‘Consensus’ Science
Takes A Hit In 2017
During 2017, 485 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.
These 485 new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.
More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm.
N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.
N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability, as clearly shown in the first 150 graphs (from 2017) on this list.
N(3) The computer climate models are not reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.
N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).
In sharp contrast to the above, the corresponding “consensus” positions that these papers do not support are:
A(1) Close to or over 100% (110%) of the warming since 1950 has been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, leaving natural attribution at something close to 0%.
RealClimate.org: “The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!).”
A(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates, and the effects are globally synchronous (not just regional)…and thus dangerous consequences to the global biosphere and human civilizations loom in the near future as a consequence of anthropogenic influences.
A(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of both natural forcing factors (solar activity, clouds, water vapor, etc.) and CO2 concentration changes on climate is “settled enough“, which means that “the time for debate has ended“.
A(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in N(4) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.
To reiterate, the 485 papers compiled in 2017 support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus” A(1)-A(4) positions. The papers do not do more than that. Expectations that these papers should do more than support skeptical positions and undermine “consensus” positions to “count” are deemed unreasonable in this context.
Below are the two links to the list of 485 papers as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization.
Scientific Fascism; How to Manufacture a Consensus
One of the most absurd claims is that there is a scientific “consensus” on something as infinitely complex as the causes of climate change. There may be an actual consensus on the existence of the greenhouse gas effect, something that can be experimentally demonstrated, but a consensus that CO2, a trace gas at 0.04% of the atmosphere,
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/11/20/scientific-fascism-how-to-manufacture-a-concensus/
NOAA and NASA Admit the Sun NOT CO2 is Causing the Arctic Sea Ice to Disappear
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/noaa-and-nasa-admit-the-sun-not-co2-is-causing-the-arctic-sea-ice-to-disappear/
No Joke. During Record Cold Spell, The Guardian Warns of Global Warming
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/01/no-joke-during-record-cold-spell-the-guardian-warns-of-global-warming/
CO2 is 33% Higher and Temperatures are Currently Making 100 Yr Record LOWS
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/01/co2-is-nearly-33-higher-and-temperatures-are-currently-making-100-yr-record-lows/
Prosecute Slimate Clientists for False Statements and Defrauding the Public
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/01/prosecute-slimate-clientists-for-false-statements-and-defrauding-the-public/
I find it interesting that you pivoted to being skeptical about “climate alarm”. If it makes you feel better, you won’t be called a denier for that position. We can happily debate the alarming part of what’s to come without violating basic laws of physics/math 😉
Regarding your point …
N1: The IPCC position is that natural mechanisms would have caused a slight cooling in the recent past. Instead it warmed significantly. The best current explanation is the forcing from GHGs such as CO2. Note: this doesn’t mean that the Sun has zero influence.
N2: I find this a rather silly argument. Something of equal proportions happening in the past doesn’t mean that the current instance is happening for the same reasons or that we should shrug it off as if it isn’t alarming. If we get to see a WW3 you won’t find it unremarkable either, just because there have been previous World Wars, right? Especially it it happens for entirely different reasons than before.
N3: Not really my perception. So far the models are pretty good. Of course, improvements can always be made and I am looking forward to better and better versions.
You seem to believe there are some large unknowns that could completely change the models. Isn’t it more likely that the large unknowns have become “knowns” first and science is just adding more detail as we progress? You also seem to believe that predicting non-linear systems is some kind of magic. A pendulum is a non-linear system too, one which can be predicted pretty well and I am sure you can intuitively describe where the pendulum will be at a certain point in time. As intuitive as predicting that additional energy in the climate system will have an effect too.
N4:
So growth without limits? What about acidification? Desertification? Increased use of water and nutrients/nitrogen by plants exposed to higher CO2 levels?
A1:
You still don’t quite understand that math, do you? When you have 1 kg of 50°C water and add 0.5 kg of 80°C (1) water and then 0.5 kg of 40°C (2) water, you’ll end up with 2 kg of 55°C water. Can you calculate the correct percentages of the temperature change that both additions caused in this example? Hint, it is not 0% for (2) and it is not 100% for (1), but the some has to be 100%.
A2: It’s debatable whether or not the consequences are dangerous, but it could be very costly and as often as you guys argue against the high costs of transitioning to a sustainable energy future, this should be something you should feel equally about, shouldn’t it?
A3: Are you really hoping for that wildcard, surprise variable that nobody has considered yet to change everything? That’s like standing on the rails watching a train approach and hoping that it might derail before it hits you instead of doing something about your situation. If you want to debate the off chance that the train will derail, fine … but can we do that not standing on the rails?
A4:
Look, nothing we do will be environmentally-friendly. But we can make it more sustainable than the system we use today and why not start doing that now? Do you think more fossil fuel is safe, effective and environmentally-friendly? We could talk about fusion reactors, but I doubt that they will be ready soon enough (if at all) to be a viable alternative to “covering” Earth in solar panels and wind farms. Can you quantify that “cover” for us? E.g. will it be more or less than the area we covered with asphalt in order to be able to fast travel almost anywhere?
Pivoted? This is the exact same title as every single one of the last __ articles like this, updated 3 or 4 times a year.
Which is why the IPCC (AR5) claims natural influences on climate (which they effectively list as TSI only) are next to zero.
I guess that’s your opinion that a 0.09 C change in ocean heat content between 1955 and 2010 is indeed alarming. In the past, natural factors caused ocean temperatures to rise and fall by 1 degree C per century (Bova et al., 2016), or 0.1 C per decade, not less than 0.1 C in 5.5 decades. So I don’t share your perspective that there is something unusual about modern changes — especially when we see what it looks like in its larger context:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Ocean-Heat-Content-Rosenthal-13.jpg
1. The IPCC acknowledged that 111 of 114 climate models failed to simulate temperatures in AR5.
2. Nearly all climate models had Antarctic sea ice declining. It has been growing since 1979, defying the modeling.
3. They used to call the conceptualization of the poles warming faster than the rest of the Earth (due to the greenhouse effect) “polar amplification”. Since Antarctica and the Southern Ocean haven’t warmed since the 1970s, now they call it “Arctic amplification”.
