"With records dating back to 1880, the global temperature averaged across the world's land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average. This also marks the third consecutive month and fifth of the past six with a record high global temperature for its respective month (July was fourth highest)." Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-25-2014).]
To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here
Around 1250 A.D., historical records show, ice packs began showing up farther south in the North Atlantic. Glaciers also began expanding on Greenland, soon to threaten Norse settlements on the island. From 1275 to 1300 A.D., glaciers began expanding more broadly, according to radiocarbon dating of plants killed by the glacier growth. The period known today as the Little Ice Age was just starting to poke through.
Summers began cooling in Northern Europe after 1300 A.D., negatively impacting growing seasons, as reflected in the Great Famine of 1315 to 1317. Expanding glaciers and ice cover spreading across Greenland began driving the Norse settlers out. The last, surviving, written records of the Norse Greenland settlements, which had persisted for centuries, concern a marriage in 1408 A.D. in the church of Hvalsey, today the best preserved Norse ruin.
Colder winters began regularly freezing rivers and canals in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Northern France, with both the Thames in London and the Seine in Paris frozen solid annually. The first River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1607. In 1607-1608, early European settlers in North America reported ice persisting on Lake Superior until June. In January, 1658, a Swedish army marched across the ice to invade Copenhagen. By the end of the 17th century, famines had spread from northern France, across Norway and Sweden, to Finland and Estonia.
Reflecting its global scope, evidence of the Little Ice Age appears in the Southern Hemisphere as well. Sediment cores from Lake Malawi in southern Africa show colder weather from 1570 to 1820. A 3,000 year temperature reconstruction based on varying rates of stalagmite growth in a cave in South Africa also indicates a colder period from 1500 to 1800. A 1997 study comparing West Antarctic ice cores with the results of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) indicate a global Little Ice Age affecting the two ice sheets in tandem.
The Siple Dome, an ice dome roughly 100 km long and 100 km wide, about 100 km east of the Siple Coast of Antartica, also reflects effects of the Little Ice Age synchronously with the GISP2 record, as do sediment cores from the Bransfield Basin of the Antarctic Peninsula. Oxygen/isotope analysis from the Pacific Islands indicates a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature decline between 1270 and 1475 A.D.
The Franz Josef glacier on the west side of the Southern Alps of New Zealand advanced sharply during the period of the Little Ice Age, actually invading a rain forest at its maximum extent in the early 1700s. The Mueller glacier on the east side of New Zealand’s Southern Alps expanded to its maximum extent at roughly the same time.
Ice cores from the Andeas mountains in South America show a colder period from 1600 to 1800. Tree ring data from Patagonia in South America show cold periods from 1270 to 1380 and from 1520 to 1670. Spanish explorers noted the expansion of the San Rafael Glacier in Chile from 1675 to 1766, which continued into the 19th century.
The height of the Little Ice Age is generally dated as 1650 to 1850 A.D. The American Revolutionary Army under General George Washington shivered at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78, and New York harbor was frozen in the winter of 1780. Historic snowstorms struck Lisbon, Portugal in 1665, 1744 and 1886. Glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana advanced until the late 18th or early 19th centuries. The last River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1814. The Little Ice Age phased out during the middle to late 19th century.
The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots. A period of sharply lower sunspot activity known as the Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder. That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, another period of well below normal sunspot activity.
The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.
Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.
The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.
At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states,
“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”
That is even more significant because NASA’s climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement.
But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,
“Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.”
That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, “Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” In other words, another Little Ice Age.
The German Herald reported on March 31, 2013,
“German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years – and now German media has quoted Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory [saying this] is proof as he said earlier that we are heading for a “Mini Ice Age.” Talking to German media the scientist who first made his prediction in 2005 said that after studying sunspots and their relationship with climate change on Earth, we are now on an ‘unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.’”
Faith in Global Warming is collapsing in formerly staunch Europe following increasingly severe winters which have now started continuing into spring. Christopher Booker explained in The Sunday Telegraph on April 27, 2013,
“Here in Britain, where we had our fifth freezing winter in a row, the Central England Temperature record – according to an expert analysis on the US science blog Watts Up With That – shows that in this century, average winter temperatures have dropped by 1.45C, more than twice as much as their rise between 1850 and 1999, and twice as much as the entire net rise in global temperatures recorded in the 20th century.”
