Worst case we have to resort to some clean pollution to lower temps if the the bodies politic will allow a return to “cold” climates.(Those damn democracies can be so hard to manipulate long term.) AGWers are throwing the economic baby out because of some dirty diapers.
Short term problem = reallocating ag production to ‘new’ climates. Degrees days increases and moisture increases would allow more production as the CO2 ppms increases have and will. Medium term problems, cure various technology phobias such as anti-nuke, extraction industries, and unchurching ’science’. And what to spend all the extra taxes on that the fast growing GNP will produce.
While it would be unethical to isolate the irrational, it is just as immoral to allow a psuedo-sceince practitioners to control the fate of our Western culture.

That-a-way, Peter! Really long range thinking.

Unfortunately, in the nonce, a good change that we leave agriculture behind as we head off on our climate adventure.

Your graph raises the question about the magical math that went negative during the Pinatubo event but not during a very similar event in the past decade.
I’ve got the the whole real world for evidence Dano. I am not trying to prevent several trillions of dollars of economic growth and destroy a vital part of our energy system on an unproven theory.
Neither AGW or cooling is part of any of my beliefs.
In my youth I ‘believed’ in pop science, but the AG cooling mania in the seventies taught that me herds are often wrong.

Without a runaway temperature change, the Co2 forcing are a very minor short and medium term problem, and with most possible future scenarios, self correcting as we abandon carbon based tech for its then cheaper replacements.
Transference of various personal and AGW movement flaws to persons/groups that disagree with all or part of the AGWers “solution” set.

Some twit with an inflated opinion of themselves is in no danger of effecting my identity. My self isn’t based on the latest Eco-fad.

That thought your belief system requires new members to refute parts of their identities shows belief in Agw requires leaps of faith. It is monotheistic faith with a very jealous god.

This should be instructive, as a good fraction of the populace reacts in one way or another – similiar to this, many more polite – to this identity conflict. Some go into denial, some write letters to the editor, some refuse to change, some construct elaborate behaviors…many adopt one or more of these.

We can bang our heads and try and change their minds despite the fact that changing their minds means refuting their identity, or we can forget about changing their minds and do what we’re doing anyway.

Best,

D

* around which he’s chosen his identity. You’d be mad too if people were trying to take away your identity.

http://www.realclimate.org/ index.php/ archives/ 2008/ 01/ uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/

Dano, belittling me doesn’t make you any more informed, or perfect your faulty belief system. Just another frustrated monkey flinging intellectual poop around the internet Zoo. Occasionally you hit your target, but you always have filthy hands.

Best,

D

Th issue of how CO2 affects crop production is very complex. C3 plants benefit, but C4 do not, and there are many other factors such as the balance of water, nutrients available. This is one of many papers:

http://query.nytimes.com/ gst/ fullpage.html?res=9C0CE4DE1E39F93BA2575AC0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

“…since crops do not benefit from higher carbon dioxide levels unless more fertilizer is applied and more pesticides are used to kill insects and, in the case of C4 crops, competitive C3 weeds. “