http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/the-world-is-getting-greener-why-does-no-one-want-to-know/


Of course it's obvious to anyone who attended school that increased CO2 means increased plant growth. The natural cycle of the environment has shown us this many times.  However this awkward fact does not suit the environazis or the religious fanatics of the Cult of Warming.

Maybe it is the higher water content of the atmosphere is causing more plant growth?

As CO2 concentration increases and night time minimum temperatures get higher plants lose the ability to take in nitrogen and eventually the plants can’t even absorb CO2!

Nope, we need to decrease CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 20^th, 2016 at 4:49pm:

Maybe it is the higher water content of the atmosphere is causing more plant growth?

How much extra rain where we get "greening of the deserts"?
Are you saying the CSIRO is wrong?

http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2

'The relaxation time (amount of time that passes between absorption and emission of a photon by a molecule) for CO2 in the atmosphere is about 6 microseconds [5, 6]. The elapsed time between collisions between gaseous molecules at sea level average temperature and pressure is about 0.0002 microseconds [7]. Thus it is approximately 6/0.0002 = 30,000 times more likely that a CO2 molecule, after it has absorbed a photon, will bump into another molecule, losing at least part of the quantum of energy it acquired from the photon. After multiple collisions, essentially all of the added photonic energy becomes distributed among other molecules and the probability of the CO2 molecule emitting a photon at sea level conditions becomes negligible.'

http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com


Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 20^th, 2016 at 4:49pm:

As CO2 concentration increases and night time minimum temperatures get higher plants lose the ability to take in nitrogen and eventually the plants can’t even absorb CO2!

Citation needed.

At what level do plants cease to absorb CO2? Commercial greenhouses suggest 1500ppm is the point at which you start to get diminishing returns

'New study confirms water vapor as global warming amplifier'

http://phys.org/news/2014-07-vapor-global-amplifier.html


Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 20^th, 2016 at 4:49pm:

Nope, we need to decrease CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

To what level? At about 190ppm plants start to die.

below 400ppm would be good.

You missed the significance of plants not taking up nitrogen? No nitrogen no protein!

There is still an issue if the sea is becoming more acidic.

Fair go I said "if"

The seas are becoming more acidic or, if you like, less alkaline and that is having drastic effects on zooplankton.

JM I think its taking out the coral,,, but that could be in the plankton stage.

It could be the whole genetic makeup of the sealife has to adapt to re-establish itself.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 20^th, 2016 at 7:35pm:

below 400ppm would be good. You missed the significance of plants not taking up nitrogen? No nitrogen no protein!

If you have a look at protein in say Weetbix, 2 biscuits gets you less than 10% of your daily balance.

', growth of plants at elevated CO2 concentrations of 475–600 ppm increases leaf photosynthetic rates by an average of 40% (Ainsworth & Rogers 2007). Carbon dioxide concentrations are also important in regulating the openness of stomata, pores through which plants exchange gasses, with the external environment. Open stomata allow CO2 to diffuse into leaves for photosynthesis, but also provide a pathway for water to diffuse out of leaves. Plants therefore regulate the degree of stomatal opening (related to a measure known as stomatal conductance) as a compromise between the goals of maintaining high rates of photosynthesis and low rates of water loss. As CO2 concentrations increase, plants can maintain high photosynthetic rates with relatively low stomatal conductance.'

'Elevated CO2 also leads to changes in the chemical composition of plant tissues. Due to increased photosynthetic activity, leaf nonstructural carbohydrates (sugars and starches) per unit leaf area increase on average by 30–40% under FACE elevated CO2 (Ainsworth 2008; Ainsworth & Long 2005). Leaf nitrogen concentrations in plant tissues typically decrease in FACE under elevated CO2, with nitrogen per unit leaf mass decreasing on average by 13% (Ainsworth & Long 2005).'

' Effects on human nutrition are likely as well. In FACE experiments, protein concentrations in grains of wheat, rice and barley, and in potato tubers, are decreased by 5–14% under elevated CO2 (Taub et al. 2008). '

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

So up to a 40% increase in yield. Protein down by 5-14%. But proteins, from plants, are not solely or even a large portion of a diet.


Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 20^th, 2016 at 8:34pm:

The seas are becoming more acidic or, if you like, less alkaline and that is having drastic effects on zooplankton.

Citation needed.

Lee

The drop in protein percentage could be due to dilution.

As the plant can produce more starch and sugar.

Perhaps the total protein would be a better measure.

Drought affected crops of wheat generally have high protien levels, as the protein is stored in the seed first then the strarches are stored later.
So the crop yeild is way down but proteins are good.

'The shell game has been of particular interest to me after reading a scientific letter “Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification” published in Nature a couple of years ago. Since then there has been a deluge of alarmist warnings on “Ocean Acidification” – including one in the Feb/March issue of Dive Pacific from an organization called the “International Union for the Conservation of Nature” – but no actual reefs destroyed by it, of course.'

'The reason for my scepticism was my own well-publicised underwater observations at Dobu Island in Milne Bay where CO2 vents bubble through a thriving coral reef. Just maybe, I thought, these people do not a have a clue what they are writing about. So when they approached me to see if they could dive Dobu I said of course, but that I was not interested in cherry picking data to conform to any conspiracy to promote Anthropogenic Global Warming. Interestingly I never heard back from them.'

http://www.halsteaddiving.com/adult-section-stories/global-fawning/the-shell-game/

Well played Lee

miketrees wrote on Oct 20^th, 2016 at 9:01pm:

Lee The drop in protein percentage could be due to dilution. As the plant can produce more starch and sugar. Perhaps the total protein would be a better measure. Drought affected crops of wheat generally have high protien levels, as the protein is stored in the seed first then the strarches are stored later. So the crop yeild is way down but proteins are good.

