ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

First of, you don't have a clue about how plants use co2, that is evident when you try to explain the function and plants use of it(all of you). Please seek some real information, maybe from someone that uses co2 to produce food for a living. They may know a tad more than you religious fanatics. You know, trusting people that's seeking the highest profit and yield possible is somewhat more trustworthy than someone that has a religious belief that the world is burning up.

Second, does Jim have a comment on this article? http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/29/s...ainpage&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social
 
Ratking said:
You know, trusting people that's seeking the highest profit and yield possible is somewhat more trustworthy . . . .
Click to expand...
Right. Trust the people who have the strongest financial incentive to see the world a certain way.

Do you trust your local drug store owner over your doctor when it comes to medical advice, too? I guess you would. After all, he is seeking the highest profit and yield from your illness, so he must be trustworthy.
 
billvon said:
Ratking said:
You know, trusting people that's seeking the highest profit and yield possible is somewhat more trustworthy . . . .
Click to expand...
Right. Trust the people who have the strongest financial incentive to see the world a certain way.

Do you trust your local drug store owner over your doctor when it comes to medical advice, too? I guess you would. After all, he is seeking the highest profit and yield from your illness, so he must be trustworthy.
Click to expand...

Try again, not good enough. Dont listen to what they say then, but what they do. There is not a single plant that will benefit from going below 400ppm co2 as you guys hope for. The only outcome is less food and vegetation
 
There's already evidence that increased plant growth due to increased CO2 results in less nutritious food. It makes sense, because plants need more than just CO2 to prosper. Those other ingredients don't increase.
 
Its just epic baloney that increased co2 levels hurt plant health, this is just crap put out by people who want to spread climate change alarmism, these people make me sick.
Co2 is core to plants to the exact extent as oxygen is core to humans. In fact when humans need medical help hospitals often provide extra oxygen to humans to release stress off the bodies organs.

Plants do the same thing with increased co2 its just makes life easier for them as oxygen does to us.

All professional large-scale greenhouse farms use elevated co2 levels as it does nothing but create healthier more nutritious providing yields.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
https://dutchgreenhouses.com/technology/co2-enrichment
http://www.goodfruitandvegetables.com.au/story/3511455/lng-move-for-tomato-glasshouse/
https://www.hydrofarm.com/resources/articles/co2_enrichment.php
http://www.greenhouse-management.com/greenhouse_management/carbon_dioxide_greenhouses/carbon_dioxide_supplementation_greenhouses.htm
https://www.naturalnews.com/040890_greenhouses_carbon_dioxide_generators_plant_growth.html

In fact, a lot of plant species were permanently made extinct due to 'CO2-starvation' as co2 levels dropped on earth due to so much plant life.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692178/
The decline of atmospheric CO2 over the last 65 million years (Ma) resulted in the 'CO2-starvation' of terrestrial ecosystems and led to the widespread distribution of C4 plants, which are less sensitive to CO2 levels than are C3 plants. Global expansion of C4 biomass is recorded in the diets of mammals from Asia, Africa, North America, and South America during the interval from about 8 to 5 Ma.
Click to expand...

Plants are carbon-based, so the easiest way for plants to grow is to get the carbon out of the air, it does that by absorbing the carbon dioxide (co2 is 1 carbon atom and 2 oxygen atoms), it keeps the carbon atom for itself and releases the 2 oxygen atoms (which creates more oxygenated air for humans to breath).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTbxS9evlkQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-HcEpliMYk
[youtube]7-HcEpliMYk[/youtube]
Its co2 levels at 180ppm where almost all plants on the earth will die, period. We got close at 270ppm, to me this is really why the world started to warm up, Earth responded by warming up as just about everything on earth would have died if co2 levels continued to drop lower.
 

Attachments

  • DQeT8yUVwAASmhi.jpg
    DQeT8yUVwAASmhi.jpg
    61.3 KB · Views: 153
Your argument would maybe make sense if CO2 wasn't also a greenhouse gas.

Comparison of increased atmospheric CO2 with the CO2 supplemented atmosphere it a climate & nutrient controlled greenhouse is disingenuous.

All the supplemental CO2 in the world won't do your plants much good if where they're growing is turned into a desert or seabed by climate change. Plants also exist as part of a complex ecosystem on which they are dependent. Screw with any part of it and the plants will suffer.
 
