I'd like to add to what I said above in response to GSWs latest vacuous musings....
"Yet, no matter how many times this simple fact is repeated, you come back trying to give the impression that proper climate science is only done by a tiny minority of qualified scientists... AND A SMALL ARMY OF BRAINLESS IDIOTS WHO EITHER WRITE OR COMMENT IN BLOGS ON THE INTERNET"...
These idiots have no formal scientific qualifications in climate or environmental science yet by sticking their finger to the wind they think they become instant experts in complex fields. Moreover, they don't hesitate to tell everyone who will listen how much more they know then the scientists who are trained in these fields.
On Deltoid we have Karen, Jonas, GSW, Betula et al. who fall into this category. Olly is a member of their adulation club. But as I said in my last post, these clowns continually give the impression that they occupy the scientific high ground, and on the basis of what? Reading piffle on WUWT, Climate Depot, Bishops Hill of Climate Audit?
I repeatedly refer back to the overwhelming agreement amongst scientists on the causes and potential consequences of AGW, and these people repeatedly ignore it. They try and give the impression that my views as a scientist are outside the mainstream, as if somehow my arguments are controversial.
They've been doing this for years. Its important that they downplay the fact that an overwhelming majority of scientists are in agreement over AGW and the consequences of doing nothing about it. In the last 14 years of my career as a senior researchers I can count on one hand the number of peers I have met at universities, research institutes and conferences who are AGW deniers. What the Olly's and GSW's try and do is, because I am one of few scientists who write into Deltoid who is not anonymous, imply that my views lie well outside the mainstream. That is pure and utter b*, but it's all the have.
It's as if Griselda thinks nobody else is aware of the 'if you can't attack the science, attack the scientists' and such transparent tactics of his troll collective.
Elizabeth Kolbert sure hit a nail on the head finishing up her 'Field Notes from a Ctastrophe':
“It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing.”
Doing in many more ways than one. When will the troll collective wake up and smell the non-coffee because the crops have failed?
Jeff, with respect, they couldn't make it about you if you didn't let them.
Anyway, this is GSW your lathering about. Remember him? Author of the most boneheaded collection of posts on a single Deltoid thread ever. Took over 50 posts for him to get the joke, and had to be told that the joke was him. For the collective amusement, I tender: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/17/more-on-the-threats-on-and-a…
The fun begins with John at #39. If it was a chess game, John's posts would all be !! and GSW's would be ??. Classic blog comedy. (you have to mentally filter out Frank-swifthack's hammering of a seperate point).
You didn't answer the question. Why does a know-nothing like you spend so much time attacking the scientific consensus on AGW?
You aren't remotely qualified to do this, so it is profoundly illogical. What interests me is your motive. Why do you engage in absurd posturing of this type?
I guess you didn't read the part where I stated you need to rephrase it to make it more accurate. C'mon man, the words were right in front of you!
You need to learn to live with the fact that what you believe the future holds is a probability based on many unknowns. It is your problem that you can't accept this as fact. It is your problem that the worst case scenarios are speculative, and not fact. Your problem that you can't admit this.. Your problem that every paper by every expert states this, yet you can't see it.. Your problem that you get annoyed when I point it out. It's actually humorous, that you believe someone has to be qualified to know that a probability of only negatives, based on many uncertainties and unknowns, is just that, a skewed probability.... not a fact. You are either educated beyond your intelligence or blinded by ideology or have a hidden phobia, or I don't know what. Regardless, I'm done with your Napoleon type complex. What gives you the qualifications to predict the future of all things on Earth and question those who state you just made a prediction? A prediction of the future of all things on Earth!
I'm beginning to think you love yourself more than Harvey...there's a very good possibility, which of course, if I were you loving myself, would mean it's a fact...
"that 90 per cent of the measures adopted in Britain and elsewhere since the 1997 Kyoto agreement to cut global emissions are a waste of time and money – including windfarms in Scotland, carbon taxes and Byzantine carbon trading systems."
I suppose he's better late than never, but that's little consolation to the rest of us stuck with paying for it all.
Funny bunch climate scientists, I think the B Ark's calling for them.
;)
I guess you didn’t read the part where I stated you need to rephrase it to make it more accurate.
No rephrasing is required. This is an evasion. The question is perfectly clear: given that you lack the expertise to challenge the scientific consensus, why do you persist in doing so?
