase in average global temperature. Please enlighten me.
Volcanic particulates and aerosols released from the size/frequency of eruptions we have witnessed in the past century are short-lived (less than a decade) and do not drive long-term climate trends such as the temperature rise we are currently in. Massive, persistent eruptions would have long-term climate impacts.
The science behind CO2's greenhouse effect is well-established. The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0.028% to 0.043% is significant.
Quote:
If you do not trust the work of agencies like NASA, NOAA, and other scientific agencies that came up with this data, then I doubt I'll convince you.
The Sun said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
It's estimated that closer to 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. Pre-industrial CO2 for the last million years ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm. In the last century, CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~430 ppm. This increase is not due to natural CO2 sources.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2
So you're saying it went up from 0.038% of the atmosphere to 0.04%. Oh no.
My rebuttal to anyone who makes this argument is that percentage is not what matters...it's potency. I'm assuming you wouldn't want high levels of arsenic in your drinking water. Up to 0.00001% (100 ppb) can be toxic and that is why the EPA limit is 0.000001% (10 ppb). This is a very small percentage but potency is high. CO2 behaves the same way in the atmosphere even in trace amounts. It's extremely potent at trapping heat.
Such a tired argument. Proximity to the sun and particulate matter in the upper atmosphere from volcanic eruptions affect the surface temperature of the earth far more than 0.02 % more of the atmosphere consisting of CO2.
I'm not aware of changes in earth's proximity to the sun in the past century that would explain a 1.2C increase in average global temperature. Please enlighten me.
Volcanic particulates and aerosols released from the size/frequency of eruptions we have witnessed in the past century are short-lived (less than a decade) and do not drive long-term climate trends such as the temperature rise we are currently in. Massive, persistent eruptions would have long-term climate impacts.
The science behind CO2's greenhouse effect is well-established. The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0.028% to 0.043% is significant.
One year after Tambora there was no summer. It was devastating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Look the climate is always changing. You don't know the perfect temp of the Earth because it's always in flux over time.
And if you don't believe proximity to the sun affects temperature just wait until this winter.
I'm pretty hot.
ShinerAggie said:
Wow. Water vapor is pretty much the only greenhouse gas (a misnomer in itself) that matters. Water vapor concentration is present in the atmosphere in percentage points, not hundredths of a percent. It absorbs almost all radiation that pathetic little CO2 might in the absence of water vapor, and it doesn't drive climate? The catastrophic model predictions, that is what they are not data, depend on a runaway feedback from water vapor to calculate any warming effect from CO2, and the feedback mechanism does not exist. Yet, an essential trace gas drives the climate. Right. And the atmosphere is a larger driver of climate than the oceans.
YouBet said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
It's estimated that closer to 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. Pre-industrial CO2 for the last million years ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm. In the last century, CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~430 ppm. This increase is not due to natural CO2 sources.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2
So you're saying it went up from 0.038% of the atmosphere to 0.04%. Oh no.
My rebuttal to anyone who makes this argument is that percentage is not what matters...it's potency. I'm assuming you wouldn't want high levels of arsenic in your drinking water. Up to 0.00001% (100 ppb) can be toxic and that is why the EPA limit is 0.000001% (10 ppb). This is a very small percentage but potency is high. CO2 behaves the same way in the atmosphere even in trace amounts. It's extremely potent at trapping heat.
Such a tired argument. Proximity to the sun and particulate matter in the upper atmosphere from volcanic eruptions affect the surface temperature of the earth far more than 0.02 % more of the atmosphere consisting of CO2.
I'm not aware of changes in earth's proximity to the sun in the past century that would explain a 1.2C increase in average global temperature. Please enlighten me.
Volcanic particulates and aerosols released from the size/frequency of eruptions we have witnessed in the past century are short-lived (less than a decade) and do not drive long-term climate trends such as the temperature rise we are currently in. Massive, persistent eruptions would have long-term climate impacts.
The science behind CO2's greenhouse effect is well-established. The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0.028% to 0.043% is significant.
