Impact of solar panels on global climate

[Stargate525]

[quote name='Chakat Firepaw']It's a good thing we're only at 1.4 times pre-industrial levels of CO2. If we were at double, we would have about three degrees of warming locked in and that's about where we would get a oceanic CO2 release feedback loop and another event like the PETM.
[/QUOTE]
You mean the one that made mammals like us the dominant top-tier form of life on the planet? That one? Isn't that sort of like saying 'if you're not careful, Santa Claus will come?'

[ZetaX]

[quote name='Stargate525']You mean the one that made mammals like us the dominant top-tier form of life on the planet? That one? Isn't that sort of like saying 'if you're not careful, Santa Claus will come?'[/QUOTE]

No, it's like saying 'if you're not careful, Santa Claus will come and make sure that reindeer are the new dominant species, while eradicating your own'. Or more likely some reptilians, due to the heat.

[Chakat Firepaw]

[quote name='Stargate525']You mean the one that made mammals like us the dominant top-tier form of life on the planet? That one? Isn't that sort of like saying 'if you're not careful, Santa Claus will come?'[/QUOTE]

One that would wipe out basically every food crop humans rely on while rendering large swaths of the planet uninhabitable by humans. Remember that a wet bulb temperature of 37 degrees means you _will_ get heat stroke without the application of external cooling.

Although comparing what we're doing to the PETM does have one big problem: In the PETM, 'rapid warming' meant a sustained 0.025 degrees per century, we're doing at least 30 times that.

[Stargate525]

[quote name='Chakat Firepaw']One that would wipe out basically every food crop humans rely on while rendering large swaths of the planet uninhabitable by humans.[/QUOTE]

*sighs*

[url]http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108[/url]

Some excerpts, in case Nature isn't climatologically pure:

"Across a range of FACE experiments, with a variety of plant species, growth of plants at elevated CO2 concentrations of 475–600 ppm increases leaf photosynthetic rates by an average of 40%"

"This increased growth is also reflected in the harvestable yield of crops, with wheat, rice and soybean all showing increases in yield of 12–14% under elevated CO2 in FACE experiments"

"Under elevated CO2 most plant species show higher rates of photosynthesis, increased growth, decreased water use and lowered tissue concentrations of nitrogen and protein."

[Bill Phil]

[quote name='Stargate525']*sighs*

[URL]http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108[/URL]

Some excerpts, in case Nature isn't climatologically pure:

"Across a range of FACE experiments, with a variety of plant species, growth of plants at elevated CO2 concentrations of 475–600 ppm increases leaf photosynthetic rates by an average of 40%"

"This increased growth is also reflected in the harvestable yield of crops, with wheat, rice and soybean all showing increases in yield of 12–14% under elevated CO2 in FACE experiments"

"Under elevated CO2 most plant species show higher rates of photosynthesis, increased growth, decreased water use and lowered tissue concentrations of nitrogen and protein."[/QUOTE]

What exactly is your stance on climate change, Stargate?

[Stargate525]

[quote name='Bill Phil']What exactly is your stance on climate change, Stargate?[/QUOTE]
Does it matter? Am I not allowed to call out idiocy on both sides as I see it?

[Bill Phil]

[quote name='Stargate525']Does it matter? Am I not allowed to call out idiocy on both sides as I see it?[/QUOTE]

It does matter, since I have no idea what you're point is, let alone the point(s) you've been trying to make throughout this thread.

[Stargate525]

[quote name='Bill Phil']It does matter, since I have no idea what you're point is, let alone the point(s) you've been trying to make throughout this thread.[/QUOTE]
Fine:

1. I believe the climate's changing.

2. I have yet to see sufficient evidence to prove it's driven primarily by us.

3. I have yet to see sufficient evidence to prove it's going into any sort of runaway disaster.

4. I have yet to see sufficient evidence as to why a decade long spike in temperature is automatically horrifying, as we have no way of knowing if these are unusual in the millions of years we've had a climate of note.

5. I have yet to see sufficient evidence to prove a warming of the planet is harmful, long term, at all.

6. I have yet to see a compelling cost-benefit argument as to why the measured amount of climate change is worth the potential of trashing the global economy.

7. I have yet to meet anyone willing to answer my questions, or refute my sources, with anything except snobbery, derision, and name-calling.

8. Even if I were presented clear evidence to points 2-6, I would want nothing to do with the anti-debate, anti-educational, dogmatic, pseudo-religious [I]anger [/I]that I see evidenced in climate change alarmists and environmentalists on the whole.

