Bieszczady Poland yesterday

Indeed, climate change is only one factor, which actually makes this much more difficult to fight.  We basically have to rethink and redo so many things that we took for granted, we'd have to change our society on a fundamental level to make it stop and I'm not sure we are capable of doing that.

Nuclear would definitely be far cleaner and more environmentally friendly than any of the other solutions we have discussed, but again, that also requires changing the way society thinks about nuclear.

Although the rate of extinction right now is comparable to the rate of extinction seen in the fossil record, this is a deeply flawed comparison.  The fossil record preferentially contains organisms that were geographically widespread and therefore had the best chances of being preserved.  But most species we see going extinct today are small, niche populations, which we would not expect to be preserved in the fossil record and easily found by geologists millions of years later.

Exactly. For example, research papers will state that in the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction 75% of all KNOWN species were wiped out (and not all at once). I.e those cataloged by paleobiologists. Extinction is so messy and can come in so many forms that predicting how it will directly or indirectly affect complex ecosystems by criteria of it's character is often VERY hard. 

The more interesting question is, how do that and other benefits compare with the downsides.

There are several areas of study to turn attention to. For example, many proposed designs for vertical farms or otherwise massive greenhouse installations would rely on a CO₂ rich atmosphere. These are largely exempt from having analogs with natural ecosystems and biochemical processes in the wild because each system is carefully regulated - like temperature, light wavelength (red light is best and hence a feature in all hydroponics), soil quality and humidity levels - all of which play important roles in endothermic reactions like photosynthesis.  Here are some relevant links I can provide:

http://verticalfarm.altervista.org/positive-effects-co2-carbon-dioxide-enrichment/?doing_wp_cron=1548059887.7456030845642089843750

Effect of elevated carbon dioxide and water stress on gas exchange and water use
efficiency in corn

Crop quality under rising atmospheric CO₂(third paper from bottom)

A website called CO₂ Science may also answer your questions. 

That being said, "may experience" is accurate, since certain plants react badly to beyond standard levels of CO₂ like non-vascular plants. Beyond 0.05% atm of CO₂ in the atmosphere and all plants suffer because their photosynthesis cannot keep up with the gas loadout and their reaction sugars break down - an accordant releveling of other photosynthesis-reliant factors like humidity and light wave length will balance this. Also, poor water quality from acidification or complete water shortages from drought will negatively impact flora growth in the wild or in greenhouses due to other factors. As I said, increased CO₂ would only be beneficial in the short term or in very controlled environments like in greenhouses. Other factors in the environment like other greenhouse gasses and climate-change catalysts or resultant complications make it very hard to predict effects beyond basic CO₂ impact.

these results would be almost unpublishable in the current "climate".  It makes it extra hard to know for sure.

Yes midtskogen. "Carbon dioxide". "Man-made emissions". These have undoubtedly become sexy terms for the geopolitical condition, but that does not diffuse their impact on the environment. That being said, if anyone studies climatology, then it becomes noticeable when CO₂conditional effects become a 'catch-all' term for climate-change. As you pointed out succinctly to A-L-E-X, the uncomfortable truths about supposed 'solutions' like solar-panels, windfarms and consumer technology like electronic cars often do more harm then good and are fine examples of false feedback fallacy solutions. When a solution to a complex problem like climate-change is proffered via logic that depends on pettier premises (cheapness and economical concerns), then by civil requirement these solutions validate the action which the technology supposedly condemns. One step forward, two steps back. The right direction, the wrong speed. For instance, electronic cars can be as industrially polluting or more so then those 'dirtier' ones which run on petrol products.  Yes in the long term e-cars will cut down on disastrous oil extraction and usage, but the facilities that mine the component materials, refine them and make a vehicle out of them are in their own way as worse as CO₂ fumes spitting out of a muffler. It can be hard to find honest research in regard to this, as typically lauded solutions to climate change are biased by popular opinion.  

Methane emissions by 'organic meat farming', the Madagascan rainforest being cut down to plant crops of biofuel - there is a very murky underbelly to the 'save the planet' ideology. All solutionary ideas are variations to a theme: we will continue to do as we have done for decades, but pay lip-service to public concerns and ape at the science behind research-driven climate-change imperatives proposed as incentive for change. There is no field of concern wherein the chasm between political cause and scientific directive is broader then that of climate-change.

Stellator,

For reference A-L-E-X, my user name is Stellarator. This nit-pick isn't really for any prideful or personal reasons, but just to bring relevance back to the word's meaning. It isn't a made-up word .

One thing to be cautious with when reviewing studies of the effects of CO2 and warming on crops is how they isolate (or not) the effects.  Controlled greenhouse studies show the fertilization effect of increasing CO2 concentration, but this is not uniform across all types of crops.  Adding in the effect of evapotranspiration significantly changes the results, and in a highly latitude-dependent way.  The combination of CO2 fertilization and changing climate increases productivity at high latitudes, but decreases it at low and mid latitudes.

I fear that the attempts to "fix to problem" do more harm than good, certainly if money spent counts as harm.  I favour the position that we should NOT attempt to fix it, not directly.  Instead, we should focus on getting cheap, clean, abundant energy for everyone on Earth.  And fossil fuel will become obsolete, only used for niches.  Cheap energy is a universal tool for accomplishing so much good.

The combination of CO2 fertilization and changing climate increases productivity at high latitudes, but decreases it at low and mid latitudes.

Intuitively, warming should increase yields at high latitude, but likely decrease it at low latitudes. Incidentally, global warming raises the temperature more at high latitudes than at low latitudes. It would be interesting to know the best trade-off of warming and the optimal CO2 level.  I don't think it was the pre-industrial situation.  I don't think it is the year 2100 projections either.

It would be interesting to know the best trade-off of warming and the optimal CO2 level

I would suggest you read this: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/. Stated bluntly, there is no optimal level for all plants - each species or genera has their own preferences. The article explains it better then I could without getting into the dizzying array of tricky biochemical details like I would. My wordiness has become a curse for science communication. The rest of the website's information on climate change I found to be enlightening. I have the feeling you are very knowledgeable in this topic, but even I found some interesting tidbits in the links and it can be something of a resource for climate-change study.

 I don't think it is the year 2100 projections either.

No matter how it turns out - one thing you can count on is that it'll never be like in the movies .

Stated bluntly, there is no optimal level for all plants - each species or genera has their own preferences.

I'm fully aware that there are trade-offs and that different considerations have to be balanced.  I didn't mean to contrast "trade-off" and "optimal".
This is also why these matters are so difficult to discuss.  For any example of something good or bad, somebody can come up with an example of the opposite.

This is also why these matters are so difficult to discuss.  For any example of something good or bad, somebody can come up with an example of the opposite.

Agreed.

Although the rate of extinction right now is comparable to the rate of extinction seen in the fossil record, this is a deeply flawed comparison.  The fossil record preferentially contains organisms that were geographically widespread and therefore had the best chances of being preserved.  But most species we see going extinct today are small, niche populations, which we would not expect to be preserved in the fossil record and easily found by geologists millions of years later.

Exactly. For example, research papers will state that in the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction 75% of all KNOWN species were wiped out (and not all at once). I.e those cataloged by paleobiologists. Extinction is so messy and can come in so many forms that predicting how it will directly or indirectly affect complex ecosystems by criteria of it's character is often VERY hard. 

The more interesting question is, how do that and other benefits compare with the downsides.

There are several areas of study to turn attention to. For example, many proposed designs for vertical farms or otherwise massive greenhouse installations would rely on a CO₂ rich atmosphere. These are largely exempt from having analogs with natural ecosystems and biochemical processes in the wild because each system is carefully regulated - like temperature, light wavelength (red light is best and hence a feature in all hydroponics), soil quality and humidity levels - all of which play important roles in endothermic reactions like photosynthesis.  Here are some relevant links I can provide:

http://verticalfarm.altervista.org/positive-effects-co2-carbon-dioxide-enrichment/?doing_wp_cron=1548059887.7456030845642089843750

Effect of elevated carbon dioxide and water stress on gas exchange and water use
efficiency in corn

Crop quality under rising atmospheric CO₂(third paper from bottom)

A website called CO₂ Science may also answer your questions. 

