@SSedmak People arent opposed to AGW based on sceintific understanding or knowledge of the issue, they are generally emotionally opposed and will not obsorb the information even when presented with it.
i mean what can you do about Evolution Deniers? Moon Landing Deniers? 9/11 truthers?
If you publicaly announce you believe the earth is flat - you get laughed at for being a fool....It should be embarresing for people to go round denying sceince and demanding to be taken seriously
@shandcunt your a racist, bigot by lumping man made global warming deniers with evolution deniers, moon landing deniers and so forth you are proving your a alarmist nazi. You have the word cunt in your user name I suggest you use it for your real name as well because that's what you are.
@SSedmak Dude its gotten to the point where I think its justified.
NASA - The guys with the satalites, performing experiments and gathering data....Spend 1 hour on their website and you will see their are many questions but its also blantently clear the earth is warming and C02 is a large contributing facor.
That and over 32 national acedemies of science all agree....So if people are ill-informed or willfully ignorant about it but stil demand to be taken seriously...what can you do?
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
You do realize that calling people "denialists" won't help them hear your argument, right? Just sounds like an ad-hominem attack rather than an honest effort to convey unbiased information. Communication 101: don't attack your audience...
Well, of course in a summer heat wave, any plant is rather precipitation dependant more than anything else and it says nothing of CO2. It is happening just now, nothing is growing across Europe. With such large fluctuations in growth depending on other factors such as precipitation in summer / in the growing period, you cannot conclude anthing re. C02 based on a summer heat wave image.
Here is the problem with the debate. The scientists are too smart to be debating with the climate change deniers. Case in point, this video. The denier make a simple observation: "CO2 is plant food" and your response is 8 minutes of scientific data in a highly complicated answer.
The proper response to the question would be "But what does increased CO2 in the atmosphere do to humans? CO2 is animal poison and kills all animals." They don't want to hear the truth, so keep it brutally simple.
@zigzigerblat I think you may have carbon dioxide and corbon monoxide mixed up. If carbon dioxide were a poison to animals then every breath we exhaled would slowly kill us . Is that simple enough for you?
@david222444 I won't debate you and I am not an elementary school teacher. I know that anyone who is not educated or convinced today will never change and that all I can do is my part. I can only hope that those who let this happen are reminded harshly when the time comes that we all pay the price for this.
@greenman3610 You keep up with the subject! the subject was whether co2 was toxic to animals, as usual you change it to fit the propaganda! co2 is not worth a mention as far is climate is concerned. Now if the Planet is at present cooling, which a quick search will confirm, what is there to deny? oh bye the way large glaciers are advancing in Alaska. Who is denying what?
@greenman3610 You must keep up with the subject! the subject was whether co2 was toxic to animals, as usual you change it to fit the propaganda! co2 is not worth a mention as far is climate is concerned. Now if the Planet is at present cooling, which a quick search will confirm, what is there to deny? oh bye the way large glaciers are advancing in Alaska. Who is denying what?
@david222444 Yes it is. Like I said, go sit in a room of 100% co2 for 10 minutes and see what happens. You are 80% water. Tie a couple of 100 lb weights and jump in a swimming pool.
Potassium is great for you and you will die without it. Now try eating a half inch cube of pure metallic potassium.
@zigzigerblat are you thick? dont you understand co2 is flowing through your body? boy you are totally brainwashed. ( small as it is ) Try eating a thousand macdonalds a the one sitting lol.
@david222444 Yes that is what I meant when I said "Yes it is". Yes CO2 is flowing through my body. Now reread my last comment.
Too much CO2 will kill you, too much Oxygen will kill you. Did you know why doctors never inject distilled water into people? Because it kills every cell it comes in contact with by rupturing (in your veins). It brings your ph levels out of BALANCE and kills you.
Balance is the key word. Ignorance will not only kill you, it will kill the human race.
Ok good stuff here, i´m not climate denier, it changes constantly and there have been alot hotter periods before human and thats a fact. Also is known that we are almost at the center of the galactic plate, aligned with the black whole in the center of universe and enourmous amounts of radiation and energy is getting to us, suns magnetfield blocks alot of it but it still affects us and our sun alot. Do not tax us! Water powered engines were here decades ago, keep politics out of this!!!
@Muad420 I in fact had an urge to establish a colony of rats when I would have gotten my house...Apologies. Rats at least produce less crap than this fool.
@saintdracula1 You should try it, rats are very nice animals and rather less demanding than cats. And yes, they do produce a lot less feces than any human being. Thank you, come again!
23. John Locke Foundation 24. Junk Science 25. National Center for Public Policy Research 26. National Journalism Center 27. National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI) 28. Pacific Research Institute 29. Reason Foundation 30. Small Business Survival Committee 31. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) 32. Washington Legal Foundation
8. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) 9. Cato Institute 10. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) 11. Consumer Alert 12. DCI Group (PR firm) 13. European Science and Environment Forum 14. Fraser Institute 15. Frontiers of Freedom 16. George C. Marshall Institute 17. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis 18. Heartland Institute 19. Heritage Foundation 20. Independent Institute 21. International Center for a Scientific Ecology 22. International Policy Network
The koolaid drinkers are those who cling to a littany of long debunked arguments, that more often than not contradict each other. Those who trust the opinions of talk show hosts, scientifically illiterate congressmen, and industry paid scientists who also usually happen to be anti environmental/ anti regulation free market thinkers. I can't think of a single well know skeptic scientist who is not funded by fossil fuels directly or indirectly.
Your opinion of Skeptical Science says more about you than them. It's a great venue for open discourse, almost always strictly science. No policy issues, No politics, No trolling. On topic. No nonsense, but with the patience of Job.
Probably the best place on the internet for laymen to learn a little about the science and understand the issues.
Biggest problem w/SkepticalScience site is that it’s NOT objective. They deny EVERYTHING that goes against their It's CO2 DOGMA.
They claim to write "What the Science Says" but ignore & dismiss contradictory scientific evidence & list only what supposedly proves their point. In their attempt to refute anything counter to their dogma, they make many flat out false statements. Speaks volumes about your critical thinking skills if you believe everything there!
@RealOldOne2: "They deny EVERYTHING that goes against their DOGMA" Opposing everything that doesn't fit in with their dogma? Truth is, I could say the same about Piers Corbyn's site, but in his case, it'd actually be true.
Their absurdity is demonstrated by their dismissing natural phenomenon impacting the climate, eg. the sun/solar, cosmic rays, PDO, etc. as being “irrelevant” and say “CO2 is the MAIN DRIVER of climate change”!
Saying that the SUN is “irrelevant to recent global warming” when the SUN is the SOURCE of the energy that warms our planet is ludicrous. There are many other factors that influence climate, but the SUN is certainly the main driver.
I've read the UHI sections. SS says “warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas” & “NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible influence from UHI Effect” BOTH FALSE!
Even an elementary student can debunk the SS UHI statements using GISS’s own data. Search ‘urban warming’ on YouTube. Pierre does more science than all of gm’s videos. Gathers, analyzes data & draws conclusions rather than building strawman arguments. Real science!
LOL. Truth is truth. I notice that you didn't point out any errors in this young man's science. The fact that he can do this any you can't says it all. He DOES science & you make cartoons.
So how about those OK & USCRN stations?
Do some science. Download some of that data that hasn't been "adjusted" and see what you find.
I've done it and it shows OK temps flat or declining while Hansen's doctored data shows increases.
I'll believe the data that hasn't been fiddled with!
ROFLOL! Getting desperate aren’t you? Ad hom PLUS try at a strawman!
“OK=whole planet” Where did I say that? No, read my post, OK=Oklahoma.
What’s the temp been doing in Erick, OK since they installed that Mesonet station in 1994? Warming at 0.45C/decade like Hansen's GISS says? Nope, the automated(non-fiddled,UHI-free) Mesonet data shows that it has been COOLING at 0.25C/decade! That’s a FACT. Prove it wrong.
People can see who’s acting like a 3yr old & who’s discussing science!
@RealOldOne2 wow, you are a moron. The point Greenman was making which you so spectacularly failed to pick up on is that you cannot cherry pick a data point or two and extrapolate that to the whole planet. To further his argument you actually highlighted the point that that is what you did and you seem proud of it. Either you have absolutely no notion of basic statistical law or....actually there isn't another option. You are stupid. What a classic!
@greenman3610 At least you don't have to deal with that moronic Shimkus, in virtue of which (not whom - as far I can see he doesn't seem to meet the requirements of that title) logicians would have a field day - analysing and deciphering his nifty attemps to deconstruct common-sense logic. But he's probably being ironic and wilfully stupid - how else would he have become a Representative?
Urghh, I can't tell who makes me feel worse: that mad-eyed Monckton or that stupid meat head Shimkus.
Hey greenman, are you ready to acknowledge that iceman541(@'Ice Area vs Volume' crock) found the source to your quote: "In the 70's all climate scientists thought an ice age was coming." @'In the 70s' crock?
It is an exact quote from the Peterson et al 2008 paper that you quoted elsewhere.
Why won't you acknowledge it was your source?
You are the one who said to skeptics: Please, please debate me. And now you won't even admit to the source of one of your own quotes?
I quoted gm. See, that's what the quote marks mean! LOL!