* * *
What gives you the qualifications to predict the future of all things on Earth and question those who state you just made a prediction? A prediction of the future of all things on Earth!
You misrepresent the nature of the consensus and the uncertainty included within it entirely. *I* am not making "a prediction of the future of all things on Earth!" and the scientific consensus on AGW isn't either. The standard scientific position is that increasing CO2 emissions will warm the climate system. Even if ECS/2xCO2 is as low as ~2C, entirely plausible emissions scenarios would see *average* temperatures rising by more than 2C by the end of the century. Average land surface temperatures will excede the global average of ~2C, particularly in the NH. Even if ECS is ~2C, average NH land surface temperature will rise by ~3C.
There is near unanimity within Earth system science that this will be potentially dangerous, with negative impacts on agriculture, fresh water availability etc. This is to say nothing of ocean acidification and eventually, sea level rise.
You cannot counter the scientific consensus with feigned agnosia. It is a mask for denial. You need a sound scientific counter-argument. And there isn't one.
I repeat, it is illogical to reject the scientific consensus when you do not have the wherewithal to do so, either in terms of professional expertise or a robust scientific counter-argument.
I'm sure we've all noticed that all the idiots have simultaneously hit on the notion that they can identify a 'Napolean complex'. This belief is certainly as well-founded as all their others...
#8, I notice that Myles Allen's 'epiphany' is sandwiched between the sub-editors dumbly provocative intro and a mind-numbingly stupid 'quiz' which straight out invents a position from the IPCC 1990 FAR. Sunday Fail nevers fails to fail.
Allen's comments are unsurprising, but the bogans of course will attack scientists for the failure of political and economic leadership.
I was working in the garden yesterday and the world just seemed pervaded by something that felt comforting, reassuring even. I had just had a nice conversation with my wife, our bulls came when asked, our dogs listened when scolded about chewing up random objects... I just felt the presence of, I don't know... "Intelligence".
So yes, I am a masochist and decided to check up on the Jonas thread. Not too much going on there, other than the poor insensate jackwagon STILL going on about the hand-box thing. No biggie, Just a quick cut-and-paste to make sure that any innocent passerby doesn't mistake our resident vegetative parrot for anything sentient. Then I wander in here and see that the not-yet-banned coterie of hangers-on is still at it...
Wow. Just wow.
By the way, I am still giggling over "litterature". It's just so perfect.
Now back to watching "The Billionaire's Tea Party" on NetFlix. Holy crap. I urge you all to watch it, but bring PLENTY of perspective and soda. The stupid, it burns.
Nick, that article by Myles Allen is already cherry-picked for choice quotes supposedly meaning something it doesn't say (as in: climate policy is wasteful, no need to do anything).
Olly writes, "Marco dear, read the comments in the thread and you will see that you are wasting your energy"
He forgot to add several important words (added in CAPS):
"Marco dear, read the comments in the thread 'BY SEVERAL ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE DENYING LAYMEN WITH NO FORMAL QUALIFICATIONS IN ANY FIELD OF SCIENCE and you will see that you are wasting your energy.
You see, Olly does not read the primary literaure. His entire worldview is based on WUWT and a fewe other counter-science denier weblogs. Their job is in turn to distort and mangle the empirical literature to bolster a pre-determined worldview.
Notorious climate skeptic Pat Michaels of the CATO Institute finally admitted openly on CNN this weekend that 40 percent of his funding comes from - wait for it - Big Oil.
DeSmogBlog readers have known for years about Michaels' long-time association with a network of at least eleven think tanks and industry front groups funded by ExxonMobil. Many of these same outlets have received funding from other oil interests like the Koch Family Foundations.
Michaels' admission that he receives around 40 percent - his guess - of his funding from Big Oil is important, because he is quoted widely in the media for his skepticism about manmade climate change. As the ExxonSecrets profile of Pat Michaels sums up well, he is "possibly the most prolific and widely-quoted climate change skeptic scientist."
Like all fake sceptic fake experts, Michaels has zero credibility and a long, dishonourable history of public misrepresentations of climate science behind him.
Not to mention being a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry.
"There is near unanimity within Earth system science that this will be potentially dangerous, with negative impacts on agriculture, fresh water availability etc."
"Unanimity" that "potentially".... possible, but not actual.
"with Negative impacts"....and no mention of any "potentially" positive impacts.
Are there any "potentially" positive impacts somewhere on earth "if" "average" temperatures rise 2C?. Where will the positive impacts occur and what will the "average" temperature be at those particular locations? Can any "possible" positive impacts "potentially" negate some of the only negative impacts? What "average" weight do you give the positives vs. the negatives? Can some "potential" negatives "potentially" create positives for some species?
"If" C02 doubles and "if" climate sensitivity "averages" 2C and "if" this occurs over the time frame you believe and "if" there is the "potential" for only negative impacts and "if" those "potential" impacts disproportionately affect the poor nations and "if" there's no time to adjust or adapt or migrate and "if" the wealthy nations don't pay what they are morally obligated to pay and "if" the U.N. doesn't reach their Millennium Development Goals.....might Al Gore and other wealthy liberal elites finally give up their wealthy C02 emitting "potentially" earth destroying lifestyles?
It is illogical to reject the scientific consensus when you do not have the wherewithal to do so, either in terms of professional expertise or a robust scientific counter-argument.
We might have done this already, but I'm pretty pissed about the misrepresentations about the Bodman/Rayner/Karoly paper, even in sensible literature. Unfortunately, it stems from indifferent wording in the abstract of the paper itself.
Its being routinely reported in all corners of the interwebs as increasing confidence in 2100 temperatures being in the +2 to +6 degree range, but (even though that is what a too-casual reading of the abstract implies) that does not seem to be the case. The chart they posted on the Conversation shows above+2 (2.3, actually) at 95% confidence, but staying below 6 degrees is only at 67% confidence.
If you want to compare similar round fruit, the range is not 2 to 6, as one might assume from misinterpreting the abstract, but 3.5 to 6 (67% confidence) or 2 to 9 degrees (95% confidence).
"It is illogical to reject the scientific consensus"
The consensus is that there is the "potential" for catastrophic future scenarios, based on many other potentials. How can someone reject a consensus about a potential on top of a potential on top of a potential? I don't reject multiple potentials that all rely on each other to potentially happen....I reject that the only available potentials are potentially negative.
The consensus is based on solid radiative physics which means that increasing the atmospheric fraction of CO2 will increase GAT. Your attempt to portray this as uncertain is misrepresentation, plain and simple.
What I want to know - and what you are desperately trying to avoid telling me - is WHY you are rejecting the scientific consensus.
You don't have the expert knowledge to do this. You don't have someone else's robust scientific counter-argument because there isn't one.
In short, you have nothing.
So, WHY are you investing so much time and energy in rejecting the scientific consensus?
No further twisting, altering evasions. Just answer the fucking question.
Here is an analogy for Betula's latest vacuous views. Humans have cut down about 50% of the world's tropical forests since the industrial revolution, with most of that occurring since the 1960s. The effects of this loss on biodiversity and clear and unambiguous, but how this in turn will affect evapotranspiration cycles, nutrient cycling and other vital ecosystem level processes is unclear. Shukla and colleagues argued that the loss of tropical forests in the Amazon Basin would eventually impact the Mata Atlantica forests through effects on rainfall regimes. In effect, precipitation is recycled perhaps several times across the continent after falling on the east side of the Andes, with primary forest playing a critical role in this process. The continued destruction of tropical forests may eventually exceed some threshold that has continent-wide effects on seasonal rainfall regimes. The loss of biodiversity will also probably have profound effects on a range of ecosystem services, and ultimately on primary production via a series of feedback loops
But much of this is uncertain. Betula probably thinks therefore that its perfectly OK to continue slashing and burning, or logging the primary forests of South America (and in other tropical wet forests of the world) until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the loss of these forests will have serious or even catastrophic consequences for nature and humanity.
Essentially, Betula is as predictable as day and night. Like other people who broadly fall under the banner of being 'anti-environemntalists' he demands 100% unequivocal proof that some human activity will have dire consequences down the road. I have encountered a lot of like-minded people over the years, especially after co-reviewing Bjorn Lomborg's screed for Nature back in 2001. The topics vary (acid rain, ozone depletion, extinction rates, over-harvesting etc.) but the strategy never does.