Even if true that we caused it...I don't care. There is nothing to be done about it. Are you gong to advocate that we invade China and India to send them back to Stone Age so they can't be the outsized contributors to this anymore? Because our own emissions peaked almost 20 years ago now. We are all good here.
And warming up a little bit is a hell of a lot better than the alternative. Besides global population is about to tail off and hit the slide downwards so we won't be impacting the planet with as much carbon in the future anyway. The problem took care of itself through TFRs that make us endangered over the long haul.
So, I think we can all just move on from this pointless carbon scare that is wrapped up in fake data whose only solution seems to be wealth redistribution from rich western countries to the poor Global South.
eric76 said:
Did you know that it was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum?
That warmer climate was just what we needed to kickstart the civilizations we have today. If not for those warmer temperatures then, today's civiliations could probably not exist.
agent-maroon said:
I wonder if there's something that the natural world can do with all that extra CO2 that somehow translates into more available food.
agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
It's estimated that closer to 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. Pre-industrial CO2 for the last million years ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm. In the last century, CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~430 ppm. This increase is not due to natural CO2 sources.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2
So you're saying it went up from 0.038% of the atmosphere to 0.04%. Oh no.
My rebuttal to anyone who makes this argument is that percentage is not what matters...it's potency. I'm assuming you wouldn't want high levels of arsenic in your drinking water. Up to 0.00001% (100 ppb) can be toxic and that is why the EPA limit is 0.000001% (10 ppb). This is a very small percentage but potency is high. CO2 behaves the same way in the atmosphere even in trace amounts. It's extremely potent at trapping heat.
Such a tired argument. Proximity to the sun and particulate matter in the upper atmosphere from volcanic eruptions affect the surface temperature of the earth far more than 0.02 % more of the atmosphere consisting of CO2.
I'm not aware of changes in earth's proximity to the sun in the past century that would explain a 1.2C increase in average global temperature. Please enlighten me.
Volcanic particulates and aerosols released from the size/frequency of eruptions we have witnessed in the past century are short-lived (less than a decade) and do not drive long-term climate trends such as the temperature rise we are currently in. Massive, persistent eruptions would have long-term climate impacts.
The science behind CO2's greenhouse effect is well-established. The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0.028% to 0.043% is significant.
One year after Tambora there was no summer. It was devastating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Look the climate is always changing. You don't know the perfect temp of the Earth because it's always in flux over time.
And if you don't believe proximity to the sun affects temperature just wait until this winter.
As I previously stated, volcanic activity can have short-lived impacts on global temperatures. Volcanic activity is not the reason the global average temperature has increased 1.2C in the past century.
Seasonal changes aren't due to the Earth's center of mass getting closer or further from the sun. It's due to the Earth's tilt on its axis. When it's summer in the northern hemisphere, it is winter in the southern hemisphere that is because the northern hemisphere is tilted in the direction of the sun...not because the Earth overall is closer. Now the Earth does have a slight elliptical orbit but this doesn't play a significant role in Earth's seasons or long-term climate change.
Over_ed said:
i am not well versed enough in climate "science" to converse at even a Masters' level, but will toss this out...
One of the scare tactics promoted by "climate warriors" is the idea that we will enter periods of famines. This seems not to be borne out so far, in fact the average number of calories available to the poorest have been increasing steadily over the past 20 years. In that period up < 200 calories per day. And the poorest nations are generally improving the most.
If there is a negative effect caused by climate it is either negligible, and/or counterbalanced by the benefits of increased energy availability.
ETA - Agreeing with eric76 here
Ag with kids said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
It's estimated that closer to 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. Pre-industrial CO2 for the last million years ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm. In the last century, CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~430 ppm. This increase is not due to natural CO2 sources.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2
So you're saying it went up from 0.038% of the atmosphere to 0.04%. Oh no.
My rebuttal to anyone who makes this argument is that percentage is not what matters...it's potency. I'm assuming you wouldn't want high levels of arsenic in your drinking water. Up to 0.00001% (100 ppb) can be toxic and that is why the EPA limit is 0.000001% (10 ppb). This is a very small percentage but potency is high. CO2 behaves the same way in the atmosphere even in trace amounts. It's extremely potent at trapping heat.
Such a tired argument. Proximity to the sun and particulate matter in the upper atmosphere from volcanic eruptions affect the surface temperature of the earth far more than 0.02 % more of the atmosphere consisting of CO2.
I'm not aware of changes in earth's proximity to the sun in the past century that would explain a 1.2C increase in average global temperature. Please enlighten me.
Volcanic particulates and aerosols released from the size/frequency of eruptions we have witnessed in the past century are short-lived (less than a decade) and do not drive long-term climate trends such as the temperature rise we are currently in. Massive, persistent eruptions would have long-term climate impacts.
The science behind CO2's greenhouse effect is well-established. The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0.028% to 0.043% is significant.
One year after Tambora there was no summer. It was devastating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Look the climate is always changing. You don't know the perfect temp of the Earth because it's always in flux over time.
And if you don't believe proximity to the sun affects temperature just wait until this winter.
As I previously stated, volcanic activity can have short-lived impacts on global temperatures. Volcanic activity is not the reason the global average temperature has increased 1.2C in the past century.
Seasonal changes aren't due to the Earth's center of mass getting closer or further from the sun. It's due to the Earth's tilt on its axis. When it's summer in the northern hemisphere, it is winter in the southern hemisphere that is because the northern hemisphere is tilted in the direction of the sun...not because the Earth overall is closer. Now the Earth does have a slight elliptical orbit but this doesn't play a significant role in Earth's seasons or long-term climate change.
Well, if you're blaming CO2, then don't look at the US.
We emit less CO2 now than we did it 1990.
Maybe go talk to China and India instead.
agclassof2012 said:Over_ed said:
i am not well versed enough in climate "science" to converse at even a Masters' level, but will toss this out...
One of the scare tactics promoted by "climate warriors" is the idea that we will enter periods of ...
ETA - Agreeing with eric76 here
From what I've read, much of the discussion around climate change carries a pre-emptive or early-warning tone rather than suggesting we're already feeling its FULL effects. I agree that famine would be an extreme consequence we're not yet experiencing. ...
The negative impacts of a warming climate are complex due to many confounding variables. ...
Snowpack is the lifeline of our region....
Wildfire activity has also increased dramatically over the past four decades....
Overall, while some impacts of climate change remain gradual, the evidence in the Pacific Northwest from my experience are being felt today.
agclassof2012 said:Over_ed said:
i am not well versed enough in climate "science" to converse at even a Masters' level, but will toss this out...
One of the scare tactics promoted by "climate warriors" is the idea that we will enter periods of famines. This seems not to be borne out so far, in fact the average number of calories available to the poorest have been increasing steadily over the past 20 years. In that period up < 200 calories per day. And the poorest nations are generally improving the most.
If there is a negative effect caused by climate it is either negligible, and/or counterbalanced by the benefits of increased energy availability.
ETA - Agreeing with eric76 here
From what I've read, much of the discussion around climate change carries a pre-emptive or early-warning tone rather than suggesting we're already feeling its FULL effects. I agree that famine would be an extreme consequence we're not yet experiencing. While there may be some short-term benefits in a warming climate, such as longer growing seasons in colder regions, the rapid rate of warming is concerning imo because it leaves less time for ecosystems and societies to adapt. Farming practices and technologies will likely evolve to cope with changing conditions, but some areas will become less suitable for agriculture even as others gain new opportunities.
The negative impacts of a warming climate are complex due to many confounding variables. People's perceptions of climate change also depend heavily on where they live and how they interact with the environment. I live in the Pacific Northwest and spend much of my time on forest service lands, where the effects are increasingly visible to me.
Snowpack is the lifeline of our region. Beyond providing amazing recreational opportunities, it provides a large portion of the water that sustains life here. Over the past 30-40 years (since reliable snow measurement), snowpack has declined significantly, likely due to a warming climate. This reduction has lowered river flows and reservoir levels, intensified water scarcity and leading to more frequent water curtailments that directly affect agricultural growers in my area. Glacier retreat, another well-documented sign of warming, has further reduced year-round water flow and eliminated a key cooling influence that once kept rivers at healthy temperatures year-around for salmon and trout. The river ecosystems then impact coastal marine life.
Wildfire activity has also increased dramatically over the past four decades. While factors like human encroachment and forest management practices contribute, higher temperatures and drier conditions have intensified fire behavior. The resulting smoke has become a recurring problem across the western US especially from August through September. Warmer summers have also brought new challenges for many Northwest communities, particularly in older homes and cities without widespread air conditioning. Heat stress has become a growing health risk for vulnerable populations and a financial burden for those now needing to install A/C systems.
Overall, while some impacts of climate change remain gradual, the evidence in the Pacific Northwest from my experience are being felt today.
agclassof2012 said:Ag with kids said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
It's estimated that closer to 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. Pre-industrial CO2 for the last million years ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm. In the last century, CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~430 ppm. This increase is not due to natural CO2 sources.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2
So you're saying it went up from 0.038% of the atmosphere to 0.04%. Oh no.
My rebuttal to anyone who makes this argument is that percentage is not what matters...it's potency. I'm assuming you wouldn't want high levels of arsenic in your drinking water. Up to 0.00001% (100 ppb) can be toxic and that is why the EPA limit is 0.000001% (10 ppb). This is a very small percentage but potency is high. CO2 behaves the same way in the atmosphere even in trace amounts. It's extremely potent at trapping heat.
Such a tired argument. Proximity to the sun and particulate matter in the upper atmosphere from volcanic eruptions affect the surface temperature of the earth far more than 0.02 % more of the atmosphere consisting of CO2.
I'm not aware of changes in earth's proximity to the sun in the past century that would explain a 1.2C increase in average global temperature. Please enlighten me.
Volcanic particulates and aerosols released from the size/frequency of eruptions we have witnessed in the past century are short-lived (less than a decade) and do not drive long-term climate trends such as the temperature rise we are currently in. Massive, persistent eruptions would have long-term climate impacts.
The science behind CO2's greenhouse effect is well-established. The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0.028% to 0.043% is significant.
One year after Tambora there was no summer. It was devastating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Look the climate is always changing. You don't know the perfect temp of the Earth because it's always in flux over time.
And if you don't believe proximity to the sun affects temperature just wait until this winter.
As I previously stated, volcanic activity can have short-lived impacts on global temperatures. Volcanic activity is not the reason the global average temperature has increased 1.2C in the past century.
Seasonal changes aren't due to the Earth's center of mass getting closer or further from the sun. It's due to the Earth's tilt on its axis. When it's summer in the northern hemisphere, it is winter in the southern hemisphere that is because the northern hemisphere is tilted in the direction of the sun...not because the Earth overall is closer. Now the Earth does have a slight elliptical orbit but this doesn't play a significant role in Earth's seasons or long-term climate change.
Well, if you're blaming CO2, then don't look at the US.
We emit less CO2 now than we did it 1990.
Maybe go talk to China and India instead.
I have no influence over India or China. I, however, might be able to provide a different perspective for some fellow Ags. That's all I'm doing here.
techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:Over_ed said:
i am not well versed enough in climate "science" to converse at even a Masters' level, but will toss this out...
One of the scare tactics promoted by "climate warriors" is the idea that we will enter periods of famines. This seems not to be borne out so far, in fact the average number of calories available to the poorest have been increasing steadily over the past 20 years. In that period up < 200 calories per day. And the poorest nations are generally improving the most.
If there is a negative effect caused by climate it is either negligible, and/or counterbalanced by the benefits of increased energy availability.
ETA - Agreeing with eric76 here
From what I've read, much of the discussion around climate change carries a pre-emptive or early-warning tone rather than suggesting we're already feeling its FULL effects. I agree that famine would be an extreme consequence we're not yet experiencing. While there may be some short-term benefits in a warming climate, such as longer growing seasons in colder regions, the rapid rate of warming is concerning imo because it leaves less time for ecosystems and societies to adapt. Farming practices and technologies will likely evolve to cope with changing conditions, but some areas will become less suitable for agriculture even as others gain new opportunities.
The negative impacts of a warming climate are complex due to many confounding variables. People's perceptions of climate change also depend heavily on where they live and how they interact with the environment. I live in the Pacific Northwest and spend much of my time on forest service lands, where the effects are increasingly visible to me.
Snowpack is the lifeline of our region. Beyond providing amazing recreational opportunities, it provides a large portion of the water that sustains life here. Over the past 30-40 years (since reliable snow measurement), snowpack has declined significantly, likely due to a warming climate. This reduction has lowered river flows and reservoir levels, intensified water scarcity and leading to more frequent water curtailments that directly affect agricultural growers in my area. Glacier retreat, another well-documented sign of warming, has further reduced year-round water flow and eliminated a key cooling influence that once kept rivers at healthy temperatures year-around for salmon and trout. The river ecosystems then impact coastal marine life.
Wildfire activity has also increased dramatically over the past four decades. While factors like human encroachment and forest management practices contribute, higher temperatures and drier conditions have intensified fire behavior. The resulting smoke has become a recurring problem across the western US especially from August through September. Warmer summers have also brought new challenges for many Northwest communities, particularly in older homes and cities without widespread air conditioning. Heat stress has become a growing health risk for vulnerable populations and a financial burden for those now needing to install A/C systems.
Overall, while some impacts of climate change remain gradual, the evidence in the Pacific Northwest from my experience are being felt today.
Except that the climate is changing all the time. So you saw some changes in your lifetime. Good. The last ice age lasted 400 years.
agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:Over_ed said:
i am not well versed enough in climate "science" to converse at even a Masters' level, but will toss this out...
One of the scare tactics promoted by "climate warriors" is the idea that we will enter periods of famines. This seems not to be borne out so far, in fact the average number of calories available to the poorest have been increasing steadily over the past 20 years. In that period up < 200 calories per day. And the poorest nations are generally improving the most.
If there is a negative effect caused by climate it is either negligible, and/or counterbalanced by the benefits of increased energy availability.
ETA - Agreeing with eric76 here
From what I've read, much of the discussion around climate change carries a pre-emptive or early-warning tone rather than suggesting we're already feeling its FULL effects. I agree that famine would be an extreme consequence we're not yet experiencing. While there may be some short-term benefits in a warming climate, such as longer growing seasons in colder regions, the rapid rate of warming is concerning imo because it leaves less time for ecosystems and societies to adapt. Farming practices and technologies will likely evolve to cope with changing conditions, but some areas will become less suitable for agriculture even as others gain new opportunities.
The negative impacts of a warming climate are complex due to many confounding variables. People's perceptions of climate change also depend heavily on where they live and how they interact with the environment. I live in the Pacific Northwest and spend much of my time on forest service lands, where the effects are increasingly visible to me.
Snowpack is the lifeline of our region. Beyond providing amazing recreational opportunities, it provides a large portion of the water that sustains life here. Over the past 30-40 years (since reliable snow measurement), snowpack has declined significantly, likely due to a warming climate. This reduction has lowered river flows and reservoir levels, intensified water scarcity and leading to more frequent water curtailments that directly affect agricultural growers in my area. Glacier retreat, another well-documented sign of warming, has further reduced year-round water flow and eliminated a key cooling influence that once kept rivers at healthy temperatures year-around for salmon and trout. The river ecosystems then impact coastal marine life.
Wildfire activity has also increased dramatically over the past four decades. While factors like human encroachment and forest management practices contribute, higher temperatures and drier conditions have intensified fire behavior. The resulting smoke has become a recurring problem across the western US especially from August through September. Warmer summers have also brought new challenges for many Northwest communities, particularly in older homes and cities without widespread air conditioning. Heat stress has become a growing health risk for vulnerable populations and a financial burden for those now needing to install A/C systems.
Overall, while some impacts of climate change remain gradual, the evidence in the Pacific Northwest from my experience are being felt today.
Except that the climate is changing all the time. So you saw some changes in your lifetime. Good. The last ice age lasted 400 years.
The last glacial period occurred between roughly 120,000 and 11,500 years ago and we are currently in an interglacial period (NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service: Glacial-Interglacial Cycles ). The 400 year cooling period you mentioned was not technically an ice age but was a localized temperature drop of about 1C in the Northern Hemisphere caused by natural forces such as reduced solar activity and volcanic eruptions (The Effects of the Little Ice Age (c. 1300-1850) - Climate in Arts and History). The Little Ice Age was naturally caused and not global while the today's warming is human-caused and global. This is important to take into account when forming opinions on whether we should take action and how to take action.
Quote:
The Little Ice Age was naturally caused and not global while the today's warming is human-caused and global. This is important to take into account when forming opinions on whether we should take action and how to take action.
Quote:
The 400 year cooling period you mentioned was not technically an ice age but was a localized temperature drop of about 1C in the Northern Hemisphere caused by natural forces such as reduced solar activity and volcanic eruptions.
Ag with kids said:agclassof2012 said:Ag with kids said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:MemphisAg1 said:
Man-made climate change is a sham driven by the left to justify redistribution from makers to takers.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99.96% is other stuff, primarily nitrogen and oxygen.
Of the 0.04%, 95% of that is from natural causes like volcanoes, forest fires, decomposition, etc.
Only 5% of the 0.04% is from human activity.
It's a non-starter, yet Joe and Jane Q Public have bought the climate alarmism narrative hook, line, and sinker.
It's estimated that closer to 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. Pre-industrial CO2 for the last million years ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm. In the last century, CO2 increased from ~280 ppm to ~430 ppm. This increase is not due to natural CO2 sources.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2
So you're saying it went up from 0.038% of the atmosphere to 0.04%. Oh no.
My rebuttal to anyone who makes this argument is that percentage is not what matters...it's potency. I'm assuming you wouldn't want high levels of arsenic in your drinking water. Up to 0.00001% (100 ppb) can be toxic and that is why the EPA limit is 0.000001% (10 ppb). This is a very small percentage but potency is high. CO2 behaves the same way in the atmosphere even in trace amounts. It's extremely potent at trapping heat.
Such a tired argument. Proximity to the sun and particulate matter in the upper atmosphere from volcanic eruptions affect the surface temperature of the earth far more than 0.02 % more of the atmosphere consisting of CO2.
I'm not aware of changes in earth's proximity to the sun in the past century that would explain a 1.2C increase in average global temperature. Please enlighten me.
Volcanic particulates and aerosols released from the size/frequency of eruptions we have witnessed in the past century are short-lived (less than a decade) and do not drive long-term climate trends such as the temperature rise we are currently in. Massive, persistent eruptions would have long-term climate impacts.
The science behind CO2's greenhouse effect is well-established. The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0.028% to 0.043% is significant.
One year after Tambora there was no summer. It was devastating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Look the climate is always changing. You don't know the perfect temp of the Earth because it's always in flux over time.
And if you don't believe proximity to the sun affects temperature just wait until this winter.
As I previously stated, volcanic activity can have short-lived impacts on global temperatures. Volcanic activity is not the reason the global average temperature has increased 1.2C in the past century.
Seasonal changes aren't due to the Earth's center of mass getting closer or further from the sun. It's due to the Earth's tilt on its axis. When it's summer in the northern hemisphere, it is winter in the southern hemisphere that is because the northern hemisphere is tilted in the direction of the sun...not because the Earth overall is closer. Now the Earth does have a slight elliptical orbit but this doesn't play a significant role in Earth's seasons or long-term climate change.
Well, if you're blaming CO2, then don't look at the US.
We emit less CO2 now than we did it 1990.
Maybe go talk to China and India instead.
I have no influence over India or China. I, however, might be able to provide a different perspective for some fellow Ags. That's all I'm doing here.
Well, nothing the US does can change the fact that China and India are driving the increase in CO2.
I mean, the left could have been embracing nuclear power, but THAT was off the table...so, the left has never been serious about actually lowering CO2 output in the US. It's always been about money and hurting "Big Oil"...
And since it wasn't about lowering CO2, it was never really about any kind of "climate change"...
agclassof2012 said:techno-ag said:agclassof2012 said:Over_ed said:
i am not well versed enough in climate "science" to converse at even a Masters' level, but will toss this out...
One of the scare tactics promoted by "climate warriors" is the idea that we will enter periods of famines. This seems not to be borne out so far, in fact the average number of calories available to the poorest have been increasing steadily over the past 20 years. In that period up < 200 calories per day. And the poorest nations are generally improving the most.
If there is a negative effect caused by climate it is either negligible, and/or counterbalanced by the benefits of increased energy availability.
ETA - Agreeing with eric76 here
From what I've read, much of the discussion around climate change carries a pre-emptive or early-warning tone rather than suggesting we're already feeling its FULL effects. I agree that famine would be an extreme consequence we're not yet experiencing. While there may be some short-term benefits in a warming climate, such as longer growing seasons in colder regions, the rapid rate of warming is concerning imo because it leaves less time for ecosystems and societies to adapt. Farming practices and technologies will likely evolve to cope with changing conditions, but some areas will become less suitable for agriculture even as others gain new opportunities.
The negative impacts of a warming climate are complex due to many confounding variables. People's perceptions of climate change also depend heavily on where they live and how they interact with the environment. I live in the Pacific Northwest and spend much of my time on forest service lands, where the effects are increasingly visible to me.
Snowpack is the lifeline of our region. Beyond providing amazing recreational opportunities, it provides a large portion of the water that sustains life here. Over the past 30-40 years (since reliable snow measurement), snowpack has declined significantly, likely due to a warming climate. This reduction has lowered river flows and reservoir levels, intensified water scarcity and leading to more frequent water curtailments that directly affect agricultural growers in my area. Glacier retreat, another well-documented sign of warming, has further reduced year-round water flow and eliminated a key cooling influence that once kept rivers at healthy temperatures year-around for salmon and trout. The river ecosystems then impact coastal marine life.
Wildfire activity has also increased dramatically over the past four decades. While factors like human encroachment and forest management practices contribute, higher temperatures and drier conditions have intensified fire behavior. The resulting smoke has become a recurring problem across the western US especially from August through September. Warmer summers have also brought new challenges for many Northwest communities, particularly in older homes and cities without widespread air conditioning. Heat stress has become a growing health risk for vulnerable populations and a financial burden for those now needing to install A/C systems.
Overall, while some impacts of climate change remain gradual, the evidence in the Pacific Northwest from my experience are being felt today.
Except that the climate is changing all the time. So you saw some changes in your lifetime. Good. The last ice age lasted 400 years.
The last glacial period occurred between roughly 120,000 and 11,500 years ago and we are currently in an interglacial period (NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service: Glacial-Interglacial Cycles ). The 400 year cooling period you mentioned was not technically an ice age but was a localized temperature drop of about 1C in the Northern Hemisphere caused by natural forces such as reduced solar activity and volcanic eruptions (The Effects of the Little Ice Age (c. 1300-1850) - Climate in Arts and History). The Little Ice Age was naturally caused and not global while the today's warming is human-caused and global. This is important to take into account when forming opinions on whether we should take action and how to take action.
Quote:
The 400 year cooling period you mentioned was not technically an ice age but was a localized temperature drop of about 1C in the Northern Hemisphere caused by natural forces such as reduced solar activity and volcanic eruptions
According to the rules of the Greta Thunberg Era, Bill Gates is now an ignorant and dangerous climate denier.
— Keith Guinta (@Keith_Guinta) October 31, 2025
This is the man who has spent us into oblivion and needlessly terrified a generation. Now we are supposed to shrug our shoulders and agree that the rest of us were… pic.twitter.com/Kz1xE865pe