GM was accusing me of doing that, but I responded that I had done no such thing - see, I asked him: "Where did I say that? No,"
Are you also so slow that you didn't pick up on the fact that the examples I gave showed that even small towns(Barrow,AK) can have UHI effect & that data from even small towns (Erick,OK) differs from GOOD sited rural temp stations 3 miles away?
BTW, has Hansen & Co. adjusted for that 12C UHI that his own NASA scientists found over Providence, RI? Oh, that’s right, the CRU crew said it was insignificant!
@RealOldOne2 because like me, he is sick of dealing with morons like you. But go on, have a final crack at me if you like, I won't bother responding because i don't need to get the final word in. I am confident in my ability to intepret good science from crock science and tell the diff between credible sources and oil-funded blogs. One day soon the climate will bite idiots like you on the arse and it is you who will have to live with the knowledge that you should have listened and didn't.
@RealOldOne2 calling someone a name is not an ad hominen attack. It only becomes an ad hominem when they attack your character and claim that ruins your argument
Example of a true ad hominem
"because you are a stupid asshole you wrong about global warming"
Or "because you are a rapist, your theories about gravity cannot be true".
Now if I call you stupid that is not an ad hominem attack, you must be an idiot for believing that. lol
Well, it has already bit you guys ‘down under’ on the arse. Tragic that your government mates listened to the AGW alarmists who said climate change was going to cause more droughts so plans to build dams & flood defenses were defeated (w/help of environmentalists) & now you’re bearing the consequences. And similar stories in the UK where they were told they were in for a mild winter b/c of the AGW meme. Happens when you listen to pseudoscience.
@RealOldOne2 I wasn't going to bother with you but now is your chance to prove to the world that you do speak out of your hat. Which dams? Which flood defences? Now be specific so that I can educate you about these things. Please please please tell me all about the Traveston Crossing dam for the Mary River. What sort of dam was it going to be? Its volume? Its inflows? How high was the wall going to be? Don't forget to mention the underlying geology at the wall. I have the technical paper.
@uknowispeaksense OK, you can’t refute my comments on UHI or gm’s improper use of Stanford paper, but now we’ve touched upon a subject that you know something about.
Yes, the Traveston Dam, and also the Tillegra Dam and Franklin Dam. Flood defenses? These dams would have been the major defenses, plus the lack of prudent water release in the Wivenhoe Dam(they kept it full rather than release water before the heavy rains came) & inadequate levees(Nyngan, Maclean, Grafton).
@RealOldOne2 Come on. Volumes? Inflows? Geology? let me know the numbers. Your the one talking about a subject like an expert. Back it up.
As for the Franklin, it had nothing to do with flood mitigation or water supply. It was purely political. Tasmanian politics is a starnge thing that only someone who has actually lived there and experienced it can understand.
Never claimed to be a flood expert. But it doesn't take an expert to know that a dam stores upstream water & if it has capacity it can absorb heavy rain and store for later release thereby reducing flooding downstream & when you don't build them, they can't do that.
Re:Franklin, it was the template that the environmentalists from then on when they wanted to halt whatever is against their agenda. Nope, never lived there, but have a brother in Blue Mts in NSW so I keep up a bit.
@uknowispeaksense Climate it is changing, but the driver is the Sun. If you hear about CO2 as a Chemist I can tell you that the concentration at the moment is low, around 0.5% in some places, and the highest concentration ever recorded was 2% millions of years ago, and this did caused some heat witch caused life to flourish to greater numbers. Just like Fall and Winter are the dead seasons Summer and Spring are the life seasons. Human trash the environment but sure is not with carbon emissions.
@Ramiromasters thats not really true.Carboniferous Period is when your talking about I assume. However by the Late Carboniferous Period Earth's climate had become increasingly cooler and drier. By the beginning of the Permian Period average global temperatures declined by about 10° C.The Ten Hottest Years That Have Occurred On Earth Are: 1990,1991,1995,1997,1998,1999,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005.
FIRST requirement of an Oklahoma Mesonet site:“Rural sites should be selected to avoid human influences present in urban and suburban areas.”
“US Climate Reference Network (USCRN) consists of 114 stations developed, deployed, managed, and maintained by NOAA in the continental United States for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change”
“The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades”
The difference between ideal rural sites compared to urban sites in temperature trends has been very small:"
"......The Urban Heat Effect has no significant influence on the record of global temperature trends."
this is from SepticalScience Basic version of the UHI argument rebuttal. I'd suggest going to their blog and reading the advanced version. Why do skeptics think the various arguments haven't been followed up on and investigated? Science is self correcting.
Been there, done that. A warm-aid site for the kool-aid drinkers, with woefully weak arguments.
But you did give them a more appropriate name! "SEPTICALscience" OK, I'll change my previous comment. It's not BS, its AS(anthro), cause the cows don't use the SEPTIC tank!
You are right, true science IS self correcting. But the pseudo-science of CC has been corrupted by feeding at the trough of gov'ts $80 Billion gravy train! It's crumbling though.
"Scientists have been very careful to ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends. To address this concern, they have compared the data from remote stations (sites that are nowhere near human activity) to more urban sites. Likewise, investigators have also looked at sites across rural and urban China, which has experienced rapid growth in urbanisation over the past 30 years and is therefore very likely to show UHI. "
@sailRichard "ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends"
At AGU mtg, NASA scientists said:"The compact city of Providence, R.I., for example, has surface temperatures that are about 12.2 °C (21.9 °F) warmer than the surrounding countryside"
Did Hansen's careful scientists adjust that 12.2°C out of the long-term Prov. temp trend?
No, they actually lower the early temps & raise the current ones to further amplify the trend.
"Similarly, the mathematical model of the organisation of an atom; neutrons, protons, electrons, is just a model. We cannot actually look inside an atom. But the model has been verified and it holds as a fundamental certainty."
"numerical models are used in all modern fields of science. Mathematical models are implicit in our understanding of the universe. For example, the governing equation for the gravitational effect is also 'just a model'. In fact, it’s the very definition of a model, since we do not actually understand how gravity works. However our mathematical model of the nature of gravity has been verified through countless observations."
"The mathematical model of how atoms absorb and re-emit radiation in discrete energy packets and in discrete wavelengths is also a model. It also faithfully describes the universe. A whole heap of technology is built on the certainty of this model. If these models did not work, then most of the appliances in your house would also not work, including the microwave oven and the television. "
Those CO2/GHG molecules are not nocturnal. They do their GH thing during the day just like they do it during the night. So a warming due to CO2/GHG would show an almost identical higher daytime AND nighttime temperature increase.
The fact that nighttimes are warming more than daytimes IS what you see w/UHI, but it's NOT what you see w/GHG warming.
Unless you think that more thermal mass doesn't slow cooling. Better check out a thermodynamics book.
Why is is that deniers imagine that they have thought of all kinds of things that career climate scientists (thousands of them) never thought of in the past 40 years of intense research.
As for Anthony Watts' claim that bad temp monitoring stations add a bias. NOAA studied that, and Watts is right. There was a bias of .03 C toward cooling, NOT warming.
@greenman3610 Perhaps to you saying "The UHI argument is nonsense" is specific, but to a scientist it's not.
"Nor do they distort temperature records" You're joking right?
At AGU mtg, NASA scientists said:"Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period"
Columbia U Earth Institute says that 3% of earth surface is urban.
So are more than 3% of temp stations urban? Get it? T-bias
@greenman3610 "West Antarctica, are obviously far beyond the reach of Urban effects"
You obviously are clueless about what UHI is and what causes it. It doesn't take lots of people. It's about thermal mass, additional heat sources and changes over time. if you are trying to identify changes in long term temps. Ya think there might have been some development since the 1940s in W.A.? More & bigger bldgs? Hard surfaced airport runways? Increased long-term temp trend due to development, not CO2.
If the sun was causing the warming, the lower (troposphere) and upper (stratosphere) layers of the atmosphere would both be warming. Not happening. Troposphere - warming, Stratosphere -cooling. Another greenhouse gas fingerprint.
Northern Hemisphere winters are warming faster than summers. Another greenhouse gas fingerprint.
2000-2010 warmest decade on record, 100 year solar minimum, as well as declining 11 year solar cycle.
The GHGs are NOT changing day-to-night, so GHG warming fingerprint would be higher min temps(nighttime) AND higher max temps(daytime).
Greater nighttime warming w/o daytime warming is the fingerprint of Urban Heat Island effect.
Urban growth increases THERMAL MASS(roads, bldgs etc) which absorbs heat during the day, but lose that heat slower during the night, resulting in higher min temps.
LOL! gm, you are too much! When you can't counter someone's argument, you resort to buffoonery!
But actually you came pretty close. What you got wrong is that those Arctic heat islands themselves aren't IN the arctic ocean, they are just SURROUNDING the arctic ocean. Then Hansen & Co. SMEAR the urban warming 1200km out into the Arctic Ocean and voila, you get that bleeding red Santa land!
"The assertion concerning solar activity is hotly disputed in the scientific journals."
"Really? Can you cite one of these hot disputes?"
The paper that skeptics use to point out that temp and solar activity have correlation, also says that this correlation failed to hold in the latter half of the 20th century. The solar activity has been quiet for 40 years or so, while all four of those decades have been hotter than the one before it.
The El Nino of 1998, which deniers like to use in their cherry picked comparisons, was the strongest El Nino in 100 years. The El Nino of 2009-2010 was nothing in comparison. The ENSO switched to El Nino months ago, yet November was the warmest on record. January-November was the warmest on record.
@greenman3610 In addition to that denial, do you also deny that owning you took on that same subject about the real world studies in the peer-reviewed literature? Admit it, you're wrong.
@BeondaPale You did exactly what I expected of you. Our host does a lot of the same. The paper contains numerous references, including the important fact that there are 2 distinct TSI datasets found in the peer-reviewed literature. This would constitute exactly what I informed you of-a hot dispute found in the journals, which AGW advocates refuse to acknowledge.
there is no dispute that we are currently emerging from the lowest solar minimum in a century, and that 2009 and 2010 were 2 of the hottest years in the record, in spite of that.
@BeondaPale Scafetta & West (Journal of Geophysical Research 112, D24S03 [2007]) contains a good discussion of the matter. Try googling scafetta west solar 2007. The paper in it's entirety is available.
@greenman3610 That 2010 was unusually warm was due to an unusually strong el niño. The assertion concerning solar activity is hotly disputed in the scientific journals.
although I do agree that we should change our way of living. Please consider the fact that other planets' temperature are also increasing,,maybe it is due to our course in space .
I'll trust NASA to tell us about our course in space.
They say there is nothing going on insofar as orbital forcing, and no increases in solar intensity over the last 50 years, in fact, we are in the lowest solar minimum in a century, even as 2010 was named the warmest meteorological year in the record.
@greenman3610 That was because another scientist researched the problem, and published his findings in peer-reviewed literature. However, the problem for you persists: the tropospheric temp rise doesn't match the surface temp rise. In fact, the tropical tropispheric hot spot that was expected to be there appears nowhere in the observational record.
BTW warmer climates are WAY better for insects, fungus and bacteria - all of which have a higher rate of evolution than do higher ordered forms of life
Again, you seem to be advocating mankind actively changing the only biosphere that sustains him without complete knowledge of the consequence of such change.
@BeondaPale "WAY" better" Not too scientific there. Can you quantify those for me please? peer-reviewed papers?
"higher rate of evolution" Can you point me to a few peer-reviewed papers please?
"without complete knowledge of the consequence of such change"
That would lead to doing nothing because no one has COMPLETE knowledge about anything.
Until you offer some documented evidence of your wild claims, that's all they are is wild claims. ALARMISM. People stop listening to 'chicken littles".
""WAY" better" Not too scientific there. Can you quantify those for me please? "
Sure. Lower forms of life have much higher reproduction rates - therefore higher mutation rates and therefore adapt more readily to environmental pressures such as rapid climate change.
"That would lead to doing nothing because no one has COMPLETE knowledge about anything."
That's ridiculous. Yes, I will describe HOW is it ridiculous if you wish, but I have a feeling that you already know
@BeondaPale No,you keep switching the subject and playing with words so you can dodge the questions, just like greenman does. When I ask about "mass extinctions" and "serious evolutionary pressure", you respond with generic "global climate change".
"No, you keep switching the subject and playing with words"
No, I think you just misunderstood. How did I play with words?
"generic "global climate change""
Global climate change is not generic. There is nothing generic about the the current biosphere - it is unique. In addition, the biological world is comprised of systems that interconnect and depend on each other Since this is the only biosphere we have, what happens to it due to our actions is anything but generic.
@greenmann3610 No sir, that is entirely unresponsive. My post adressed the current problem-it's NOT climate related-and his point is that the paper you referenced still shows a real-world increase in productivity of 40% that you won't even acknowledge. The question is: why not?
@greenman3610 I think you need to adress his point before demanding he adress yours. He asked a reasonable question: why won't you admit the fact from the study data is accurate? Do you wonder any longer why the lay public has turned the other way?
I'm addressing his point, by showing what the scientific literature and actual real world events are revealing about primary productivity and actual agricultural experience.
greenman's 'scientific literature' - An Almanac of Extreme Weather - to quote the NYT this is a farmer's "memoirs, self-published in the wake of the Dust Bowl of the 1930s". No peer-reviewed science here, just anecdotal stories, no data. Let's see, we had Dust Bowl in the 30s before significant CO2 emission, started really emitting more CO2 after WW2 and have had no Dust Bowl in the 70 years since. Using this anecdotal evidence we ought to keep doing what we're doing!
@greenman3610 Looks like I'm right, your side is being too quick to call it an effect of AGW. A lot appears due to local/regional meteorological anomolies, not climate change. A lot like the 2003 European heat wave was-declared an effect of AGW, but wasn't.
@greenman3610 In the future, starting now would be appreciated, could you just name which vid you're trying to point me to? I've tried typing the entries in, and they simply don't work. That still doesn't explain why you won't adress the point raised, though.
for NASA video describing recent paper showing reduced primary productivity around the planet, in other words, real world evidence of what rising temps are doing even now, with only 390 ppm
Also google
World ‘Dangerously Close’ to Food Crisis, U.N. Says
for nytimes story about drop in food production related to climate disasters of the past summer.
@smartalek65 Because they're not about discussing science, but about fomenting fear by telling only one side. The actions of those holding pro-AGW belief reveal this. I was banned from a blogsite(who had embedded this video) after asking this same question. And this was a blog subtitled:"dedicated to those of us who enjoy safe opportunities to express ourselves on controversial issues of the day". Yeah right. Safe only if you agree with the belief of the blogger. Otherwise banned.What hypocrisy!
@greenman3610 Peter, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about the real-world Stanford peer-reviewed scientific study that YOU referenced in YOUR video.I told you that I was not going to follow any of your other rabbit trails until you did that. Answer that question, then we can discuss other aspects of CO2 as plant food.
You have my answer. Under perfect lab conditions, adding the Co2 cut the production 40 percent.
That's with co2 at 680 ppm - which will also give you runaway icesheet loss, catastrophic sea level rise, ocean acidification, desertification and extinction level species loss.
At a mere 390, we are already seeing real world loss of global primary production
dampened harvests and rising grain prices., along with 40 percent loss of oceanic plankton, our oxygen producers.
There is a form of autism that characterizes a lot of deniers that post here, and I think you suffer from it. It causes them to fixate on some tiny element of the picture that they hope can be selected out to rationalize a position, or deceive the unwary.
For NASA video on primary production loss, see
watch?v=Er3iD5PIR00
for more on ag loss, google
World ‘Dangerously Close’ to Food Crisis, U.N. Says
@greenman3610 LOL. You are guilty of the very thing of which you accuse me! You are fixated on one aspect that “under SOME circumstances, elevated CO2 can CONSTRAIN potential NPP”. Quoted from the article and I don’t deny it. I just point out that the OVERALL GLOBAL (big picture!) effect of elevating ALL variables resulted in a 40% INCREASE in plant production. That is GOOD for the plants! You refuse to answer why it is BAD! Quit denying the reality of this experiment and answer my question pls.
YOU claimed that we are changing the "entire" atmosphere. I CORRECTLY pointed out that only 0.0000014 part of it is changing per year.
LOL. We're talking about CO2 not cyanide. You keep answering your own questions. Comparing CO2 to cyanide IS lunacy, ignorance or both.
If you're SO concerned about adding CO2 to the atmosphere, then please stop breathing. You inhale 387ppm CO2 and exhale 40,000ppm of CO2! How can you live with yourself changing the "entire" atmosphere like that?
@greenman3610 The article recognizes that this "elevated CO2 constraint" goes against the body of previous studies: "THOUSANDS of published papers describe plant or ecosystem responses to elevated CO2(32). Generally, stimulatory responses in individual plants(27) often persist at the ecosystem scale, in the form of INCREASED ABOVEGROUND GROWTH".
THOUSANDS of papers find that elevated CO2 INCREASES plant growth! That's the reality. But you are fixated on using a tiny bit of contrary evidence!
@BeondaPale My comments to greenman concerned the article he referenced, which shows when CO2 was ~doubled along with elevated temp, precip, & soil N, plant growth increased 40%. He refuses to answer why that is a bad thing. Perhaps you can offer an answer.
Those thousands of papers that showed increased plant growth elevated the level of CO2 to 2-3 times today's atmospheric levels. Those are the results of the peer-reviewed science papers. Not shallow at all.
@greenman3610 Um, I didn't see any reference to the Shaw et.al. "Grassland Responses ..." paper so that doesn't answer my question to you. Ready to answer yet?
And those are PROXY satellite metrics. "HIGH resolution data from MODERATE resolution spectroradiometer" ?? That's like saying 'micro measurements from my yardstick'.
I trust data from real scales weighing real plants harvested from the surface of the earth rather than proxies from a satellite 22,000 miles above the earth, thank you.
@greenman3610 Did you make that cartoon? It's a joke! @1:55 "This visualization represents the amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere by plants". It shows fire, clouds & smoke. Hello, CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas! Real scientific. Listen to the words. It's nonsense. @2:22 "higher temperatures led to increased amounts of sunlight" How does that work?
As shazizz said there: "This false science ... It's just plain ludicrous
So foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing.!"
"He refuses to answer why that is a bad thing. Perhaps you can offer an answer."
As with anything, if you only look at the pros and refuse to look at the cons, you're asking for trouble. it is extremely difficult to generalize about the overall impact of the fertilization effect on plant growth.
To actively advocate doing something so radical as doubling or tripling the amount of CO2 globally without knowing ALL the consequences is foolhardy at best.