No Jeff, you have to prove to Betula that there isn't something or someone, somewhere who could possibly benefit from destroying that forest. You know, like hogs or locusts.
"Betula probably thinks therefore that its perfectly OK to continue slashing and burning"
And here comes Hardley bringing up a topic that has nothing to do with anything I've stated.... and there's that word "probably" again. Everything is "probably" with you Hardley, is nothing in your world an actual fact?.
"So, WHY are you investing so much time and energy in rejecting the scientific consensus?"
"I don’t reject multiple potentials that all rely on each other to potentially happen….I reject that the only available potentials are potentially negative".
And here comes Hardley bringing up a topic that has nothing to do with anything I’ve stated
Obvious and stupid lie. It's called an analogy, you molasses-filled-sack-of-hammers-for-brains. If you were to apply your logic, you would wholly support deforestation unless it could be conclusively proven to you that nobody and nothing anywhere would benefit.
Betula, did you argue against banning CFCs? Lead paint? Restrictions on smoking?
Betula, face it man, you are a joke. I brought up an example that, on a scientific basis, is analogous to AGW. You harp on at BBD about the lack of absolute proof that climate change will have serious repercussions on humanity. Forget that fact that every Academy of Science in every nation on Earth has affirmed the seriousness of AGW and have argued that we should take immediate measures to deal with it - the example I gave with respect to rainforest loss falls exactly into your "wait until all the data are in".
Yo are a complete and utter clown, Betula. You also wrote a lengthy post a week or so ago in which you gave three "examples" in which you posit that nature is doing well in the eastern US. I was somewhat more diplomatic then, but if truth be told your three examples stink. The status of white-tailed deer and coyote range and populations and the re-intriduction of the wild turkey are piss-poor examples of the state of the environment over there. I countered those with much, much better examples culled straight from the empirical literature and what is your response? To move on to attack BBDs quite outstanding arguments.
I repeat what i said earlier: your tactic on Deltoid is to hit-and-run in the hope that readers swallow your crapola whole before you move onto another topic in which you don't know very much. When your arguments are easily rebuffed, you either ignore them completely or make some snide remarks. Bait and switch, bait and switch.
Here is another one who does not understand the importance of species, one Kristjan Loftsson (google on his name for best overview) an Icelandic whale pirate who is doing his best to make Fin Whales extinct. Will he slaughter a load more this year and ship the carcasses via the Netherlands, Germany and Finland having outlawed such shipments, to Japan for dog food or can he be stopped by embarrassing the Dutch government?
I would have posted this yesterday but the link to SkS failed.
Has our 'friend' Keyes a twin or has he adopted another handle here as Brandon Shollenberger, but then it could be another from a similar walk of life like Law.
Of course Jonas, Karen and other deniers without any formal training in any scientific field think that they know more than Hansen and that they are themselves the real 'experts'...
The aptly initialled BS does like to play irritating, tricksy little games rather like BK, but Shollenberger isn't Keyes. I've read enough by both of them to be quite sure about this.
"Great interview in which James Hansen puts BBC interviewer in her place with respect to rates of climate change"
Did you watch the interview with earmuffs on?
The interviewer states a fact....that the GAT has not gone up over the last decade as predicted, and he "corrects" her that it has gone up a tenth of a degree which is "just natural variability and no reason to be surprised"
How is that a correction? Apparently, it's not even a surprise!If 10 years ago someone said the temperature would only go up a tenth of a degree over the next decade, they would be labeled a denier. Surprise!
Let's continue...
Hansen goes on to talk about how temperature will average 2 tenths of a degree over 30-40 years, but not necessarily over each decade due to too much natural variability and other forcing factors ie, Sun Brightness etc...and says "we understand what the eventual response will be".....assuming too much of that natural variability and other factors too hard to predict don't get in the way.
He continues....." how it tracks over a period of time, a decade or a few decades, does depend upon on how fast the ocean is taking it up heat for example. But these are really details, and this is a diversionary tactic."
That's right....being put in a spot to explain "details" is now a "diversionary tactic"....
He then goes on to state..." I didn't come to Europe to talk about details, which are very technical details".
Of course not, do you blame him?
