• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:1458] Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Jack Hays said:
The graphic is neither provably false nor has it been dismantled multiple times. It has been unanimously denounced by those whose groupthink is threatened by its presentation of data. The graphic is powerful because it exposes a truth. Your fear of this data is your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...

More blogger nonsense!
 
Lord of Planar said:
You guys sure love your confirmation bias.

You take a blog as gospel, and it only links to more blogs from its own site. No valid source materiel.

Then you complain about WUWT when there is almost always peer reviewed parers sourced.

Don't you guys realize how much of a joke this makes you look like?
Click to expand...

The ECS ranges are in-line with the vast majority of scientific consensus. That you choose to ignore this shows your bias towards oil-industry proaganda.
 
Just one more of those POS feedbacks that deniers love to ignore:

As Climate Warms, Plants Will Absorb Less CO₂, Study Finds - The New York Times

As the climate changes, scientists know that there will be more years of extreme weather. That means extreme droughts, followed by years of heavier than normal rainfall, will become more likely. Dr. Gentine and his colleagues wondered if those conditions would balance out.

To check, they ran four different climate simulations and used satellite observations that essentially allowed them to observe photosynthesis from space. The goal was to see the impact that soil moisture had on Earth’s ability to absorb greenhouse gas emissions.

Though plants and soil could absorb more CO₂ during the wetter years, it did not make up for their reduced ability to absorb CO₂ in the years when soil was dry.

Three other POS feedbacks that will accelerate climate change:

1. Permafrost melting releases additional CO2.
2. Oceans are storing CO2. As oceans warm, they release additional CO2.
3. Warmer air hold more water vapor, which adds greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.
 
Media_Truth said:
Your last sentence is an obvious statement for anybody who understands feedbacks. POS feedback factors make warming less linear than the linear responses that we have been seeing to increases in CO2. When permafrost melts, releasing additional CO2, this is a POS feedback factor. When the ocean continues to warm, releasing more of it's trapped CO2, this is a POS feedback factor.

Fortunately, we have experts in Climatology who factor these into the models, as opposed to armchair, uneducated novices such as yourself. Take no offense, as I include myself in that category. The difference is that I defer to the experts.
Click to expand...
Do you understand that if more basic prediction of CO2 forcing is correct, then the feedbacks cannot be as high as the predicted 3C.
The positive feedbacks are modeled with an asymptotic curve,
each time unit contains more increase than the time units following it.
Hansen's early papers had the equalization warming leveling off in as few as 5 years,
while his later work had it at 60% between 25 and 50 years.
Recent papers have the latency as low as 10.1 years.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002/meta
What matters is that we have a pre 1950 perturbation, that the feedbacks must act upon.
We also have known natural and man caused forcing.
Lastly we have the observed temperature record.
 
Media_Truth said:
Your last sentence is an obvious statement for anybody who understands feedbacks. POS feedback factors make warming less linear than the linear responses that we have been seeing to increases in CO2. When permafrost melts, releasing additional CO2, this is a POS feedback factor. When the ocean continues to warm, releasing more of it's trapped CO2, this is a POS feedback factor.

Fortunately, we have experts in Climatology who factor these into the models, as opposed to armchair, uneducated novices such as yourself. Take no offense, as I include myself in that category. The difference is that I defer to the experts.
Click to expand...

Skepticism is the basis of the scientific method!
 
Media_Truth said:
Just one more of those POS feedbacks that deniers love to ignore:

As Climate Warms, Plants Will Absorb Less CO₂, Study Finds - The New York Times

As the climate changes, scientists know that there will be more years of extreme weather. That means extreme droughts, followed by years of heavier than normal rainfall, will become more likely. Dr. Gentine and his colleagues wondered if those conditions would balance out.

To check, they ran four different climate simulations and used satellite observations that essentially allowed them to observe photosynthesis from space. The goal was to see the impact that soil moisture had on Earth’s ability to absorb greenhouse gas emissions.

Though plants and soil could absorb more CO₂ during the wetter years, it did not make up for their reduced ability to absorb CO₂ in the years when soil was dry.