@BeondaPale That's no answer. I pointed out the pros(40% more growth). I'm asking you to explain the cons. Enlighten us. Neither you nor greenman have done that yet.
LOL. I'm not 'actively advocating' anything, let alone radical. You're advocating going back to the caveman era, except this time NO FIRES because burning anything emits CO2 and changes the "entire atmosphere". Tell you what. Since you guys fear warming so much, we'll take the tropics and you can take the poles. Who'll survive?
No. My question, that you refuse to answer, is about the 'Shaw' paper. It's not 'compartmentalized thinking' to discuss it. If you were a peer reviewer, you would deal w/paper you were reviewing. No continued changing the subject or that would be your last peer review.
Please step out of your world of denial of reality and answer my question. The more you refuse to do so, the easier for people see that the science does not support you. Thus all you can do is a rope-a-dope.
I've watched that video. As people said, "it's ludicrous".
Explain how you get "high resolution data" from a "medium res" instrument. There is no high res data there, only medium res data. So you're drawing conclusions on made-up data.
eg.,If you take a picture with a 1 megapixel camera, you can't get 10 million pixels. Those other 9 million pixels just aren't there. To draw conclusions based on them is BOGUS,false science. But then you're a graphic designer not a scientist.
Then why didn't you use an NAS paper to "prove" your claim that CO2 "does not make plants and crops grow faster...in the real world"?
You used the Stanford "Shaw et.al." paper which actually refutes your whole AGW theory. This 'real-world' experiment showed that if you elevate CO2 by itself, growth was enhanced by 10%, but when you ALSO elevated temp, precip, & soil N to levels expected in a 'globally warmed' world, growth was enhanced by 40%. And yet you REFUSE to admit that fact.
the difference is, I go along with the actual conclusions of the shaw paper in regard to the 'suppressive effects" of CO2. I don't try to cherry pick a piece of their result, and distort it to mean something that they themselves did not conclude.
You are intellectually dishonest at best, but most likely just stupid.
Friend, you are mis-representing my posts. I've agreed that CO2 suppressed the growth of elevating just the other 3 variables from 80% increase to 40% increase. No distortion there.
YOU are cherry picking the negative result! I merely pointed that elevating ALL 4 variables INCREASED plant growth 40% and you refuse to admit that.
They graphed results of 15 combination of variables. 13 showed 8-80% increased growth. Two showed decreased growth of -2 to -8%.
@greenman3610 says "You are intellectually dishonest at best, but most likely just stupid"
LOL. No, I'm not the one using "ad hom" attacks.
You and BeyondaPale are the ones doing that. And when you did, I merely held up the mirror so that you could see that you were guilty of what you accused me.
I don't have to "attack the person" because the science is on my side. Only those who have no answer do that. Look in the mirror again friend.
I have kept it very respectful. Please do likewise.
ps. that wasn't a slam against greenman. Just stating that he claimed no science degree or training on his bio page. I surmised that perhaps he has such difficulty understanding the peer-reviewed science literature that he references, and can't answer my question because he has not received the formal education training required for a degree in the natural or applied sciences. Perhaps I'm wrong and he has such education but just didn't included it on his bio page.
the scientific literature is generally written in english, and can be understood in its general conclusions by an intelligent reader with good advisors.
@vmgqie Calm down bro, what did you not understand about my earlier comment and why do you think its unfair?
shandcunt 2 weeks ago
@SSedmak People arent opposed to AGW based on sceintific understanding or knowledge of the issue, they are generally emotionally opposed and will not obsorb the information even when presented with it.
i mean what can you do about Evolution Deniers? Moon Landing Deniers? 9/11 truthers?
If you publicaly announce you believe the earth is flat - you get laughed at for being a fool....It should be embarresing for people to go round denying sceince and demanding to be taken seriously
shandcunt 2 months ago
@shandcunt
Twain said "You can't reason someone out of a position they were not reasoned into."
greenman3610 2 months ago
@shandcunt your a racist, bigot by lumping man made global warming deniers with evolution deniers, moon landing deniers and so forth you are proving your a alarmist nazi. You have the word cunt in your user name I suggest you use it for your real name as well because that's what you are.
vmgqie 3 weeks ago
@SSedmak Dude its gotten to the point where I think its justified.
NASA - The guys with the satalites, performing experiments and gathering data....Spend 1 hour on their website and you will see their are many questions but its also blantently clear the earth is warming and C02 is a large contributing facor.
That and over 32 national acedemies of science all agree....So if people are ill-informed or willfully ignorant about it but stil demand to be taken seriously...what can you do?
shandcunt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 5 months ago
You do realize that calling people "denialists" won't help them hear your argument, right? Just sounds like an ad-hominem attack rather than an honest effort to convey unbiased information. Communication 101: don't attack your audience...
SSedmak 5 months ago
Did you reload the 'plant food' bit? I can't hear Monckton on the panel... the sound drops out? Has something changed with the sound levels?
TheEclipsenow 6 months ago
@TheEclipsenow
I get more complaints about sound than anything else. This is an earlier vid where I was making more mistakes on sound than I hope I am today. Sorry.
greenman3610 6 months ago
Well, of course in a summer heat wave, any plant is rather precipitation dependant more than anything else and it says nothing of CO2. It is happening just now, nothing is growing across Europe. With such large fluctuations in growth depending on other factors such as precipitation in summer / in the growing period, you cannot conclude anthing re. C02 based on a summer heat wave image.
Baerchenization 7 months ago
@Baerchenization
google
A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself
greenman3610 7 months ago
@Baerchenization to bloody right mate, give it to em
vmgqie 3 weeks ago
"Amateur Horticulturalists" ( with accompanying reggae music!) - GOOD one, greenman!
R4t10n4L 10 months ago
@R4t10n4L
and so true.
greenman3610 10 months ago
Here is the problem with the debate. The scientists are too smart to be debating with the climate change deniers. Case in point, this video. The denier make a simple observation: "CO2 is plant food" and your response is 8 minutes of scientific data in a highly complicated answer.
The proper response to the question would be "But what does increased CO2 in the atmosphere do to humans? CO2 is animal poison and kills all animals." They don't want to hear the truth, so keep it brutally simple.
zigzigerblat 10 months ago
@zigzigerblat
I know. It's sort of like, water is essential to life, but too much water floods and kills.
That's a hard concept for the denier brain to absorb.
greenman3610 10 months ago
@greenman3610 Precisely, think caveman and they will be convinced!
zigzigerblat 10 months ago
@zigzigerblat I think you may have carbon dioxide and corbon monoxide mixed up. If carbon dioxide were a poison to animals then every breath we exhaled would slowly kill us . Is that simple enough for you?
david222444 7 months ago
@david222444 Go sit in a room full of 100% carbon dioxide and get back to me. Or take a trip to Venus and check the temperature.
zigzigerblat 7 months ago
@zigzigerblat Another simplton! lack of oxygen suffocates, co2 is harmless.
david222444 7 months ago
@david222444 I won't debate you and I am not an elementary school teacher. I know that anyone who is not educated or convinced today will never change and that all I can do is my part. I can only hope that those who let this happen are reminded harshly when the time comes that we all pay the price for this.
zigzigerblat 7 months ago
@zigzigerblat As you are spouting this crap, co2 is seeping out of every living cell in your body and coursing through your veins to your lungs.
david222444 7 months ago
@david222444
CO2 is in your body. therefore it has no radiative properties.
therefore there is no climate change.
all very simple if you use denialist reasoning.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 You keep up with the subject! the subject was whether co2 was toxic to animals, as usual you change it to fit the propaganda! co2 is not worth a mention as far is climate is concerned. Now if the Planet is at present cooling, which a quick search will confirm, what is there to deny? oh bye the way large glaciers are advancing in Alaska. Who is denying what?
david222444 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greenman3610 You must keep up with the subject! the subject was whether co2 was toxic to animals, as usual you change it to fit the propaganda! co2 is not worth a mention as far is climate is concerned. Now if the Planet is at present cooling, which a quick search will confirm, what is there to deny? oh bye the way large glaciers are advancing in Alaska. Who is denying what?
david222444 7 months ago
@david222444 Yes it is. Like I said, go sit in a room of 100% co2 for 10 minutes and see what happens. You are 80% water. Tie a couple of 100 lb weights and jump in a swimming pool.
Potassium is great for you and you will die without it. Now try eating a half inch cube of pure metallic potassium.
zigzigerblat 7 months ago
@zigzigerblat are you thick? dont you understand co2 is flowing through your body? boy you are totally brainwashed. ( small as it is ) Try eating a thousand macdonalds a the one sitting lol.
david222444 7 months ago
@david222444 Yes that is what I meant when I said "Yes it is". Yes CO2 is flowing through my body. Now reread my last comment.
Too much CO2 will kill you, too much Oxygen will kill you. Did you know why doctors never inject distilled water into people? Because it kills every cell it comes in contact with by rupturing (in your veins). It brings your ph levels out of BALANCE and kills you.
Balance is the key word. Ignorance will not only kill you, it will kill the human race.
zigzigerblat 7 months ago
@david222444 Put a bag over your head and breath in only what you exhale. Film it on blogtv, I wanna see how long you last.
Bellantoni 7 months ago
@Bellantoni THAT IS LACK OF OXYGEN YOU FN SIMPLTON.
david222444 7 months ago
@david222444 Right, and the carbon dioxide your left with doesn't improve your respiration.
Bellantoni 7 months ago
@Bellantoni what nonsense is this? speak sense .
david222444 7 months ago
@Bellantoni Lack of oxygen suffocates animals simples , co2 is harmless lol
david222444 7 months ago
@david222444 Does it?
Bellantoni 7 months ago
@zigzigerblat you are an idiot. co2 provides life for the planet.
david222444 7 months ago
plz plz plz help me!
what's the title of the herb song???
I Can't find it anywhere... love the song!
jujurette 11 months ago
@jujurette
NiyoRah - Positive Herb
greenman3610 11 months ago
Ok good stuff here, i´m not climate denier, it changes constantly and there have been alot hotter periods before human and thats a fact. Also is known that we are almost at the center of the galactic plate, aligned with the black whole in the center of universe and enourmous amounts of radiation and energy is getting to us, suns magnetfield blocks alot of it but it still affects us and our sun alot. Do not tax us! Water powered engines were here decades ago, keep politics out of this!!!
Matu1 11 months ago
Whoops, I must've been drunk when I wrote that comment. Please disregard it in its entirety.
Muad420 1 year ago
There's Monckton again...that sickening rat.
saintdracula1 1 year ago
@saintdracula1 That's insulting. I know some very nice pet rats.
Muad420 1 year ago
@Muad420 I in fact had an urge to establish a colony of rats when I would have gotten my house...Apologies. Rats at least produce less crap than this fool.
saintdracula1 1 year ago
@saintdracula1 You should try it, rats are very nice animals and rather less demanding than cats. And yes, they do produce a lot less feces than any human being. Thank you, come again!
Muad420 1 year ago
sailRichard 1 year ago
sailRichard 1 year ago
These 32 organizations have all been involved in the tobacco industry's campaign to deny the science showing the dangers of tobacco.
They are all now involved in the campaign to deny the science of climate change.
1. Acton Institute
2. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
3. Alexis de Tocquerville Institute
4. American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
5. Americans for Prosperity
6. Atlas Economic Research Foundation
7. Burson-Marsteller (PR firm)
sailRichard 1 year ago
The koolaid drinkers are those who cling to a littany of long debunked arguments, that more often than not contradict each other. Those who trust the opinions of talk show hosts, scientifically illiterate congressmen, and industry paid scientists who also usually happen to be anti environmental/ anti regulation free market thinkers. I can't think of a single well know skeptic scientist who is not funded by fossil fuels directly or indirectly.
sailRichard 1 year ago
Here come the conspiracy theories.
Your opinion of Skeptical Science says more about you than them. It's a great venue for open discourse, almost always strictly science. No policy issues, No politics, No trolling. On topic. No nonsense, but with the patience of Job.
Probably the best place on the internet for laymen to learn a little about the science and understand the issues.
Other good sites:
Open Mind
Real Climate
Science of Doom
Deep Climate
sailRichard 1 year ago
@sailRichard re:SkepticalScience
Biggest problem w/SkepticalScience site is that it’s NOT objective. They deny EVERYTHING that goes against their It's CO2 DOGMA.
They claim to write "What the Science Says" but ignore & dismiss contradictory scientific evidence & list only what supposedly proves their point. In their attempt to refute anything counter to their dogma, they make many flat out false statements. Speaks volumes about your critical thinking skills if you believe everything there!
con't
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2: "They deny EVERYTHING that goes against their DOGMA" Opposing everything that doesn't fit in with their dogma? Truth is, I could say the same about Piers Corbyn's site, but in his case, it'd actually be true.
MiracleMile90 9 months ago
@sailRichard Re:SkepticalScience
Their absurdity is demonstrated by their dismissing natural phenomenon impacting the climate, eg. the sun/solar, cosmic rays, PDO, etc. as being “irrelevant” and say “CO2 is the MAIN DRIVER of climate change”!
Saying that the SUN is “irrelevant to recent global warming” when the SUN is the SOURCE of the energy that warms our planet is ludicrous. There are many other factors that influence climate, but the SUN is certainly the main driver.
con't
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@sailRichard Re:your SkepticalScience UHI quotes
I've read the UHI sections. SS says “warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas” & “NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible influence from UHI Effect” BOTH FALSE!
Even an elementary student can debunk the SS UHI statements using GISS’s own data. Search ‘urban warming’ on YouTube. Pierre does more science than all of gm’s videos. Gathers, analyzes data & draws conclusions rather than building strawman arguments. Real science!
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
that you rely on gradeschoolers for your science speaks for itself.
The temp data has been analyzed and there is no significant difference between the so called "bad" and "good" stations.
google Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable? - NOAA Climate Services
when you graduate beyond 6th grade science, let me know.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
LOL. Truth is truth. I notice that you didn't point out any errors in this young man's science. The fact that he can do this any you can't says it all. He DOES science & you make cartoons.
So how about those OK & USCRN stations?
Do some science. Download some of that data that hasn't been "adjusted" and see what you find.
I've done it and it shows OK temps flat or declining while Hansen's doctored data shows increases.
I'll believe the data that hasn't been fiddled with!
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
OK = whole planet.
sorry, sixth grade science was overstating it. That's more like a 3 year old perspective.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
ROFLOL! Getting desperate aren’t you? Ad hom PLUS try at a strawman!
“OK=whole planet” Where did I say that? No, read my post, OK=Oklahoma.
What’s the temp been doing in Erick, OK since they installed that Mesonet station in 1994? Warming at 0.45C/decade like Hansen's GISS says? Nope, the automated(non-fiddled,UHI-free) Mesonet data shows that it has been COOLING at 0.25C/decade! That’s a FACT. Prove it wrong.
People can see who’s acting like a 3yr old & who’s discussing science!
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2 wow, you are a moron. The point Greenman was making which you so spectacularly failed to pick up on is that you cannot cherry pick a data point or two and extrapolate that to the whole planet. To further his argument you actually highlighted the point that that is what you did and you seem proud of it. Either you have absolutely no notion of basic statistical law or....actually there isn't another option. You are stupid. What a classic!
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense
see what i'm dealing with here?
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 At least you don't have to deal with that moronic Shimkus, in virtue of which (not whom - as far I can see he doesn't seem to meet the requirements of that title) logicians would have a field day - analysing and deciphering his nifty attemps to deconstruct common-sense logic. But he's probably being ironic and wilfully stupid - how else would he have become a Representative?
Urghh, I can't tell who makes me feel worse: that mad-eyed Monckton or that stupid meat head Shimkus.
saintdracula1 1 year ago
@greenman3610 lol i know. keep up the good work. love all your vids by the way.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@greenman3610
Hey greenman, are you ready to acknowledge that iceman541(@'Ice Area vs Volume' crock) found the source to your quote: "In the 70's all climate scientists thought an ice age was coming." @'In the 70s' crock?
It is an exact quote from the Peterson et al 2008 paper that you quoted elsewhere.
Why won't you acknowledge it was your source?
You are the one who said to skeptics: Please, please debate me. And now you won't even admit to the source of one of your own quotes?
What's up?
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense ROFLOL!
Can't you read?
I quoted gm. See, that's what the quote marks mean! LOL!
GM was accusing me of doing that, but I responded that I had done no such thing - see, I asked him: "Where did I say that? No,"
Are you also so slow that you didn't pick up on the fact that the examples I gave showed that even small towns(Barrow,AK) can have UHI effect & that data from even small towns (Erick,OK) differs from GOOD sited rural temp stations 3 miles away?
You guys are a HOOT! ROFLOL
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense
BTW, has Hansen & Co. adjusted for that 12C UHI that his own NASA scientists found over Providence, RI? Oh, that’s right, the CRU crew said it was insignificant!
LOL!
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2 I hear the cherries are ripe for picking.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense They were, but greenman already picked the tree clean!
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense Hey, do you know why greenman has clammed up and refuses to source his quote?
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2 because like me, he is sick of dealing with morons like you. But go on, have a final crack at me if you like, I won't bother responding because i don't need to get the final word in. I am confident in my ability to intepret good science from crock science and tell the diff between credible sources and oil-funded blogs. One day soon the climate will bite idiots like you on the arse and it is you who will have to live with the knowledge that you should have listened and didn't.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense says "moron", "stupid", "moron", "idiot", "oil-funded blogs"
LOL
Name calling, ad homs & irrelevant information.
You all follow the same playbook when you have no answers.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2 calling someone a name is not an ad hominen attack. It only becomes an ad hominem when they attack your character and claim that ruins your argument
Example of a true ad hominem
"because you are a stupid asshole you wrong about global warming"
Or "because you are a rapist, your theories about gravity cannot be true".
Now if I call you stupid that is not an ad hominem attack, you must be an idiot for believing that. lol
thesparitan 11 months ago
@uknowispeaksense
Well, it has already bit you guys ‘down under’ on the arse. Tragic that your government mates listened to the AGW alarmists who said climate change was going to cause more droughts so plans to build dams & flood defenses were defeated (w/help of environmentalists) & now you’re bearing the consequences. And similar stories in the UK where they were told they were in for a mild winter b/c of the AGW meme. Happens when you listen to pseudoscience.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2 I wasn't going to bother with you but now is your chance to prove to the world that you do speak out of your hat. Which dams? Which flood defences? Now be specific so that I can educate you about these things. Please please please tell me all about the Traveston Crossing dam for the Mary River. What sort of dam was it going to be? Its volume? Its inflows? How high was the wall going to be? Don't forget to mention the underlying geology at the wall. I have the technical paper.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense OK, you can’t refute my comments on UHI or gm’s improper use of Stanford paper, but now we’ve touched upon a subject that you know something about.
Yes, the Traveston Dam, and also the Tillegra Dam and Franklin Dam. Flood defenses? These dams would have been the major defenses, plus the lack of prudent water release in the Wivenhoe Dam(they kept it full rather than release water before the heavy rains came) & inadequate levees(Nyngan, Maclean, Grafton).
Educate me. I'll listen.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2 Come on. Volumes? Inflows? Geology? let me know the numbers. Your the one talking about a subject like an expert. Back it up.
As for the Franklin, it had nothing to do with flood mitigation or water supply. It was purely political. Tasmanian politics is a starnge thing that only someone who has actually lived there and experienced it can understand.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense
Never claimed to be a flood expert. But it doesn't take an expert to know that a dam stores upstream water & if it has capacity it can absorb heavy rain and store for later release thereby reducing flooding downstream & when you don't build them, they can't do that.
Re:Franklin, it was the template that the environmentalists from then on when they wanted to halt whatever is against their agenda. Nope, never lived there, but have a brother in Blue Mts in NSW so I keep up a bit.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2 uh huh pffftttt.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense Climate it is changing, but the driver is the Sun. If you hear about CO2 as a Chemist I can tell you that the concentration at the moment is low, around 0.5% in some places, and the highest concentration ever recorded was 2% millions of years ago, and this did caused some heat witch caused life to flourish to greater numbers. Just like Fall and Winter are the dead seasons Summer and Spring are the life seasons. Human trash the environment but sure is not with carbon emissions.
Ramiromasters 11 months ago
@Ramiromasters thats not really true.Carboniferous Period is when your talking about I assume. However by the Late Carboniferous Period Earth's climate had become increasingly cooler and drier. By the beginning of the Permian Period average global temperatures declined by about 10° C.The Ten Hottest Years That Have Occurred On Earth Are: 1990,1991,1995,1997,1998,1999,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005.
2005 Was The Hottest Of Them All.
alltiedup217 11 months ago
@Ramiromasters
"carbon was higher long ago, so what's the big deal" crock
watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU
greenman3610 11 months ago
@uknowispeaksense: Agreed completely. As a former climate denier myself..............I guess they'll just have to learn the hard way, won't they?
MiracleMile90 9 months ago
@greenman3610
FIRST requirement of an Oklahoma Mesonet site:“Rural sites should be selected to avoid human influences present in urban and suburban areas.”
“US Climate Reference Network (USCRN) consists of 114 stations developed, deployed, managed, and maintained by NOAA in the continental United States for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change”
“The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades”
ALL TRULY RURAL!
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
The difference between ideal rural sites compared to urban sites in temperature trends has been very small:"
"......The Urban Heat Effect has no significant influence on the record of global temperature trends."
this is from SepticalScience Basic version of the UHI argument rebuttal. I'd suggest going to their blog and reading the advanced version. Why do skeptics think the various arguments haven't been followed up on and investigated? Science is self correcting.
sailRichard 1 year ago
@sailRichard "this is from SepticalScience"
Been there, done that. A warm-aid site for the kool-aid drinkers, with woefully weak arguments.
But you did give them a more appropriate name! "SEPTICALscience" OK, I'll change my previous comment. It's not BS, its AS(anthro), cause the cows don't use the SEPTIC tank!
You are right, true science IS self correcting. But the pseudo-science of CC has been corrupted by feeding at the trough of gov'ts $80 Billion gravy train! It's crumbling though.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@sailRichard
google: nasa heat-island-sprawl
to read what these NASA scientists have to say about UHI.
I wish I could have been a fly on the wall when Hansen found out about what these NASA scientists said about UHI.
He probably filled his pants and frothed at the mouth as he said: what were you thinking man? we've told people that UHI was insignificant! LOL!
That's what happens when gov't gets too big. One hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
"Scientists have been very careful to ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends. To address this concern, they have compared the data from remote stations (sites that are nowhere near human activity) to more urban sites. Likewise, investigators have also looked at sites across rural and urban China, which has experienced rapid growth in urbanisation over the past 30 years and is therefore very likely to show UHI. "
(quote from skeptical science to be cont.)
sailRichard 1 year ago
@sailRichard "very careful" ROFLOL! They'd like you to think so, but that's total BS.
Right, the China sites. Give me the names, locations, & site histories of those sites please? Ha,ha.
You are just as clueless as gm!
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@sailRichard "ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends"
At AGU mtg, NASA scientists said:"The compact city of Providence, R.I., for example, has surface temperatures that are about 12.2 °C (21.9 °F) warmer than the surrounding countryside"
Did Hansen's careful scientists adjust that 12.2°C out of the long-term Prov. temp trend?
No, they actually lower the early temps & raise the current ones to further amplify the trend.
But UHI is "insignificant"!
RIGHT, it's just 12.2°C.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
"Similarly, the mathematical model of the organisation of an atom; neutrons, protons, electrons, is just a model. We cannot actually look inside an atom. But the model has been verified and it holds as a fundamental certainty."
SkepticalScience
sailRichard 1 year ago
more on models in science
"numerical models are used in all modern fields of science. Mathematical models are implicit in our understanding of the universe. For example, the governing equation for the gravitational effect is also 'just a model'. In fact, it’s the very definition of a model, since we do not actually understand how gravity works. However our mathematical model of the nature of gravity has been verified through countless observations."
SkepticalScience
sailRichard 1 year ago
Regarding models
from Skeptical Science
"The mathematical model of how atoms absorb and re-emit radiation in discrete energy packets and in discrete wavelengths is also a model. It also faithfully describes the universe. A whole heap of technology is built on the certainty of this model. If these models did not work, then most of the appliances in your house would also not work, including the microwave oven and the television. "
sailRichard 1 year ago
To add to what greenman3810 said: Is the UHI effect also causing temperture readings over the oceans and other remote locales to be biased?
Day times are warming. Nightimes are warming. Nighttimes are warming more.
Get it?
sailRichard 1 year ago
@sailRichard
I get it, but you evidently don't.
Those CO2/GHG molecules are not nocturnal. They do their GH thing during the day just like they do it during the night. So a warming due to CO2/GHG would show an almost identical higher daytime AND nighttime temperature increase.
The fact that nighttimes are warming more than daytimes IS what you see w/UHI, but it's NOT what you see w/GHG warming.
Unless you think that more thermal mass doesn't slow cooling. Better check out a thermodynamics book.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
RealOldOne2 The UHI argument is nonsense.
Why is is that deniers imagine that they have thought of all kinds of things that career climate scientists (thousands of them) never thought of in the past 40 years of intense research.
As for Anthony Watts' claim that bad temp monitoring stations add a bias. NOAA studied that, and Watts is right. There was a bias of .03 C toward cooling, NOT warming.
sailRichard 1 year ago
@sailRichard "The UHI argument is nonsense"
That's kind of broad. Can you be more specific? What about UHI is nonsense?
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
I think he just explained that pretty specifically.
Urban heat islands do not add enough heat to the system to significantly affect global temps.
Nor do they distort temperature records. Measurements from satellites should be unaffected by UHI, yet they also show warming.
Some of the most rapidly warming places on the planet, like West Antarctica, are obviously far beyond the reach of Urban effects.
That's why it's nonsense.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Perhaps to you saying "The UHI argument is nonsense" is specific, but to a scientist it's not.
"Nor do they distort temperature records" You're joking right?
At AGU mtg, NASA scientists said:"Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period"
Columbia U Earth Institute says that 3% of earth surface is urban.
So are more than 3% of temp stations urban? Get it? T-bias
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610 "West Antarctica, are obviously far beyond the reach of Urban effects"
You obviously are clueless about what UHI is and what causes it. It doesn't take lots of people. It's about thermal mass, additional heat sources and changes over time. if you are trying to identify changes in long term temps. Ya think there might have been some development since the 1940s in W.A.? More & bigger bldgs? Hard surfaced airport runways? Increased long-term temp trend due to development, not CO2.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610 says“Some of the most rapidly warming places on the planet, like West Antarctica, are obviously far beyond the reach of Urban effects.”
Locate Barrow, Alaska pop.~4500 on the north slope & shore of Arctic ocean.
Small, very remote and ‘far beyond the reach of urban effects’(500mi from Fairbanks), right?
Actually, wrong. Annual UHI effect of ~1C. >2C in winter & up to 6C on some days.
Documented in peer reviewed International Journal of Climate.
Google: hinkel barrow heat island
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610 says:“nor do they distort temp records”
To ACCURATELY determine long term climate(temp) change, ONLY TRUE RURAL SITES should be used.
Oklahoma & NOAA have both set up automated sites. NOAA’s are “for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change”.
Google Oklahoma Mesonet & examine ALL 120 stations.
Google USCRN, & examine of ALL 114 stations.
THEY ARE ALL RURAL!
WHY? Because REAL climate scientists KNOW that sites with ANY urban influence DISTORT the data.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
My previous comment should have read -
"The ENSO switched to La Nina months ago, yet November was the warmest on record. January-November was the warmest on record."
I had typed "switched to El Nino months ago"
sailRichard 1 year ago
If the sun was causing the warming, the lower (troposphere) and upper (stratosphere) layers of the atmosphere would both be warming. Not happening. Troposphere - warming, Stratosphere -cooling. Another greenhouse gas fingerprint.