TheBeastie said:
Co2 is core to plants to the exact extent as oxygen is core to humans. In fact when humans need medical help hospitals often provide extra oxygen to humans to release stress off the bodies organs.
Click to expand...

Oxygen supplementation is used for people who have problems like lung disease that inhibit their ability to absorb normal levels of oxygen. Increased concentration of oxygen doesn't benefit healthy people, but does have negative health effects and has been demonstrated to shorten the lives of test animals.

That's analogous to plants that get abnormally high amounts of CO2 and exhibit increased growth, but diminished nutrient content in their tissues.

Everything that lives in the world is adapted to the ambient atmosphere during the time period when it evolved. So messing with the composition of the atmosphere is not likely to be be good for very many creatures at all. Fossil carbon is changing the atmosphere faster than living things are proven to adapt.
 
Ratking said:
Try again, not good enough. Dont listen to what they say then, but what they do. There is not a single plant that will benefit from going below 400ppm co2 as you guys hope for. The only outcome is less food and vegetation
Click to expand...
Drought is bad for plants. Higher CO2 concentrations raise temperatures; higher temperatures (even with exactly the same rainfall) increases drought.

But don't take my word for it; look at the mass extinctions that occur whenever the climate changes rapidly.
 
Ratking said:
Second, does Jim have a comment on this article? http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/29/s...ainpage&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social
Click to expand...

Why, yes, I do have a comment on that. The title of that article is: "STUDY: Satellites Show No Acceleration In Global Warming For 23 Years." First, notice that the article says there has been no "ACCELERATION" in warming--not that there has been no steady warming trend. I don't even need to read the article or watch the video to know that the source probably comes from either John Christy or Roy Spencer. They always cherry pick 1998 as the starting year and use their own misinterpretation of NASA satellite data. 1998 was strong El Nino year and, at the time, it was the warmest year ever recorded. So, naturally, using that as a starting point will reduce the trend. Even so, the warmest year record has been broken at least 16 times since then.

Read more about Spencer and Christy here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists
 
jimw1960 said:
They always cherry pick 1998 as the starting year and use their own misinterpretation of NASA satellite data.
Click to expand...
Indeed, for over a decade climate change deniers quoted a WattsUpWithThat article entitled "there's only one problem with global warming - it ended in 1998!" Since 1998 was one of the strongest El Ninos ever recorded, there was a temperature spike - and for years afterwards they claimed that that meant that climate change had ended.

When 2005 again broke temperature records, for a few years they switched to "well, this data set has an error of .02C so IT'S ALL LIES!" Then 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013 broke records, and they switched from the "it's all lies" angle to the "well, it's a _pause_ that they can't explain." Then came 2015 and 2016 which shattered previous temperature records by a wide margin, so they've gone quiet on the pause, too.

However, 2017 is looking to not break any records. It will still be far above average but not as high as 2016 due to the La Nina, so expect some "there's only one problem with global warming - it ended in 2016!" stories to hit the usual sources - WattsUpWithThat, Breitbart, the Daily Caller etc.
 
billvon said:
However, 2017 is looking to not break any records. It will still be far above average but not as high as 2016 due to the La Nina, so expect some "there's only one problem with global warming - it ended in 2016!" stories to hit the usual sources - WattsUpWithThat, Breitbart, the Daily Caller etc.
Click to expand...

Looks like 2017 is on track to be 2nd hottest ever, so that will still make the last three among the three hottest ever recorded. Of course this is only talking about air temperature near the surface. People seem to forget about the heat content of the oceans, where most or the extra retained energy from GNG emissions ends up. Ocean heat content is consistently going UP.
 
jimw1960 said:
Looks like 2017 is on track to be 2nd hottest ever, so that will still make the last three among the three hottest ever recorded. Of course this is only talking about air temperature near the surface. People seem to forget about the heat content of the oceans, where most or the extra retained energy from GNG emissions ends up. Ocean heat content is consistently going UP.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the data I've seen puts 2017 in either second or third.

1998 was 1.13F warmer than normal, and record years after that were a tiny bit warmer (1.15F, 1.17F.) The increases were small enough that they were within the error band, which led scientists to say things like "there is a 68% chance that 2013 was the warmest year on record." Deniers often would use such statements to claim "scientists aren't even sure if it's a record year! It's all fake!"