Seriously. For such a settled debate, with such overwhelming evidence, the fact that the side supporting human-caused runaway climatological disaster has NEVER, to my knowledge, opted to take the field against any of these detractions strikes me as somewhat telling in itself.

[Bill Phil]

[quote name='Stargate525']Fine:

1. I believe the climate's changing.

2. I have yet to see sufficient evidence to prove it's driven primarily by us.

3. I have yet to see sufficient evidence to prove it's going into any sort of runaway disaster.

4. I have yet to see sufficient evidence as to why a decade long spike in temperature is automatically horrifying, as we have no way of knowing if these are unusual in the millions of years we've had a climate of note.

5. I have yet to see sufficient evidence to prove a warming of the planet is harmful, long term, at all.

6. I have yet to see a compelling cost-benefit argument as to why the measured amount of climate change is worth the potential of trashing the global economy.

7. I have yet to meet anyone willing to answer my questions, or refute my sources, with anything except snobbery, derision, and name-calling.

8. Even if I were presented clear evidence to points 2-6, I would want nothing to do with the anti-debate, anti-educational, dogmatic, pseudo-religious [I]anger [/I]that I see evidenced in climate change alarmists and environmentalists on the whole.

Seriously. For such a settled debate, with such overwhelming evidence, the fact that the side supporting human-caused runaway climatological disaster has NEVER, to my knowledge, opted to take the field against any of these detractions strikes me as somewhat telling in itself.[/QUOTE]

1. The climate is changing, I agree.

2. Same here, but I think it is likely, as in, ~51%. Perhaps it's many causes, with us only adding to the fire, or maybe pouring propane on it... Idk.

3. That can't be proven anyways, only speculation, really. It might cause a runaway reaction. But it might not. However, climate change is going to be very harmful to certain environments.

4. I haven't heard about that spike... Unless you mean that recently there have been very hot temperatures in summer. This is going to be gradual change, not immediate.

5. It is. Look at the oceans. How sensitive are those environments? Usually they are very sensitive. Warmer water usually has less oxygen content, meaning that ocean life will suffer.

6. It's not economically worth it. It isn't. Unless we get some unobtainium.

7. I've tried to be reasonable, but often your sources are a bit difficult to understand. I'm just not very good with formal writing...

8. Yeah, it's ridiculous. Some people are way too intense, on both sides.

It's not settled in the public. It's a hot topic, view-bait for news networks and other things.

They have tried, but they have to go down to the level of news networks to even be considered by the public. Some are stubborn, but they're mostly scientists. And the evidence they've seen, which is probably better than the evidence we've seen, apparently points to us being the main culprit.

[Stargate525]

As far as number 2, I'm not above thinking that we're doing SOMETHING (I'm anti-pollution, anti-particulates, and I hate smog too), but the stuff I regularly exhale, the stuff that's a primary operative for respiration of nearly all life... No.

For number 4, I'm referring to the traditional 'climate relatively stable and then BAM goes up around 1950' graph. Though that's becoming less common, and I'm seeing more graphs like these: [url]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/GlobalTemperaturesSince1991.png/800px-GlobalTemperaturesSince1991.png[/url] which seem to show that temperature and CO2 have suddenly decided to not climb together any more.

5. Agreed on the oceans. To an extent. I'm more willing to attribute that to overfishing, more traditional pollutants, and a stupendous lack of knowledge of the oceanic ecosystem than I am to a few degrees either way.

7, it hasn't been you. I've learned not to look at names in these kinds of debates, as I'm much more likely to start taking things personally. Basically, I've been trying to stay out of the main argument and poke holes into the arguments of others.

And I don't expect these kinds of debates from mainstream media. But a number of the climate-skeptical websites and scientists I follow are quite reasonable (and the ones who aren't I don't credit), and their science seems sound. I'm not a scientist either, but instead of getting 'here's a summary someone intelligent with a college degree can understand,' all I seem to get is 'you're a monster for DARING to disagree! Everyone ELSE agrees with me, and they're VERY smart, why aren't you agreeing?' As soon as someone quotes the 97% statistic, I shut down. That's bandwagoning at its purest, and I refuse to shove my concerns aside simply because not everyone shares them. And my own sense of logic and understanding of the world keeps boiling down to 'how hard can it possibly be to prove in a relatively simple way the planet's getting warmer because of X?' That climate scientists won't, or can't, actually answer that simply leads me to believe that it's possible that's because it's not true.

[Dieselpower]

[quote name='Stargate525']I have provided a source. You have provided no evidence beyond your word as to why said source should be invalidated and have, by your own admission, not even READ it.

...Shall I mail it to you in book form so you can burn it as well, ecclesiarch?[/QUOTE]

This is ridiculous!
First of all, do you know who these guys are? They are obviously not scientists, but disguised lobbyists for the oil industry.

[url]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/02/nigel-lawson-climate-sceptic-organisation-funders[/url]

Secondly, you do not reply to any of the responses we post that refute your criticism.
Instead you move on and come up with yet another 'doubt'.

The only thing you do here in this thread is posting some links, trying to cast uncertainty on climate change and pretend you are the victim when I doubt your sources.

How much longer do we need to continue until you admit that you are wrong?
Or is there no such point and you are here just to sabotage every thread that deals with climate change?
Are you driven by to fear to having to accept your own responsibility in the matter, or do you have ulterior motives?

Please think about what you are doing, and for which reason.
If you can't change your ways, and you do not want to believe in climate change, fine, it is up to you.
But don't try to convince or manipulate us by casting doubt.
As I said in the other thread:

if you look on peer reviewed scholarly articles on climate only 24 out of 13 950 articles reject human induced global warming.
That's 00.17 %

99.83 % of the scientific articles versus your opinion.


@ Stargate

If you would have any understanding on how the scientific progress works, you would not have a doubt on the strength of the consensus that global warming is caused by humans.
These are not politicians that have an opinion and try to find arguments to back it up.
The biggest pleasure of a scientist is to prove a theory wrong.
Nobody has been able to disprove human induced climate change for decades now. Edited November 18, 2015 by Dieselpower

[K^2]

[quote name='Dieselpower']If you would have any understanding on how the scientific progress works, you would not have a doubt on the strength of the consensus that global warming is caused by humans. [/QUOTE]
No, I'm sorry. That is not the consensus. The consensus is that anthropogenic global warming cannot be rejected. There is a big difference. It means we should be working on reducing our impact, because if this change is caused by humans, we are in deep trouble. But we also need a lot more careful, unbiased research. We still don't have a good model for greenhouse effect that doesn't make completely wrong predictions. Unless you are happy with going to stone age based on "everything we do causes global warming," we need to put research into generating less impact. And to do that, we need actual scientific work, and not alarmists running around trying to win elections with it. The more political you people make it, the less chance there are that scientists will actually figure out how to have technological growth and not ruin the environment.

[GeneralVeers]

[quote name='peadar1987']It's very frustrating debating with WedgeAntilles.[/QUOTE]
Then don't reply to me.

You think I'm different or unusual here? I'm not. I'm a veteran of many, many global warming threads (I'm a master debater, har har!). That thing you just said in that quote box three lines up? You're not the first to say that, by a billion light-years ("country mile" just doesn't cut the mustard here). I've seen almost literally a billion people say that, and not just at me--at each other. In every global warming thread, and in every global warming thread that even touches offhandledly on global warming.

There was a time once, long ago, when I found you, and other alarmists, equally frustrating. People like you just kept saying the same things, over and over and over, using the same worn-out tactics that had never worked before and yet were used again and again. Today, I'm at the point where I just don't care any more. My interest in this topic is entirely academic.

[quote name='Elthy']The one contributing to the problem is you, without those climate change deniers we wouldnt have to fight them and could simply start acting.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. If I didn't exist (only in yo' dreams, sucka!) you would still be completely unable to deal with the problem, because of two minor details named "China" and "India". Those two nations are never going to listen to the global warming scare. Ever. Hell, China has straight-up told the rest of the world (in almost exactly these words) that they're not going to do anything about it unless somebody else pays for it. Which is not going to happen. Those two nations are determined to modernize and become as rich as Europe and the United States. Which will end with them emitting [B]EIGHT TIMES[/B] as much greenhouse gases as the United States currently does. The only thing that will stop them is if you go to war against them. Which also is not going to happen.

Problem unsolvable.

[ZetaX]

Can we, i.e. everyone interested in an actual debate, please agree to completely ignore WedgeAntilles? It is obvious that he has an agenda and no intention to ever change his point of view. Nor has he contributed to the discussion more than his own unfounded claims, never giving evidence. Instead he does as peadar1987 already described in detail.

That he calls himself "pro with statistics", "veteran of many, many global warming threads" and "master debater" is telling. He is either a troll or ignorant at a ridiculous level; both being a reason to ignore him.

[peadar1987]

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']Then don't reply to me.

You think I'm different or unusual here? I'm not. I'm a veteran of many, many global warming threads (I'm a master debater, har har!). That thing you just said in that quote box three lines up? You're not the first to say that, by a billion light-years ("country mile" just doesn't cut the mustard here). I've seen almost literally a billion people say that, and not just at me--at each other. In every global warming thread, and in every global warming thread that even touches offhandledly on global warming.

There was a time once, long ago, when I found you, and other alarmists, equally frustrating. People like you just kept saying the same things, over and over and over, using the same worn-out tactics that had never worked before and yet were used again and again. Today, I'm at the point where I just don't care any more. My interest in this topic is entirely academic.
[/QUOTE]

You know, flat earthers say pretty much the same thing. "You globeists keep saying the same things, over and over and over... Ships disappearing over the horizon, navigation, the movements of celestial bodies, airliners, being able to see further away if you go somewhere higher..."

Ever consider that the reason we keep saying the same things is because [I]those things are the facts[/I]? We can't change our arguments because then [I]the things we'd be saying wouldn't be the facts[/I].

I'm not even trying to convince you. You have preformed an opinion, and have shown yourself quite unwilling to listen to facts (the fact that you trotted out the "greenhouse gases block incoming radiation as much as outgoing" when that argument was torn utterly to shreds in a previous thread is ample proof of that). The reason I continue to reply to your posts is because there are those out there who do not share your supreme closed-mindedness, and whose minds might yet be changed if they see the actual evidence.

[micr0wave]

The problem with making a precise prediction is that it involves a multitude of factors which tend to make any calculation more complex and leads to chaotic (mathematically; e.g. double pendulum) results.

The whole system tends to oscillate around an average value. Some of the factors are those feedback loops, for example air humidity, which is also an factor when it comes to greenhouse, higher temperatures enable the air to collect more water which can absorb more of the heat the surface want to get rid off, this loop, if it was an isolated event, can also choke itself at some point ( enough clouds-> more reflection of incoming energy-> less heat reaching surface). When you start to include the other factors, that 'simple' loop starts to have a higher amplitude (regarding the oscillation) .
An average temperature of (let's go with random, easy numbers) 0°C in winter and 30°C in summer gives an statistic average temperature of 15°C. Nice to live in. If it were -20°C in winter and 50°C in summer it still would have an average temperature of 15°C but it would be slightly more uncomfortable to live in.

The CO² mechanism works a bit different (energy in, wavelenght change, outgoing gets reflected) and CO² has a much higher lifespan in atmosphere and doesn't cut itself off that easy and quick as steam.
All the climatic changes don't happen instantly and mankind relases more CO² in a single year than it did between 1800 and 1900, so even when we could totally cut off CO² production the effects will still need some time to take full effect.

In this context solar power seems to be the way to go since the other forms of energy generation are either dirty or not safe enough. The technology to use and store solar power is there (electrolyse <-> fuel cells), it just has to be done, which, given current lobbyism/politics/economics will not happen soon and quick enough to slow down the mankind induced greenhouse effects.

[Stargate525]

[quote name='Dieselpower']This is ridiculous!
First of all, do you know who these guys are? They are obviously not scientists, but disguised lobbyists for the oil industry.

[url]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/02/nigel-lawson-climate-sceptic-organisation-funders[/url]

Secondly, you do not reply to any of the responses we post that refute your criticism.
Instead you move on and come up with yet another 'doubt'.[/QUOTE]
That they've taken money from people who also have a vested interest in oil companies is no different than Harvard and Syracuse climatologists receiving funding from wealthy millionaires who are also heavily invested in green technologies. Funding does not collusion make, and I note you still haven't actually refuted the science of the article I linked, merely the source.

If there's any refutation I missed, please point it out. It's possible I missed it. :)


[quote name='Dieselpower']
The only thing you do here in this thread is posting some links, trying to cast uncertainty on climate change and pretend you are the victim when I doubt your sources.

How much longer do we need to continue until you admit that you are wrong?
Or is there no such point and you are here just to sabotage every thread that deals with climate change?
Are you driven by to fear to having to accept your own responsibility in the matter, or do you have ulterior motives?

Please think about what you are doing, and for which reason.
If you can't change your ways, and you do not want to believe in climate change, fine, it is up to you.

Until I'm convinced I'm wrong.
I've been convinced of such in the past, and this is the second CC thread I've participated in on this forum to my memory.
I've got no problem with 'my responsibility,' considering I have very little authority on where my power comes from.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Dieselpower']But don't try to convince or manipulate us by casting doubt.[/QUOTE]
Do you realize how stupid that phrase is in the context of a debate?

[quote name='Dieselpower']if you look on peer reviewed scholarly articles on climate only 24 out of 13 950 articles reject human induced global warming.
That's 00.17 %

99.83 % of the scientific articles versus your opinion.[/QUOTE]
Bandwagoning doesn't work on me, sorry. :) That's not evidence, that is quite literally 'look at all these other smart people who think this! If you don't think like this then you're obviously an idiot.' I am trained in history, and I know what kind of things bandwagoning can lead to. I will be convinced on evidence, not sheer numbers of dissenters.

[quote name='Dieselpower']If you would have any understanding on how the scientific progress works, you would not have a doubt on the strength of the consensus that global warming is caused by humans.
These are not politicians that have an opinion and try to find arguments to back it up.
The biggest pleasure of a scientist is to prove a theory wrong.
Nobody has been able to disprove human induced climate change for decades now.[/QUOTE]
Well is IS damned difficult to do that when you can't be funded by anyone and everyone keeps throwing out your evidence without reading it.

[shynung]

Remember people, this forum has an 'ignore list' function. Use it when you need it.

Also, a question. How does a solar thermal system compare to a photoelectric system? I'm talking about things like solar boilers coupled to steam turbines, or something similar.

[Stargate525]

[quote name='shynung']Remember people, this forum has an 'ignore list' function. Use it when you need it.

Also, a question. How does a solar thermal system compare to a photoelectric system? I'm talking about things like solar boilers coupled to steam turbines, or something similar.[/QUOTE]
Its certainly less economically expensive. All you need is mirrors and a water steam system.

[PB666]

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']Then don't reply to me.

You think I'm different or unusual here? I'm not. I'm a veteran of many, many global warming threads (I'm a master debater, har har!). That thing you just said in that quote box three lines up? You're not the first to say that, by a billion light-years ("country mile" just doesn't cut the mustard here). I've seen almost literally a billion people say that, and not just at me--at each other. In every global warming thread, and in every global warming thread that even touches offhandledly on global warming.

There was a time once, long ago, when I found you, and other alarmists, equally frustrating. People like you just kept saying the same things, over and over and over, using the same worn-out tactics that had never worked before and yet were used again and again. Today, I'm at the point where I just don't care any more. My interest in this topic is entirely academic.


Wrong. If I didn't exist (only in yo' dreams, sucka!) you would still be completely unable to deal with the problem, because of two minor details named "China" and "India". Those two nations are never going to listen to the global warming scare. Ever. Hell, China has straight-up told the rest of the world (in almost exactly these words) that they're not going to do anything about it unless somebody else pays for it. Which is not going to happen. Those two nations are determined to modernize and become as rich as Europe and the United States. Which will end with them emitting [B]EIGHT TIMES[/B] as much greenhouse gases as the United States currently does. The only thing that will stop them is if you go to war against them. Which also is not going to happen.

Problem unsolvable.[/QUOTE]

China's politicians are not only beginning but are well on their way to facing the reality of their problems.
There own scientist are now predicting that 3/4s of the population will suffer from breathing related disorders, either as a result of smoking or coal pollution enough to be consider a factor in early deaths.
China is in the process of dealing with permit corruption that has allowed the worst polluters to avoid shut downs and fines.
China is the worlds leading producer of solar panels and is trying to catch up on both hydroelectric and wind energy.
China has the fastest growth rate of nuclear relative to any country.

With the potential cost of spiralling health care needs you can bet your bottom dollar that china is very interested of at least cleaning up dirty coal, if not replacing it entirely. What they really want is natural gas like the US has and if the US were smart it would start subsidizing liquification ships and coerce a deal with China, it is in both countries short and long term interest to do so.

India is a bit more complicated situation they have alot of coal they wish to exploit, and their pollution is a bigger problem to africa and the middle east due to faulty pan evaporation rates. The econmy is less cetralized and their remains legacy corruption issues as well as opportunistic corruption due to slow pace of reforms and progress.

[Chakat Firepaw]

[quote name='Stargate525']*sighs*

[URL]http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108[/URL]

Some excerpts, in case Nature isn't climatologically pure:

"Across a range of FACE experiments, with a variety of plant species, growth of plants at elevated CO2 concentrations of 475–600 ppm increases leaf photosynthetic rates by an average of 40%"[/QUOTE]

While plants are quite capable of handling higher CO2 levels, they have a lot of problems with massive increases in temperatures, (remember that this is about a scenario where temperatures go up by 10-15 degrees). As it stands south-east Asia is already seeing rice crop failures due to it being too hot for rice to mature and China is looking at a 20-30% reduction in agricultural output at just +3 degrees.

[quote name='Stargate525']"Under elevated CO2 most plant species show higher rates of photosynthesis, increased growth, decreased water use and lowered tissue concentrations of nitrogen and protein."[/QUOTE]

Read how that sentence ends again and consider why that might not be a good thing.

[Stargate525]

[quote name='Chakat Firepaw']Read how that sentence ends again and consider why that might not be a good thing.[/QUOTE]
Yup, I saw it. Slightly less nutritional value. But we don't get protein primarily from plants anyway, and the nitrates don't seem to affect anything but the pest insects who spray them. And if it's a 10% reduction in nutritional value but a 15% increase in yield, then it's still a net positive.

And I haven't heard about these crop failures. Source please?

[ZetaX]

[quote name='Stargate525']But we don't get protein primarily from plants anyway[/QUOTE]

From what else? If you are thinking animals, then it simply goes back to the plants again. So the animals now also need more plants.

Those 10% less nutrition but 15% more yield are also bad: you are not eating the raw plant on the fields. Transport and refinement both get more complicated expensive (per protein) than before.

[GeneralVeers]

[quote name='llanthas']You're very different and unusual on this forum board, Wedge. I've never seen anyone less willing to listen to a counter-point[/QUOTE]
Yourself. PB666. ZetaX. Micr0wave. Peadar.

The reason you don't see other people as stubborn as myself is because you're not looking. Or, more likely, you overlook their sins because they're on your side.....

[quote name='peadar1987']I'm not even trying to convince you. You have preformed an opinion, and have shown yourself quite unwilling to listen to blah blah blah blah[/QUOTE]
You guys do realize that by talking about this in here, you're giving away how other people can push your buttons....?

[quote name='PB666']China's[/QUOTE]
....lying to the whole world and getting away with it. Their attempts to clean up their act are a sham. They are a closed society in which anybody who attempts to expose their shenanigans has a disturbing tendency to disappear. Pretty much the only thing we can do to verify China's (alleged) compliance is spy on them with satellites, and there's been nothing observed by that route that backs up your claims.

[quote name='peadar1987'](the fact that you trotted out the "greenhouse gases block incoming radiation as much as outgoing" when that argument was torn utterly to shreds in a previous thread is ample proof of that)[/QUOTE]
That is a total lie. Everyone's rebuttals were rebutted.

[quote name='micr0wave']The problem with making a precise prediction is that it involves a multitude of factors which tend to make any calculation more complex and leads to chaotic (mathematically; e.g. double pendulum) results.[/QUOTE]
Precisely. Thereby proving you [B]don't[/B] understand how the system works, and that the scientific community's (alleged) consensus on the issue is a consensus of the deluded.

[quote name='Stargate525']Bandwagoning doesn't work on me, sorry. :) That's not evidence, that is quite literally 'look at all these other smart people who think this! If you don't think like this then you're obviously an idiot.' I am trained in history, and I know what kind of things bandwagoning can lead to. I will be convinced on evidence, not sheer numbers of dissenters.[/QUOTE]
Bingo. There's been a gigantic amount of research aimed at figuring out, by way of example, Fermat's Last Theorem.

How many people did it take to finally prove Fermat's Last Theorem? [B]One.[/B] Bravo to Andrew Wiles.

[Stargate525]

[quote name='ZetaX']From what else? If you are thinking animals, then it simply goes back to the plants again. So the animals now also need more plants.

Those 10% less nutrition but 15% more yield are also bad: you are not eating the raw plant on the fields. Transport and refinement both get more complicated expensive (per protein) than before.[/QUOTE]
The proteins we need are made by the animals, not the plants said animals eat. It's not like the grass we feed cattle has all the protein already. ;)

And I don't know a ton about the ag industry, I will admit, but I do know we're constantly breeding our plants to produce more nutrition, and that the stuff we're eating today would be, I'm willing to bet, much more than 10% more nutrient-rich on the stalk as it was in the 1900s. So... is that REALLY a huge problem? What parts of the processing get more complicated simply by having less nutrient-dense food, other than the nutrition labels?