He then proceeds to use his own "diversionary tactic" to changes the subject and talk about Canada and how they are trying to get Europe to agree that tar sands are no different then conventional oil "
Yes, that's right, let's not talk about "details", like why the temperature didn't go up as expected, let's use our own "diversionary tactic" by saying it's actually a "diversionary" tactic to discuss details, and then change the subject. Then, when his diversion tactic doesn't work and the interviewer brings up the subject again, Hansen goes into his classic name calling "deniers want the public to be confused" mode...
But these points I bring up are just details, let's talk about something else....Jeff, tell me a little about yourself.
He then proceeds to use his own “diversionary tactic” to changes the subject and talk about Canada and how they are trying to get Europe to agree that tar sands are no different then conventional oil ”
No it was the BBC interlocutor that was going off piste still trying to claim warming had stopped after already being corrected on that. This gave Hansen a legitimate hook to correct her and explain one of the big issues that will lock in huge warming trends if expanded as the Harper government dictatorship intend. Any tar sands pipeline should be directed up Harper's 'seventh rock from the sun with Chaldean town dropped' for he needs his brain flushed.
Big increase in 0 - 2000m OHC for JFM 2013. Really big.
Big increase in OHC since ~ 1970. There's an absolutely massive amount of energy accumulating in the climate system because of the radiative imbalance caused by the increasing fraction of atmospheric CO2.
A very slight increase in the rate at which energy mixes down through the upper ocean layer is enough to slow the rate of surface warming for a decade or two.
Only fuckwit deniers keep on and on about the diversionary slowdown in the rate of surface warming. People who understand the science - like Hansen - know that it's just a diversion.
So once again, you out yourself as a fuckwit denier.
Now look, we know you know nothing. That is no secret here. The mystery is why a know-nothing keeps denying the strong scientific consensus on AGW. That's a really fuckwitted thing to do.
So why do you keep on doing it? What is your motivation to come out in public and make a fuckwit out of yourself again and again and again?
Nice post at #56, indeed. Hansen "out in the wild" trying to make current climate science sound as clueless and unconvincing as possible, he did a good job if that was his intention. Let's hope he has the opportunity to do more of these in the years to come. Often thought Gore and Hansen were the best allies the "deniers" ;) had.
Betula: "Yes, that’s right, let’s not talk about “details”, like why the temperature didn’t go up as expected"
Seems like you had the earmuffs on, but that's hardly a surprise for you. Hansen explained three things: a minor decrease in solar activity, natural variability and the fact that China and India have been burning huge amounts of coal that put aerosols into the atmosphere which as we well know by now depress the effects of C02. Seems like he explained it pretty well.
Then GSW: "Nice post at #56, indeed".
Yup, this puddle-deep comment comes from gormless as expected. Its amazing how Betula and GSW - both of whom have about as much scientific 'expertise' as a plank - puff up their own egos by bitterly denouncing a senior researcher who has spent years in the field of climate science. And these two guys accuse me of being arrogant and of having a superiority complex....
Yes that comment by the Exxon CEO is hilarious indeed - an oxymoron if there ever was one. These people might as well be living on Mars. They think that human welfare and that of the natural world are mutually exclusive. But then again, they have an army of equally vacuous-minded followers.
Putting it another way, he could have said, "Save humanity! Destroy nature!".
"like why the temperature didn’t go up as expected”
Uh, have you LOOKED at the temperature graph for the past 150 years? There are lots of ups and downs on that track, Betty, yet the overall trend has been increasing at an increasing rate.
Despite the past 30 years of you AGW alarmists predicting the end of warming "any day now", it still goes up.
Like your lunatic brethren "The End Of The World Is Nigh" prophets, you just pretend that you meant NEXT year.
Nobody has accused you of having a superiority complex, chip on your shoulder yes, scientific accumen you rate about ~0 (whether you agree with it or not). This is all in your dreamy world, you, the poor victim. Among the many criticisms levelled at you, is that you don't even seem to know anything about your own field (you're a Zoologist right?), I think they've dropped the soothsaying module at Liverpool since you attended, they're more "Save the Squirrel" oriented these days I believe.
Anyhow, I'm sure your more of an embarrassment to them than they of you.
"The mystery is why a know-nothing keeps denying the strong scientific consensus on AGW"
I don’t reject multiple potentials that all rely on each other to potentially happen….I reject that the only available potentials are potentially negative
Wow was right to nail you for this. You are doing much more than simply denying the scientific consensus that rapid warming will be disruptive and eventually dangerous. You are rejecting *everything*. The it's-not-warming-meme as you tout it is essentially a claim that the fundamental science is wrong.