Three other POS feedbacks that will accelerate climate change:

1. Permafrost melting releases additional CO2.
2. Oceans are storing CO2. As oceans warm, they release additional CO2.
3. Warmer air hold more water vapor, which adds greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

It is always fun when people ignore the empirical data over the IF this happens modeled results.
Earth is adding green biomass.
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds | NASA
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years
largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the
journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
Click to expand...
Also each pound of biomass, needs about 3 pounds of CO2 to create.
 
Media_Truth said:
Just one more of those POS feedbacks that deniers love to ignore:

As Climate Warms, Plants Will Absorb Less CO₂, Study Finds - The New York Times

As the climate changes, scientists know that there will be more years of extreme weather. That means extreme droughts, followed by years of heavier than normal rainfall, will become more likely. Dr. Gentine and his colleagues wondered if those conditions would balance out.

To check, they ran four different climate simulations and used satellite observations that essentially allowed them to observe photosynthesis from space. The goal was to see the impact that soil moisture had on Earth’s ability to absorb greenhouse gas emissions.

Though plants and soil could absorb more CO₂ during the wetter years, it did not make up for their reduced ability to absorb CO₂ in the years when soil was dry.

Three other POS feedbacks that will accelerate climate change:

1. Permafrost melting releases additional CO2.
2. Oceans are storing CO2. As oceans warm, they release additional CO2.
3. Warmer air hold more water vapor, which adds greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

I deny that "science". I state that this paper is lying.

The evidence I put forward to support this is that, with soils of equal fertility and all other factors being similar, plants will grow faster in Brazil than in Canada. This is true for all points in between.
 
Media_Truth said:
The ECS ranges are in-line with the vast majority of scientific consensus. That you choose to ignore this shows your bias towards oil-industry proaganda.
Click to expand...

You sure like building strawmen, but we all see through you.

Have any tangible facts?
 
[h=2]New Study: A California Lake Had 4-5°C Warmer Periods While CO2 Was 200 ppm…During The Last GLACIAL[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 25. April 2019
Another new paper published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters casts further doubt on the paradigm that says CO2 has historically been a temperature driver.
Evidence from southern California’s Lake Elsinore indicates today’s regional temperatures (18°C) are 4-5°C colder than a millennial-scale period between 29,000 to 26,000 years ago (29 to 26 ka), or during the last glacial.
At the time, temperatures reached amplitudes of 22-23°C while CO2 concentrations lingered around 200 ppm, or less than half today’s values.
During both the periods between 31 and 24 ka and 14 to 9 ka, temperatures also were found to have abruptly risen (and fallen) by more than 10°C within centuries. These temperature swings occurred with little or no change in the CO2 concentration.
Holocene-Cooling-California-Last-Glacial-Feakins-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Feakins et al., 2019[/h]
 
Tim the plumber said:
I deny that "science". I state that this paper is lying.

The evidence I put forward to support this is that, with soils of equal fertility and all other factors being similar, plants will grow faster in Brazil than in Canada. This is true for all points in between.
Click to expand...

I don't think the paper is lying at all. I think the verdict is out on this issue. It's irrelevant in the total scheme of climate change, as we produce way more CO2 than any amount of earthly vegetation can sequester. It is plausible that more drought stricken areas will become desert wastelands, with no vegetation. Even when rains come, they allow some seeds to sprout, only to dry and wither.
 
Media_Truth said:
But you are not a scientist.
Click to expand...
What is required to be skeptical, my nearly 4 decades of experience in research and development,
places me is a good position to evaluate if an idea is practical, or possible.
You speak of when permafrost melts, releasing additional CO2, but the permafrost has been melting
for thousands of years, what is left is a fraction of what has already melted.
There are feedbacks, we may not know what all of them are, but we can see how the climate has responded in the past.
 
longview said:
What is required to be skeptical, my nearly 4 decades of experience in research and development,
places me is a good position to evaluate if an idea is practical, or possible.
You speak of when permafrost melts, releasing additional CO2, but the permafrost has been melting
for thousands of years, what is left is a fraction of what has already melted.
There are feedbacks, we may not know what all of them are, but we can see how the climate has responded in the past.
Click to expand...