However, in 2015 and 2016 we saw a huge jump - up 1.62 and 1.69F respectively. In engineering terms, a high signal to noise ratio. Since it was such a big jump, and since the temperatures were close to each other, it's uncertain whether 2017 will be the 2nd or 3rd warmest year. (Won't be the 4th since the next on the list is way down at 1.33F.)
 
Hiatus? I think not.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/noaa-arctic-report-card-permafrost-thawing-1.4445222
Arctic report card: Permafrost thawing, sea ice melting faster than before

The full 2017 Arctic Report Card document can be viewed on the NOAA site at
http://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2017
 
Hehe... Re "global climate change"... for any volcanologists out there. :mrgreen:
Secrets Of The Dead (S01E01-E02) Catastrophe! (2001)
[youtube]qAbkCo1WhIo[/youtube]

Hehe... Can you say "human greed"?
 
Hehe... ESB "Search found 2 matches: scablands"... again:

MYSTERY OF THE MEGA FLOOD NOVA Discovery Science History full documentary:
[youtube]57M2iTUeDU8[/youtube]

:wink:

Edit: Sorry if this video repeats itself... Sorry if this video repeats itself... Sorry if this video repeats itself... Sorry if this video repeats itself... Sorry if this video repeats itself...
 
Thought I would post this here, good article/video by a young ABC reporter about where heatwaves come from in Australia
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-12/heatwaves-occur-regularly-but-where-do-they-come-from/9416800?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=%3a8940&user_id=cfe3423861be9a15f40387fb98f6eff212706b7881789e9754480e724fa2c35d&WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Email%7c%7c8940&utm_content=RuralMail_ArticleLink
Of course reporting basic scientific facts like this that can in anyway undermine climate change talk means she will never be promoted in the ABC and any kind of slip up means losing her job.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/red-symons-dumped-from-abc-radio-show/news-story/df343f5c2c825cbd30a835786e47b6f7
 
Do you even read the links you post? That article in no way sets out to challenge climate change, it simply explains the weather patterns that cause Aus to be hot. In fact it even says:

There is evidence that heatwaves are becoming more common in the changing climate.
Click to expand...
 
Punx0r said:
Do you even read the links you post?
Click to expand...

On other forums, climate change "skeptics" do the same thing. A friend of theirs sends them a link to something with the text "SEE? This PROVES climate change is a Chinese hoax!" due to one sentence they read, close to the beginning of the story. So they repost it with a similar message. They rarely read them; reading entire articles can tend to undermine their belief in climate change denial.
 
Next time somebody tries to tell you that all the climate models have been wrong, please refer them to this analysis.
Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
While some models projected less warming than we’ve experienced and some projected more, all showed surface temperature increases between 1970 and 2016 that were not too far off from what actually occurred, particularly when differences in assumed future emissions are taken into account.
Click to expand...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
 
Its been a while since I posted here, as I've become an infrequent visitor to the forum. Hope this post finds you well. So its still the topic that I hope everyone if paying very careful attention to. Here's a recent Guardian article that, even given my general awareness of the problems, spiked my concern:
The terrifying phenomenon that is pushing species towards extinction - Scientists are alarmed by a rise in mass mortality events – when species die in their thousands. Is it all down to climate change?
'“Evolution takes millions of years and if we have a shift in environmental conditions, everything that’s evolved in that particular environment is under different pressures. Microbes adapt and can respond to changes quickly, but mammals take hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years to adapt. That’s the real worry.”'
Click to expand...
As other commentators have posted, humans are not immune to the same set of natural forces in evidence. Scientists are understandably reluctant to make predictions - "real worry" is conservative language. The article sets a likely scenario for a human MME, one in which the soup of microbes we live with, indeed are dependent upon for survival, suddenly become pathological. :mrgreen:
 
ACK! Sea ice continues to "drop like a stone"...

630954-1.jpg


Seen here:
http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-february-21-2018/
 
Paul Ehrlich: 'Collapse of civilisation is a near certainty within decades'
("Fifty years after the publication of his controversial book The Population Bomb, biologist Paul Ehrlich warns overpopulation and overconsumption are driving us over the edge"):
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...-certain-decades-population-bomb-paul-ehrlich

4600.jpg

The toxification of the planet with synthetic chemicals may be more dangerous to people and wildlife than climate change, says Ehrlich. Photograph: Linh Pham/Getty Images

Quick! EVerybuddy ride ebikes! (Can't make stuff worse?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top