A news report from India (The Hindu April 22, 2013) stated, “March in Russia saw the harshest frosts in 50 years, with temperatures dropping to –25° Celsius in central parts of the country and –45° in the north. It was the coldest spring month in Moscow in half a century….Weathermen say spring is a full month behind schedule in Russia.” The news report summarized,
“Russia is famous for its biting frosts but this year, abnormally icy weather also hit much of Europe, the United States, China and India. Record snowfalls brought Kiev, capital of Ukraine, to a standstill for several days in late March, closed roads across many parts of Britain, buried thousands of sheep beneath six-metre deep snowdrifts in Northern Ireland, and left more than 1,000,000 homes without electricity in Poland. British authorities said March was the second coldest in its records dating back to 1910. China experienced the severest winter weather in 30 years and New Delhi in January recorded the lowest temperature in 44 years.”
Booker adds, “Last week it was reported that 3,318 places in the USA had recorded their lowest temperatures for this time of year since records began. Similar record cold was experienced by places in every province of Canada. So cold has the Russian winter been that Moscow had its deepest snowfall in 134 years of observations.”
Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, did concede last December that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 20 years with no global warming. That reflects grudging recognition of the newly developing trends. But that reflects as well growing divergence between the reality of real world temperatures and the projections of the climate models at the foundation of the global warming alarmism of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since those models have never been validated, they are not science at this point, but just made up fantasies. That is why, “In the 12 years to 2011, 11 out of 12 [global temperature]forecasts [of the Met Office] were too high — and… none were colder than [resulted],” as BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson wrote in January.
Global warming was never going to be the problem that the Lysenkoists who have brought down western science made it out to be. Human emissions of CO2 are only 4 to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes. Much was made of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 exceeding 400 parts per million. But if you asked the daffy NBC correspondent who hysterically reported on that what portion of the atmosphere 400 parts per million is, she transparently wouldn’t be able to tell you. One percent of the atmosphere would be 10,000 parts per million. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 deep in the geologic past were much, much greater than today, yet life survived, and we have no record of any of the catastrophes the hysterics have claimed. Maybe that is because the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. That means there is a natural limit to how much increased CO2 can effectively warm the planet, which would be well before any of the supposed climate catastrophes the warming hysterics have tried to use to shut down capitalist prosperity.
Yet, just last week, there was Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson telling us, by way of attempting to tutor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, “For the record, and for the umpteenth time, there is no ‘great amount of uncertainty’ about whether the planet is warming and why.” If you can read, and you have gotten this far in my column, you know why Robinson’s ignorance is just another Washington Post abuse of the First Amendment. Mr. Robinson, let me introduce you to the British Met Office, stalwart of Global Warming “science,” such as it is, which has already publicly confessed that we are already three quarters through 20 years of No Global Warming!
Booker could have been writing about Robinson when he concluded his Sunday Telegraph commentary by writing, “Has there ever in history been such an almighty disconnect between observable reality and the delusions of a political class that is quite impervious to any rational discussion?”
But there is a fundamental problem with the temperature records from this contentious period, when climate science crashed into political science. The land based records, which have been under the control of global warming alarmists at the British Met Office and the Hadley Centre Climate Research Unit, and at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S., show much more warming during this period than the incorruptible satellite atmosphere temperature records. Those satellite records have been further confirmed by atmospheric weather balloons. But the land based records can be subject to tampering and falsification.
[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 11-25-2014).]
Study: Climate change will slow China's progress in reducing infectious diseases "The study found that by 2030, changes to the global climate could delay China's progress reducing diarrheal and vector-borne diseases by up to seven years. That is, even as China continues to invest in water and sanitation infrastructure, and experience rapid urbanization and social development, the benefits of these advances will be slowed in the presence of climate change."
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-25-2014).]
(NaturalNews) Thank goodness carbon dioxide levels are finally rising ever so slightly in our atmosphere, bringing much-needed carbon dioxide to the plants and forests of the world which have been starving for CO2. The lack of CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the most devastating limiting factors for plant growth and reforestation of the planet, and at just 400ppm -- that's just 400 micrograms per kilogram -- carbon dioxide is so low that Earth's plant life can barely breathe.
Editor's note: I have added substantially to this story since it was first published in order to attempt to educate what appear to be a mass of brainwashed, mathematically illiterate commenters on Facebook who demonstrate a wholesale inability to process information with anything resembling rationality on this subject.
