Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
jurbie said:
Is there an opportunity I wonder to do something along the lines of the great dihydrogen monoxide jape? If CO2 is a pollutant then surely we don't want to be eating food that's been exposed to great quantities of that pollutant. Of course the farmers who grow vegetables in their big greenhouses pumped full of CO2 will argue it's essential to grow a healthy year round crop but they said the same about pumping cattle with steroids and antibiotics. Who are you going to believe, a money grabbing farmer or a group of concerned environmentalists who understand only too well the dangers of CO2 pollution?
Maybe some of you with kids could get the ball rolling by having a quiet word with your schools about your concerns of feeding the children food grown in a CO2 enriched environment and could the school confirm that the canteen only uses food grown in a non Co2 enriched environment. I know a few people who are into the whole organic food thing so maybe I'll have a word with them as well.
One could extend this a little and address the vegans by asking them why they hate plants so much that they feel they need to eat them to the exclusion of any other food source.Maybe some of you with kids could get the ball rolling by having a quiet word with your schools about your concerns of feeding the children food grown in a CO2 enriched environment and could the school confirm that the canteen only uses food grown in a non Co2 enriched environment. I know a few people who are into the whole organic food thing so maybe I'll have a word with them as well.
It's probably dangerous to assume that vegetarians are, en masse, sensitive souls. However it would surely be interesting to discover how they might react to the concept that they are flora murderers.
All I basically said was the curriculum shouldn't be based on internet-based speculation. Controversial stuff.
As for bullying? That's hilarious. I've presented my position without insulting people and I've backed it up with credible sources where required. That's usually met with a hystrionic pile-on (see above). And for that I get accused of bullying!
Sorry, I didn't find them credible at all.
When looking up the organisations and individuals they invariably led back to ONE single source called The Heartland Institute. I discovered they have a history of spreading pseudoscience (about smoking) and are at least part funded by the fossil fuel industry. Call me cynical but I don't see that as a credible source of science. I see that as an industry using whatever means it can to protect itself (as you'd expect it to).
As a plan to make money however, it seems highly improbable. Would you buy this as the plot of a book or a film?
[i]A small group of activists make-up a scientific theory, infiltrate all the world's major scientific institutions and trick all the scientists into believing them. Over several decades they gradually convince the world to ban fossil fuels and drive Teslas. Their motive: to get rich.
Starring Tom Hiddleston.[/i]
I'm not convinced.
ks from the facts.
The problem is, encouraging people to "think for yourself," or "make up your own mind," is undermined by the fact that your average person just isn't very good at analysing data, nor are they good at giving the correct weight to sources. That's why it's the war cry of all conspiracy theorists and pseudo-science practitioners.
I think the fact this debate exists is largely because people read stuff on advocacy blogs and give it the same weight as the actual research.
Exactly the same thing is happening in the food industry. People are setting themselves up as nutritionists and healthy living experts, and spreading awful nonsense about food as a result. That used to be OK when it was limited to milking money out of wealthy morons but it's dripping into the mainstream. Facebook is full of it. I'm constantly pointing out to friends on Facebook that David Avocado Wolfe is not a reliable source of scientific information, for example.
Incidentally, that evidently is a good way of making money. Make stuff up and present it in a science-ish seeming way. If anyone points to contrary established science, you simply tell them they need to think for themself.
If I was being paid to be here I'd put a bit more effort in than poking my head in every now and again and doing some Googling. I'd come equipped with handy references, I'd have cherry picked data and quotes all snipped and ready to run when required, and I might even be storing previous comments from posters for cross-referencing purposes. You know, like turbobloke does.
As much the efforts to paint me as the extremist is amusing, I will point out again that I'm simply representing the only view that I read when reading science websites. Remember, it's not me who gets lumped in with the likes of anti-vaccination nutters and creationists:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-...
You can do your own search on pseudo-science to see how often climate change denial pops up.
Mr GrimNasty said:
The vast majority of 'credible' scientists do not believe AGW is a serious danger, that is the politicized view of a minority, not a scientific one.
What are you basing that statement on? Hope?turbobloke said:
... a small number of activists get themselves onto committees that claim to speak for the memberships and fellows but only speak for themselves.
...because there isn't really any evidence of this and it's not very plausible. If it were really happening I think somebody might have noticed and said something by now. Besides, how does a "small number of activists" infiltrate so many organisations all over the world without protest?Mr GrimNasty said:
LOL, because YOU decide what is credible, and YOU bully people into excluding anybody that isn't AGW extreme enough, like YOU try to bully and disrupt this thread,
No, I don't decide what's credible at all. I just trust the research and urge people to read it rather than getting their information exclusively from here or advocacy blogs.As for bullying? That's hilarious. I've presented my position without insulting people and I've backed it up with credible sources where required. That's usually met with a hystrionic pile-on (see above). And for that I get accused of bullying!
turbobloke said:
Also how many times does it need to be pointed out to the faithful that there are credible scientific organisations that dispute AGW (I listed about half a dozen the alst time this nonsense claim was repeated, and I'm not looping again on that score).
Sorry, I didn't find them credible at all.
When looking up the organisations and individuals they invariably led back to ONE single source called The Heartland Institute. I discovered they have a history of spreading pseudoscience (about smoking) and are at least part funded by the fossil fuel industry. Call me cynical but I don't see that as a credible source of science. I see that as an industry using whatever means it can to protect itself (as you'd expect it to).
With these feet said:
Durbster, I understand your side of the argument and as an adult with nearly 50 years on this planet, I choose to view things from my experiences and own conclusions.
However, the likes of Al Gore and his propaganda, in my view showed their true colour.
I'm not going to defend Al Gore - I'm not really interested in celebrity activists to be honest. I'm sure people will make money from all this but that's not really proof of anything. Humans are opportunist and greedy. I daresay a lot of people are making money from denying it all too.However, the likes of Al Gore and his propaganda, in my view showed their true colour.
As a plan to make money however, it seems highly improbable. Would you buy this as the plot of a book or a film?
[i]A small group of activists make-up a scientific theory, infiltrate all the world's major scientific institutions and trick all the scientists into believing them. Over several decades they gradually convince the world to ban fossil fuels and drive Teslas. Their motive: to get rich.
Starring Tom Hiddleston.[/i]
I'm not convinced.
Murph7355 said:
Schools should be teaching kids to think for themselves. To take ALL inputs and make their own minds up.
Absolutely. We have so much information avaialble to use now that I believe critical-thinking should be introduced into schools as a core subject. It's absolutely essential that the next generations learn how to filter out the bks from the facts. The problem is, encouraging people to "think for yourself," or "make up your own mind," is undermined by the fact that your average person just isn't very good at analysing data, nor are they good at giving the correct weight to sources. That's why it's the war cry of all conspiracy theorists and pseudo-science practitioners.
I think the fact this debate exists is largely because people read stuff on advocacy blogs and give it the same weight as the actual research.
Exactly the same thing is happening in the food industry. People are setting themselves up as nutritionists and healthy living experts, and spreading awful nonsense about food as a result. That used to be OK when it was limited to milking money out of wealthy morons but it's dripping into the mainstream. Facebook is full of it. I'm constantly pointing out to friends on Facebook that David Avocado Wolfe is not a reliable source of scientific information, for example.
Incidentally, that evidently is a good way of making money. Make stuff up and present it in a science-ish seeming way. If anyone points to contrary established science, you simply tell them they need to think for themself.
robinessex said:
Wrong. You teach PURE science, physics, mathmatics and any other basics you need to know, and then, thus equiped, they do the climate stuff for themselves
I'm not sure why I'm wrong: I agree. The best way is to teach the science behind it all (i.e. greenhouse effect) and then let them figure the politics out for themselves.chris watton said:
Obvious shill is obvious.
Pff, I'd love to know how you reached that conclusion. It's actually flattering If I was being paid to be here I'd put a bit more effort in than poking my head in every now and again and doing some Googling. I'd come equipped with handy references, I'd have cherry picked data and quotes all snipped and ready to run when required, and I might even be storing previous comments from posters for cross-referencing purposes. You know, like turbobloke does.
As much the efforts to paint me as the extremist is amusing, I will point out again that I'm simply representing the only view that I read when reading science websites. Remember, it's not me who gets lumped in with the likes of anti-vaccination nutters and creationists:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-...
You can do your own search on pseudo-science to see how often climate change denial pops up.
KrissKross said:
Never been in this thread before
Do yourself a favour and run like the wind! That's the slightly warmer and possibly stronger than previous records indicate wind...durbster said:
Do yourself a favour and run like the wind! That's the slightly warmer and possibly stronger than previous records indicate wind...
Reading some of this I think you are right.Ok back to working out how to set-up a wind farm manufacturing business, first I will need to open another coal/tyre powered generation unit in China to help make the materials I need.
Apparently from what I have read the Earth's atmosphere is not connected, so we should penalise the UK/Europe whilst other countries do whatever they like, seems sensible to me.
durbster said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
The vast majority of 'credible' scientists do not believe AGW is a serious danger, that is the politicized view of a minority, not a scientific one.
What are you basing that statement on? Hope?YOU (durbs) could start by looking here...
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
Here
You might also like to read the criteria for getting your name on the list.
Qualifications of Signers said:
Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.
The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.
That list isn't some Facebook Poll or Blogger's Splat.The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.
Edit: WTF is wrong with the formatting here?
Third and final go at making this readable...
Edited by TheExcession on Monday 25th April 14:41
Durbster, countless times you've been show irrefutable evidence that CC 'science' is, in a nutshell, complete bks. From bloody poor science, bent science, complete fabrication of data, ‘adjusted’ data, so on ad finitum. Even my subjected analysis of CC using common sense, a bit of elementary logic, and a healthy does of scepticism you’ve ignored. Here’s an analogy you may wish to ponder. Would you be happy being charged with a murder offence, and appearing in court with evidence against you produced with the same honesty, accuracy and diligence as that used to ‘prove’ CC ? Especially if the conviction resulted in being hanged. ?
ks. From bloody poor science, bent science, complete fabrication of data, ‘adjusted’ data, so on ad finitum. Even my subjected analysis of CC using common sense, a bit of elementary logic, and a healthy does of scepticism you’ve ignored. Here’s an analogy you may wish to ponder. Would you be happy being charged with a murder offence, and appearing in court with evidence against you produced with the same honesty, accuracy and diligence as that used to ‘prove’ CC ? Especially if the conviction resulted in being hanged. ?TheExcession said:
durbster said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
The vast majority of 'credible' scientists do not believe AGW is a serious danger, that is the politicized view of a minority, not a scientific one.
What are you basing that statement on? Hope?YOU (durbs) could start by looking here...
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
Here
However attempts to bolster AGW need to be based on faith, logical fallacies, tortured data with unwarranted adjustments and some form of politico-religious motivation outside the usual envelope for independent objective scientific enquiry.
TheExcession said:
YOU (durbs) could start by looking here...
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
Here
You might also like to read the criteria for getting your name on the list.
I've only had a quick look at this but immediately there are concerns.31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
Here
You might also like to read the criteria for getting your name on the list.
It looks very old (referring to Kyoto?), so is it still relevant?
Not many on the list seem to hold relevant qualifications, so is it just a survey of the public?
It doesn't say how many people they surveyed in total so it's difficult to put a context to that number. The wording of the question seems misleading:
"is causing or will cause catastrophic heating". Is it only a concern if it's catastrophic?
"CO2 produces many beneficial effects on plant". This is easy to agree with.
I'm really curious why you think that is a more credible survey of the wider scientific opinion than these surveys, which to me seem to have a far better considered approach and methodology:
robinessex said:
Durbster, countless times you've been show irrefutable evidence that CC 'science' is, in a nutshell, complete bks. From bloody poor science, bent science, complete fabrication of data, ‘adjusted’ data, so on ad finitum.
But I haven't - I've been shown loads of links to articles on advocacy blogs that are often easily refuted with a basic bit of research. ks. From bloody poor science, bent science, complete fabrication of data, ‘adjusted’ data, so on ad finitum.Take the adjusted/corrupted/tortured data thing for example:
I saw the claim that the data had to be adjust to suit an agenda.
I went to find the data.
I looked for and found the justification behind the adjustments (which could have done with more detail)
I then found a tool that shows the original data vs. the adjusted data.
I saw for myself that the adjustments don't really change anything.
I posted a link to the tool so everyone could see the adjustments for themselves.
I hoped this would be enough to put that particular meme to bed.
It didn't, and it is still referenced constantly and presented as if it's a well-known fact that all temperature data is tainted.
robinessex said:
Even my subjected analysis of CC using common sense, a bit of elementary logic, and a healthy does of scepticism you’ve ignored.
I'm very sceptical (see above), which is why I like to dig into what gets posted - bypassing the advocacy blogs and going to the source where possible.robinessex said:
Here’s an analogy you may wish to ponder. Would you be happy being charged with a murder offence, and appearing in court with evidence against you produced with the same honesty, accuracy and diligence as that used to ‘prove’ CC ? Especially if the conviction resulted in being hanged. ?
Depends... did I do it? 
I look at it another way: is climate science any less honest, accurate or diligent than any other field of science? It doesn't seem to be - you can find dirt anywhere when you start looking for it. Does that mean the whole thing is a massive scam? I don't think so.
durbster said:
1 It looks very old (referring to Kyoto?), so is it still relevant?
2 Not many on the list seem to hold relevant qualifications, so is it just a survey of the public?
3 It doesn't say how many people they surveyed in total so it's difficult to put a context to that number. The wording of the question seems misleading:
4 "is causing or will cause catastrophic heating". Is it only a concern if it's catastrophic?
5 "CO2 produces many beneficial effects on plant". This is easy to agree with.
1 there's no relevant sell-by date, much as you would wish there were2 Not many on the list seem to hold relevant qualifications, so is it just a survey of the public?
3 It doesn't say how many people they surveyed in total so it's difficult to put a context to that number. The wording of the question seems misleading:
4 "is causing or will cause catastrophic heating". Is it only a concern if it's catastrophic?
5 "CO2 produces many beneficial effects on plant". This is easy to agree with.
2 you did read the qualification requirement...your assertion is simply wrong
3 is it a survey or an open invitation to sign a petition (and the answer is...)
4 if it's not then why are the (erroneous) statements of future doom so doomy and indeed this is part of the agw fail
5 agreed
also
6 your graphic refers to a survey of specific disciplines - they are by no merans alone in having a qualified view, and indeed one might say that it doesn't help to survey so many vested interests while excluding other neutral, informed, qualified opinion.
This is still all window dressing, though it's important to counter the lies about the false consensus.
What matters is the unmolested data and that goes against AGW.
rovermorris999 said:
We're doomed! Oh hang on, it's good news!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-355...
Somebody with the relevant contact details should send that link to the nutty Primary School teacher whose propaganda efforts featured recently in this thread http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-355...
The IPCC is not a neutral organisation, the information they publish is not balanced, the IPCC's reason for existence is to prove AGW and to justify UN control.
But Durbster doesn't think that might be a problem, a conflict of interests.
Durbster reminds me of Sen. Boxer in this clip, the same tactics, the same inconsistency, the same bigotry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxGZb2GgdaM
But Durbster doesn't think that might be a problem, a conflict of interests.
Durbster reminds me of Sen. Boxer in this clip, the same tactics, the same inconsistency, the same bigotry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxGZb2GgdaM
Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Monday 25th April 19:24
durbster said:
TheExcession said:
YOU (durbs) could start by looking here...
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
Here
You might also like to read the criteria for getting your name on the list.
I've only had a quick look at this but immediately there are concerns.31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
Here
You might also like to read the criteria for getting your name on the list.
If you have only "had a quick look" then, by definition, you are posting from a position of ignorance.
Mr GrimNasty said:
The IPCC is not a neutral organisation, the information they publish is not balanced, the IPCC's reason for existence is to prove AGW and to justify UN control.
The IPCC? What are you banging on about?Mr GrimNasty said:
Durbster reminds me of Sen. Boxer in this clip, the same tactics, the same inconsistency, the same bigotry.
Inconsistency? Bigotry 
Are you just pulling your personal insults out of a hat now?
don4l said:
Why don't you have a proper look before commenting.
Because I don't have a lot of spare time and because it was apparent there were some glaring problems with that petition.durbster said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
The IPCC is not a neutral organisation, the information they publish is not balanced, the IPCC's reason for existence is to prove AGW and to justify UN control.
The IPCC? What are you banging on about?The Beeb puff piece today
Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3613...
This is good? No, hang on it might be bad ! Or maybe not. But then again, it might. Oh hell why bother, we're going to drop the planets temp by 2ºc anyway, as lots of goons signed a piece of paper in the USA the other day that says we will. Then the Earth will be all nice and cuddly for evermore amen. Won’t it?
Carbon dioxide emissions from industrial society have driven a huge growth in trees and other plants. A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA. Climate sceptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet. But the researchers say the fertilisation effect diminishes over time. They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives. The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms. The new study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change by a team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries. It is called Greening of the Earth and its Drivers, and it is based on data from the Modis and AVHRR instruments which have been carried on American satellites over the past 33 years. The sensors show significant greening of something between 25% and 50% of the Earth's vegetated land, which in turn is slowing the pace of climate change as the plants are drawing CO2 from the atmosphere. Just 4% of vegetated land has suffered from plant loss. This is in line with the Gaia thesis promoted by the maverick scientist James Lovelock who proposed that the atmosphere, rocks, seas and plants work together as a self-regulating organism. Mainstream science calls such mechanisms "feedbacks”. The scientists say several factors play a part in the plant boom, including climate change (8%), more nitrogen in the environment (9%), and shifts in land management (4%).But the main factor, they say, is plants using extra CO2 from human society to fertilise their growth (70%).Harnessing energy from the sun, green leaves grow by using CO2, water, and nutrients from soil. "The greening reported in this study has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system," said a lead author Dr Zaichun Zhu, from Peking University, Beijing, China. The authors note that the beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilisation have previously been cited by contrarians to argue that carbon emissions need not be reduced. Co-author Dr Philippe Ciais, from the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences in Gif-surYvette, France (also an IPCC author), said: "The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change are not acknowledged. “Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatise to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilisation effect diminishes over time." Future growth is also limited by other factors, such as lack of water or nutrients. A co-author Prof Pierre Friedlingstein, from Exeter University, UK, told BBC News that carbon uptake from plants was factored into Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models, but was one of the main sources of uncertainty in future climate forecasts.
Warming the Earth releases CO2 by increasing decomposition of soil organic matter, thawing of permafrost, drying of soils, and reduced photosynthesis - potentially leading to tropical vegetation dieback. He said: "Carbon sinks (such as forests, where carbon is stored) would become sources if carbon loss from warming becomes larger than carbon gain from fertilisation.” But we can't be certain yet when that would happen. Hopefully, the world will follow the Paris agreement objectives and limit warming below 2C." Nic Lewis, an independent scientist often critical of the IPCC, told BBC News: "The magnitude of the increase in vegetation appears to be considerably larger than suggested by previous studies.” This suggests that projected atmospheric CO2 levels in IPCC scenarios are significantly too high, which implies that global temperature rises projected by IPCC models are also too high, even if the climate is as sensitive to CO2 increases as the models imply.” And Prof Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, added: "It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so-called contrarians, since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (i.e. what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (i.e. what is projected from climate models). "These disagreements are at the heart of the public debate on climate change, and these issues should be debated, not dismissed."
PS. Don’t mention the world tree count which was wrong by a factor of 10 !!
Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3613...
This is good? No, hang on it might be bad ! Or maybe not. But then again, it might. Oh hell why bother, we're going to drop the planets temp by 2ºc anyway, as lots of goons signed a piece of paper in the USA the other day that says we will. Then the Earth will be all nice and cuddly for evermore amen. Won’t it?