Northern Hemisphere winters are warming faster than summers. Another greenhouse gas fingerprint.
2000-2010 warmest decade on record, 100 year solar minimum, as well as declining 11 year solar cycle.
sailRichard 1 year ago
If the sun was causing warming day times would be warming faster than nighttimes.
Not happening. Nightimes are warming more. This is a greenhouse gas fingerprint. Nightime radiation into space reduced by greenhouse gases.
sailRichard 1 year ago
@sailRichard
"Nightimes are warming more" - TRUE
"This is a greenhouse gas fingerprint" - FALSE
The GHGs are NOT changing day-to-night, so GHG warming fingerprint would be higher min temps(nighttime) AND higher max temps(daytime).
Greater nighttime warming w/o daytime warming is the fingerprint of Urban Heat Island effect.
Urban growth increases THERMAL MASS(roads, bldgs etc) which absorbs heat during the day, but lose that heat slower during the night, resulting in higher min temps.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
right.
because all those Urban heat islands in the arctic ocean are raising hell with the ice.
It's so obvious.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
LOL! gm, you are too much! When you can't counter someone's argument, you resort to buffoonery!
But actually you came pretty close. What you got wrong is that those Arctic heat islands themselves aren't IN the arctic ocean, they are just SURROUNDING the arctic ocean. Then Hansen & Co. SMEAR the urban warming 1200km out into the Arctic Ocean and voila, you get that bleeding red Santa land!
google: arctic isolated versus urban
& learn all about it
The truly rural ones aren't cooking.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
"The assertion concerning solar activity is hotly disputed in the scientific journals."
"Really? Can you cite one of these hot disputes?"
The paper that skeptics use to point out that temp and solar activity have correlation, also says that this correlation failed to hold in the latter half of the 20th century. The solar activity has been quiet for 40 years or so, while all four of those decades have been hotter than the one before it.
sailRichard 1 year ago
smartalek65@
The El Nino of 1998, which deniers like to use in their cherry picked comparisons, was the strongest El Nino in 100 years. The El Nino of 2009-2010 was nothing in comparison. The ENSO switched to El Nino months ago, yet November was the warmest on record. January-November was the warmest on record.
sailRichard 1 year ago
@greenman3610 In addition to that denial, do you also deny that owning you took on that same subject about the real world studies in the peer-reviewed literature? Admit it, you're wrong.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Still denying the reality that the recent el niño accounts for the spike of 2009-10.
smartalek65 1 year ago
Greenhouses use CO2 generators to increase ppm of the life giving gas. Crops do grow better with more of it
BrianNC81 1 year ago
@BrianNC81
right, but Russia's grain crop failed this year not due to too much CO2, but rather too little water - a drought that was the worst in 1000 years.
for latest nasa study on declining plant productivity, google:
Nasa declining plant productivity
for video on this from NASA google
nasa Global Warming Reduces Plant Productivity
greenman3610 1 year ago
@BeondaPale You did exactly what I expected of you. Our host does a lot of the same. The paper contains numerous references, including the important fact that there are 2 distinct TSI datasets found in the peer-reviewed literature. This would constitute exactly what I informed you of-a hot dispute found in the journals, which AGW advocates refuse to acknowledge.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
there is no dispute that we are currently emerging from the lowest solar minimum in a century, and that 2009 and 2010 were 2 of the hottest years in the record, in spite of that.
google
nasa lowest solar minimum
and
nasa key indicators
greenman3610 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Scafetta & West (Journal of Geophysical Research 112, D24S03 [2007]) contains a good discussion of the matter. Try googling scafetta west solar 2007. The paper in it's entirety is available.
smartalek65 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smartalek65
So you define "hot dispute" as a paper from 2007 containing a good discussion of the matter.
- interesting and par for the course of what I know of you so far.
Would you also define a torrid love affair as going out for a cup of coffee?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@greenman3610 That 2010 was unusually warm was due to an unusually strong el niño. The assertion concerning solar activity is hotly disputed in the scientific journals.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
"The assertion concerning solar activity is hotly disputed in the scientific journals."
Really? Can you cite one of these hot disputes?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
although I do agree that we should change our way of living. Please consider the fact that other planets' temperature are also increasing,,maybe it is due to our course in space .
edwardtang1977 1 year ago
@edwardtang1977
'other planets warming" crock
watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM
I'll trust NASA to tell us about our course in space.
They say there is nothing going on insofar as orbital forcing, and no increases in solar intensity over the last 50 years, in fact, we are in the lowest solar minimum in a century, even as 2010 was named the warmest meteorological year in the record.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 That was because another scientist researched the problem, and published his findings in peer-reviewed literature. However, the problem for you persists: the tropospheric temp rise doesn't match the surface temp rise. In fact, the tropical tropispheric hot spot that was expected to be there appears nowhere in the observational record.
smartalek65 1 year ago
BTW warmer climates are WAY better for insects, fungus and bacteria - all of which have a higher rate of evolution than do higher ordered forms of life
Again, you seem to be advocating mankind actively changing the only biosphere that sustains him without complete knowledge of the consequence of such change.
Why would you do this?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale "WAY" better" Not too scientific there. Can you quantify those for me please? peer-reviewed papers?
"higher rate of evolution" Can you point me to a few peer-reviewed papers please?
"without complete knowledge of the consequence of such change"
That would lead to doing nothing because no one has COMPLETE knowledge about anything.
Until you offer some documented evidence of your wild claims, that's all they are is wild claims. ALARMISM. People stop listening to 'chicken littles".
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
""WAY" better" Not too scientific there. Can you quantify those for me please? "
Sure. Lower forms of life have much higher reproduction rates - therefore higher mutation rates and therefore adapt more readily to environmental pressures such as rapid climate change.
"That would lead to doing nothing because no one has COMPLETE knowledge about anything."
That's ridiculous. Yes, I will describe HOW is it ridiculous if you wish, but I have a feeling that you already know
BeondaPale 1 year ago
So now when I ask you "COULD", you respond that it WILL !
To two different things - read more carefully this time
"Doubling or tripling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere WILL lead to global climate change."
AND
"Climate change COULD cause a mass extinction" and "COULD place serious evolutionary pressure on every living on the planet."
Keep up!!
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale No,you keep switching the subject and playing with words so you can dodge the questions, just like greenman does. When I ask about "mass extinctions" and "serious evolutionary pressure", you respond with generic "global climate change".
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
Comment removed
BeondaPale 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RealOldOne2
"No, you keep switching the subject and playing with words"
No, I think you just misunderstood. How did I play with words?
"generic "global climate change""
Global climate change is not generic. There is nothing generic about the the current biosphere - it is unique. In addition, the biological world is comprised of systems that interconnect and depend on each other Since this is the only biosphere we have, what happens to it due to our actions is anything but generic.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
RealOldOne2 And he likes accusing us skeptics of "cherrypicking," huh. My wife would tell him-in her NYC accent-how messed up that is.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@greenmann3610 No sir, that is entirely unresponsive. My post adressed the current problem-it's NOT climate related-and his point is that the paper you referenced still shows a real-world increase in productivity of 40% that you won't even acknowledge. The question is: why not?
smartalek65 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I think you need to adress his point before demanding he adress yours. He asked a reasonable question: why won't you admit the fact from the study data is accurate? Do you wonder any longer why the lay public has turned the other way?
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
I'm addressing his point, by showing what the scientific literature and actual real world events are revealing about primary productivity and actual agricultural experience.
See today's New York Times, google
An Almanac of Extreme Weather
greenman3610 1 year ago
@smartalek65 WOW!
greenman's 'scientific literature' - An Almanac of Extreme Weather - to quote the NYT this is a farmer's "memoirs, self-published in the wake of the Dust Bowl of the 1930s". No peer-reviewed science here, just anecdotal stories, no data. Let's see, we had Dust Bowl in the 30s before significant CO2 emission, started really emitting more CO2 after WW2 and have had no Dust Bowl in the 70 years since. Using this anecdotal evidence we ought to keep doing what we're doing!
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Looks like I'm right, your side is being too quick to call it an effect of AGW. A lot appears due to local/regional meteorological anomolies, not climate change. A lot like the 2003 European heat wave was-declared an effect of AGW, but wasn't.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Much appreciate the source info. I think, however, that this could well be a jump to a conclusion not warranted by the factual data.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@greenman3610 In the future, starting now would be appreciated, could you just name which vid you're trying to point me to? I've tried typing the entries in, and they simply don't work. That still doesn't explain why you won't adress the point raised, though.
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
google
Global Warming Reduces Plant Productivity
for NASA video describing recent paper showing reduced primary productivity around the planet, in other words, real world evidence of what rising temps are doing even now, with only 390 ppm
Also google
World ‘Dangerously Close’ to Food Crisis, U.N. Says
for nytimes story about drop in food production related to climate disasters of the past summer.
We deal in real world fact here.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I noticed you still won't answer the point RealOldOne2 raised. I wonder why...
smartalek65 1 year ago
@smartalek65
see
watch?v=Er3iD5PIR00
greenman3610 1 year ago
@smartalek65 Because they're not about discussing science, but about fomenting fear by telling only one side. The actions of those holding pro-AGW belief reveal this. I was banned from a blogsite(who had embedded this video) after asking this same question. And this was a blog subtitled:"dedicated to those of us who enjoy safe opportunities to express ourselves on controversial issues of the day". Yeah right. Safe only if you agree with the belief of the blogger. Otherwise banned.What hypocrisy!
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
except now you are not responding to the points I have raised.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Peter, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about the real-world Stanford peer-reviewed scientific study that YOU referenced in YOUR video.I told you that I was not going to follow any of your other rabbit trails until you did that. Answer that question, then we can discuss other aspects of CO2 as plant food.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
You have my answer. Under perfect lab conditions, adding the Co2 cut the production 40 percent.
That's with co2 at 680 ppm - which will also give you runaway icesheet loss, catastrophic sea level rise, ocean acidification, desertification and extinction level species loss.
At a mere 390, we are already seeing real world loss of global primary production
dampened harvests and rising grain prices., along with 40 percent loss of oceanic plankton, our oxygen producers.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
There is a form of autism that characterizes a lot of deniers that post here, and I think you suffer from it. It causes them to fixate on some tiny element of the picture that they hope can be selected out to rationalize a position, or deceive the unwary.
For NASA video on primary production loss, see
watch?v=Er3iD5PIR00
for more on ag loss, google
World ‘Dangerously Close’ to Food Crisis, U.N. Says
and
An Almanac of Extreme Weather
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 LOL. You are guilty of the very thing of which you accuse me! You are fixated on one aspect that “under SOME circumstances, elevated CO2 can CONSTRAIN potential NPP”. Quoted from the article and I don’t deny it. I just point out that the OVERALL GLOBAL (big picture!) effect of elevating ALL variables resulted in a 40% INCREASE in plant production. That is GOOD for the plants! You refuse to answer why it is BAD! Quit denying the reality of this experiment and answer my question pls.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
How you can argue in favor of a changing our entire atmosphere, when you don't know what the overall effect of that change will be boggles my mind.
This should spell total lunacy to anyone with half a brain!
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale "changing our entire atmosphere"
entire??? Let's see ... entire = all = 100% = 1.000000
NOAAs data shows CO2 from 1952 to 2010 is changing at .0000014 per year.
Wrong by 6 orders of magnitude.
"This should spell total lunacy to anyone with half a brain!"
Uh ... perhaps you've answered your own question as to why it spells total lunacy to you ;-)
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
LOL
RealOldOne2 SAYZZZZ:
Unless we replace the nitrogen in our atmosphere with another gas , no change is taking place to the entire system
Tell ya what, try ingesting .0000014 of your body weight in cyanide and see if that doesn't change your entire body
THAT is why is spells total lunacy - or total ignorance (take your pick) to me
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale
YOU claimed that we are changing the "entire" atmosphere. I CORRECTLY pointed out that only 0.0000014 part of it is changing per year.
LOL. We're talking about CO2 not cyanide. You keep answering your own questions. Comparing CO2 to cyanide IS lunacy, ignorance or both.
If you're SO concerned about adding CO2 to the atmosphere, then please stop breathing. You inhale 387ppm CO2 and exhale 40,000ppm of CO2! How can you live with yourself changing the "entire" atmosphere like that?
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610 The article recognizes that this "elevated CO2 constraint" goes against the body of previous studies: "THOUSANDS of published papers describe plant or ecosystem responses to elevated CO2(32). Generally, stimulatory responses in individual plants(27) often persist at the ecosystem scale, in the form of INCREASED ABOVEGROUND GROWTH".
THOUSANDS of papers find that elevated CO2 INCREASES plant growth! That's the reality. But you are fixated on using a tiny bit of contrary evidence!
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
"THOUSANDS of papers find that elevated CO2 INCREASES plant growth!"
True - elevated CO2 increases plant growth. But to say that ALONE - to jump from that to the the conclusion -
"Therefore, doubling or tripling CO2 levels would be a good thing!!"
Is shallow at best
QUESTIONS:
Do such CO2 increases effect all plant growth the same?
How do CO2 increases effect PARASITIC life forms like fungus and bacteria?
You guys are the champs of not thinking things all the way through
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale My comments to greenman concerned the article he referenced, which shows when CO2 was ~doubled along with elevated temp, precip, & soil N, plant growth increased 40%. He refuses to answer why that is a bad thing. Perhaps you can offer an answer.
Those thousands of papers that showed increased plant growth elevated the level of CO2 to 2-3 times today's atmospheric levels. Those are the results of the peer-reviewed science papers. Not shallow at all.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
the answer - google NASA video:
Global Warming Reduces Plant Productivity
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Um, I didn't see any reference to the Shaw et.al. "Grassland Responses ..." paper so that doesn't answer my question to you. Ready to answer yet?
And those are PROXY satellite metrics. "HIGH resolution data from MODERATE resolution spectroradiometer" ?? That's like saying 'micro measurements from my yardstick'.
I trust data from real scales weighing real plants harvested from the surface of the earth rather than proxies from a satellite 22,000 miles above the earth, thank you.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Did you make that cartoon? It's a joke! @1:55 "This visualization represents the amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere by plants". It shows fire, clouds & smoke. Hello, CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas! Real scientific. Listen to the words. It's nonsense. @2:22 "higher temperatures led to increased amounts of sunlight" How does that work?
As shazizz said there: "This false science ... It's just plain ludicrous
So foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing.!"
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
"He refuses to answer why that is a bad thing. Perhaps you can offer an answer."
As with anything, if you only look at the pros and refuse to look at the cons, you're asking for trouble. it is extremely difficult to generalize about the overall impact of the fertilization effect on plant growth.
To actively advocate doing something so radical as doubling or tripling the amount of CO2 globally without knowing ALL the consequences is foolhardy at best.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale That's no answer. I pointed out the pros(40% more growth). I'm asking you to explain the cons. Enlighten us. Neither you nor greenman have done that yet.
LOL. I'm not 'actively advocating' anything, let alone radical. You're advocating going back to the caveman era, except this time NO FIRES because burning anything emits CO2 and changes the "entire atmosphere". Tell you what. Since you guys fear warming so much, we'll take the tropics and you can take the poles. Who'll survive?
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
the answer has already been given - google nasa video
global warming reduces plant productivity
Deniers are masters of compartmentalized thinking, it's what denial is all about.
I refuse to enter into that self deception, so I'm not playing fair.
sorry.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
No. My question, that you refuse to answer, is about the 'Shaw' paper. It's not 'compartmentalized thinking' to discuss it. If you were a peer reviewer, you would deal w/paper you were reviewing. No continued changing the subject or that would be your last peer review.
Please step out of your world of denial of reality and answer my question. The more you refuse to do so, the easier for people see that the science does not support you. Thus all you can do is a rope-a-dope.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610
I've watched that video. As people said, "it's ludicrous".
Explain how you get "high resolution data" from a "medium res" instrument. There is no high res data there, only medium res data. So you're drawing conclusions on made-up data.
eg.,If you take a picture with a 1 megapixel camera, you can't get 10 million pixels. Those other 9 million pixels just aren't there. To draw conclusions based on them is BOGUS,false science. But then you're a graphic designer not a scientist.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
that's why I rely on the National Academy for my science, not Rush Limbaugh.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
Then why didn't you use an NAS paper to "prove" your claim that CO2 "does not make plants and crops grow faster...in the real world"?
You used the Stanford "Shaw et.al." paper which actually refutes your whole AGW theory. This 'real-world' experiment showed that if you elevate CO2 by itself, growth was enhanced by 10%, but when you ALSO elevated temp, precip, & soil N to levels expected in a 'globally warmed' world, growth was enhanced by 40%. And yet you REFUSE to admit that fact.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
the difference is, I go along with the actual conclusions of the shaw paper in regard to the 'suppressive effects" of CO2. I don't try to cherry pick a piece of their result, and distort it to mean something that they themselves did not conclude.
You are intellectually dishonest at best, but most likely just stupid.
Post all you like, just keep it clean, ok?
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
Friend, you are mis-representing my posts. I've agreed that CO2 suppressed the growth of elevating just the other 3 variables from 80% increase to 40% increase. No distortion there.
YOU are cherry picking the negative result! I merely pointed that elevating ALL 4 variables INCREASED plant growth 40% and you refuse to admit that.
They graphed results of 15 combination of variables. 13 showed 8-80% increased growth. Two showed decreased growth of -2 to -8%.
Overall very net positive.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610 says "You are intellectually dishonest at best, but most likely just stupid"
LOL. No, I'm not the one using "ad hom" attacks.
You and BeyondaPale are the ones doing that. And when you did, I merely held up the mirror so that you could see that you were guilty of what you accused me.
I don't have to "attack the person" because the science is on my side. Only those who have no answer do that. Look in the mirror again friend.
I have kept it very respectful. Please do likewise.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
"But then you're a graphic designer not a scientist."
do you claim to be a scientists then?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale
Yes I am.
Are you?
ps. that wasn't a slam against greenman. Just stating that he claimed no science degree or training on his bio page. I surmised that perhaps he has such difficulty understanding the peer-reviewed science literature that he references, and can't answer my question because he has not received the formal education training required for a degree in the natural or applied sciences. Perhaps I'm wrong and he has such education but just didn't included it on his bio page.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
the scientific literature is generally written in english, and can be understood in its general conclusions by an intelligent reader with good advisors.
You should try looking at some one day.
greenman3610 1 year ago