Let me clarify three things before we even get into the story:
#1 - NO, I do not support the coal and oil industry, and in fact I think they are terrible polluters of our planet for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with CO2. As it turns out, all the coal and oil being burned across our world right now only slightly impacts CO2 levels, especially when compared with CO2 emissions by ocean life. So my support of CO2 as an essential plant nutrient in no way is any kind of endorsement of the oil and coal industries. My long track record of activism against corporate monopolists is irrefutably solid.
#2 - YES, CO2 is an essential plant nutrient. Despite all the idiotic beliefs of people who have been brainwashed by Al Gore into believing scientific mythologies, higher CO2 levels support faster plant growth and the re-greening of our planet, period! Anyone who disagrees with this is flatly uninformed, brainwashed or just plain ignorant of plant biology (and that's a lot of people). Recent science is proving that rising CO2 levels are, in fact, expanding plant growth and reforestation around the world. Read Increase in Carbon Dioxide Levels "Greening" the Deserts at NatureWorldNews.com or read the press release from the original researchers out of Australia who documented this correlation. And everybody needs to read www.PlantsNeedCO2.org
#3 - The current level of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is 400ppm. By comparison, Oxygen exists in the atmosphere at 210,000ppm. When you exhale, your own breath contains 40,000ppm of CO2, and if you know anything about emergency first aid, then you know that breathing this 40,000ppm of CO2 into another person's body (mouth-to-mouth resuscitation) is a lifesaving action. It's not uncommon for CO2 to reach levels of 3000ppm in homes, schools and offices. OSHA allows workers to work in environments with up to 5000ppm of CO2. (Because, again, oxygen is present at 210,000ppm, vastly out-weighing the CO2.)
So all this talk of carbon dioxide threatening the entire planet at just 400ppm -- less than one-half of 1/1000th of the air -- is pure nonsense. Total quack science fearmongering.
In fact, most of what we've all been told about CO2 over the pat few years is a complete lie. It's time to stop believing these lies and wake up to reality. Most importantly, stop defending the CO2 / global warming hoax. Yes, CO2 is rising, but it's mostly from non-human activity, and rising levels actually support forests and plants everywhere.
How did I "wake up" to this information? It's simple: I used to be a believer in the CO2 hoax until I really began to study plant physiology and aquaponics production. Only then did I discover that CO2 is a vital nutrient for plant growth and that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were radically deficient for optimal reforestation and plant biology. My awakening to this in no way means I endorse coal or oil industries, both of which are dirty polluters of the planet. But I am no longer allowing myself to be conned by the likes of Al Gore who has successfully convinced far too many people that their own breath is a global pollutant that needs to be regulated and taxed.
The CO2 scam is nothing more than a global tax moneymaking scheme being pushed by people who hope to get rich off our collective guilt for a problem that's entirely fabricated and fictional.
My original story continues here:
Throughout the history of our planet, atmospheric CO2 was much, much higher, and it supported eras of lush rainforests, rapid plant growth and far greater biodiversity than what we see today. In fact, 525 million years ago, Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels were as high at 7,000 ppm -- and far from the planet "dying" as global warming hoax pushers try to claim, it was one of the most lush and biodiverse times in our planet's history.
That material (posted by Doug85GT) is pure dumb-ass.
The plants that we are familiar with and depend upon, from wheat and rice to oranges and spinach, and all lumber producing trees, have evolved to thrive in their current temperature ranges and soil conditions, which in turn, are partly (but significantly) determined by the amount of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That's where this fantasy goes off the tracks. The fantasy that allowing CO2 to increase well above its current levels would bring on some kind of "lush" increase in the productivity of agriculture and forestry. The plant will not thrive where the temperatures are too high, regardless of the amount of CO2 in the air.
As far as invoking the extraordinary amounts of vegetation during certain prehistoric times as some kind of improvement that humans could look forward to, as a welcome byproduct of continued CO2 emissions and global warming, that is so NOT science.
Over the previous 500 million years, there have been radically different configurations of land masses and oceans. That long ago, the earth may have been receiving a fractionally lower amount of solar energy, according to what is commonly accepted about the lifecycle of sun-like stars--don't have time to Google on that now. Many other differences, probably, affecting the earth's climate system and it's effects on animal and plant life, from that long ago, versus today. And beyond that, a "green utopia", brought on by higher CO2 levels, will not do humanity any good if there is not time enough for the earth and all its biosystems to adapt to it.
Higher CO2 levels are driving climate change that is too rapid for humans, and all the life that they depend upon, to have enough time to adapt in a "nice" way.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-25-2014).]
That material (posted by Doug85GT) is pure dumb-ass.
The plants that we are familiar with and depend upon, from wheat and rice to oranges and spinach, and all lumber producing trees, have evolved to thrive in their current temperature ranges and soil conditions, which in turn, are partly (but significantly) determined by the amount of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That's where this fantasy goes off the tracks. The fantasy that allowing CO2 to increase well above its current levels would bring on some kind of "lush" increase in the productivity of agriculture and forestry. The plant will not thrive where the temperatures are too high, regardless of the amount of CO2 in the air.
As far as invoking the extraordinary amounts of vegetation during certain prehistoric times as some kind of improvement that humans could look forward to, as a welcome byproduct of continued CO2 emissions and global warming, that is so NOT science.
Over the previous 500 million years, there have been radically different configurations of land masses and oceans. That long ago, the earth may have been receiving a fractionally lower amount of solar energy, according too what is commonly accepted about the lifecycle of sun-like stars--don't have time to Google on that now. Many other differences, probably, affecting the earth's climate system and it's effects on animal and plant life, from that long ago, versus today. And beyond that, a "green utopia", brought on by higher CO2 levels, will not do humanity any good if there is not time enough for the earth and all its biosystems to adapt to it.
Higher CO2 levels are driving climate change that is too rapid for humans and all the life that they depend upon to have enough time to adapt in a "nice" way.
The effects of elevated CO2 on plant growth are reviewed and the implications for crop yields in regenerative systems are discussed. There is considerable theoretical and experimental evidence indicating that the beneficial effects of CO2 are saturated at about 0.12% CO2 in air. However, CO2 can easily rise above 1% of the total gas in a closed system, and we have thus studied continuous exposure to CO2 levels as high as 2%. Elevating CO2 from 340 to 1200 micromoles mol-1 can increase the seed yield of wheat and rice by 30 to 40%; unfortunately, further CO2 elevation to 2500 micromoles mol-1 (0.25%) has consistently reduced yield by 25% compared to plants grown at 1200 micromoles mol-1; fortunately, there was only an additional 10% decrease in yield as the CO2 level was further elevated to 2% (20,000 micromoles mol-1). Yield increases in both rice and wheat were primarily the result of increased number of heads per m2, with minor effects on seed number per head and seed size. Yield increases were greatest in the highest photosynthetic photon flux. We used photosynthetic gas exchange to analyze CO2 effects on radiation interception, canopy quantum yield, and canopy carbon use efficiency. We were surprised to find that radiation interception during early growth was not improved by elevated CO2. As expected, CO2 increased quantum yield, but there was also a small increase in carbon use efficiency. Super-optimal CO2 levels did not reduce vegetative growth, but decreased seed set and thus yield. The reduced seed set is not visually apparent until final yield is measured. The physiological mechanism underlying CO2 toxicity is not yet known, but elevated CO2 levels (0.1 to 1% CO2) increase ethylene synthesis in some plants and ethylene is a potent inhibitor of seed set in wheat.
The effects of elevated CO2 on plant growth are reviewed and the implications for crop yields in regenerative systems are discussed. There is considerable theoretical and experimental evidence indicating that the beneficial effects of CO2 are saturated at about 0.12% CO2 in air. However, CO2 can easily rise above 1% of the total gas in a closed system, and we have thus studied continuous exposure to CO2 levels as high as 2%. Elevating CO2 from 340 to 1200 micromoles mol-1 can increase the seed yield of wheat and rice by 30 to 40%; unfortunately, further CO2 elevation to 2500 micromoles mol-1 (0.25%) has consistently reduced yield by 25% compared to plants grown at 1200 micromoles mol-1; fortunately, there was only an additional 10% decrease in yield as the CO2 level was further elevated to 2% (20,000 micromoles mol-1). Yield increases in both rice and wheat were primarily the result of increased number of heads per m2, with minor effects on seed number per head and seed size. Yield increases were greatest in the highest photosynthetic photon flux. We used photosynthetic gas exchange to analyze CO2 effects on radiation interception, canopy quantum yield, and canopy carbon use efficiency. We were surprised to find that radiation interception during early growth was not improved by elevated CO2. As expected, CO2 increased quantum yield, but there was also a small increase in carbon use efficiency. Super-optimal CO2 levels did not reduce vegetative growth, but decreased seed set and thus yield. The reduced seed set is not visually apparent until final yield is measured. The physiological mechanism underlying CO2 toxicity is not yet known, but elevated CO2 levels (0.1 to 1% CO2) increase ethylene synthesis in some plants and ethylene is a potent inhibitor of seed set in wheat.
Not dumb-ass. But there is a huge difference between subjecting plants to elevated CO2 levels under canopies or inside greenhouses, and projecting what agriculture and forestry would be like, all around the world, in year 2100, if CO2 levels increase by another 50 or 100 ppm. If you are studying plant physiology in response to elevated CO2 using a closed system (canopy or greenhouse), and hold all the other conditions constant--water, soil nutrients, light and temperature range--that is not a simulation of anthropogenic global warming and its total and combined effects on plant life under the open conditions of farmer's acreage and forests.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-25-2014).]
Originally posted by Doug85GT: To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here
Directly under more evidence our climate is warming (yet another record high month for 2014) Doug replaces his 'placeholder' with a year old opinion article, written by a lawyer at the Heartland Institute, about global cooling.
That's what you call pure denial.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-25-2014).]
Not dumb-ass. But there is a huge difference between subjecting plants to elevated CO2 levels under canopies or inside greenhouses, and projecting what agriculture and forestry would be like, all around the world, in year 2100, if CO2 levels increase by another 50 or 100 ppm. If you are studying plant physiology in response to elevated CO2 using a closed system (canopy or greenhouse), and hold all the other conditions constant--water, soil nutrients, light and temperature range--that is not a simulation of anthropogenic global warming and its total and combined effects on plant life under the open conditions of farmer's acreage and forests.
Your reasoning would invalidate all labratory experiment or any other experiment under controlled conditions. This includes any that you might want to use to support your position in the future. It also goes against the scientific method's process of using controls and variables.
Directly under more evidence our climate is warming (yet another record high month for 2014) Doug replaces his 'placeholder' with a year old opinion article, written by a lawyer at the Heartland Institute, about global cooling.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Your reasoning would invalidate all labratory experiment or any other experiment under controlled conditions. This includes any that you might want to use to support your position in the future. It also goes against the scientific method's process of using controls and variables.
Are you sure you want to take that position?
Not at all. You brought up these elevated-CO2-on-plant-growth experiments, in the context of this global warming discussion. I think that your point was that elevated CO2 levels can be expected to be beneficial for agricultural production and forest management (including lumber production). Or if not beneficial, then at least not negative.
These lab experiments that you cited use plants that are under canopies or inside of greenhouses, where all enviro conditions are controlled and the only variable is CO2.
I explained why I do not interpret these lab experiments as translating into what is likely to happen under continued global warming, brought on by accelerating or at least continuing the current pace of human CO2 emissions. Unless it is also stipulated that between now and the end of century (year 2100), farming and forestry management throughout the world will largely transition to crops that are grown inside of greenhouses, where all enviro conditions are controlled, just as they are controlled in those lab experiments.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were driving at, when you posted about those lab experiments(?)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-25-2014).]
And you once again avoid the facts to focus on your red herring.
The planet is still warming. Your denial wont change reality.
What "facts"? Ad hominem attacks, which you admit to using, by definition do not address any points of the discussion.
Do you even know what a red herring is? It is funny that you make the ad hominem attacks then claim it is a red herring to point out the ad hominem attacks which you admit to doing.
I could not make this up if I wanted to. This is the strangest behavior that I have seen in a while.
For starters, you skipped this to focus on your red herring.
Second, the fact the planet is clearly still warming yet your year old article claims global cooling "is here." Those are the facts you're ignoring.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Ad hominem attacks, which you admit to using, by definition do not address any points of the discussion.
Wrong. The first thing I did was address the point of discussion - the planet is still warming yet your opinion article claims cooling.
"Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact..." Source.
The fact that your article is merely opinion, written by a lawyer, who is on the payroll of a political lobbyist organization is valid criticism. It goes completely against his credibility.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: I could not make this up if I wanted to. This is the strangest behavior that I have seen in a while.
For starters, you skipped this to focus on your red herring.
I knew if I gave you enough rope, you would hang yourself. You seem to think that chart is magical somehow. It is not and he directly addresses it in his second video here:
For full context, the full 2nd part of his video since you obviously did not watch it the first time.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: "Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact..." Source.
The fact that your article is merely opinion, written by a lawyer, who is on the payroll of a political lobbyist organization is valid criticism. It goes completely against his credibility.
You obviously do not know what statements of fact are. Here is a hint, it is a legal term or used in philosophical discussions. Your ad hominem attacks are inappropriate, and you showed even more ignorance by posting that statement above.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: I knew if I gave you enough rope, you would hang yourself.
Riiiiight.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: You seem to think that chart is magical somehow. It is not and he directly addresses it in his second video here:
He does not directly address it.
He directly dismisses it, with the standard fear mongering tactics deniers always use. He provides absolutely no evidence that the ocean heat content is so unreliable that 90% of the evidence needs to be ignored - he simply exaggerates uncertainty and and uses fear mongering tactics. Not scientific evidence.
And of course. He has to dismiss it. Ocean heat content completely wrecks his theory. That's just one of many faults in his unsubstantiated theory.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: You obviously do not know what statements of fact are. Here is a hint, it is a legal term or used in philosophical discussions.
"I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the petty semantics."
Dismissing a phrase because, as your post originally said, "this is not a trial" is rather laughable.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Your ad hominem attacks are inappropriate, and you showed even more ignorance by posting that statement above.
Oh the irony.
If in fact you believe what you just said, you just broke your own rule with this ad hominem attack. Try staying on topic and addressing the points of discussion, perhaps?
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-26-2014).]
Surprise! More self indulgent red herrings from the denier instead of actual evidence to support his position.
What hilariously ironic content, too.
There has been plenty of evidence posted in this thread. More material than a person can watch or read in year.
You have made it clear that you categorically dismiss any evidence that contradicts your views. Your ad hominem attacks is clear evidence of that. You cover your eyes and claim there is no evidence because you don't like who is presenting the evidence. You even conveniently ignore the peer reviewed scholarly articles, and studies that I have posted.
I will continue to post evidence which you will ignore or dismiss.
The Potency of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a Greenhouse Gas
Author: Antero Ollila
Abstract: According to this study the commonly applied radiative forcing (RF) value of 3.7 Wm-2 for CO2 concentration of 560 ppm includes water feedback. The same value without water feedback is 2.16 Wm-2 which is 41.6 % smaller. Spectral analyses show that the contribution of CO2 in the greenhouse (GH) phenomenon is about 11 % and water’s strength in the present climate in comparison to CO2 is 15.2. The author has analyzed the value of the climate sensitivity (CS) and the climate sensitivity parameter () using three different calculation bases. These methods include energy balance calculations, infrared radiation absorption in the atmosphere, and the changes in outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere. According to the analyzed results, the equilibrium CS (ECS) is at maximum 0.6 °C and the best estimate of is 0.268 K/(Wm-2) without any feedback mechanisms. The latest warming scenarios of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for different CO2 concentrations until the year 2100 include the same feedbacks as the 2011 warming i.e. only water feedback. The ECS value of 3.0 °C would mean that other feedback mechanisms should be stronger than water feedback. So far there is no evidence about these mechanisms, even though 40 % of the change from 280 ppm to 560 ppm has already happened. The relative humidity trends since 1948 show descending development which gives no basis for using positive water feedback in any warming calculations. Cloudiness changes could explain the recent stagnation in global warming.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: There has been plenty of evidence posted in this thread. More material than a person can watch or read in year.
There's been plenty of denier conjecture. Virtually zero "evidence against anthropogenic global warming" that stands up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: You have made it clear that you categorically dismiss any evidence that contradicts your views. Your ad hominem attacks is clear evidence of that. You cover your eyes and claim there is no evidence because you don't like who is presenting the evidence. You even conveniently ignore the peer reviewed scholarly articles, and studies that I have posted.
You bring up peer reviewed articles yet you ignore the massive amount of peer reviewed papers that have established a clear scientific consensus.
You ignore the fact there is no scientific body of national or international standing in the world that reject anthropogenic global warming. Source.
You summary does not reflect the content of the graphic. The cooler temps clearly out weigh the "record highs". At best you could call it a break even, which woule be roughly consistent with the historic record. Sure you can make a point of showing there are a dozen record highs recorded but look at your poles, both cooler than normal. The normal and cooler than average is clearly the majority of the graph. Again it is a case of making a headline out of partial information.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
"With records dating back to 1880, the global temperature averaged across the world's land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average. This also marks the third consecutive month and fifth of the past six with a record high global temperature for its respective month (July was fourth highest)." Source.