That being said, "may experience" is accurate, since certain plants react badly to beyond standard levels of CO₂ like non-vascular plants. Beyond 0.05% atm of CO₂ in the atmosphere and all plants suffer because their photosynthesis cannot keep up with the gas loadout and their reaction sugars break down - an accordant releveling of other photosynthesis-reliant factors like humidity and light wave length will balance this. Also, poor water quality from acidification or complete water shortages from drought will negatively impact flora growth in the wild or in greenhouses due to other factors. As I said, increased CO₂ would only be beneficial in the short term or in very controlled environments like in greenhouses. Other factors in the environment like other greenhouse gasses and climate-change catalysts or resultant complications make it very hard to predict effects beyond basic CO₂ impact.

these results would be almost unpublishable in the current "climate".  It makes it extra hard to know for sure.

Yes midtskogen. "Carbon dioxide". "Man-made emissions". These have undoubtedly become sexy terms for the geopolitical condition, but that does not diffuse their impact on the environment. That being said, if anyone studies climatology, then it becomes noticeable when CO₂conditional effects become a 'catch-all' term for climate-change. As you pointed out succinctly to A-L-E-X, the uncomfortable truths about supposed 'solutions' like solar-panels, windfarms and consumer technology like electronic cars often do more harm then good and are fine examples of false feedback fallacy solutions. When a solution to a complex problem like climate-change is proffered via logic that depends on pettier premises (cheapness and economical concerns), then by civil requirement these solutions validate the action which the technology supposedly condemns. One step forward, two steps back. The right direction, the wrong speed. For instance, electronic cars can be as industrially polluting or more so then those 'dirtier' ones which run on petrol products.  Yes in the long term e-cars will cut down on disastrous oil extraction and usage, but the facilities that mine the component materials, refine them and make a vehicle out of them are in their own way as worse as CO₂ fumes spitting out of a muffler. It can be hard to find honest research in regard to this, as typically lauded solutions to climate change are biased by popular opinion.  

Methane emissions by 'organic meat farming', the Madagascan rainforest being cut down to plant crops of biofuel - there is a very murky underbelly to the 'save the planet' ideology. All solutionary ideas are variations to a theme: we will continue to do as we have done for decades, but pay lip-service to public concerns and ape at the science behind research-driven climate-change imperatives proposed as incentive for change. There is no field of concern wherein the chasm between political cause and scientific directive is broader then that of climate-change.

I think the human-induced extinction will actually be worse, because like climate change, it's occurring on much shorter timescales than "natural" extinctions.  Putting things out of balance never has a good result.  Either way, humanity has to stop and reverse the trends that it started with how it uses and abuses the environment.  And sorry about your username, that was a typo on my part haha.

Meat agriculture of any kind is bad, organic or not.  Organic plant agriculture is actually good, because organic soil retains nutrients much better and damages the soil less with nasty wartime chemicals.  I have to completely disagree on electric cars being less polluting than petrol cars though, the nasty pollution of petrol cars is in full display here in NYC with high rates of asthma thanks to the dirty stuff coming from truck exhaust.  The article you linked to states that: Researchers used 11 2014 EV models and their closest gas-powered equivalents. City Lab laid out the findings: “For the gas car, the worst damage … tends to occur in highly populated urban areas."  "Oil, as we know, is a finite resource, the acquisition of which is becoming increasingly fraught (both at home and abroad). City Lab argues that while electric vehicles might not be zero-impact, they are at least moving in the right direction, and if the power grids charging them become greener, so will the vehicles themselves."  http://www.technologyreview.com/view/51 ... ered-ones/  As a counterpoint, take a study detailed by the MIT Technology Review: looking at the “cradle to the grave” life cycle of both EVs and gas powered vehicles, they say, “The study found that while the environmental impact of making electric vehicles is greater than for making gas and diesel vehicles, this is more than made up for by the greater impact of gas and diesel vehicles while they’re being used. This is true in terms of total energy consumption, use of resources, greenhouse gases, and ozone pollution. The electric vehicles were assumed to be charged from a grid that includes significant amounts of fossil fuels.”.   The point is not that gas cars are good and EVs are bad; if anything, it’s a reminder that there’s a high social cost of driving everywhere—especially in cities.

