EXXON Contradicts its Own Scientists

[_Res Ipsa]

Estimates of average temperature during the Jurassic have some pretty big error bars, but range from +2 to +8C over the period compare with a modern baseline. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologi ... ure_record I'm not sure where Tobin is getting 15C. Regardless, none of that biomass included humans or the foods we need to stay alive. I'd be curious to see any study that takes the position that we can grow food in thawed permafrost.

[_Res Ipsa]

Tobin's math is correct, but he misses the point. Increasing the average temperature will also boost the highs and lows. If you increase the summertime temperatures by that much, we aren't going to be able to grow the food we need to stay alive. We grow the food where we do for lots of good reasons. The conditions that create usable soil for farming don't exist in the (currently) frozen northland.

[_Tobin]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carbo ... imate.html

[_Res Ipsa]

Ah, the old graphs slapped together by a coal mining safety engineer. Here is more current data from the published literature. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... e-history/

[_Tobin]

by the way - I didn't make a claim about growing food on permafrost. But let's suppose human-beings don't do anything meaningful about the burning of fossil fuels, which I really think is likely since they are the least expensive energy source at this time. It will take centuries for us to reach the lowest Jurassic levels of CO2 provided there is even that much fossil fuel to burn. That is plenty of time for human-beings to relocate to more northerly locations. Also, large tracts of farmland in Canada and Russia that have a short growing season will be much longer and multiple crops may potentially be harvested. I really don't think there is any credible evidence that human-beings won't be able to adapt crops and fields to longer growing seasons in more northerly locations.

[_Tobin]

Ah, the old graphs slapped together by a coal mining safety engineer. Here is more current data from the published literature. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... e-history/

Great. So even a lower temperature than what he projected for the Jurassic period. Like I said, no big deal.

[_Res Ipsa]

by the way - I didn't make a claim about growing food on permafrost. But let's suppose human-beings don't do anything meaningful about the burning of fossil fuels, which I really think is likely since they are the least expensive energy source at this time. It will take centuries for us to reach the lowest Jurassic levels of CO2 provided there is even that much fossil fuel to burn. That is plenty of time for human-beings to relocate to more northerly locations. Also, large tracts of farmland in Canada and Russia that have a short growing season will be much longer and multiple crops may potentially be harvested. I really don't think there is any credible evidence that human-beings won't be able to adapt crops and fields to longer growing seasons in more northerly locations.

You are conflating two different issues: CO2 levels and temperature. We don't need Jurassic levels of CO2 to reach Jurassic temperatures. We will be at Jurassic temperatures before the end of the century if we do not reduce CO2 emissions. Describe to me how this relocation will work. How many climate refugees will Russia accept? How about Canada? How much will it cost to rebuild all the infrastructure that support food growing? All the new housing? Are there water sources comparable to the Mississipi and Colorado watersheds available for farming in Canada?

Have you looked for credible evidence on the effect of climate change on global food production? What evidence have you reviewed and on what basis do you reject it's credibility?

[_Res Ipsa]

Ah, the old graphs slapped together by a coal mining safety engineer. Here is more current data from the published literature. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... e-history/

Great. So even a lower temperature than what he projected for the Jurassic period. Like I said, no big deal.

No. A lower temperature for the Jurassic than you claimed undercuts your original argument.

[_Tobin]

You are conflating two different issues: CO2 levels and temperature. We don't need Jurassic levels of CO2 to reach Jurassic temperatures.

That will be news to the religious global warming nuts. How will human-beings cause the Earth to warm so substantially to Jurassic level temperatures without reaching Jurassic levels of CO2 exactly? Osmosis? Human body heat? If CO2 doesn't drive global temperatures (which I agree with), then it doesn't matter if we cut CO2 emissions or not. I think that is just an unwarranted and completely baseless claim. Temperatures may continue to gradually increase over the next century, but it will take at least 3 centuries to reach Jurassic level temperatures of 8 degrees C change. And we may not even have enough fossil fuels for that long, so it isn't even likely to be a concern.

We will be at Jurassic temperatures before the end of the century if we do not reduce CO2 emissions.

No we won't. You just destroyed that assertion with your prior statement.

Describe to me how this relocation will work. How many climate refugees will Russia accept? How about Canada? How much will it cost to rebuild all the infrastructure that support food growing? All the new housing? Are there water sources comparable to the Mississipi and Colorado watersheds available for farming in Canada?

Most of the cities and farmland developed in the United States did not exist 3 centuries ago (and that is true for much of the world infrastructure as well). Given that amount of time, we'll be just fine. Even over a century there has been quite a bit of development. Human beings can accomplish quite a bit in 4 or 5 generations.

Have you looked for credible evidence on the effect of climate change on global food production? What evidence have you reviewed and on what basis do you reject it's credibility?

Unless you have some evidence that humans won't be able to adapt crops and farmland in more northerly locations to longer growing seasons and multiple crop yields, I really don't think food production will be substantially impacted. You are merely shifting the more productive cropland further north.

[_Tobin]

No. A lower temperature for the Jurassic than you claimed undercuts your original argument.

It does?