Full-spectrum denial of the scientific consensus.
When you look at the data it is very obvious what is happening. You can see that GHG forcing is the major component of the increase in total net forcing. You can see the response in OHC increase and in GAT.
I think Betula has explained his position perfectly adequately. The whole basis for CAGW is that it relies on an endless series of "Ifs","coulds" and "mights". And, certainly at the moment, those "ifs", "coulds" and mights look a little out of field.
CS is looking at the low end (if not lower) than the forecasts, sea level rise, similarly, is looking not that much of a problem. Increases in Extreme weather events, at least according to the empirical evidence (forget the loons here), aren't an issue. So what's there to be alarmed about?
Betula is very unalarmed, why should he be? He's not Jeff. The most alarming thing here is that Jeff thinks he is a Scientist.
;)
I'll let you in on a secret, GSW: when I want to know the implications arising from the increased temperatures that are now occurring, I will be listening to what scientists like Jeff have to say, and I will be ignoring anything from non-experts with a background in publishing misinformation, such as the Heartland Institute and anybody who takes money from it, or journalists working for The Australian.
Your, opposite, approach is evidently a flawed one.
" I will be listening to what scientists like Jeff have to say"
No chance you'll put any effort into understanding it yourself then. Makes sense, your bizarre outlook is based on what Jeff says. Each to their own I suppose, great advocate of education and rational thought myself, but you stick with Jeff as an alternative, you're comfortable with that it would seem.
;)
great advocate of education and rational thought myself,
That's your conceit. But the reality is a vapid, self-imposed ignorance entirely subject to your comfort zone, as evidenced by your desperate clutching at every bone-headed denier meme that passes by.
I don’t reject multiple potentials that all rely on each other to potentially happen….I reject that the only available potentials are potentially negative
Not only is this semi-literate, and scientifically illiterate, as has been repeatedly pointed out your argument is absurd, and could be used to deny the negative implications of any hypothetical future event; flood, bushfire, earthquake.
But you've stalled - you've reached the point where the ridiculousness of your position is apparent even to you, which means all you can do is set your stubborn - reactionary - little head and double down on The Stupid.
So much so that you've won the admiration of Goosey! Well-done; you've reached rock bottom...
I think Betula has explained his position perfectly adequately.
I don't, and I asked the question.
* * *
The whole basis for CAGW is that it relies on an endless series of “Ifs”,”coulds” and “mights”. And, certainly at the moment, those “ifs”, “coulds” and mights look a little out of field.
CS is looking at the low end (if not lower) than the forecasts
Sensitivity estimate from the instrumental record are problematic. They are very sensitive to decadal OHC variability which is further complicated by uncertainty in OHC reconstructions and natural variability. Then there's uncertainty over negative aerosol forcing. As Hansen points out in a footnote:
A frequently cited alternative, use of observed climate change of the past century, does not yield a useful constraint because the net climate forcing is unknown (assumed aerosol forcing can be described best as an educated guess) and inferred sensitivity also depend on uncertain transient ocean mixing.
sea level rise, similarly, is looking not that much of a problem.
GSW, I don't have the time to spend several decades at university gaining multiple PhDs in physics, chemistry, biology, geology, or ecology in order to "understand it myself".
That's why we have specialists.
I defer to their learning.
You, on the other hand, reject what the relevant, educated experts have to say, and use instead uneducated opinions that reflect your complete lack of understanding of all these areas.
GSW opines, "you don’t even seem to know anything about your own field (you’re a Zoologist right?)"
According to who? You?!?! A third rate chemistry dropout? What the hell do you know about the field?
You're a real hoot, GSW. Full of yourself. Never got over my demolition of your fatuous comments re: global amphibian declines and polar bear demographics. Note also how Betula quietly let his comments about the state of nature in NA drop. Hardly surprising, since his examples were appalling. Next he'll be saying that brown rat populations are booming, or that cattle never had it so good in former tall grass prairie habitats, as proof that nature is doing well.
You are a waste of space. Sadly, you can't stay away from Deltoid. But go ahead - keep on making an idiot of yourself. There's also some enjoyment in seeing your arguments shot down one after the other.
"The it’s-not-warming-meme as you tout it is essentially a claim that the fundamental science is wrong."
Actually, it's a non-statement, BBD.
"It's not been warming for the last X years" is not a refutation of the IPCC report when claimed at this time, because the IPCC report isn't refuted by the temperature trend of the last X years for any value of X the idiots come up with.
It's no refutation therefore there's nothing to see. A completely pointless point, which is all the idiots have nowadays.
I don’t reject multiple potentials that all rely on each other to potentially happen
OK, so you will accept potentials that all rely on each other to potentially happen.
WE KNOW.
That's what ALL deniers do.
"Potentially, clouds could cause a cooling as water vapour goes up"
"Potentially, the GCRs could cause more clouds"
"Potentially, the plants will grow massively reducing CO2"
"Potentially, this is just a cycle and has nothing to do with CO2"
Potentially.
Betty ,surely even you can't be as dumb as you're playing at being.
Let's try a simple substitution test.
'Driving your car into a brick wall at 70 mph with no seat belt or airbag will be potentially dangerous, with negative impacts on bones, flesh, organs etc.”
It's not 'guaranteed dangerous' in science speak, only 'potentially dangerous' because it's a prediction that hasn't yet occurred. And who knows - the laws of physics might magically change, or a passing unicorn will intervene.
The chances that such likelihoods may happen are incalculably small, but aren't completely discounted, hence 'potentially'.
Why you choose to be so moronic about it based on nothing except your own poor comprehension is a mystery. But one I'm not particularly interested in solving.
“Potentially, clouds could cause a cooling as water vapour goes up”
“Potentially, the GCRs could cause more clouds”
“Potentially, the plants will grow massively reducing CO2″
“Potentially, this is just a cycle and has nothing to do with CO2″
Then presume they are all right.
What you're trying and failing miserably to do is equate "There's a possibility of something going wrong, so lets head that off" and "there's a possibility that it won't go wrong, so lets do nothing".
What ISN'T potentially is AGW will have "negative impacts on agriculture, fresh water availability etc.” which are POTENTIALLY dangerous.
"What you’re trying and failing miserably to do is equate “There’s a possibility of something going wrong, so lets head that off” and “there’s a possibility that it won’t go wrong, so lets do nothing”.
Wrong.
There's the potential for negative reactions if a myriad of complex environmental systems all react in a predicted way, even though the way many of those complex systems will react is not fully understood....it's too complex.
Of course, there's the potential for positive reactions as well, if a myriad of complex environmental systems react a certain way.
Some of the negatives may outweigh the positives in some locations and some of the positives may outweigh the negatives, depending on a myriad of potential reactions in a myriad of locations....all too complex to be able to predict accurately.
The problem here is that all possible positive reactions are taken out of the prediction equation....they carry no weight in the projection of predictions that potentially may happen to a system that is too complex to possibly know how all the interactions will react. Why is that?
In addition, we have to assume that all the people making the predictions are even keeled and don't allow personal motivations, ideologies, feelings, outside pressures, politics, deadlines, goals, conceit, representative governments, the need for funding, complexes and pride etc. to get in the way of the prediction decision making process.....particularly if they are from poor developing nations that just happen to be looking for a piece of pie....
Let's ask our friend Saleemul Huq, who states things like this...(2009):
"rich countries seem to want to run as fast as possible from their legal and moral obligations. But their premature call to kill the Kyoto Protocol has been fiercely resisted by poor countries. Can rich countries put deep cuts and adequate financing and technology on the table in time to save the deal and prevent globally catastrophic climate change?" http://www.theecologist.org/tv_and_radio/radio/342208/the_300350_show_t…
Is there the "potential" that the prediction decision making process could "possibly" be influenced by the need for money?
Oh, I don't know....
"a little-noticed paragraph in the agreement that came out of the Cancún, Mexico, talks in 2010, the need "to reduce loss and damage associated with climate change" was recognised by all countries. In legal terms, that potentially opens the door to compensation – or, as the negotiators in Doha say, "rehabilitation" "
"as ministers from 194 countries fly in to take over the political negotiations, "loss and damage" has become a "red line" for more than 100 developing countries, led by the Alliance of Small Island States, the Least Developed Countries block and the African Group of Nations" http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/dec/03/climate-change…
"Developing countries are saying it needs a new [negotiating] track, which means action, not just further discussions. But the developed countries do not want to open that door," said Saleemul Huq"
But what does this have to do with the prediction decision making process?