Carbon dioxide emissions from industrial society have driven a huge growth in trees and other plants. A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA. Climate sceptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet. But the researchers say the fertilisation effect diminishes over time. They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives. The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms. The new study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change by a team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries. It is called Greening of the Earth and its Drivers, and it is based on data from the Modis and AVHRR instruments which have been carried on American satellites over the past 33 years. The sensors show significant greening of something between 25% and 50% of the Earth's vegetated land, which in turn is slowing the pace of climate change as the plants are drawing CO2 from the atmosphere. Just 4% of vegetated land has suffered from plant loss. This is in line with the Gaia thesis promoted by the maverick scientist James Lovelock who proposed that the atmosphere, rocks, seas and plants work together as a self-regulating organism. Mainstream science calls such mechanisms "feedbacks”. The scientists say several factors play a part in the plant boom, including climate change (8%), more nitrogen in the environment (9%), and shifts in land management (4%).But the main factor, they say, is plants using extra CO2 from human society to fertilise their growth (70%).Harnessing energy from the sun, green leaves grow by using CO2, water, and nutrients from soil. "The greening reported in this study has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system," said a lead author Dr Zaichun Zhu, from Peking University, Beijing, China. The authors note that the beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilisation have previously been cited by contrarians to argue that carbon emissions need not be reduced. Co-author Dr Philippe Ciais, from the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences in Gif-surYvette, France (also an IPCC author), said: "The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change are not acknowledged. “Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatise to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilisation effect diminishes over time." Future growth is also limited by other factors, such as lack of water or nutrients. A co-author Prof Pierre Friedlingstein, from Exeter University, UK, told BBC News that carbon uptake from plants was factored into Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models, but was one of the main sources of uncertainty in future climate forecasts.
Warming the Earth releases CO2 by increasing decomposition of soil organic matter, thawing of permafrost, drying of soils, and reduced photosynthesis - potentially leading to tropical vegetation dieback. He said: "Carbon sinks (such as forests, where carbon is stored) would become sources if carbon loss from warming becomes larger than carbon gain from fertilisation.” But we can't be certain yet when that would happen. Hopefully, the world will follow the Paris agreement objectives and limit warming below 2C." Nic Lewis, an independent scientist often critical of the IPCC, told BBC News: "The magnitude of the increase in vegetation appears to be considerably larger than suggested by previous studies.” This suggests that projected atmospheric CO2 levels in IPCC scenarios are significantly too high, which implies that global temperature rises projected by IPCC models are also too high, even if the climate is as sensitive to CO2 increases as the models imply.” And Prof Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, added: "It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so-called contrarians, since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (i.e. what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (i.e. what is projected from climate models). "These disagreements are at the heart of the public debate on climate change, and these issues should be debated, not dismissed."
PS. Don’t mention the world tree count which was wrong by a factor of 10 !!
rovermorris999 said:
We're doomed! Oh hang on, it's good news!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-355...
"Surprise"? To whom? Surely we all are aware that CO2 is absorbed by plants - pretty basic biology which I assume is still taught in schools. Therefore, in the absence of man cutting them all down, plants will grow well as there is more food.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-355...
Or do I need a Woosh parrot?
2nd Beeb puff piece today
Wind farms' climate impact recorded for first time
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3613...
Prof Mobbs observed: "For the first time, we have been able to detect a climatic effect - there definitely is one.
He said that some people may consider the findings to be bad news for supporters of wind energy, however he said it was probably the opposite.
"Although we have been able to do a very careful experiment and detect the effect, we are now able to show - in a way that could not be done before - that this effect is very small," he added.
"Even in the most extreme conditions, the warming was no more than about a fifth of a degree Celsius in temperature.
"Because we have been able to definitively detect the effect, we can also definitively say that the effect is extremely small and it is not something people should be worried about."
Er, haven't we saying that a very small planet temp rise is not something people should be worried about?
Wind farms' climate impact recorded for first time
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3613...
Prof Mobbs observed: "For the first time, we have been able to detect a climatic effect - there definitely is one.
He said that some people may consider the findings to be bad news for supporters of wind energy, however he said it was probably the opposite.
"Although we have been able to do a very careful experiment and detect the effect, we are now able to show - in a way that could not be done before - that this effect is very small," he added.
"Even in the most extreme conditions, the warming was no more than about a fifth of a degree Celsius in temperature.
"Because we have been able to definitively detect the effect, we can also definitively say that the effect is extremely small and it is not something people should be worried about."
Er, haven't we saying that a very small planet temp rise is not something people should be worried about?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff