58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Space, the environment, new discoveries and new uses for old ones
User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 17602
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby Fordama » Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:07 pm

kramer wrote:Both you and Wabash have consistently demonstrated a lack of intellectual ability. Seeing it again now.

I'm not the one posting alleged studies from nut job websites that don't say what you claim they're saying.


This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8805
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby kramer » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:37 am

I claimed that the graphs of those studies don't show unprecedented warming. If you look at them, you'll see that my claim is 100% correct.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 17602
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby Fordama » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:46 am

And not relevant to anything in the discussion. In fact, the studies I saw were on temperature variability, not actual mean temperatures.
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 22461
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby Wabash » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:50 am

Kramer, it's still better to err on the side of clean air and water.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8805
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby kramer » Fri Jun 09, 2017 10:38 am

CO2 isn't pollution. The more we put in the air, the greener the earth has been getting. And apparently, a greener earth is BETTER for the climate. We should be thanking Exxon and Chevron and all the others. Also, crop yields the last few years have been record busting.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 17602
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby Fordama » Fri Jun 09, 2017 10:44 am

Once again, almost anything can be pollution. You keep making that same extremely elementary mistake over and over and over and over and over again.

And if you want to thank someone for increased crop yields, the best people to thank are the folks at corporations like Monsanto.
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8805
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby kramer » Fri Jun 09, 2017 10:52 am

Almost anything can be pollution, I agree. But a little extra plant and tree food in the air is not pollution.

And yes, along with the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, Monsanto is also responsible for increased crop yields.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

Bick
Posts: 4274
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby Bick » Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:02 am

Fordama wrote:And if you want to thank someone for increased crop yields, the best people to thank are the folks at corporations like Monsanto.


NASA might disagree with this being primarily a Monsanto issue.

A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.


https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2- ... erfor-now/

While the science seems to be providing differing causes, effects, levels, and mitigation of climate change, I believe everyone can agree that cheaper, cleaner energy is a worthwhile endeavor. Let's focus on that instead of taking such strong positions on why the earth is or isn't getting warmer, and our role in making that happen.

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 17602
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby Fordama » Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:04 am

Yeah, but over 2,000,000 pounds per second for decades is. That's why it is changing the climate--as you have at least finally acknowledged (now you're just pretending it's a good thing.)
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 17602
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby Fordama » Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:05 am

Bick, crop yields is not simply total vegetation.
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

Bick
Posts: 4274
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby Bick » Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:17 am

Do crops exposed to higher levels of CO2 yield more? Reduce water usage?

Probable effects of increasing global atmospheric CO2 concentration on crop yield, crop water use, and world climate are discussed. About 430 observations of the yields of 37 plant species grown with CO2 enrichment were extracted from the literature and analyzed. CO2 enrichment increased agricultural weight yields by an 36%. Additional analysis of 81 experiments which had controlled CO2 concentrations showed that yields will probably increase by 33% with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Another 46 observations of the effects of CO2 enrichment on transpiration were extracted and averaged. These data showed that a doubling of CO2 concentration could reduce transpiration by 34%, which combined with the yield increase, indicates that water use efficiency may double.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7483900756

User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 3734
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby Professor Fate » Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:02 pm

98% of scientists say that plants need Brawndo (because it has electrolytes). Idiocracy, starring Fordama as the Secretary of State, and Kramer as Joe Bauers (Not Sure).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boy_tLWeqA
Well, obviously we have giant butterflies in CA. They's climbin' in your windows, They's snatchin' your people up, tryin' to steal 'em. So y'all need to hide your kids, hide your stars, and hide your coaches cause they're grabin' everybody out here.

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 22461
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby Wabash » Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:12 pm

Did 58 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Say Global Warming is a Myth?

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.

Outside of the fact that all of these papers have squiggly lines that represent climatological change through time, they cover a diverse range of highly technical topics and have little in common with each other. In many cases, listed studies are applicable only to a very specific region and were created not to investigate the influence of humans on climate, but to understand how the climate system works in general.


Who else is surprised?
Attachments
Shocked.jpg
Shocked.jpg (11.23 KiB) Viewed 234 times
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8805
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby kramer » Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:48 pm

Wabash asked "Who else is surprised" over his snopes 'blockbuster' report that shows the notrickzone report is wrong.

The snopes report that Wasbash linked to is misleading and geared towards the same crowd whose collective stupidity was leveraged to pass Obamacare, according to Jonathan Gruber, the architect of Obamacare. How so? Easy, just read what the notrickzone says on their page and then read what snopes says. He is all of the relevant text from the notrickzone:

80 Graphs From 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warming
By Kenneth Richard on 29. May 2017
Scientists Increasingly Discarding

‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Graphs

“[W]hen it comes to disentangling natural variability from anthropogenically affected variability the vast majority of the instrumental record may be biased.” — Büntgen et al., 2017

Last year there were at least 60 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.
.
Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
.
Yes, some regions of the Earth have been warming in recent decades or at some point in the last 100 years. Some regions have been cooling for decades at a time. And many regions have shown no significant net changes or trends in either direction relative to the last few hundred to thousands of years.
.
Succinctly, then, scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly affirmed that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/80-g ... NTxFV.dpuf


Here is the snopes text from Wabash with my comments in bold:
This is false. [NOWHERE in the Notrickzone does it conclude from these 58 papers that AGW is a myth. It may say so in the Brietbart piece but I linked and quoted from the NoTrickzone site] 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. [This is misleading because the Breitbart analysis does not match with the NTZ (notrickzone) analysis] While not everyone we reached out to responded, not a single researcher that we spoke to agreed with Breitbart’s assessment [This is reasonable, I wouldn't agree with BB's assessment either if it concluded AGW is a myth], and most were shocked when we told them that their work was presented as evidence for that claim.[For what claim, the BB (Breitbart) or NTZ claim? The BB claim it's a myth is wrong, the NTZ analysis is neutral. Read it above for yourselves]


They are absolutely incorrect!!!! [Who'e "they?" BB or NTZ?] 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. [NTZ did not lie}

Outside of the fact that all of these papers have squiggly lines that represent climatological change through time, they cover a diverse range of highly technical topics and have little in common with each other. [They aren't implied (by NTZ at least, I didn't read the BB article) to have anything in common other than they are temperature graphs of different areas of the earth that show no warming] In many cases, listed studies are applicable only to a very specific region [Correct, they are regional studys and this is what I have said] and were created not to investigate the influence of humans on climate, [Really???... The paragraph above says "the paper deals with the impacts of greenhouse gas warming and Antarctic ozone depletion — both human caused" Seems like at least one paper was investigating human caused AGW] but to understand how the climate system works in general.


Wabash, show me from your snopes snippet where it shows the NTZ article is wrong.

And you did it again, you confirmed Jonathan Gruber and Lenin right! :D
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 22461
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby Wabash » Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:52 pm

I have more trust in Snopes than Breitbart.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
Omar Bongo
Posts: 6104
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby Omar Bongo » Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:38 pm

Do crops exposed to higher levels of CO2 yield more?

Weeds sure do, and they compete with crops for soil, nutients, water and sunlight
"Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic."
George Will

"How stupid is our country?"
Donald Trump

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 16542
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby John Q. Public » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:13 am

Wabash wrote:I have more trust in Snopes than Breitbart.

I have more trust in The Onion than I do in Breitbart.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

MDDad
Posts: 11233
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:24 pm

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby MDDad » Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:52 am

Omar Bongo wrote:Do crops exposed to higher levels of CO2 yield more?

Weeds sure do, and they compete with crops for soil, nutients, water and sunlight

Weeds, the new agent of the apocalypse?

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 16542
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby John Q. Public » Sat Jun 10, 2017 8:34 am

Sounds like you've seen my yard.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8805
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: 58 studies so far in 2017 that don't show "unprecedented" warming

Postby kramer » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:04 am

Wabash wrote:I have more trust in Snopes than Breitbart.


The snopes article you linked to didn't do diddly-squat to refute the NTZ piece. And I didn't mention anything about Breitbart, aren't you "off topic" by mentioning them?

Look, you're one of the millions of people whose collective stupidity was leveraged by Obama and the DNC elite to pass Obamacare, am I right? I pointed out in the snopes excerpts that they don't say ANYTHING to refute what the NTZ page had wrote and yet, you still are still clueless as to what is going on. Seriously Wabash, I don't think you're stupid, I think you (and most others here) problem is that you're getting your news mainly from news sites that are under the Rockefeller and Soros thumbs.

Best thing to do to de-Gruberize yourself (IMO) is read about an issue from several different sources including sources whose politics you don't agree with. Its a great way to get the missing blanks (if there are any) filled in.

The fact of the matter is that there are indeed 58 papers so far this year that show no warming over different areas of the globe. Doesn't disprove global warming but it *should* make you a bit skeptical and hence inquisitive when you hear the earth is warming up at an unprecedented rate.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

Return to “Science and Technology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest