Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 04:41pm PT
|
What a fukking 'tard. I can't believe I paid you money to wash boat decks. Makes me ill.
If you're like most of the pro-GW crowd, don't worry, you didn't! (Remember good ol' Romney and the 47%--lots of truth there).
None of us knows the magnitude of the problem for sure, but my reading indicates there is a good chance that we won't like it.
Lots of confusion here too.
Remember that a little temp rising + some more CO2 = more plant growth.
That's usually considered to be a good thing, no?
One more:
I am asking because what I read mostly is the hammering any scientist gets within their own scientific community when either their data collection or conclusions are not supported by peer review
Norton, don't know what you read, but try reading the Economist. They had a pretty good cover story recently about the failure of "peer" review (judging by the "scientists" who post on this thread, that shouldn't be too surprising).
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 04:59pm PT
|
TLP. they are not under the bed. Quite the opposite, the agenda has been published material from day one-see Club of Rome and limits of growth for one example. The adjusted data always goes one way and the "reasonable" explanations are endless. Why can't you accept what is patently obvious?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 05:21pm PT
|
Why would more plant growth be considered a good thing, all by itself?
DMT
Glad to finally get some meaningful dialogue here--
We eat plants and things that eat plants. With a few exceptions, plants are good, at least in most people's opinion!
And increased plant growth has a nice side effect: to the extent that increased CO2 emissions are increasing global warming and that's a bad thing, then the expected increased biomass caused by more favorable growth conditions will absorb at least some of that increased CO2, and retard the process.
It's what scientists call "negative feedback" (somewhat like what Chiloe does when I or certain other people post here, but it has a more technical meaning too).
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 05:32pm PT
|
cold front coming through Albuquerque today, FortMental
proves all this alarmist climate change stuff is a hoax and lie put forth by paid elitists
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 05:46pm PT
|
I see... the biomass of the planet can have a (as yet, unstated amount) regulating effect on CO2 content of the atmosphere, is what you are saying?
DMT
Yes, that's it in a nutshell, if you believe certain premises at least.
There was a NASA paper on it not too long ago.
Now before anyone gets their panties bunched up more than normal (that's a lot with this crowd), as I recall, NASA doesn't think this interesting phenomenon will entirely negate CO2-caused global warming.
It's just nice additive benefit, in addition to the other good aspects of the plants.
The thread has gone on long enough to be very repetitive--when the increased biomass was pointed out a while ago here, some guy got agitated and thought that global warming was going to cause an outbreak of mutant, possibly man-devouring plants! (I may be embellishing somewhat, but not as to the point--the warmist nuts cannot imagine that a little warmer temps and some more CO2 might possibly cause some positive things to happen, in addition to the imminent destruction of the planet of course).
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 05:49pm PT
|
Global warming is over. 6 F when I got up this morning, might be a bit colder tonight. The dog spent 5 minutes outside with me and said that's enough of that!
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 06:18pm PT
|
You are contending that the biomass of the planet can alter C02 content of the atmosphere?
Yes, yes, you're getting it I believe.
But it is not merely my contention, good sir, it is the official position of NASA!
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/cooling-plant-growth_prt.htm
I suspect they may be underestimating the effect so as not to slow down the gravy train, but in broad outline it's really rather simple.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 06:23pm PT
|
The oceans and biomass are part of the carbon cycle, both emitting and absorbing CO2. Nothing new here.
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 06:31pm PT
|
Deleted. Not relevant any more.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 06:36pm PT
|
The last i heard "the human portion of the biomass", as DMT says, were net emitters, unless they could be considered Flora as in residents of the land of fruits and nuts.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 06:36pm PT
|
So if the biomass of the planet can impact, and by your contention, serve to regulate the CO2 content of the atmosphere; help me understand your thinking.
Then the human portion of the biomass, as a subset, can have an impact, and in fact serve to regulate the CO2 content of the atmosphere as well?
Right?
Hmm, perhaps theoretically possible, I don't know--humans don't directly engage in photosynthesis; I suppose respiration has some effect on CO2.
But you're missing the forest for the trees when you try to break it down like that--the important thing to remember is that these "models" (if you can even call them that, many of them are just statistical constructs of the type that even Ed H. used to condemn until he found out his buddy Chiloe was one of their leading proponents) are mere guesswork.
Fortunately, the good scientists at NASA have discovered that increased CO2 will both increase plant growth and limit CO2-caused global warming, assuming arguendo such a thing even exists in any substantial amount!
That's a good thing--no need to look a gift horse in the mouth.
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 06:39pm PT
|
Forget about beliefs, they're irrelevant.
One way to not fall for it.. Dingleberry Creambagel!
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 07:00pm PT
|
Blah, it's absolutely true that when plants photosynthesize they take CO2 out of the atmosphere. (But it is science, so be forewarned that it's mere guesswork.) But considering that the types of vegetation that have the greatest potential photosynthetic rates per unit area, namely forests and specifically tropical ones, are being steadily reduced in area, vegetation is not going to go very far to balance CO2 emissions by human activities. Plus, there's a limit to how much of that fixed carbon stays fixed. You can get really big trees, then they blow over and decompose, and all that CO2 goes back out into the atmosphere. A lot of carbon is stored in soil, such as in the Arctic permafrost, which is released as temperature goes up (which even deniers admit will happen, it's only a question of how fast). All these interactions of the biosphere with atmospheric CO2 are known but just aren't big enough to be particularly significant on the scale that matters for climate change except possibly the Arctic soil CO2 stock, which would cause a notable atmospheric increase if it were released on a short time scale (few decades).
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 08:54pm PT
|
Close... but,
Nope.
Like FUKEDWARFEDICKMENTAL, more practice.
More.
You might just get it some day.
It's sad watching #1, from sun up to sun down, piss away his retirement and his limited remaining time on Earth showing the world how utterly fooking stoopid he is.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 09:21pm PT
|
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:50am PT
|
Many here do not mind being fools.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 02:07am PT
|
I think there was a recent study claiming upwards of a 12% increase of greening of the planet as a result of the higher trace CO2, mainly in arid regions where C4 plants prevail as they require less moisture. The Idso's over at CO2 science have a lot of material on effects of a warming phase world on flora and fauna.
The only other thing i might add is that there is a fool reborn every minute and not all of them are of what ED infers as the intellectually inferior class, which in ideologies he seems to support might be as high as 80% of the populace. All hail The Chief.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 10:55am PT
|
This mornings front page headlines:
NOAA: World in 2013 was 4th hottest on record
What does this mean?
It means this thread will definitely go on and on and on and on etc etc etc .....
Carry on men!
:-)
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 12:03pm PT
|
Here is a question for the pro-modeling crowd:
what is a non-trivial prediction of the current models that we can later check to see if they get it right?
I understand we may need to wait a few years, that's OK, just something concrete that may allow me to say "nyah nyah nyah" or "oh crap they actually got it right."
Of course it's possible that the model may be "right" by luck (I don't think it can be "wrong" by luck, there's a lack of symmetry there).
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 12:29pm PT
|
Blahblah, that's the heart of the matter and the reason I'm here. The models long ago disproved their own projections and therefore the extremes of CAGW theory. Reality failed them by not having a linear temp rise along with CO2, by the south pole getting cooler and adding ice, by not having a mid tropospheric hotspot, by feedbacks being on the negative side instead of positive, and on and on. Now when you confront these climate religionists with these facts they will deny and point to this new study or that, all productions of the multi hundred billion dollar climate industry and evangelical society. A good example.being Ed's graph above. Warm ,windy, rainy conditions are not unusual in the southcentral AK winter Bruce. They are called Chinook's and occur several times most winters.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!