4. The models said that hurricane frequencies and intensities would increase with warming. Hurricanes have become less frequent and there have been no intensification trends — as admitted by the IPCC.
5. The IPCC acknowledged in AR5 that despite models that say otherwise, there have been no trends in increased storm intensities, droughts, or floods.
6. Despite decades of attempting to locate it, no tropospheric “hot spot” has been observed.
7. The models predicted that the atmosphere would warm faster than the surface. The surface has warmed faster than the atmosphere (mostly because it’s easier to tamper with surface data, and UHI effects).
8. During the first 8 years of using ARGO, the ocean was cooling. Since this didn’t fit the models, they “corrected” ocean cooling. In other words, since the observations didn’t fit the models, they changed the observations. Same way with sea level rise. In the early 2000s, it was noticed that sea level rise was not accelerating when considering tide gauge data (and it had decelerated relative to the first half of the 20th century). So they devised a new way to “measure” sea level rise (altimetry), and suddenly 1.5 mm/yr was transformed into 3.4 mm/yr. Again, when the observations don’t fit the models, they change the observations.
9. The models can’t explain why the Arctic was just as warm during the 1920s to 1940s as it is today. Or why the Arctic cooled for 50 years afterwards.
10. The models can’t explain why NH temperatures plunged by -0.5 or -0.6 C during 1940-1970. Since they couldn’t, the cooling was made to disappear…and changed into a pause.
11. The models say global warming will cause more than a million animals to go extinct by 2050. Since 2000, only one animal has gone extinct.
12. The IPCC claimed that the Himalayan glaciers would “disappear” by 2035. A recent study indicated they are predominantly stable with very little melting.
13. Large regions of the Earth, including much of the Southern Hemisphere, has not warmed in decades. This shouldn’t happen with well-mixed greenhouse gases.
14. With Mann’s hockey stick shown to be fraudulent, and 100s of reconstructions showing modern temperatures are only slightly warmer than the coldest centuries of the Holocene (the Little Ice Age) and still cooler than most of the Holocene, climate models cannot explain how or why an anthropogenic signal can be distinguished from natural variability.
Just a quick reply to you:
Why was 2017 the year with the lowest summer extent observed since 1979? Why does the GRACE satellite data show a rather fast decline in ice mass for Antarctica since 2002?
Um, in nearly all of the descriptions I’ve read warming of the lower atmosphere an cooling of the stratosphere is the prediction if GHGs have anything to do with the climate change. That happened.
The conspiracy theorist is strong in you, so you suggest we don’t correct for errors (biases in this case) when we find them? What a sad understanding of doing science …
There are satellite maps in existence showing the mix. Also, it is called backradiation for a reason. If the ground is cooler, less radiation will be radiated back. The forcing doesn’t magically warm every m² of the planet by the same amount. Not understanding this simplest of concepts, but still arguing against this point seems somewhat childish.
Actually, his finding has been confirmed multiple times. I could understand if you have a problem with combining smoothed proxy data with an instrumental record, but calling it fraudulent because it “hides the decline”, suggesting that the instrumental record is fake, is beyond my capabilities of understanding skeptics.
So long
According to scientists, it was due to a negative SAM; in other words, it was of natural origin—just as the overall increase since 1979 has been (positive SAM). See below for the identified mechanisms. But since you believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are responsible for the 2016/17 sea ice anomaly, why has sea ice been increasing overall for 38 years, and why has the Southern Ocean been cooling since 1979? Name the mechanism for the cooling and increased sea ice extent, SebastianH, as it relates to anthropogenic CO2.
—–
Doddridge and Marshall, 2017
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL074319/abstract
Through analysis of remotely-sensed sea surface temperature (SST) and sea ice concentration data we investigate the impact of winds related to the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) on sea ice extent around Antarctica. We show that positive SAM anomalies in the austral summer are associated with anomalously cold SSTs that persist and lead to anomalous ice growth in the following autumn, while negative SAM anomalies precede warm SSTs and a reduction in sea ice extent during autumn. … Our analysis shows that the wind anomalies related to the negative SAM during the 2016/17 austral summer contributed to the record minimum Antarctic sea ice extent observed in March 2017.
—–
Cerrone and Fusco, 2017
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0184.1
Compelling evidence indicates that the large increase in the SH [Southern Hemisphere] sea ice, recorded over recent years, arises from the impact of climate modes and their long–term trends. The examination of variability ranging from seasonal to interdecadal scales, and of trends within the climate patterns and total Antarctic sea ice concentration (SIC) for the 32–yr period (1982–2013) are the key focuses of this paper. Our results indicate that a progressive cooling affected the year–to–year climate of the sub–Antarctic since 1990s. This feature is found in association with increased positive SAM and SAO phases detected in terms of upward annual and seasonal trends (in autumn and summer), and upward decadal trends. In addition, the SIC shows upward annual, spring and summer trends, indicating the insulation of Antarctica from the warmer flows in the midlatitudes.
—–
I am a bit disappointed now. Why does the strategy you skeptics employ not work against you in the same way? I mean the strategy of taking one recent value and directly compare it to the starting value, point out that it is far lower than the starting value and therefore there was no increase at all. Doesn’t quite work here, right? I wonder if you will be able to recognize when you are falsely doing it next time we discuss a time line of data 😉
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1979/every:12
What are you even talking about here? I have not taken one recent value and directly compared it to the starting value. I’ve reported on the overall trend, which is documented time and time again in scientific journals. They all say the Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent has been rising since the satellite era began.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1979/to:2017/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1979/to:2017
You, on the other hand, have selected a one-year anomaly (2016-’17) and decided that that overrides the 38-year trend. And then you turn around and accuse me/us of doing something we have not done here? This is pathetic. How can you be so dishonest?
Identify the mechanism that has caused the 38-year cooling trend in the Southern Ocean and the increase in SH sea ice extent.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Extent-North-of-Iceland-3000-Years-Moffa-S%C3%A1nchez-and-Hall-2017.jpg
And then explain why it is that Arctic sea ice is only slightly lower now than it was during the LIA, and why nearly all of the last several thousand years had much lower sea ice extent than now. Why was Arctic sea ice extent so much lower when CO2 concentrations were so much lower? Explain the mechanism, SebastianH. Stop dodging the questions and fabricating positions.
Again, when the observations don’t fit the models, they change the observations.
I know you’d like to just dismiss the ClimateGate e-mails as a conspiracy theory, but the “hide the decline” e-mails and the decision to remove warming from the 1940s blip (which they actually did) and the admittance that SH SSTs are “made up” are all troubling to those of us who are actually skeptical. For you, it’s a nothing-to-see-here…because you are not skeptical.
Interestingly, I never used the word “magically”, nor did I write that I thought “every m² of the planet” should warm by the same amount. (In other words, you have dishonestly just made up a claim and attributed that fabrication to me. Again. I have asked you to stop doing this many, many times, and still you persist. Use my actual words, SebastianH. Not words you’ve made up yourself.)
The IPCC claims the present warming is “globally synchronous”, whereas the MWP warmth or the LIA cooling was only regional. Perhaps you’ve read that?
The problem is, warming has not been “globally synchronous”, nor has it been global. Most of the Southern Hemisphere and even almost half of the Northern Hemisphere have been cooling for the last few decades. The warming has not been global in scale.
With Mann’s hockey stick shown to be fraudulent
So why have subsequent reconstructions of NH temperatures not looked anything like Mann’s 1998/99 hockey stick? For example…
https://notrickszone.com/2017/08/31/scientists-expose-data-manipulation-hide-the-decline-and-the-post-1940s-hockey-stick-temperature-myth/
Those aren’t my words. Those are yours. Please stop making up words or phrases and then dishonestly attributing them to me.
Because you have been asked many dozens of times to stop fabricating phrases, and yet you continue to do so time and time again, please do not be surprised if you find large portions of your comments edited or wholly deleted in the future. You have been given ample warning. I’ve decided not to tolerate this behavior anymore.
Still the TOTAL DENIAL from seb
“I am a bit disappointed now”
You are a massive disappointment, and you ALWAYS will be, seb..
Your wilful IGNORANCE makes one disappointed that human life can put up someone so DECEITFUL and LYING.
Evolution should IMPROVE the human species, not drag it to the depths of the sewer.
I repeat , because seb obviously is INCAPABLE of learning anything even when repeated 1000+ time
He is INCAPABLE of FACING FACTS.
Late 1970s was a time of EXTREME sea ice, up there with the EXTREME extents of the LIA.
1. For most of the last 10,000 years, sea ice has been MUCH LESS
2. Arctic sea ice is somewhat cyclical in nature influenced heavily by the AMO, and 1979 was the very bottom of the AMO cycle.
3. More and more evidence points to the 1940’s having similar sea ice to now.
4 Before the MWP, which had LESS sea ice than now, the first 7000-8000 year of the Holocene was often basically ice free in summer.
I post this for the information of all those people out there that are capable of accepting FACTS, because seb is not capable of accepting facts.
He IGNORES facts. He ignores science.
He cannot dispute any of these FACTS.
Wasn’t all this addressed a little while ago?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyMaRx7gIGY
Yes, and then that “address” was responded to point-by-point in a lengthy deconstruction.
Deconstruction Of The Critical YouTube Response To Our 400+ ‘Skeptical’ Papers Compilation
“I find it interesting that you pivoted to being skeptical about “climate alarm”.” – SebH, clueless activist
There is a world of difference between shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theater when there is a fire, and telling everyone they need to panic and squander their resources now, because a few years from now there might be a fire in the theater.
P.S. – Environmental activists are the real and present danger!
https://www.weaselzippers.us/369844-new-england-was-warned-pipeline-constraints-could-cause-problems-this-winter-now-its-happening/
The whole AGW AGENDA is a great danger to human progress and the future of the planet.
If it succeeds, the whole world will be back in the Dark Ages under draconian one-world bureaucratic socialist totalitarian rule, self-incentive will die, manufacturing will grind to a halt, food supplies will disappear.
N. Korea and Venezuela on steroids.
Quite an imagination you’ve got there. Have you considered writing scripts for Hollywood catastrophe movies?
@yonason:
Um, so you find it better to get notified of a fire in the theater when it is too late instead of being warned that it will happen if that kid in the front continues to play with matches?
That “kid in the front” with the matches is you, SebH. YOU and your ignorance, arrogance and deceit are the problem.
Your 1st grade math skills are most impressive, SebH. Good Job
“The best current explanation is the forcing from GHGs such as CO2. ”
For which, as seb and Jan and consistently shown, there is absolutely ZERO empirical proof for any warming from CO2.
Their manic evasion tactics are getting very comical. 🙂
“N2: I find this a rather silly argument”
Totally irrelevant to any rational discussion.
You need to prove something out of the ordinary is happening… IT ISN’T, just a slight beneficial warming from solar and ocean effects.
Science doesn’t proof anything. It’s time you learn that basic principle …
“Science doesn’t proof anything.”
Still the mindless evasion and blank empty MESS that is seb.
Certainly the NON-science you put forward proves absolutely nothing….
It really is EMPTY, ZERO-EVIDENCE non-science.
Great to see that you KNOW there is ZERO scientific proof for the fallacy of CO2 warming our convective atmosphere.
Poor seb, has now just confirmed that nothing out of the ordinary is happening.
Its just a baseless piece of propaganda fantasy.
Just like CO2 warming the atmosphere is baseless fantasy.
“N3: Not really my perception. So far the models are pretty good”
Roflmao.. models are spectacularly BAD. !!
They keep having to readjust the starting point as the models drift away from reality.
“N4: So growth without limits? What about acidification? Desertification?”
Unfortunately the highest likely CO2 level is 600-800ppm, so growth will always be limited by CO2 deficiency.
Acidification
roflmao.. Buffering by HUGE deposits of carbonate rocks. Corals etc evolved when aCO2 was MUCH higher.
Desertification.
roflmao…. satellites show the opposite happening. just another anti-science yap.
Increased use of water and nutrients/nitrogen.
Increased CO2 allows more efficient use of water. Proper use of nutrient nitrogen fixing plants and fertilisers will only further enhance plant grow.
So.. as ALWAYS, everything you point to is ARRANT NONSENSE based on your total lack of understanding of most facets of science. You are basically WRONG on everything you pretend to know.
They might be able to adapt, but not at the speed acidification is happening. Besides, corals are not the main concern of this problem.
Glad you are having fun, but can you please point to the satellite data that shows what you claim is true? I can only find data for increasing desertification.
Data suggest that quality of food is decreasing if you don’t take special care of a plant in a high CO2 level world.
It would be nice if you at least could provide sources when you are ranting in the comment section.
The speed acidification is happening?! Seawater pH has decreased by 0.07-0.08 U overall in the last 200 years — a figure that is subject to enormous error bars larger than that estimated trend. In contrast, on decadal and even yearly variations in pH are up to ten times larger than the overall 200-year trend (the red trend line). So if pH naturally fluctuates by +/- 0.2 to 0.5 U per decade, but the overall 200-year trend is -0.075, how is the latter too fast for corals to adapt to, but the former is not? Had you ever thought about this before?
AndyG55: “roflmao…. satellites show the opposite happening. just another anti-science yap.”
Please point to the data that you can find that shows the Earth has been desertifying. According to satellites, the Earth has been getting substantially greener and less desertified since the 1980s. This is actually very common knowledge — and it’s even in the models. But do show us your version of satellite observations that contradicts this, SebstianH. Show us your data.
—
Bastos et al., 2017
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa67b5/meta
The sustained increasing vegetation activity trend (greening) in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) has been a prominent feature in satellite observations since the 1980s and is consistently simulated by models. The trend in vegetation greenness has been linked to increasing growing season length at high latitudes and enhancemed terrestrial CO2 uptake in northern ecosystems.
—
Brandt et al., 2017
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0081
Here we used a passive microwave Earth observation data set to document two different trends in land area with woody cover for 1992–2011: 36% of the land area (6,870,000 km2) had an increase in woody cover largely in drylands, and 11% had a decrease (2,150,000 km2), mostly in humid zones. Increases in woody cover were associated with low population growth, and were driven by increases in CO2 in the humid zones and by increases in precipitation in drylands, whereas decreases in woody cover were associated with high population growth.
—
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep20716
Elevated CO2 as a driver of global dryland greening … [R]ecent findings based on satellite records indicate a positive trend in vegetation greenness over global drylands
—
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3004.html
Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend
—
http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/12/11387/2015/bgd-12-11387-2015.html
We quantified the temporal trend and climatic sensitivity of vegetation phenology in dryland ecosystems in the US Great Basin during 1982–2011. Our results indicated that vegetation greenness in the Great Basin increased significantly during the study period … [C]limate warming played a strong role in extending GSL [growing season length] that in turn resulted in the upward trend in mean vegetation greenness during 1982–2011.
Oh, please do present the data that suggest CO2 is causing food quality to decrease. This sounds like one of those alarmist hype articles…like this:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/climate-change-to-make-steak-and-chicken-taste-worse-ruining-barbecues-for-future-aussies/news-story/b43ce8918021a31ece68aa17042c725f
A study of the impact of climate change on 55 foods grown in Australia, found the quality of beef and chicken may plummet, eggplants may look weirder than they already do and carrots could taste worse. …. University of Melbourne associate professor Richard Eckard said the report was a wake up call, with some of the effects predicted in the next five decades.
A wake up call! Climate change is making eggplant look weirder! Do you find studies like these persuasive, SebastianH? Why?
How ironic that you are requesting sources…when you’ve provided none here yourself. Please provide sources for your claims that acidification is happening too fast for species to adapt, that the Earth is browning instead of getting greener and wetter, and that CO2 reduces the quality of crops and food products in general. Let’s see what you’ve got.
@Kenneth Richard
You quote someone citing an Aussie study as saying “eggplants may look weirder than they already do.”
Eggplants couldn’t look weirder than they do if they tried, and as any gardener knows, they have.
https://www.rareseeds.com/search/?keyword=eggplant
I mean, really. If they got any weirder, how would those bozos even know?
It’s a good illustration of the incompetence pervading journalism and academia today.
Just trying to find sources that would back up SebastianH’s claim that CO2 emissions are causing food to deteriorate. He says he has the data to back him up. Weirder eggplants decrease their quality, apparently, because of human CO2 emissions. Perhaps he will enlighten us with what other foods are going to spark “a wake up call” due to these alarming trends.
Climate change is even ruining our beer.
—
http://www.ediblegeography.com/the-taste-of-climate-change/
Beer enthusiasts, myself among them, were upset to read this week that our pints of pilsner lager might be the latest casualty of climate change. New Scientist reported the depressing news
—
Climate change has been causing depression in dogs too.
—
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-could-be-causing-dogs-to-become-depressed-say-pet-behaviourists-a6854006.html
Leading pet behaviourists say the number of depressed and unsettled dogs they have seen in recent months is unprecedented … A boredom epidemic is sweeping through Britain’s dog population – and global warming could be to blame.
—
It even causes music to sound worse.
—
http://www.firstpost.com/living/wonder-songs-getting-worse-might-global-warming-2196750.html
Wonder why our songs are getting worse? It might be because of global warming
—
SebastianH believes that humans are causing oceans to acidify faster than the sea water species can adapt to it (-0.07 pH in 200 years), that we’re causing the Earth to desertify, and that we’re causing food quality to deteriorate…with our CO2 emissions. He claims to have the data to back up these claims…and yet he hasn’t provided any yet. We’ll see if he comes through and surprises us.
It is similar to you being able to walk outside in a shirt for short periods while it is freezing (say -5°C), but you wouldn’t feel comfortable staying outside with just a shirt forever at say +5°C or even 15°C. Would you?
Apparently there are different definitions for the the word desertification. I meant expanding deserts. If a place where the soil isn’t dead yet is becoming greener because of the higher CO2 levels, that’s good. But that is not actually transforming desert areas back to places where plants can grow, is it? It’s just enhancing growth. When the soil “dies” all the CO2 in the world can not make plants grow at that place.
Better plant growth will increase the nutrient intake. If the soil can’t provide them food quality decreases despite quantity increasing.
First, I’d like to see what AndyG55 got, if you don’t mind. I hope it is better than what you presented.
Uh, no. This is not an example of “data” that supports your position that species cannot adapt to the alleged -0.07 change in pH over the last 200 years (the “anthropogenic trend”), but can adapt to changes of -0.5 pH in a decade (which is the natural variation). Natural fluctuations in pH are 10 times greater in magnitude and 100 times greater in rapidity than the overall 200-year trend attributed to anthropogenic influences by those who espouse the “acidification” narrative, completely contradicting your claim that “acidification” is happening so fast that species cannot adapt. Walking outside in a shirt has nothing to do with “acidification”. When we talk about supporting our positions with data here, we are talking about scientific publications. Not analogies. Please support your views with actual science. Can you?
Please provide a scientific paper that concludes that the parts of the Earth that are getting drier/browner are outpacing the regions that are getting wetter/greener. You said you had the data to back up your beliefs that Earth’s deserts are expanding on a global scale. But yet you have provided nothing here. In contrast, I provided 5 scientific papers (out of many others available) that indicate the Earth is greening. Since you didn’t produce any despite being asked to, can we assume that you actually have nothing to back up your views (just as you have nothing to back your “acidification” beliefs)?
Please support your views with actual science. This is what you asked AndyG55 to do, and yet I see nothing here. Why not? Produce scientific papers that support your belief that food quality is getting worse because of our CO2 emissions. Analogies don’t count.
https://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html
Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2
So before you’ll present us with your data that show oceanic species cannot adapt to a change of -0.07 in pH levels over 200 years, that the Earth is getting browner with “expanding deserts”, and that CO2 emissions cause food quality deterioration, you’re going to wait for AndyG55 to present his data? Why not support your own positions with actual data? You’re the one who made these claims in the first place, SebastianH.
“It even causes music to sound worse.”
Crowded indoor theaters can develop [CO2]’s 2 or 3 times ambient. So people who go to indoor concert halls have been getting bad music all these years. Who knew?!
“Better plant growth will increase the nutrient intake. If the soil can’t provide them food quality decreases despite quantity increasing.”
OMG, now seb is getting just plain IDIOTIC to go on top of his outright ignorance
Farmers have been making sure the ground is able to provide the crop with sufficient free nutrient for thousands of years. ITS CALLED FARMING. Is done with either chemicals or with crop rotation. Greenhouse grower have no problem with keeping the nutrients load, and they can use upward of 1200 ppm CO2
Its almost as if seb has never been outside his little basement, and has zero idea where food actually comes from.
According to a 2014 AMS peer-reviewed paper, 92% of U.S. farmers and 81% of Master’s degree (at least) agronomists reject the concept of anthropogenic global warming. This “analysis” from SebastianH about CO2 emissions reducing the soil’s nutrient intake is probably a good example of why.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2
Real science, seb.. try some for once in you insipid basement existence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep5ptrPN6ns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27XbnyWC5WM
“Acidification” CANNOT occur until the pH of the ocean has been neutralized! There isn’t sufficient “fossil” fuel to ever accomplish even the neutralization, let alone acidification. Ocean pH is highly variable, with location, temperature and depth among the most important factors. The pH range is over one pH unit, so I am more than highly skeptical of anyone claiming to have measured a change of a few hundredths of the natural variability locally, and extrapolating to the “world’s oceans.”
In short, it’s complete nonsense, especially sense past whopping [CO2]’s would have already destroyed all life as we know it, if the warmunistas were correct, which they are obviously NOT!
Oops, I neglected to mention that ocean pH is notoriously difficult to measure (impossible, actually). There are techniques to get repeatable numbers, but they are indirect and require great skill. Yet they are still estimates, not actual measurements.
The only people who parrot the ocean “acidification” myth are those who are ignorant of the facts, or those whose intent is to deceive.
“Glad you are having fun, but can you please point to the satellite data that shows what you claim [that desertification isn’t occurring] is true?” – SebH
This HAS been posted about already. Why are you STILL ignorant of it????!!!!!!
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
You tediously, tendetiously and boorishly keep repeating nonsense you must by now know is false, like that and “ocean acidification.”
wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/21/new-paper-debunks-acidification-scare-finds-warming-increases-ph/amp/
How do you live with yourself?
SebastianH claims he can only find satellite data that show the Earth is trending toward desertification. I would really love to read his data. (This assumes that he is telling the truth, of course.)
@Kenneth Richard 5. January 2018 at 6:51 AM
I find it impossible to believe that anyone can be THAT wrong by accident.
“I find it impossible to believe that anyone can be THAT wrong by accident.”
BINGO.!!
seb is proving to be a base level troll, totally MISINFORMED as well as being a compulsive LIAR.
“It would be nice if you at least could provide sources when you are ranting in the comment section.”
Would be nice if you ever read anything else apart from your own posts and weren’t perpetually, wilfully IGNORANT
Everything I have said is KNOWN, PROVEN and has been discussed on this forum many time
UNLIKE the fallacy that CO2 causes warming, which you keep running away from.
Please TRY to keep up with actual science, instead of living in your own little fantasy basement.
Yeah just finishing off plucking close to the last of my Sweet Cherry and Gross Lisse tomato crop this season. Max yield and sweet as tomatoes . All the neighbours are jealous but I kept them quiet by giving them plenty.
I even gave some to my Greeny next door neighbours.
I also support their use of solar panels via government waste of my taxes to subsidise their panels.
This really pisses me off because all I did to grow the crop was use good old mother nature. Its called Sun, Water and Earth.
SebH …take note!!
Ever grow Carbon, or the Black Brandywine? Another favorite of mine is Sara Black. And for salads there’s “Black Cherry.”
If you have never tried “Cherry Falls” (not a black), you might want to consider it. https://www.totallytomato.com/P/00184/Cherry+Falls+Tomato
(Second crop is iffy and not as good as first with this determinate, but it’is usually the earliest, and always among the best tasting.)
Enjoy!
seb,
The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”
Watch and listen a simple video even you might understand.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/zOwHT8yS1XI
It would absolute amazes me if seb wasn’t aware of these facts. It would show a case of utter and complete wilful ignorance and factual denial..
Although, I suspect he is well aware, and is just continuing with his childish, attention-seeking trolling.
The only German Greenie I’m interested in!
https://www.totallytomato.com/P/00043/Aunt+Rubys+German+Green+Tomato
BS !!! .. 100% pure and unadulterated BS!
Our oceans cover more than 72% of the Earth’s surface at an average depth of more the 4 kilometers. Just the top 3 meters of ocean contain more CO2 than all of the atmosphere above it! … you could dissolved all of the atmospheric CO2 into our oceans and you would not lower the pH by even 0.00001 mole fraction! .. you would be very hard pressed to even be able to measure the change in pH which would be less than 0.00001 mole fraction! ..
Next to AGW, ocean “acidification” is the biggest lie of all! … It is physically impossible for atmospheric CO2 to lower the pH of our oceans .. even setting aside the absolutely enormous surface area of lime deposits (3x’s greater than all of the surface area of the planet) in constant contact with that sea water that buffer any such attempts. If not for submariner volcanism, our oceans would probably have pH around 10+ and be virtually uninhabitable.
Holy crap .. this Sebastion idiot just takes the cake. I have seen stupid and dense people on the Internet about this subject, but just wow! .. This guy doesn’t know when to quit digging.
The sad part is that he actually believes that he’s not digging. He literally believes that oceans are acidifying so fast that the oceanic biosphere cannot adapt, and that humans caused it. He also believes the Earth’s deserts are expanding (the Earth is browning), and that CO2 emissions cause the quality of crops and food products to deteriorate. He’s made these pro-alarmism claims, but (of course) cannot produce a scientific source to back him up. He probably read these claims on a blog…and didn’t bother to take the time to look into them.
6.00 am bondi weather report
21 deg water temp
1 foot waves
low tide
earth going down!!!!!!
5 surfers out
50 people walking the beach early.
Current temp 18.3 C
Hahahahahahahhaha….whats not to like?
‘Climate science™’ in the main avoids being scientifically valid by using only a theory that is in the main not falsifiable. This mere speculation (or near theory) is untested against validated methods and verified observation in the real world, it is only tested in a poorly made computer generated virtual world. There has been no test, or observation of CO2 warming the atmosphere, or it ‘holding the heat’, or any other speculated property of this gases so called greenhouse effect — not observed on this real planet’s atmosphere. It is all just a speculation with a deficient virtual earth model as evidence.
As main skeptical position N(2) says “The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.”
AGW advocates may sniffily dismiss this point, but at least 200 million people in the USA have just be subjected to some of the coldest temperatures of modern times — that is remarkable and for many unprecedented in their lifetimes.
Those increasingly isolated consensus clique of well paid AGW advocates in academia, who try vainly to asert their authority in this field, will now have an even tougher time convincing the US public. And so it should be. Out with the old and in with the new, hopefully Mr. Trump will get the message about making ALL climate models open software projects for the good of science and computing. Software code, data, and methods free to be inspected by anyone on the planet. A worthwhile gift from the freedom loving USA to the world.
Scientific observations show that the sun dictates the general trend of our climate and not the innocent gas CO2. Only in the late 1990s did temperatures track CO2 levels, a mere coincidence, and since then NOTHING!
I see, by that logic would you agree that Antarctica has lost ice dramatically when last summer marked the lowest ice extent ever measured in most lifetimes of those of who are involved measuring this?
Isn’t the data already public domain when paid for by the government in the US? Code that is used to adjust the data or model something is also freely available most of the time, isn’t it?
Or do you suggest that there should be some Linux-like project on Github where everyone can participate on furthering climate science where it overlaps with computer science? I can get behind that, but I doubt Trump – I don’t read books – wants to do that if non of his advisors manages to somehow make a pretty presentation with lots of pictures for him to stear him in that direction 😉
You mean like the motor is dictating how fast a car drives? The innocent gas also named atmosphere has nothing to do with that? Never experienced headwinds in your life?
You must be interpreting the graphs wrong.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.43/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/offset:-0.29/mean:12/plot/rss/offset:-0.13/mean:12/plot/uah6/mean:12
You are right, I can see no increase at all since the 90s … oh wait.
“Only in the late 1990s did temperatures track CO2 levels, a mere coincidence, and since then NOTHING!”
Well, NO.
Between 1980 and 1997 there was NO WARMING at all
https://s19.postimg.org/iwoqwlg1f/UAH_before_El_nino.png
Any so-called linear trend is PURELY a facet of the use of the 1998 -2001 El Nino event.
Same as from 2001 – 2015.. NO WARMING
https://s19.postimg.org/b9yx58cxf/UAH_after_El_nino.png
There is actually NO CO2 warming signature at all in the whole of the satellite temperature data.
And as seb has convincingly shown with his ABJECT INABILITY and squirming, avoiding the issue….
there is ZERO empirical proof that CO2 causes any warming at all of our convective atmosphere..
… its a NON-EVENT, a FALLACY, a MYTH.
““Only in the late 1990s did temperatures track CO2 levels, a mere coincidence, and since then NOTHING!””
Only tracked somewhat in GISS et al. because those were deliberately adjust to do so.
The “Adjustments™” have been shown to have a near perfect correlation with CO2 rise.
https://s19.postimg.org/z4a5119ir/adjustments_vs_CO2.png
“You mean like the motor is dictating how fast a car drives? The innocent gas also named atmosphere has nothing to do with that? Never experienced headwinds in your life?”
??????????
And yet another anti-science, irrelevant and meaningless seb analogy.
Seb,
Yes dear boy you are just wrong. 🙂
Interesting but useless exchange of opinions between science (data) and religion (values). SebH (I do not like people hiding behind acronyms) is a firm believer in man-made global warming so let’s leave him there and concentrate on “global cooling”.
Happy New Year to all.
oebele bruinsma, thank-you for the reminder.
And a happy and prosperous new year to you.
Rather OT,
But the current energy watch (9:30pm) for Australia show the effect of the South Australia Tesla battery
Qld and TAs wind, working well. 🙂
Of course, gas and coal, nowhere to be seen 😉
https://s19.postimg.org/9hniof64j/Aust_energy_5.1.18.png
oops, data is at 8:30pm. so WA still has some small solar.
https://www.snopes.com/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/
What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.
This is false. We reached out to many of the authors of the studies included on this list via email to see if they agreed with Breitbart and No Tricks Zone’s analysis. While not everyone we reached out to responded, not a single researcher that we spoke to agreed with Breitbart’s assessment, and most were shocked when we told them that their work was presented as evidence for that claim.
A representative response came from Paul Mayewski, author of one of the studies included on the No Tricks Zone list and director of the University of Maine’s Climate Change Institute:
They are absolutely incorrect!!!! Quite the opposite, the paper deals with the impacts of greenhouse gas warming and Antarctic ozone depletion — both human caused — and describes future scenarios. Yet another example of downright lies.
Yay. Snopes! Can always count on them, or her.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/?utm_campaign=thedcmainpage&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social
I had typed mine in already before yours was posted, so when I came back later I just hit “post comment” without rechecking if any had by that time beaten me to it.
You do know that Snopes is now just another far-left propaganda site, don’t you Vincent?
It made its name debunking urban trivia, where is should have stayed, because science is not in its realm of expertise. I would not trust that they/she have fact-checked or even contacted who they/she say they/she have.
Snopes? Yeah, NO!
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/
And before you complain about my source, unless you can demonstrate that they have screwed up as badly as Snopes, I don’t want to hear it.
Yes, but that “debunking” deals with political fact checking, NOT science. Plus it amounts to a large ad hoiminem attack rather than an assessment of the skill with which the author debunked political claims.
You also seem to equate the site with a single person, presumably Kim Capria who is the main person being “debunked” by dailycaller, but the article in question is written by someone different, so this mostly ad hominem attack is completely irrelevant to the argument.
And yeah, dailycaller is not a reliable source anyway. They are attacking Snopes because snopes regularly debunks their stuff. They can’t counter the actual debunking so they attack the debunker as liberally biased (which she may be, but is she right in what she actually writes?).
Yes, “fact-checker” loses its meaning when it’s only activists with an agenda deciding on the facts.
That whole article is effectively one large straw man argument.
NoTricksZone never claimed that the 400+ papers assert that “global warming is a myth”. That was the Breitbart headline from back in October when the list had reached 400. 85 more have been added since. The intended effect of that headline phrasing — clickbait — was realized: 35,000 shares and retweets back then.
See the detailed introduction in the article for what these papers represent, or do.
Breitbart and Snoops have been in an on going war for some time now. Ever since Breitbart exposed who they are and started questioning where they get their funding from.
IMO “fact checkers” came into being to back the general media as they lost their influence. If what we call “journalists” now were actually practicing journalism and following the evidence seeking and reporting what it reveals then there would be no need for “fact checkers” to have ever been created to help support the general media. Snoops lies and obfuscates just like the media does when it comes to anything political but proclaims it’s self a “fact checker”.
[…] K Richard, January 4, 2017 in […]
In the one year+ from November 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013, –
there were 2,225 peer reviewed papers published by 9,136 contributing scientists.
Only ONE of those 9,136 rejects AGW – [That’s just over 1/100 of 1%]
—–
Between 1991 -2012 there were 13,950 papers published.
24 of them reject AGW.
Of the 33,690 scientists who contributed to the 13,950 papers, only 34 reject AGW – [That’s 1/10 of 1%]
—–
Cook et al looked at 12,280 papers published, of which 4,011 papers addressed the cause.
* 3,933 papers endorsed AGW.
* 78 rejected AGW – 1.9%
98% of the authors of those 4,011 papers said they and their papers agree with AGW
———-
These numbers are meaningless because the definition of “reject AGW” has not been quantified or measurably formulated. Without an operational, quantifying definition of what “reject AGW” actually means, one can just make up just about any position and say that these papers endorse that position because they don’t explicitly “reject” it.
If there were 2,225 peer reviewed papers published by 9,136 contributing scientists from 2012 to 2013, and only one of them rejected the position that there is no such thing as intelligent life on other planets (ILOOP), therefore, 99.999% of these scientific papers “reject ILOOP”.
Likewise, if the definition of “reject AGW” is that the paper explicitly states that humans have zero influence on the climate, any paper that does not explicitly state this counts as an endorsement. So even if a paper did not explicitly endorse the position that “more than half” of the warming since 1950 has been human caused, but it just says that temperatures have increased in recent decades without quantifying the anthropogenic contribution, it still counts as an endorsement, as it does not “reject AGW”. See how easily this subjective analysis can be manipulated to say whatever it is that the authors want it to say?
Analysis of the Cook et al. (2013) paper revealed that of the papers that actually addressed the attribution question, just 64 papers (0.5% of ~12,000) identified by Cook and colleagues were classified as (1) explicitly endorsing the quantified position that most (more than half) of the warming since 1950 was human caused. In other words, from 1991-2011, 99.5% of paper abstracts using the search words explained in the paper did not explicitly endorse the quantified definition of the “consensus” statement.
Legates et al., 2013
“Cook et al. (2013), after a subjective review of only the abstracts of 11,944 papers on climate change which ‘‘matched the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’’’ (p. 1), conclude that 97.1 % of those that expressed an opinion endorsed the hypothesis as defined in their introduction (i.e., the standard definition). However, 66.4 % percent of the abstracts had expressed no position. Thus, 32.6 % of the entire sample, or 97.1 % of the 33.6 % who had expressed an opinion, were said to be in agreement with the standard definition. However, inspection of the authors’ own data file showed that they had themselves categorized only 64 abstracts, just 0.5 % of the sample, as endorsing the standard definition [most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic].. Inspection shows only 41 of the 64 papers, or 0.3 % of the sample of 11,944 papers, actually endorsed that definition.”
“endorsed AGW”
NO, they didn’t “endorse AGW”…
… they went with the meme and MINDLESSLY ACCEPTED IT so as to get their paper published easily.
That is NOT SCIENCE.
[…] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some […]
[…] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some […]
[…] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some […]
[…] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some […]
[…] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some […]
[…] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some […]
[…] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some […]
[…] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in […]
[…] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some […]
[…] By:vixen99Source:https://notrickszone.com/2018/01/04/485-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-posit… […]
[…] the YouTube response to the late October Breitbart headline that claimed the 400 papers (now 485) compiled here at NoTricksZone say that “Global Warming Is A […]
[…] Despite this, every year there are hundreds of new research papers published challenging CAGW. Kenneth Richard at No Tricks Zone has done yeoman work compiling and summarizing and linking to such studies. His most recent review is 485 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm […]
[…] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some […]
To SebastianH and the excellent replies of Kenneth Richard:
To me, the layman, the thing is very simple: SebH does really mean that our weather (climate being nothing but the “sum” of weather) is dependent ONLY of one single parameter, of which there even is so little an amount in the air. We just have to turn this parameter’s knob a little to get the weather we wish.
Everyone thinking so is… (well, I don’t want this comment to be blocked). I admire Kenneth Richards, of whom I translated many articles for the website of the EIKE (not this one, though) because of his patience with an obious … who permanently rapes common sense.
Chris Frey
No one here really takes seb so seriously. We do however appreciate the entertainment value he delivers.
Nick Stokes is pulling his usual stuff on this topic over at WUWT.
[…] all you'd like. 485 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm __________________ I'm sick of .sig […]
[…] Kenneth Richard fand heraus, dass im Laufe des Jahres 2017 mindestens 485 Studien veröffentlicht worden sind, die auf die eine […]
[…] Kenneth Richard at No Tricks Zone has done yeoman work compiling and summarizing and linking to such studies. His most recent review is 485 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm […]
[…] 485 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm […]
There are so many things wrong here… but I’ll just mention one of them! There are a number of environmental disadvantages to increased atmospheric CO2. The claim that increased CO2 promotes crop yields is misleading in that plants may grow larger (and that growth eventually levels out and ceases), but increased atmospheric CO2 inhibits plants’ abilities to uptake other critical nutrients (including nitrogen and phosphorus); thus resulting in plant nutrient deficiency and a deficiency for organisms that consume those plants. (Source: http://za2uf4ps7f.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Rising+atmospheric+CO2+and+carbon+sequestration+in+forests&rft.jtitle=Frontiers+in+Ecology+and+the+Environment&rft.au=Beedlow%2C+Peter+A&rft.au=Tingey%2C+David+T&rft.au=Phillips%2C+Donald+L&rft.au=Hogsett%2C+William+E&rft.date=2004-08-01&rft.pub=Ecological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=1540-9295&rft.eissn=1540-9309&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=315&rft.epage=322&rft_id=info:doi/10.1890%2F1540-9295%282004%29002%5B0315%3ARACACS%5D2.0.CO%3B2&rft.externalDocID=FEE200426315).
Name all the ones you can think of and support each claim with peer-reviewed scientific publications. We’ll dissect each one.
Perhaps you should let the scientists know who publish these papers that enhancing crop yields with elevated CO2 is both misleading and disadvantageous. Then, perhaps you should let the botanists know that they should stop pumping CO2 into their greenhouses, as they are harming plants. And then perhaps you should let farmers know that higher crop yields in arid climates are a bad thing. The list itself is only a partial assembling of the scientific data.
(Your source link is non-working and needs to be truncated. Or perhaps you should just tell us the blog’s name where you got the CO2-is-bad-for-plants tip.)
Do you think that a greener planet with shrinking deserts (due to elevated CO2) is a bad thing too? Why?
————————————————–
Bastos et al., 2017
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa67b5/meta
The sustained increasing vegetation activity trend (greening) in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) has been a prominent feature in satellite observations since the 1980s and is consistently simulated by models. The trend in vegetation greenness has been linked to increasing growing season length at high latitudes and enhancemed terrestrial CO2 uptake in northern ecosystems.
—
Brandt et al., 2017
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0081
Here we used a passive microwave Earth observation data set to document two different trends in land area with woody cover for 1992–2011: 36% of the land area (6,870,000 km2) had an increase in woody cover largely in drylands, and 11% had a decrease (2,150,000 km2), mostly in humid zones. Increases in woody cover were associated with low population growth, and were driven by increases in CO2 in the humid zones and by increases in precipitation in drylands, whereas decreases in woody cover were associated with high population growth.
—
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep20716
Elevated CO2 as a driver of global dryland greening … [R]ecent findings based on satellite records indicate a positive trend in vegetation greenness over global drylands
—
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3004.html
Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend
—
http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/12/11387/2015/bgd-12-11387-2015.html
We quantified the temporal trend and climatic sensitivity of vegetation phenology in dryland ecosystems in the US Great Basin during 1982–2011. Our results indicated that vegetation greenness in the Great Basin increased significantly during the study period … [C]limate warming played a strong role in extending GSL [growing season length] that in turn resulted in the upward trend in mean vegetation greenness during 1982–2011.
“but increased atmospheric CO2 inhibits plants’ abilities to uptake other critical nutrients (including nitrogen and phosphorus”
RUBBISH.
CO2 enhances the nitrogen and phosphorus release in the soil, making it more available for plants. CO2 does not slow the rate of uptake unless the incompetent researcher doesn’t make enough available.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V21/jan/a1.php
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V21/jan/a3.php
I have a friend that uses CO2 in greenhouses, and his fruit and vege have been measured as having a HIGHER nutrient content than normally grown fruit and vege, as well as being bigger, more succulent and tastier.
But then, he knows what he is doing, and apparently the MSU non-farmers, don’t.
Hannah, It should also be noted that the paper you are linking to has absolutely NOTHING to do with nutrients in crops or fruit.
It is about carbon sequestration in forests.
Ie , you don’t have the VAGUEST CLUE what you are talking about. !!
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002%5B0315:RACACS%5D2.0.CO;2/abstract
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2018/01/04/485-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-posit… […]
[…] recent survey of climate change literature for 2017 revealed that the alleged “consensus” behind the dangers […]
[…] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in […]
[…] core location and regional ocean circulation. Abstract Data availability. 485 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm. During 2017, 485 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that […]
[…] his point of view. On January 10, Breitbart News Network reported that “Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in […]