That's just childish...
Not really, excessive CO2 has been shown to reduce the nutritional value of edibles, and not all plants respond equally, meaning invasives of no significance as a food source start to crowd out the more important species.
But don't forget, it started out as "global cooling".
We are expected to set a new record for lowest temperature on March 6th tomorrow.
Where is global warming when you want it?
Dan
There are others. If you weren't a complete idiot, you'd know about them. If you'd ever showed any capacity to retain what you'd been told that didn't fit your preconceptions, I'd have dug out a few examples.
Only if you believe Anthony Watts.
Not so much tricky as easy to screw up.
The "pause" in global warming is actually a slow-down in the rise of global air temperatures. There's now enough Argo buoy data to make it clear that the extra heat has been mainly flowing into the oceans, rather than the air.
It's a side-effect of the Atlantic Multidecal oscillation, comparable to but longer term than the effects of the El Nino/La Nina oscillation on the Pacific.
It's not evidence that global warming has slowed done or isn't happening, no matter how much the denialist propaganda machine wants to claim that it is.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
The Younger Dryas happened at the end of the last ice age. Probably as a consequence of the Laurnetian ice sheet sliding off into the Atlantic, the Gulf Stream stooped flowing for some 1300+/-70 years.
If you'd been living in North America back then you'd have been sceptical about talk of the ice age being in the process of ending.
-- Bil Sloman, Sydney
e:
cto say absolutely nothing.
are
paying attention to major shifts of habitat and populations of all the vari ous lifeforms on the planet, any idiot can see that something major is happ ening.
es.html
seem to outdo mankind predicting events like earthquakes and other natural disasters.
But you haven't bothered to find an example.
As I seem to have to keep reminding you, CO2 is good for plants if they've got enough of every other nutrient. In the wild, more CO2 means that plants have fewer stomata, so they can get the same amount of CO2 while losing le ss water.
Even if it was "good for plants" to any significant extent, and plants were good for wildlife, we aren't wildlife, and the plants we grow to eat are c arefully selected to do well in the environment we've had for the last few thousand years, when we developed agriculture and selected the plants that worked best as our agricultural plants.
Change the environment and all bets are off. We may be able to avoid a popu lation crash, but not if the optimistic ill-informed ignore the problems un til starvation sets in.
Jahred Diamond's "Collapse" makes it clear that the well-endowed fat cats i n societies under threat tended to do exactly that.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
.
ples,
e.
But the people doing it might be better resourced, and a little less addict ed to antiquated procedures. If you physics were as conservative as your po litics, you would probably still be checking for N-rays. Thermocouples aren 't that accurate, even if they have been around for a time. Interchangeable thermistors tend to be a lot better for temperatures around 25C, but they only became available when I was in graduate school, so you probably don't trust them
y seem to outdo mankind predicting events like earthquakes and other natura l disasters.
Not so much fossil fuels as changing CO2 levels. Atmospheric CO2 in an ice age sits at around 160ppm, and rises to 270ppm in an interglacial. We are n ow up to 400ppm, which is more than the difference between an ice and an an interglacial
It came out of solution in the ocean, and was more an effect than a cause b ut it's one of the positive feedbacks you need to explain why the tiny Mila nkovitch effect can drive the switch between ice ages and interglacials.
Ice cover in the northern parts of the northern atmosphere is another of th em.
We are now well on the way to getting rid of the ice cover on the Arctic Oc ean.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
This was sort of interesting:
Forests suck a lot more CO2 than previously thought, and faster as temps rise. Both are negative feedbacks, not in the models.
As far as invasives, fortunately, kudzu's delicious (to goats).
Cheers, James Arthur
** It does not need to be, as the CO2 level has been steadily rising for decades. It's the one undeniable fact in the whole argument.
... Phil
And true.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
The Daily Mail isn't exactly the most reliable source of climate information. British science journalists don't know much about science, and are particularly prone to print articles given to them by the denialist propaganda machine.
The negative feedbacks were in the models, but the data on the tropical forests has recently been improved, and they seem to be doing better than had previously been thought.
Carbon capture by tropical forests depends on them not being cut down too fast - and they are being cut down at the moment, rather than being allowed to expand - and on them getting enough rain, which isn't guaranteed as climate change progresses.
Goats seem to have been what did for the Sahara forests. Giving them something to eat while they are waiting for next seedling tree to sprout may not be a good move.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
:
rote:
otic
re to say absolutely nothing.
han
es are
rt paying attention to major shifts of habitat and populations of all the v arious lifeforms on the planet, any idiot can see that something major is h appening.
rom
anges.html
e.
ey seem to outdo mankind predicting events like earthquakes and other natur al disasters.
As seen by John Larkin, who uses chaos as a portmanteau excuse. He doesn't know enough about mathematics to know what the word means to a mathematicia n.
c/chaosTheory.htm
John Larkin reminds us that he doesn't understand chaos theory, and sees it in lots of places that aren't actually chaotic. He also misses the point t hat while a chaotic system isn't completely predictable, it is rule-bound a nd while you can't say what the weather will be like at any particular mome nt, you can say a lot more about what the weather will be like when average d over something longer than the transit time of a low or high-pressure are a.
Not that there's any point in trying to educate him on this point. Anything complicated gets shifted into his too-hard basket.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Agreed on ppm(CO2), but the forests' increased uptake with temperature revelation is an important negative feedback. The current extrapolations don't include it.
Cheers, James Arthur
Why not address the merits rather than knee-jerk ragging on the people? The latter is the propagandists' domain.
It's a NASA finding. Either it's true, or not. Are they denialists? Other than a radical leftist government, who pays them?
Cheers, James Arthur
Cold kills.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
How accurate was temperature measurement in 1901 ??
I've been in Detroit many times when I thought I was going to die from the cold... so cold and wind blowing so hard my sinuses hurt like they do when I chug-a-lug a smoothy. ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
There was a relevant opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal today (6 Mar 2015):
"The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics -- Members of Congress send inquisitorial letters to universities, energy companies, even think tanks", by Richard S. Lindzen, MIT professor emeritus.
Research in recent years has encouraged those of us who question the popular alarm over allegedly man-made global warming. Actually, the
of this issue. The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. This normal course is now taken to be evidence of doom.
Individuals and organizations highly vested in disaster scenarios have relentlessly attacked scientists and others who do not share their beliefs. The attacks have taken a threatening turn.
the only period that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) attempts to attribute to carbon-dioxide
observations support a much reduced and essentially harmless climate response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.
In addition, there is experimental support for the increased importance of variations in solar radiation on climate and a renewed awareness of the importance of natural unforced climate variability that is largely absent in current climate models. There also is observational evidence
dioxide alone on Earth temperatures, is canceled by cloud processes.
show no increase in the number or intensity of such events. The IPCC itself acknowledges the lack of any evident relation between extreme weather and climate, though allowing that with sufficient effort some relation might be uncovered.
World leaders proclaim that climate change is our greatest problem, demonizing carbon dioxide. Yet atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide
warmer and colder than the present have coexisted with these higher levels.
Currently elevated levels of carbon dioxide have contributed to increases in agricultural productivity. Indeed, climatologists before
no capacity to replace fossil fuels but enrich crony capitalists at public expense, increasing costs for all, and restricting access to
Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm, and trillions of dollars have been involved in overthrowing the energy economy. So it is unsurprising that great efforts have been made to ramp up hysteria, even as the case for climate alarm is disintegrating.
The latest example began with an article published in the New York Times on Feb. 22 about Willie Soon, a scientist at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Mr. Soon has, for over 25 years, argued for a primary role of solar variability on climate. But as Greenpeacenoted in 2011, Mr. Soon was, in small measure, supported by fossil-fuel companies over a period of 10 years.
The Times reintroduced this old material as news, arguing that Mr. Soon had failed to list this support in a recent paper in Science Bulletin of which he was one of four authors. Two days later Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, used the Times article as the basis for a hunting expedition into anything
John Christy, Judith Curry, Robert Balling, Roger Pielke Jr. , Steven
governmental bodies. We were selected solely on the basis of our objections to alarmist claims about the climate.
In letters he sent to the presidents of the universities employing us (although I have been retired from MIT since 2013), Mr. Grijalva wanted all details of all of our outside funding, and communications about
speaking fees, honoraria, travel expenses, salary, compensation and any
but purportedly wanted to know if accusations made against Mr. Soon about alleged conflicts of interest or failure to disclose his funding sources in science journals might not also apply to us.
Mr. Pielke. His specialty is science policy, not science per se, and he supports reductions in carbon emissions but finds no basis for
that Mr. Pielke, in agreeing with the IPCC on extreme weather and
science czar.
Research disputing alarm over the climate should cease lest universities that employ such individuals incur massive inconvenience
testimony to Congress. After the Times article, Sens. Edward Markey (D., Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) also sent letters to numerous energy companies, industrial organizations and, strangely, many right-of-center think tanks (including the Cato Institute, with which I have an association) to unearth their alleged influence peddling.
The American Meteorological Society responded with appropriate indignation at the singling out of scientists for their scientific positions, as did many individual scientists. On Monday, apparently reacting to criticism, Mr. Grijalva conceded to the National Journal that his requests for communications between the seven of us and our
letters should help clarify for many the essentially political nature of the alarms over the climate, and the damage it is doing to science,
Mr. Lindzen is professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at MIT and a distinguished senior fellow of the Cato Institute.
..
Joe Gwinn
Probably not very accurate. That's a big problem with "climate change"... pre-satellite data is not very dependable. Siting changes, heat island effects, Stevenson box changes, sensor changes, all sorts of things make +-1degF distinctions laughable. Most of the errors (and adjustments!) are in the direction to simulate global warming.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.