Remember when the Liberal carbon tax was a conservative idea?

[sumdumguy]

[QUOTE=dmlfarmer;407216]

You demand answers from Chuck yet refuse to answer the question I have posed to you a number of times about why are current CO2 levels at 100ppm higher than in the last 800,000 years though all climatic changes from ice ages to hotter climates, and what the impact of this levels of CO2 will have on climate.


800,000 years - You may as well compare it to CO2 levels on Jupiter 800,000 years ago. That statistic would be as valid. Maybe you should make it your life goal to get vaulted into space so you could verify that stat.

[Guest]

Common sense .. lol

Common sense is not that common anymore as illustrated on here !

[mustardman]

Jazz There are places in Antarctica where ice cores can now be taken Back as far as 1.5 Million years
Almost twice as far as previous.
Sorry to burst your little bubble

[Robertbarlage]

Previous of what

[furrowtickler]

What Liberals are saying about Liberals....
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-liberal-party-has-morphed-into-a-cult

[AlbertaFarmer5]

if true....hmmmm

[ATTACH]4101[/ATTACH]

Noteworthy, they are using a baseline of 1996 to 2005. We are now 23 years after 1996, and yields still keep increasing worldwide. Only 31 years to go to 2050 for them to be redeemed with falling yields. Those are going to have to be some precipitous drops considering how much higher we are already.

Funny that neither Chuck, nor dml made any comment on the fact that all of Canada is expected to benefit according to this map. No comment last time I pointed that out either, and it comes from their favourite, most reputable source too.

[chuckChuck]

As a farmer, I readily acknowledge the vast benefits we are seeing everyday due to the increases in atmospheric CO2. Countless studies showing the increased yields, water use efficiencies, stress tolerance etc. of plants when CO2 is increased. And the data is unequivocal, the climate, at least locally has been improving by all measures since the beginning of record keeping. See Murray Hartman's presenation on this issue as one very good example. We can endlessly debate the causes, and how much is natural vs. how much is anthropogenic, but that won't negate the benefits. What we do know is that while CO2 levels have gone parabolic, temperatures increases have remained linear at most, and the rate of increase decreasing to virtually none in the past 2 decades. Indicating that the relationship between CO2 and temperature follows the law of diminishing returns, and in fact appears to follow a logarithmic relationship, so unfortunately, pumping any more CO2 into the atmosphere at these levels, is going to have diminishing positive impacts on our temperature, unlike the first 2 to 300 ppm which had huge benefits.

Northern latitudes may see benefits but to assume that climate change will result in increased yields globally is naive. If the the great plains region of north america sees higher temperatures and a change in precipitation patterns or reduced precipitation (drought), the result could be reduced yields because moisture is the biggest limiting factor in much of the great plains. That may not be the case in your region but the world is a bigger place than just your region.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Northern latitudes may see benefits but to assume that climate change will result in increased yields globally is naive. If the the great plains region of north america sees higher temperatures and a change in precipitation patterns or reduced precipitation (drought), the result could be reduced yields because moisture is the biggest limiting factor in much of the great plains. That may not be the case in your region but the world is a bigger place than just your region.

Please refer to my post above yours and the map attached. Your own UN claims that Canada will see yield benefits. Of course, we are nearly half way through the period of their prediction, and so far, they are completely wrong about the rest of the worlds yields going down, so they are probably wrong about Canada too.

[chuckChuck]

Chuck, you are stuck in the future. I read through the 4 links. The last one doesn't say a thing about present costs of global warming. And you conveniently chose a paper from 2015, the last year before BC emissions started rising again, as they have every since. Here is another quote from 2018 showing how ineffective their tax has been. More critically, the emission level is only two per cent less than in 2007, putting the province a long way from its original legislated target of reducing emissions 33 per cent by 2020 over 2007

The first two articles are entirely in the future tense. The 3rd does make some baseless claims about insurance costs in the present day by comparing the 2010's to the 1980's, without adjusting for inflation or population growth, apparently they needed to skip over the 1990's and 2000's for obvious reasons. Then makes a bunch of more baseless claims about unprecedented weather events, which are obviously precedented, even in Canada's own very short recorded history.

Please reread the rules. Please post some current actual costs of global warming. After all, we are more than 30 years into the Catastrophic phase of CAGW according James Hansen, and about 160 years into AGW according to many sources. Time to quit living in the future, and come back to the present. And, as you keep reminding us dumb farmers, weather is not climate. Please stop giving global warming credit for every flood, as the one article attempts, there is no scientific evidence to support that, nor any claims that they are unprecedented, the only thing unprecedented is the level of human infrastructure in the way of the inevitable floods.

One example of current costs. One coastal city in one state and there are many more coastal cities.

Miami Beach to begin new $100 million flood prevention project in face of sea level rise | Miami Herald

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article129284119.html

Miami is racing against time to keep up with sea-level rise

https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4

[fjlip]

One example of current costs. One coastal city in one state and there are many more coastal cities.

Miami Beach to begin new $100 million flood prevention project in face of sea level rise | Miami Herald

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article129284119.html

Miami is racing against time to keep up with sea-level rise

https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4

All GUESSES, nothing can be proved.