No, as night time minimum temperatures rise the plant is less able to absorb nitrogen. In greenhouses you can increase nitrogen in the fertiliser used. Over the bulk of the countryside—nope nope nope.

Animals concentrate plant protein.

Weetbix is foul crap!

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 9:54am:

No, as night time minimum temperatures rise the plant is less able to absorb nitrogen.

'The effects of night temperature on plant morphology and nitrogen accumulation were examined in rice (Oryza sativa L.) during vegetative growth. The results showed that the shoot biomass of the plants was greater at 27°C (high nighttime temperature, HNT) than at 22°C (CK). However, the increase in both shoot and root biomasses was not significant under 10 mg N/L. The shoot nitrogen concentrations were 16.1% and 16.7% higher in HNT than in CK under 160 and 40 mg N/L. These results suggest that plant N uptake was enhanced under HNT; however, the positive effect might be limited by the N status of the plants. '

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2013/649326/

' The results show that, on average, night-time temperatures increased by 0.9°C under night-time covered (NC) treatment compared with the uncovered (CK). Plant total N accumulation was 17–43% higher in NC treatment than CK during the jointing, anthesis and ripening stages''

www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.4141/cjps2012-044#.WAlvqLXAPtQ

Now unless you have some peer-reviewed papers that support your position, rather than some personal intuition.....?

Find something about widescale vegetation.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 12:06pm:

Find something about widescale vegetation.

Why? You're the one making the claims?\. ;)

Belgarion wrote on Oct 20^th, 2016 at 3:59pm:

Of course it's obvious to anyone who attended school that increased CO2 means increased plant growth. The natural cycle of the environment has shown us this many times.  However this awkward fact does not suit the environazis or the religious fanatics of the Cult of Warming.

Garion, the fact is that it is a myth trotted out by the global warming deniers because it sounds plausible but is simply not backed up by science.


Quote:

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production The regional climate changes that higher CO2 will bring, and their effect on these limiting factors on plant growth, such as water, also have to be taken into account. These indirect effects are likely to have a much larger impact than CO2 fertilisation. For instance, while higher temperatures will boost plant growth in cooler regions, in the tropics they may actually impede growth. A two-decade study of rainforest plots in Panama and Malaysia recently concluded that local temperature rises of more than 1ºC have reduced tree growth by 50 per cent https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2016 at 10:18am:

For instance, while higher temperatures will boost plant growth in cooler regions, in the tropics they may actually impede growth. A two-decade study of rainforest plots in Panama and Malaysia recently concluded that local temperature rises of more than 1ºC have reduced tree growth by 50 per cent

1. According to AGW theory the majority of the warming will be in mid-latitudes. That is not where Panama and Malaysia are located.

2.Have you got a link to that study? All I could find was -

'According to an article in Berita Harian on 18th June 2013, there is a drastically increasing in temperature in most of the area of Malaysia, that is 36.2 degree celcius in Subang, 38.0 degree celcius in Malacca and 38.9 degree celcius in Perlis. The hot and dry weather started from February and it is estimated last until the middle of March 2014 at the north area of Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and North Sarawak. Malaysia was encountering Hot Wave, based on meteorologist, temperature that exceed 37 degree celcius is the sign of Hot Wave. The increasing in temperature causes Malaysians having Heat Stroke. '

http://peningkatansuhuprofkab.blogspot.com.au/

That seems more like weather than AGW.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427576/

This is the paper your looking for lee,
Basically it shows that as temperatures increase in the tropical forests plants don't grow as fast (Less c02 uptake) which more than negates any benefit that increased Co2 levels would provide.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 7:57pm:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427576/ This is the paper your looking for lee, Basically it shows that as temperatures increase in the tropical forests plants don't grow as fast (Less c02 uptake) which more than negates any benefit that increased Co2 levels would provide.

Except the temperatures are supposed to rise more in the mid latitudes not the tropics. And the daytime temperatures are hardly rising. It is the night time temperatures that are postulated to rise.

Although some researchers have claimed to find the tropical tropospheric hotspot using new and innovative statistical techniques. Torture the data long enough and it will confess. The tropical tropospheric hotspot was supposed to rise 2-3 times the surface temperature.

Glad to correct your misunderstanding. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 8:31pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19th, 2016 at 7:57pm: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427576/ This is the paper your looking for lee, Basically it shows that as temperatures increase in the tropical forests plants don't grow as fast (Less c02 uptake) which more than negates any benefit that increased Co2 levels would provide. Except the temperatures are supposed to rise more in the mid latitudes not the tropics.

This is according to the climate science that you dispute. again, your stuck trying to use selective  fragments of the huge body of work supporting AGW to support your stated opinion, because you have extremely limited credible science to support your position.

Its also irrelevant. The fact that its getting hotter in the tropics doesn't mean the temperature isn't rising even more in the mid latitudes.  Unless your just trying to confuse people....

I also note that you don't dispute the data source for the increase in temperature over the last 20 years(even though you have disputed this information so many time before)- I would have thought this would be the first bone you would pick at  :D (NOAA has nothing on Lee!)

Got a lot of obfuscation to do would be my guess, and its just so much work arguing against the mass of evidence supporting AGW.   

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 9:20pm:

I also note that you don't dispute the findings of the paper regarding the increase in temperature over the last 20 years(even though you have disputed this information so many time before)

I have never disputed it getting warmer. I have disputed that CO2 is the climate driver. There is far more water vapour than CO2, and rising, and that is likely the main driver of temperature increase.


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 9:20pm:

This is according to the climate science that you dispute. again, your stuck trying to use selective  fragments of the huge body of work supporting AGW to support your stated opinion, because you have extremely limited credible science to support your position. Its also irrelevant. The fact that its getting hotter in the tropics doesn't mean the temperature isn't rising even more in the mid latitudes.  Unless your just trying to confuse people.... I also note that you don't dispute the findings of the paper regarding the increase in temperature over the last 20 years(even though you have disputed this information so many time before)

Please cite the evidence. Not climate models.

You can have your climate religion, based on belief. Not for me.

Do you believe the Luang et al and Karl et al, SST reconstruction? Where they adjusted pristine buoy data up to noisy ship's data? That is "Climate Science".

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 9:34pm:

I have never disputed it getting warmer. I have disputed that CO2 is the climate driver. There is far more water vapour than CO2, and rising, and that is likely the main driver of temperature increase.

Oh that's cool. You realize that water vapour is actually included in those big long complex scientific studies your so far above right?  For the less well informed water vapor is a powerful contributor to climatic conditions, but it is also very variable.
It is also influenced by other climatic drivers and acts as an amplifier.
If CO2 creates a 1dg increase, That 1 dg increase releases enough water vapour to increase temperatures another 2 dg.
So the 1 dg of warming from CO2 leads to 3 dg of warming overall.
Obviously its easy to get misdirected by the fact that 2/3 of the temperature rise was due to water vapour, but the causative factor is the CO2.

As you mentioned the water vapours levels are rising(as would be expected with rising temperatures) 
What you didn't state was that water vapour levels are rising because CO2 levels are also rising.
If you written a peer reviewed paper or have access to a peer reviewed paper demonstrating that this water vapours, not CO2 levels are the causative drivers behind the current temperature increases please post it. Im happy to post one of the many supporting my position.         


lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 9:34pm:

Please cite the evidence. Not climate models. You can have your climate religion, based on belief. Not for me. Do you believe the Luang et al and Karl et al, SST reconstruction? Where they adjusted pristine buoy data up to noisy ship's data? That is "Climate Science".

Can you please define the term "please cite the evidence"
Because it would crash the server if I uploaded a poof-tenth of the data(available data) which has been interpreted by professional climatologists to indicate that the current record setting temperature increases are anthropogenic.

I think its much more reasonable to ask you to provide the peer reviewed literature from which you derive your opinions since you could fit it all on a floppy disc. You could probably text it to me :D

Absolute indisputable proof of AGW being caused by GHG emissions:

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4549

As temperatures rise the pores on the undersides of leaves close to prevent transpiration of water. This means they cannot absorb CO2.

CO2 is plant food—at levels below present.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

It is also influenced by other climatic drivers and acts as an amplifier.

Is it a positive or negative feedback. I would suggest a negative feedback otherwise water vapour would cause runaway global warming.




Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

What you didn't state was that water vapour levels are rising because CO2 levels are also rising.

Supposition. Unless you can provide citation.


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

If you written a peer reviewed paper or have access to a peer reviewed paper demonstrating that this water vapours, not CO2 levels are the causative drivers behind the current temperature increases please post it. Im happy to post one of the many supporting my position.

Please provide said paper. I would think all GHG's,so-named, cause global warming. As I have said, please show evidence it is more than natural variation.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 10:25pm:

CO2 is plant food—at levels below present.

It is a plant food at levels far greater than current.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 11:35pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19th, 2016 at 10:25pm: CO2 is plant food—at levels below present. It is a plant food at levels far greater than current.

Prove it.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 11:34pm:

Pho Huc wrote Today at 10:18pm: It is also influenced by other climatic drivers and acts as an amplifier. Is it a positive or negative feedback. I would suggest a negative feedback otherwise water vapour would cause runaway global warming.

::) Obviously its positive feedback. That's why the smart people are a wee bit worried.

Also, Irrelevant to scientific proof that supports our stated positions.


lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 11:34pm:

Pho Huc wrote Today at 10:18pm: What you didn't state was that water vapour levels are rising because CO2 levels are also rising. Supposition. Unless you can provide citation.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 11:34pm:

Pho Huc wrote Today at 10:18pm: If you written a peer reviewed paper or have access to a peer reviewed paper demonstrating that this water vapours, not CO2 levels are the causative drivers behind the current temperature increases please post it. Im happy to post one of the many supporting my position.          Please provide said paper. I would think all GHG's,so-named, cause global warming. As I have said, please show evidence it is more than natural variation.

Again, you have Literally nothing to support your argument that could be considered credible.
As ever you demand evidence from the opposing party so you have something to obfuscate, Its an elegant way of losing without having to admit defeat.

Here are four peer reviewed articles examining the relationship between water vapour levels and co2 levels which come to conclusions consistent with the accepted AGW.

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people-iac/person-detail.html?persid=146272
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3799.1
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
 
Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When you cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, you are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

Now please note how I could produce credible, peer reviewed publications that support my assertions.

And notice how you have literally nothing.
I would love you to provide me something credible that supports any of your assertions that climate change in not anthropogenic, or at least a credible alternate explanation. 

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 12:02am:

Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is

You do know climate models don't output data; don't you?


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 12:02am:

you are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

You do know positive feedback gives runaway gain?


Quote:

Now please note how I could produce credible, peer reviewed publications that support my assertions.

Based on models no doubt.

You do know peer-review is no guarantee the paper is any good; yes?

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 12:13am:

Quote: Now please note how I could produce credible, peer reviewed publications that support my assertions. Based on models no doubt. You do know peer-review is no guarantee the paper is any good; yes?

Because i'm not as smart as you I like to read papers before I tell people whats in them.
Obviously that's only an issue if you actually have an open mind or appreciate  scientific method, so maybe just forget I said that  :)

A peer review doesn't mean diddly squat as far as quality, what it guarantees is an  open publication process and the ability for impartial criticism(which really gets boffins nuts off).

This means that people who publish crazy poo can be identified and likewise people who do solid research can be trusted. Is it perfect? no. But its the basis for the scientific disciplines over the last 100 years and its managed to achieve a few pretty cool things(mild understatement).

The fact that you have no peer reviewed articles to support you isn't a comment on the peer review system, rather on the scientific rigor which is practiced by climate skeptics.

After thousands of posts nitpicking the professionals the best evidence you can come up with to support your position is that peer review doesn't mean anything. Pathetic.  Not only that but I have quoted a post from another thread where you criticize someone for being unable to provide a paper supporting their argument. How can you be so hypocritical and still have the gumption to spout off like you know anything about anything. 


The science is frigging obvious to anyone who has a good read. Or if your lazy just trust the people who spend their lives trying to figure out whats going on-you do it with doctors all the time and everything they do is a product of scientific method usually originating in a peer reviewed paper somewhere.


lee wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 3:54pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 12:07pm: facts, peer reviewed articles, experts - it doesnt matter to Bruce - he continues to worship the Great Bolt in the Sky - his mentor. No peer-reviewed article supporting your position? Why am I not surprised?

double post

double post

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 12:42am:

After thousands of posts nitpicking the professionals the best evidence you can come up with to support your position is that peer review doesn't mean anything.

So your comprehension is low also.  What I said was it doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Take the Karl et al paper that adjusted SSt's from pristine buoy daya to noisy ship's data. That was peer-reviewed and NASA/NOAA/GISS use it for ocean temperatures now. It was used to get rid of the early 21st century warming.

However, other climate scientists disagree.

'Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown'

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201603&spMailingID=50767823&spUserID=MTI0NzgyNDMwMjA2S0&spJobID=862987827&spReportId=ODYyOTg3ODI3S0

You may recognise some of the names, even used articles by them.

John C. Fyfe,      Gerald A. Meehl,      Matthew H. England,      Michael E. Mann,      Benjamin D. Santer,      Gregory M. Flato,      Ed Hawkins,      Nathan P. Gillett,      Shang-Ping Xie,      Yu Kosaka      & Neil C. Swart

That's not actually a peer reviewed document but its the closest you have come so far so points for effort.

It also doesn't provide evidence of anything other than anthropogenic global warming, so i'm not 100% sure what point you trying to prove, other than your limited to trying to distort legitimate science to justify your position (which you are nailing!)

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 7:14pm:

That's not actually a peer reviewed document but its the closest you have come so far so points for effort.

It was published in Science magazine. According to Science magazine -

'Science is a weekly, peer-reviewed journal that publishes significant original scientific research, plus reviews and analyses of current research and science policy. '

https://www.sciencemag.org/authors/science-information-authors

It also took 6 months to get accepted for publication. Are you sure it wasn't peer-reviewed in that time?

But according to you NASA/NOAA/GISS have altered SST's on the back of an opinion piece. How bizarre is that. :D :D :D :D :D

I stand corrected.

After 3 pages of posts the single piece of evidence you have presented IS a peer reviewed paper.

There is the little fact that the piece SUPPORTS anthropogenic global warming......
But as I said, baby steps.

I'm sure if you dig around hard enough you'll find something that was slipped through one of the more questionable journals demonstrating that the planet is actually cooling, Co2 doesn't exist and its all Just gods will.

At least then you will have shown everyone here that you do base your opinions on published documents, and you are a rational person.

Sure, we will have a good time kicking the crap outta whatever research you bring in here that backs up the hot you keep blowing.

But if you really have nothing, please bugger off and stop posting just to obfuscate.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 10:09pm:

I stand corrected. After 3 pages of posts the single piece of evidence you have presented IS a peer reviewed paper. There is the little fact that the piece SUPPORTS anthropogenic global warming......

Of course it does that's what it was designed to do. To eliminate the "hiatus" or "pause". It had a Significance or p of 0.10. A good p is 0.01 to 0.05. 0.10 is crap.

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 10:48pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 10:09pm: I stand corrected. After 3 pages of posts the single piece of evidence you have presented IS a peer reviewed paper. There is the little fact that the piece SUPPORTS anthropogenic global warming...... Of course it does that's what it was designed to do. To eliminate the "hiatus" or "pause". It had a Significance or p of 0.10. A good p is 0.01 to 0.05. 0.10 is crap.

And you agree with it.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 10:55pm:

And you agree with it.

Agree with what. Karlization of the temperature?  No.

Seeing as Karl had a Significance of 0.10, it wasn't hard to debunk.

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 11:24pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 20th, 2016 at 10:55pm: And you agree with it. Agree with what. Karlization of the temperature?  No. Seeing as Karl had a Significance of 0.10, it wasn't hard to debunk.

You posted this paper after I pestered you to provide evidence for your assertion that climate change was not anthropomorphic.

This paper discusses aspects of global warming, and its findings are congruent with the majority of the published work in this field concluding that its anthropological in origin.

It has no relevance to any assertions you have made, other than countering them.

I'm not going to spend my time debating irrelevant points on a paper which agrees with my position, when you have absolutely nothing to support your position.

Provide credible evidence for your claim that global warming not anthropogenic.

Or shut it. Either would be great.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 12:19am:

This paper discusses aspects of global warming, and its findings are congruent with the majority of the published work in this field concluding that its anthropological in origin.

yes that is why climate scientists have debunked it. /sarc.


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 12:19am:

Provide credible evidence for your claim that global warming not anthropogenic.

You just don't get it do you. It is the alarmists who have to disprove the null hypothesis. As I have previously said some of the gloal warming is anthropogenic. Think land use change. ;)

miketrees wrote on Oct 20^th, 2016 at 8:41pm:

JM I think its taking out the coral,,, but that could be in the plankton stage. It could be the whole genetic makeup of the sealife has to adapt to re-establish itself.

The trouble with adaptation by wildlife, Mike, is that global warming is increasing so fast wildlife, flora and fauna, does not have enough time to adapt through evolution.

Migratory animals move more and more polewards each year, but there is an obvious limit to that. Similarly with life moving higher and higher up mountainsides (and that causes problems of dividing a species into different areas, reducing the genetic diversity available to each isolated community.)

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 10:31am:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 12:19am: Provide credible evidence for your claim that global warming not anthropogenic. Think land use change. ;)

The climate is not getting warmer
CO2 emissions are not Anthropological
Climate change is unrelated to CO2 emissions
Its because of water vapour

Its land use change!

Sure-I still don't have any evidence to support my position, but wow-watch me backtrack!

Please provide credible peer reviewed justification for your position that global warming is not anthropological, but rather because of "land use change"

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 11:52am:

Please provide credible peer reviewed justification for your position that global warming is not anthropological, but rather because of "land use change"

You don't think clearing land,aka land use change, has no anthropogenic influence on climate?

What school do you go to?

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 1:20pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 11:52am: Please provide credible peer reviewed justification for your position that global warming is not anthropological, but rather because of "land use change" You don't think clearing land,aka land use change, has no anthropogenic influence on climate? What school do you go to?

I don't know-
I'm open to any peer reviewed research you have which indicates that global warming is caused by changing land use instead of CO2.

Do you have such a document?

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 1:30pm:

I'm open to any peer reviewed research you have which indicates that global warming is caused by changing land use instead of CO2.

Once again, you misconstrue, deliberately I think, what I say. CO2 may play a small part in AGW. Have you finally got it?

Nope. You confused me when you made the assertion that climate change was caused by changing land use.
You totally lost me when you failed(as per usual) to provide any credible evidence for your opinion.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 2:15pm:

Nope. You confused me when you made the assertion that climate change was caused by changing land use. You totally lost me when you failed(as per usual) to provide any credible evidence for your opinion.

Yes, I have noticed you are easily confused.

You seem to think it is only CO2 that has the potential to change climate.

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 2:24pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 2:15pm: Nope. You confused me when you made the assertion that climate change was caused by changing land use. You totally lost me when you failed(as per usual) to provide any credible evidence for your opinion. Yes, I have noticed you are easily confused. You seem to think it is only CO2 that has the potential to change climate.

I know that you like to misrepresent papers and documents, Ill have you stop misrepresenting me. I acknowledge that many factors affect climate. This doesn't distract me from the fact that 80-85% of the worlds AGW is caused by GHG's.

.............. any evidence for your claims that anything other than GHG's is driving climate change yet?

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 9:26pm:

I know that you like to misrepresent papers and documents, Ill have you stop misrepresenting me. I acknowledge that many factors affect climate. This doesn't distract me from the fact that 80-85% of the worlds AGW is caused by GHG's.

Oh, confected outrage, How cute.

lee wrote on Dec 21^st, 2016 at 11:05pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 21st, 2016 at 9:26pm: I know that you like to misrepresent papers and documents, Ill have you stop misrepresenting me. I acknowledge that many factors affect climate. This doesn't distract me from the fact that 80-85% of the worlds AGW is caused by GHG's. Oh, confected outrage, How cute.

I believe the word your going for is concocted.

If your going to continue claiming that something other than GHG emissions is responsible for global worming you going to mount a slightly better case than that.
I know you would rather bitch about how I keep nagging you for evidence to support your constant assertions than actually supply any.

Again, my position is that GHG emissions are the primary driver of the current rapid increase in global temperature, and global temperatures are increasing at a rate greater than any time in recorded history.

Your position isn't quite a clear.

Maybe you could just post exactly what your position is, because it feels like you move the goal posts occasionally when your debating people.
I'm sure its a mistake on my part, But just for the benefit of the slightly weaker minded like myself could you please explain in a way that simple to read and understand-and feel free to nuance it as much as you want- Just please be clear. 

My thanks in advance and hey- you will be able to keep the powder dry on the credible research that forms the basis of those opinions.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 1:19am:

I believe the word your going for is concocted.

Wrong. eg "But, as I have remarked before, few events pass by these days without some confected moral outrage."

No moss gathered on Sir Mick; Robert Sutcliffe robert.sutcliffe@examiner.co.uk


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 1:19am:

Again, my position is that GHG emissions are the primary driver of the current rapid increase in global temperature, and global temperatures are increasing at a rate greater than any time in recorded history.

How many years of recorded global temperatures do we have? At most 300 years, and yet to you that provides conclusive proof.


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 1:19am:

I know you would rather bitch about how I keep nagging you for evidence to support your constant assertions than actually supply any.

But you are the one that needs to disprove the null hypothesis.

You say you believe in naturally occurring warming - trees.

You say you trust the models.

But the IPCC doesn't show any natural warming in their Attribution Chapter.

And you think I'm confused.


You say you trust the IPCC.

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 10:27am:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 1:19am: I believe the word your going for is concocted. Wrong. eg "But, as I have remarked before, few events pass by these days without some confected moral outrage."

Please, if you cant even check a dictionary to see if your mangling the english language how do you expect anyone to believe your going to check anything you post up here?

Please anyone here, look up confect  ;D

dbl post. 

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 2:29pm:

Please, if you cant even check a dictionary to see if your mangling the english language how do you expect anyone to believe your going to check anything you post up here? Please anyone here, look up confect  Grin

Here is the reference for my quote-

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/No+moss+gathered+on+Sir+Mick%3B+Robert+Sutcliffe+...-a0371271755

Such a pity that you think you have a good handle on English.

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 2:57pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 2:29pm: Please, if you cant even check a dictionary to see if your mangling the english language how do you expect anyone to believe your going to check anything you post up here? Please anyone here, look up confect  Grin Here is the reference for my quote- https://www.thefreelibrary.com/No+moss+gathered+on+Sir+Mick%3B+Robert+Sutcliffe+...-a0371271755 Such a pity that you think you have a good handle on English.

Wouldn't it be so much easier to look in the dictionary,
realize that confected is not a word, then apologize for your mistake.

There is nothing wrong with making mistakes! its how you learn..........

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 3:22pm:

lee wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 2:57pm: Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 2:29pm: Please, if you cant even check a dictionary to see if your mangling the english language how do you expect anyone to believe your going to check anything you post up here? Please anyone here, look up confect  Grin Here is the reference for my quote- https://www.thefreelibrary.com/No+moss+gathered+on+Sir+Mick%3B+Robert+Sutcliffe+...-a0371271755 Such a pity that you think you have a good handle on English. Wouldn't it be so much easier to look in the dictionary, realize that confected is not a word, then apologize for your mistake. There is nothing wrong with making mistakes! its how you learn..........

con·fect  (kən-fĕkt′)
tr.v. con·fect·ed, con·fect·ing, con·fects
1. To make into a confection or preserve.
2. To put together by combining materials: a group of writers who confected a television series.
n. (kŏn′fĕkt′)
A sweet confection, such as candy.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/confected

Do you want to continue to show your ignorance?

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 3:31pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 3:22pm: lee wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 2:57pm: Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 2:29pm: Please, if you cant even check a dictionary to see if your mangling the english language how do you expect anyone to believe your going to check anything you post up here? Please anyone here, look up confect  Grin Here is the reference for my quote- https://www.thefreelibrary.com/No+moss+gathered+on+Sir+Mick%3B+Robert+Sutcliffe+...-a0371271755 Such a pity that you think you have a good handle on English. Wouldn't it be so much easier to look in the dictionary, realize that confected is not a word, then apologize for your mistake. There is nothing wrong with making mistakes! its how you learn.......... con·fect  (kən-fĕkt′) tr.v. con·fect·ed, con·fect·ing, con·fects 1. To make into a confection or preserve. 2. To put together by combining materials: a group of writers who confected a television series. n. (kŏn′fĕkt′) A sweet confection, such as candy. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/confected Do you want to continue to show your ignorance?

I stand corrected. I didnt realise that confect had an adjective.
my bad

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 10:27am:

You say you believe in naturally occurring warming - trees. ????? You say you trust the models. where? But the IPCC doesn't show any natural warming in their Attribution Chapter. The IPCC. Who you state are wrong. Except for the bits you agree with, which depends on what day of the week it is... And you think I'm confused. not really. I think that your confusing. You say you trust the IPCC. much more than unqualifed knowalls from the internet who can't provide credible evidence for any of their assertions regarding climatic variation

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 4:28pm:

The IPCC. Who you state are wrong. Except for the bits you agree with, which depends on what day of the week it is...

What don't you get about me pointing out the inconsistencies?


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 4:28pm:

You say you trust the IPCC. much more than unqualifed knowalls from the internet who can't provide credible evidence for any of their assertions regarding climatic variation

Even when the "lose" the data of natural variability and internal variability?

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 4:28pm:

The IPCC. Who you state are wrong. Except for the bits you agree with, which depends on what day of the week it is...

What don't you get about me pointing out the inconsistencies?


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 4:28pm:

You say you trust the IPCC. much more than unqualifed knowalls from the internet who can't provide credible evidence for any of their assertions regarding climatic variation

Even when they "lose" the data of natural variability and internal variability?

lee wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 4:47pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 4:28pm: The IPCC. Who you state are wrong. Except for the bits you agree with, which depends on what day of the week it is... Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 4:28pm: You say you trust the IPCC. much more than unqualifed knowalls from the internet who can't provide credible evidence for any of their assertions regarding climatic variation Even when they "lose" the data of natural variability and internal variability?

They didn't Lose it.

Your making another unsupported assertions(again based on a report you say is flawed)

Get your own evidence or shut up.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 5:00pm:

They didn't Lose it.

And yet on page 28 they discuss internal variability, namely ENSO, there are others PDO and AMO among them. They have an effect on climate. But they couldn't find a "fingerprint" for it.

They also could not find a "fingerprint" for natural variation, that also exists.

Does not finding a "fingerprint" mean these are then a nullity, they don't exist? Or were they lost?

Doesn't the fact that you are only able to reference one simplified page Sentence random words from from a report you refuse to acknowledge as having any credibility imply that you don't have a leg to stand on?

Here you are again, no evidence to support you assertion a that climate change is primarily driven by anything other the GHG emmisions.

Again, you want to stuck into into arguing about minutiae. On a report that you have repeatedly stated is flawed.

So please, find some credible data that isn't flawed, and supports your opinion. Then post.

that could take a really really rrreeeaaallllyyy long time though!

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 5:36pm:

Doesn't the fact that you are only able to reference one simplified page Sentence random words from from a report you refuse to acknowledge as having any credibility imply that you don't have a leg to stand on? Here you are again, no evidence to support you assertion a that climate change is primarily driven by anything other the GHG emmisions. Again, you want to stuck into into arguing about minutiae. On a report that you have repeatedly stated is flawed. So please, find some credible data that isn't flawed, and supports your opinion. Then post. that could take a really really rrreeeaaallllyyy long time though!

I've been waiting for you to provide posts that support your position. So far nada. Apart from one from Skeptical Science. John Cook, Climate Communicator, cum cartoonist. Oh and one retracted psychological "science" paper.

You just won't accept that that the IPCC is flawed. That's ok. You have to live with that I don't.


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 5:36pm:

So please, find some credible data that isn't flawed, and supports your opinion.

You could try that yourself. You haven't done so.

The global climate is currently heating at a rate greater than any recorded history.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/epica_temperature.png

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/proxy-based_temperature_reconstruction.png

Its not so much the temperature levels which justify my opinions, rather its the rate the temperature is increasing.

During historical warming periods the temperature increased at a rate of .8-1.4 ddC per thousand years.

In the last 100 years the RECORDED average temperature has increased .7 dgC

This is 5-10 times faster than has been recorded at ANY time in the past.

Given that instead of a since the system is heating up at a speed an order of magnitude greater than any in all of history, maybe something slightly different is happening.


Derived from.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html




The only plausible driver for a temperature increase at this rate is GHG's.

https://skepticalscience.com/images/Greenhouse_Spectrum.gif
The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm




There you go.

Three totally separate peer reviewed articles, supporting two clear concise statements.

Please note, all these papers are based on empirical data.

I'm sure you are going to say that there were flaws in the papers I have quoted,

And i'm equally sure that your not going to provide ANYTHNG credible that supports any viewpoint counter my stated opinion.

Prove me wrong(not that proving is your strong suite!)

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 9:01pm:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

" We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12."

They "point" to long term changes? Aren't they sure?

That's what it means. That they have uncertainty in their measurements.
There are two studies which repeated the experiment and confirmed their results but I lost the link somewhere. (if you bug me ill find it but please don't, I so CBF and you never provide any evidence for your claims)


SO..................

Given that I posted my evidence for the increase in temperature and you couldn't fault it i'm just going to assume that your aware of the rapid rate of cooling and agree that it is confirmed.

You wont admit it, But hypothetically(given your total lack of evidence and my mountain of empirical data) you should consider thinking about how to account for that which doesn't make you look like.........Lee.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 12:02am:

Given that I posted my evidence for the increase in temperature and you couldn't fault it i'm just going to assume that your aware of the rapid rate of cooling and agree that it is confirmed.

You have provided no evidence at all. They all start with something along the lines "seeing as it has shown the current rate of warming can't be natural variation." They just never provide that evidence.

Good to see your reading them!
The first line anyway.........

Would you consider that their is a limited amount that a paper can focus on before it become to unwieldy.

Seeing as it has been shown the current rate of warming can't be natural variation is reference to the lack of any other coherent explanation for the behavior of the climate. (including natural variation dumbass)


Scientist discount things that can be disproven. The only Causal factor for our climate's atypical behavior which cannot be disproven is GHG driven global warming.

It is "the null hypothesis"

That's why it is assumed. You among all people should understand that!

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 9:45pm:

Seeing as it has been shown the current rate of warming can't be natural variation is reference to the lack of any other coherent explanation for the behavior of the climate.

So there is no proof that natural variation can't be the cause of the warming. They just can't explain it. Even though they don't know much about Clouds, water vapour, etc, as evidenced by the climate models, they are absolutely certain it can't be natural variation. Got it.

"Scientist discount things that can be disproven"

They can't disprove natural vsriation. Not only do they not know enough of clouds, water vspour etc, but they don't know how they interact on one another.

Ah,
Here is a list of things that I would like you to disprove.
Scientifically.

Mermaids.
Unicorns.
Dragons.
Fairies.
Pixies.


Just for starters.

Now this should be easy. Im asking you to disprove things that everybody knows do not exist.



But, I am aware that the lump of meat in my head works better than the lump of meat in your head, so I will hobble myself.


You disprove, scientifically the existence of ONE of my mythical beings.

And I will disprove your natural variation.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 11:20pm:

Ah, Here is a list of things that I would like you to disprove. Scientifically. Mermaids. Unicorns. Dragons. Fairies. Pixies. Just for starters. Now this should be easy. Im asking you to disprove things that everybody knows do not exist. But, I am aware that the lump of meat in my head works better than the lump of meat in your head, so I will hobble myself. You disprove, scientifically the existence of ONE of my mythical beings. And I will disprove your natural variation.

I have never made any claims in that regard. ;)

But you are the one saying "Seeing as it has been shown the current rate of warming can't be natural variation", surely you can prove it?

You have made a claim.
You have claimed that AGW is instead natural variation.

You have stated that it is my responsibility to disprove your theory.

I'm just pointing out to you that disproving anything beyond a doubt is impossible.

I assume that you know this, which is why your trying to get me to do the impossible, rather than you doing the impossible and providing credible evidence to prove your position.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 24^th, 2016 at 6:59pm:

You have made a claim. You have claimed that AGW is instead natural variation.

Nope. I have said that the null hypothesis has not been overturned.


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 24^th, 2016 at 6:59pm:

You have stated that it is my responsibility to disprove your theory.

Not my theory. The null hypothesis. That's the way science works.


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 24^th, 2016 at 6:59pm:

I'm just pointing out to you that disproving anything beyond a doubt is impossible. I assume that you know this, which is why your trying to get me to do the impossible, rather than you doing the impossible and providing credible evidence to prove your position.

Since neither of us can do the impossible the status quo remains. The null hypothesis is natural variation. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 24^th, 2016 at 9:58pm:

Since neither of us can do the impossible the status quo remains. The null hypothesis is natural variation.

This would be a reasonable position If we were having this debate in 1905.
The reason that paper you referenced was created was as an acknowledgement of the mass of evidence accrued since that time.

If you look at the time gap between when the earth was first postulated as being round, and being widely accepted as round was something like 2000 years.

That was 2000 years of the null hypothesis being totally incorrect, since it is pretty much independent of scientific proof.



Your argument has a much more fundamental flaw though.
You are debating as though AGW and natural variation are mutually exclusive.

If you think about it AGW is natural variation, because humans are a part of nature. We are a part of nature that has never been able to significantly affect the global climate before.

Of course, maybe you think that their have been highly intelligent races in earth history which also produced large amounts of green house gasses and changed the climate.

In that case, I would totally agree that it is simple natural variation, and whatever homeostatic mechanism which wiped that species out will also wipe us out, and then the planet will self stabilize.

Of course, you would have to show me some credible peer reviewed literature proving that their was a intelligent race in earth pre-history that also triggered high speed global warming.

It wouldn't be any less baseless than most of your other claims,

So,

Please provide evidence that previous Global warming was caused by and intelligent species altering the whole planet, and i will accept that our planets current behavior is within the "standard rage".

If you can't provide such evidence you will have to demonstrate a force other than CO2 emissions are driving the global temperature increase.

I wont hold my breath, expect a direct answer or any provision of proof for these statements. I doubt you will even under stand the point i'm making, but your not the only person reading these posts.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:20pm:

That was 2000 years of the null hypothesis being totally incorrect, since it is pretty much independent of scientific proof.

Really? :D :D :D :D :D :D

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:20pm:

You are debating as though AGW and natural variation are mutually exclusive.

Not so. I believe there can be both. But you have to quantify one to realise the other.

As I have pointed out; in Chapter10 of AR5 they said they couldn't find a "fingerprint" for natural variation. They didn't include it. Therefore to them it seems it doesn't exist.

Little pieces need to be added in.


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:20pm:

Of course, you would have to show me some credible peer reviewed literature proving that their was a intelligent race in earth pre-history that also triggered high speed global warming.

It seems there is not much intelligent life on earth now.

Plenty of confirmation bias of course. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 7:03pm:

Little pieces need to be added in. Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 6:20pm: Of course, you would have to show me some credible peer reviewed literature proving that their was a intelligent race in earth pre-history that also triggered high speed global warming. It seems there is not much intelligent life on earth now. Plenty of confirmation bias of course. ;)

Its only confirmation bias if you refuse to consider the opposing evidence.
If you can't find any opposing evidence it isn't confirmation bias, its reason.

Since you cant provide any opposing evidence, and I am reasonable I back the explanation that fits the available information.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 7:11pm:

lee wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:03pm: Little pieces need to be added in. Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 6:20pm: Of course, you would have to show me some credible peer reviewed literature proving that their was a intelligent race in earth pre-history that also triggered high speed global warming. It seems there is not much intelligent life on earth now. Plenty of confirmation bias of course. ;) Its only confirmation bias if you refuse to consider the opposing evidence. If you can't find any opposing evidence it isn't confirmation bias, its reason. Since you cant provide any opposing evidence, and I am reasonable I back the explanation that fits the available information.

it is confirmation bias when you don't look for yourself, because you think you know the answer.

And again, Because I can't find the evidence, and you cant provide the evidence its my fault that i have not seen the evidence.

What kind of education did you say you had?
I believe you may be entitled to a refund ;)