But the work does suggest a better way to adjust for this environmental cost of driving, says Holland: charging a per-mile pollution fee based on both vehicle type and geography. In South Dakota, gas cars would pay much lower fees than electrics. In Los Angeles, gas cars would pay much more. In New York, all cars would pay a high per-mile environmental fee, and in a place like rural Nevada it would be minimal. (Holland also endorses the idea of taxing dirty electricity grids directly.)

“Economists have long favored fees to cover the damages from pollution,” he says. “It would provide incentives to individuals to try to minimize the damages from their activities.”

Our mayor is talking about banning trucks within the city.  The type of electric cars I envision would be solar powered, they would receive their energy from the sun not from fossil fuels.  We already have some of that with solar powered skyscrapers (the Empire State Building is going all solar) and cars can be charged from there.  Solar powered homes can also charge their cars directly and one day I believe cars can be run on solar power directly just like homes can.   I think all vehicle transport in the city should be banned unless more than one occupant is present and trucks should definitely be completely banned.  This new health initiative goes right along with the new universal health care policy we have in NY and removing cigarettes from newspaper stands and raising the minimum age of smoking to 21 the same as drinking and banning fast food and soft drinks from schools and the ban on fracking because of their methane release and being prone to earthquakes.  And I like the idea of solar panels, so that I can be independent from the energy grid- last night just before the eclipse we had a massive power outage all across the neighborhood.  It made for very dramatic eclipse viewing but temps near 0 with 50 mph winds was not very nice lol.  And it was very interesting you mentioned vertical farming and hydroponics I was reading about how that kind of farming is so advanced in The Netherlands and makes their output higher than the US even though the US is much larger, the Dutch have a much more advanced way of farming that does not harm the environment or use harmful chemicals.

Also read this about a fascinating history of land usage, and why at least currently land usage > climate change.

https://www.citylab.com/environment/201 ... ap/579724/





The links below concern plastic in the environment and a possible solution (which also dovetails with what Mid says about better sources of energy being available.)  Plastics are now being found in the human blood stream which goes to my original point of whatever humanity does to the environment it does to itself.



watch these, they were all on 60 Minutes
https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/QKTCbZ0QleYPPUtrB8KHv_6ijXYeUMND/cleaning-up-the-plastic-in-the-ocean/

 
https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/QKTCbZ0QleYPPUtrB8KHv_6ijXYeUMND/cleaning-up-the-plastic-in-the-ocean/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/piling-up-drowning-in-a-sea-of-plastic/
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/an-ocean-of-plastic/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-great-pacific-garbage-patch-cleaning-up-the-plastic-in-the-ocean-60-minutes/
 
and for the solution
 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marshall-medoff-the-unlikely-eccentric-inventor-turning-inedible-plant-life-into-fuel-60-minutes/
 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-great-pacific-garbage-patch-cleaning-up-the-plastic-in-the-ocean-60-minutes/
 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/piling-up-drowning-in-a-sea-of-plastic/
 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-great-pacific-garbage-patch-isnt-what-you-think-60-minutes/
 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-americas-recycling-industry-is-in-the-dumps/
 
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/drowning-in-plastic-waste/
 
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/taking-aim-at-opioids-plastic-plague/
 
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/the-great-pacific-garbage-patch-cleaning-up-the-plastic-in-the-ocean-60-minutes/

Putting things out of balance never has a good result.

For whom?  What drives evolution?

Putting things out of balance never has a good result.

For whom?  What drives evolution?

Natural selection.  But by putting things out of balance I mean doing something like upsetting the food chain by overhunting and driving species closer to extinction, for example we have a HUGE problem here with too many deer.  It is because all the bears and wolves and cougars have been killed off here and the deer are over-reproducing and venturing onto private property and destroying it.

I would rather let nature manage itself than humans having to do it.

Which goes on as long as there is change.  My point was, some change is the norm and no change would be unprecedented and may be bad.  At the top of the food change, however, change may be bad.

Natural selection.

Natural selection isn't a 'thing' and so cannot be a force that 'drives' evolution. They are words which we use to describe the process of evolution. We don't know what is 'behind' evolution, and probably never will. Artificial/natural evolution is an arbitrary argument in this context.