Is that science background in Climatology? Neither is mine, so I defer to the experts. Skepticism should involve listening to what the experts have to say. Comparing what one expert has to say to that of another expert, and considering the overall consensus of experts. Being skeptical and denying on a Forum EVERY DAY, are at two different levels. The latter is called TROLLING!
 
Media_Truth said:
Is that science background in Climatology? Neither is mine, so I defer to the experts. Skepticism should involve listening to what the experts have to say. Comparing what one expert has to say to that of another expert, and considering the overall consensus of experts. Being skeptical and denying on a Forum EVERY DAY, are at two different levels. The latter is called TROLLING!
Click to expand...
My science background is in Physics, so yes, good enough to evaluate the physical processes claimed to be affecting the climate.
I have listened to the experts,and my estimates fall within the experts range of uncertainty.
AGW contains several concepts of which some are much more accepted than others.
The most accepted is the idea of CO2 forcing, that doubling the CO2 level will cause an energy imbalance,
that will force surface temperatures higher by about 1.1C.
The second concept is that the forcing warming would cause feedbacks to cause additional warming,
the amount of the additional warming is much less accepted.
It is a perfectly accepted form of skepticism, to challenge if portions of the uncertainty fall into the unlikely range.
For my part, I think science is about adjusting the theories to match the observations,
and not adjusting the models to match the theory.
Anyone with a Science or Engineering degree, has sufficient levels of math and science training to evaluate
if the stated predictions are realistic, if they choose to!
 
Media_Truth said:
Is that science background in Climatology? Neither is mine, so I defer to the experts. Skepticism should involve listening to what the experts have to say. Comparing what one expert has to say to that of another expert, and considering the overall consensus of experts. Being skeptical and denying on a Forum EVERY DAY, are at two different levels. The latter is called TROLLING!
Click to expand...

John Cook has a PhD in Cognitive science. He has no background you would approve of in the Climate Sciences, but you listen to what he says.

Hypocrite!
 
Media_Truth said:
I don't think the paper is lying at all. I think the verdict is out on this issue. It's irrelevant in the total scheme of climate change, as we produce way more CO2 than any amount of earthly vegetation can sequester. It is plausible that more drought stricken areas will become desert wastelands, with no vegetation. Even when rains come, they allow some seeds to sprout, only to dry and wither.
Click to expand...

1, Which areas do you think are likely to be drought stricken, please show some sort of scientific paper that specifies the mechanism and location of such?

2, Given the increase in leaves due to increased CO2 and the obvious expectation that the oceans will be absorbing much more CO2, especially with the added nitrogen that we produce, why do you think it is impossible for nature to take in much more CO2 and deposit limestone on the ocean floor? The geologic record would strongly suggest that various periods where there was abundant CO2 the rate of deposition was dramatically increased.
 
Media_Truth said:
Is that science background in Climatology? Neither is mine, so I defer to the experts. Skepticism should involve listening to what the experts have to say. Comparing what one expert has to say to that of another expert, and considering the overall consensus of experts. Being skeptical and denying on a Forum EVERY DAY, are at two different levels. The latter is called TROLLING!
Click to expand...

You are calling yourself an internet Troll there.

I don't think arguing a case as important as this is is unwarranted.
 
Tim the plumber said:
1, Which areas do you think are likely to be drought stricken, please show some sort of scientific paper that specifies the mechanism and location of such?

2, Given the increase in leaves due to increased CO2 and the obvious expectation that the oceans will be absorbing much more CO2, especially with the added nitrogen that we produce, why do you think it is impossible for nature to take in much more CO2 and deposit limestone on the ocean floor? The geologic record would strongly suggest that various periods where there was abundant CO2 the rate of deposition was dramatically increased.
Click to expand...

Here is the link to the original article, and some cited discussion. They don't cite exact locations, but feel free to go to their reference sources. I know that Southwestern US is in an extended drought, and as such is probably sequestering less CO2. If the drought persists, as they are forecasting, many areas that are currently scattered with vegetation, may turn to desert-land.

Large influence of soil moisture on long-term terrestrial carbon uptake | Nature

Soil-moisture variability reduces the present land carbon sink, and its increase and drying trends in several regions are expected to reduce it further. Our results emphasize that the capacity of continents to act as a future carbon sink critically depends on the nonlinear response of carbon fluxes to soil moisture and on land–atmosphere interactions. This suggests that the increasing trend in carbon uptake rate may not be sustained past the middle of the century and could result in accelerated atmospheric CO2 growth.
 
Media_Truth said:
Here is the link to the original article, and some cited discussion. They don't cite exact locations, but feel free to go to their reference sources. I know that Southwestern US is in an extended drought, and as such is probably sequestering less CO2. If the drought persists, as they are forecasting, many areas that are currently scattered with vegetation, may turn to desert-land.

Large influence of soil moisture on long-term terrestrial carbon uptake | Nature

Soil-moisture variability reduces the present land carbon sink, and its increase and drying trends in several regions are expected to reduce it further. Our results emphasize that the capacity of continents to act as a future carbon sink critically depends on the nonlinear response of carbon fluxes to soil moisture and on land–atmosphere interactions. This suggests that the increasing trend in carbon uptake rate may not be sustained past the middle of the century and could result in accelerated atmospheric CO2 growth.
Click to expand...

I do agree that SW USA does seem to be the place that gets drier when the rest of the world gets wetter in the warm periods.

That there is the increasing trend in carbon uptake rate which may not be sustained past the middle of the century on land does not change the plain fact that it will continue at sea. It also should, if you were less religious about it, make you think that possibly there might be less doom around than you want.
 
Lord of Planar said:
John Cook has a PhD in Cognitive science. He has no background you would approve of in the Climate Sciences, but you listen to what he says.

Hypocrite!
Click to expand...

John Cook is simply communicating what the scientists in the field are saying.

And he studied cognitive science to figure out what’s the matter with people like you, who literally know a tiny amount but think they understand the issues better than the experts (while also having a fixed view on the issue that pre-dates any of the scientific evidence they ‘analyze’ )
 
Threegoofs said:
John Cook is simply communicating what the scientists in the field are saying.

And he studied cognitive science to figure out what’s the matter with people like you, who literally know a tiny amount but think they understand the issues better than the experts (while also having a fixed view on the issue that pre-dates any of the scientific evidence they ‘analyze’ )
Click to expand...


John Cook, Lewandowsky Claim Psychological Vaccine Against Climate Wrongthink

Guest essay by Eric Worrall Cartoonist John Cook has attempted to employ his personal expertise on strange aberrations to help our old friend Stephan Lewandowsky create a psychological “vaccine”, to reduce the influence of climate skeptics. Scientists are testing a “vaccine” against climate change denial “Inoculating” people against misinformation may give scientific facts a shot…

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]John Cook is cooking up more 97% consensus, while two papers refute his statistical sleights of hand[/h][FONT=&quot]We’ve had the climate wars, now we have the consensus wars, and it appears Cook’s side and his publisher aren’t playing fair with the numbers, or with the review/rebuttal process. Dr. Richard Tol writes via email: Two critiques on Cook will be published tomorrow [today Toll adds ERL just sent me an email that the paper…
[/FONT]
April 12, 2016 in 97% consensus, John Cook.
 
Jack Hays said:

John Cook, Lewandowsky Claim Psychological Vaccine Against Climate Wrongthink

Guest essay by Eric Worrall Cartoonist John Cook has attempted to employ his personal expertise on strange aberrations to help our old friend Stephan Lewandowsky create a psychological “vaccine”, to reduce the influence of climate skeptics. Scientists are testing a “vaccine” against climate change denial “Inoculating” people against misinformation may give scientific facts a shot…

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]John Cook is cooking up more 97% consensus, while two papers refute his statistical sleights of hand[/h][FONT=&quot]We’ve had the climate wars, now we have the consensus wars, and it appears Cook’s side and his publisher aren’t playing fair with the numbers, or with the review/rebuttal process. Dr. Richard Tol writes via email: Two critiques on Cook will be published tomorrow [today Toll adds ERL just sent me an email that the paper…
[/FONT]
April 12, 2016 in 97% consensus, John Cook.
Click to expand...

Oh look a blog
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom