New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
"In order to know how good you are at something requires exactly the same skills as it does to be good at that thing in the first place, which means that if you are absolutely no good at something then you lack exactly the skills that you need to know that you're absolutely no good at it."

You guys need to internalize that.

Dunning Kruger Effect. The stupid people don't know they're stupid.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
There are many, many factors aside from the ones you list that affect global temperatures.

how curt of you to simply dismiss that chart of summary external radiative forcing components (natural and anthropogenic). Don't hesitate to provide a summary accounting and substantiation that attributes the relatively recent warming to internal mechanisms and/or natural external forcings.

We don't even know what causes ice ages. They're a global temperature variation I'm not willing to blame Ford Motor Company for. One theory of ice ages is that they are caused when the solar system passes through clouds of galactic dust. But it's just a theory. We don't know where all the dust is, or how much it affects insolation.

with increasing temperatures... you're focused on an "impending ice age"... because???

The sun is a variable star, we just don't have enough data to fully evaluate its variability. That'll certainly have something to do with global temperatures.

no, 'It's NOT the Sun"! Solar irradiance is down as temperature has increased; again:

We also don't know at what rate increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will spur plant growth, which will reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

nonsense! From the U.S. Global Change Research Program's latest iterative (2014) National Climate Assessment report:
- Many agricultural regions will experience declines in crop and livestock production from increased stress due to weeds, diseases, insect pests, and other climate change induced stresses.

- Climate disruptions to agricultural production have increased in the recent past and are projected to increase further over the next 25 years. By mid-century and beyond, these impacts will be increasingly negative on most crops and livestock.

- The rising incidence of weather extremes will have increasingly negative impacts on crop and livestock productivity because critical thresholds are already being exceeded.

- Current loss and degradation of critical agricultural soil and water assets by increasing extremes in precipitation will continue to challenge both rain-fed and irrigated agriculture unless innovative conservation methods are implemented.

- Climate change is increasing the vulnerability of forests to ecosystem change and tree mortality through fire, insect infestations, drought, and disease outbreaks. Western U.S. forests are particularly vulnerable to increased wildfire and insect outbreaks; eastern forests have smaller disturbances but could be more sensitive to periodic drought.

- U.S. forests currently absorb about 13% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by fossil fuel burning in the U.S. Climate change, combined with current societal trends regarding land use and forest management, is projected to reduce forest CO2 uptake.

- Climate change impacts on ecosystems reduce their ability to improve water quality and regulate water flows.

- Climate change combined with other stressors is overwhelming the capacity of ecosystems to buffer the impacts from extreme events like fires, floods, and storms.

- Land- and sea-scapes are changing rapidly and species, including many iconic species, may disappear from regions where they have been prevalent, changing some regions so much that their mix of plant and animal life will become almost unrecognizable.

- Timing of critical biological events, such as spring bud burst, emergence from overwintering, and the start of migrations, will shift, leading to important impacts on species and habitats.

From the latest IPCC AR5 reports:


That's just a handful of the factors we don't really have a handle on.

As I said, jury's out.

deniers gonna deny!
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,051
8,317
113
Washington DC
deniers gonna deny!
Seriously? Agriculture?

You seriously believe that agriculture is a significant factor in plant growth? With 90% of the CO2-absorbing, oxygen-emitting plants being sea plants, and 90+% of the land plants on the planet being wild, non-agricultural plants, you honestly think that the <1% of plants that are agricultural are an accurate representation of the status of plant life on Earth?


 
Last edited:

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Seriously? Agriculture?

You seriously believe that agriculture is a significant factor in plant growth? With 90% of the CO2-absorbing, oxygen-emitting plants being sea plants, and 90+% of the land plants on the planet being wild, non-agricultural plants, you honestly think that the <1% of plants that are agricultural are an accurate representation of the status of plant life on Earth?

I focused on staple plant growth/yield..... in line with the usual denier "CO2 is plant food" meme! Typically in keeping with the profile that food production has in relation to population requirements, notwithstanding food security concerns.

Certainly, as you say, "Seriously"..... if you're able please go beyond your simplistic unsubstantiated statements and actually speak to a qualitative/quantitative impact you interpret non-crop plants to have as an increasing CO2 sink... or what ocean marine ecosystem changes you interpret will complement air-sea gas diffusion exchange... notwithstanding acidification influences.


hey don't extend yourself... don't reach beyond your comfort zone and abilities! :mrgreen:

tards gonna tard

how's your "fact gathering" going? :mrgreen:
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,051
8,317
113
Washington DC
I focused on staple plant growth/yield..... in line with the usual denier "CO2 is plant food" meme! Typically in keeping with the profile that food production has in relation to population requirements, notwithstanding food security concerns.

Certainly, as you say, "Seriously"..... if you're able please go beyond your simplistic unsubstantiated statements and actually speak to a qualitative/quantitative impact you interpret non-crop plants to have as an increasing CO2 sink... or what ocean marine ecosystem changes you interpret will complement air-sea gas diffusion exchange... notwithstanding acidification influences.
OK, so now post your data on the 99+% of plant life that isn't agricultural.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,051
8,317
113
Washington DC
I think he wants to use the revenues from carbon credits to help Frodo and Samwise get the One Ring to Mount Doom.

Which I have to agree with, actually. I'm very pro-hobbit.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
I focused on staple plant growth/yield..... in line with the usual denier "CO2 is plant food" meme! Typically in keeping with the profile that food production has in relation to population requirements, notwithstanding food security concerns.

if you're able please go beyond your simplistic unsubstantiated statements and actually speak to a qualitative/quantitative impact you interpret non-crop plants to have as an increasing CO2 sink... or what ocean marine ecosystem changes you interpret will complement air-sea gas diffusion exchange... notwithstanding acidification influences.
OK, so now post your data on the 99+% of plant life that isn't agricultural.
nice! Where's your data in any of this? :mrgreen: You sure make a lot of unsubstantiated statements, hey!

again, particularly with a/YOUR focus on offsetting increasing atmospheric levels of CO2... I'm really keen to see you speak more directly, more specifically, to the types of plants you presume to act as a significant offsetting sink and most pointedly what regions of the earth you're anticipating this increased sink effect from... with or without accompanying migration range shifts relative to climate change impacts. Don't forget to factor those peat plant/soil wetland and permafrost melting feedback influences associated with increased CO2... and methane... release to the atmospheric, hey! Since you've dropped your earlier reference to oceans... does this mean you've also dropped that related claim?

What are you talking about?

that you absolutely have nothing subject matter related to offer... other than posting nonsense and insults, ya gots nuthin! That's what I'm talking about, hey!
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,051
8,317
113
Washington DC
go with your apparent posting strengths!
You mean like. . .

"that you absolutely have nothing subject matter related to offer... other than posting nonsense and insults, ya gots nuthin! That's what I'm talking about, hey!"

Yeah, you're an intellectual powerhouse, you are.

I had an interesting, informative, polite debate with Zipperfish, because he chose to be interesting, informative,and polite.

You chose to be a belligerent asswit, so I have no interest in a debate with you.

Suffice to say I'm very much on the fence about global warming. As Zip said, I'm a sceptic. But to you and your religious buddies, sceptics don't exist, just the Chosen and the infidels.

Given those choices, I'll take "infidel."

Louder a man shouts, less he has to say.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
You're the one making the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

Huh!!! I made the claim???... so this following quoted statement of yours isn't you claiming "some level of increased atmospheric CO2 will spur plant growth to realize an increased sink effect... one reducing atmospheric CO2 levels? This isn't you? :mrgreen:
We also don't know at what rate increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will spur plant growth, which will reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The same with your trip to Machu Picchu......the burden of proof is on you.....

sure lapper! You the loyal lapdog... the guy who self-proclaims, "I don't have a reason/rationale to claim LIAR... I don't need a reason/rationale to claim LIAR"! :mrgreen: You're nothing but a petulant juvenile with nothing positive to contribute in anything.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,051
8,317
113
Washington DC
Huh!!! I made the claim???... so this following quoted statement of yours isn't you claiming "some level of increased atmospheric CO2 will spur plant growth to realize an increased sink effect... one reducing atmospheric CO2 levels? This isn't you? :mrgreen:
No, it's me claiming that we don't know.

Reading comp is a challenge for some folks. Usually ones that use lots of exclamation marks.

Y'know, waldo, you're obviously quite intelligent and well informed. I'd be happy to actually thrash this out with you. But your emotional deficiencies make that a sufficiently unpleasant experience that I really can't be bothered. Sorry.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Suffice to say I'm very much on the fence about global warming. As Zip said, I'm a sceptic. But to you and your religious buddies, sceptics don't exist, just the Chosen and the infidels.

you're a fake-skeptic... a denier for denier's sake. You can't even speak to the basis/foundation of your "claimed skepticism"... but yowzer, you sure can make unsubstantiated statements!
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
No, it's me claiming that we don't know. Reading comp is a challenge for some folks. Usually ones that use lots of exclamation marks.

:mrgreen: standard denier response. Postulate a grandiose and unsubstantiated impact claim and attach it to a universal "WE don't know"... when challenged to provide a basis/foundation to the impact claim, state the onus in on the challenger! Of course, there's no shortage of study on the impacts of climate change on regional forests and related CO2 emission effects;equally on non-crop related plants..... but ya, "WE don't know"... nuthin!

again, are you dropping the ocean component of your prior unsubstantiated statement?