"Saleemul Huq is Senior Fellow in Climate Change at the International Institute for Environment & Development – who has also been a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s last two assessment reports."
And no Hardly, the "conceit" part was not meant for you...why, did you think it was?
The potential for danger is determined by the amount of CO2 we allow ourselves to emit over the next few decades. It's potentially dangerous NOW. It will be actually dangerous if we get up to >600ppmv.
It's hard to believe you are this stupid, so stop fucking me about with the wind-ups.
Listen, you idiot, the entire multi-disciplinary complex of Earth System science is against you. There is a strong consensus on the cause of warming, and strong consensus that abrupt warming will be net negative in consequence for the majority of the marine and terrestrial ecosystem. Also that it will be net negative for our interactions with the ecosystem, otherwise known as agriculture and fisheries.
You are a fucking know-nothing denier without a shred of evidence to support your subliterate blatherings, hence the mockery.
Ignorant, wrong, ridiculous and intellectually arrogant.
The problem here is that all possible positive reactions are taken out of the prediction equation….they carry no weight in the projection of predictions that potentially may happen to a system that is too complex to possibly know how all the interactions will react. Why is that?
Why are deniers so fucking dishonest?
Why is that?
Well we know, don't we? It's because they are arguing against a robust scientific consensus without benefit of a scientific counter-argument.
Meanwhile for those (Duff, Rednose, et. al) who have not yet grasped that already happening warming is having a decided impact on disturbing weather patterns, and climate, into the foreseeable future. A disruption that will continue to promote extremes in strength, duration and out of season of adverse events need to study this:
What you persistently fail to grasp Betula is that there are not going to be many positive 'reactions' (not the best choice of words BTW but that is your terminology which misses the mark as ever) as you try imply here,
Of course, there’s the potential for positive reactions as well, if a myriad of complex environmental systems react a certain way.
.
Your thinking is fuzzy as is clear from your choice of words.
Betty may well be an expectant responder to those schemes advertised with the 'potential' to earn a million dollars a day from your home computer.
Neither does it appear within the Confidence or Likelihood terminology scales used by the IPCC, making it so flexible as to be a useful word for deniers or others not in possession of good faith..
'Lead author of the chapter on Adaptation and Sustainable Development in the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Lead Author of the chapter on Adaptation and Mitigation in the IPCC's fourth assessment report.
He takes the science and looks at its projected impact in the Third World.
Of course, to mean-spirited shits and forelock-tuggers the world over, this just means he's after their money, or the hoards of the rich mean-spirited shits they idolise.
And, because their own relationship to truth is entirely predicated upon what's convenient for them, they automatically assume all information is manipulated to serve the same ends.
Rest assured, Batty, we only kick you for the benefit of onlookers - you're a lost cause, a small component of the ossified venality that will eventually collapse the US empire.
"Rest assured, Batty, we only kick you for the benefit of onlookers – you’re a lost cause, a small component of the ossified venality that will eventually collapse the US empire"
Well put, Bill. More colloquially, he is as thick as two planks. I realized that when he (1) argued that C02 was a nutrient that would increase primary production and thus benefit natural systems, and (2) more recently claimed that environmental quality in the U.S. was improving on the basis of three piss-poor examples. In both cases when challenged and counter arguments were made, what did old Batty do? Ignore them and shift the goalposts again. And once again, as BBD, you and others have demolished those arguments, expect him to go onto something else.
Like Karen, Duff, GSW et al., Batty is a lost cause. Thinks he knows a lot more than he does. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, because in pure Dunning-Kruger fashion, it gives the deniers bloated egos and inflated images of what they think they know.
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1002/grl.50563
So, Karen, please tell us, in your own words, what you think the paper says.
Every time that question is posed my anticipation rises - perhaps this time will be the first time that Karen will demonstrate some understanding of the references she provides ;-)
Why do you want the paper re interpreted for you in Karen's words? that's an odd thing to ask, the prospect of having to dumb it down to such an extent that you would understand it is unappealing in itself.
The authors have produced a model to predict the effects of increasing C02 levels on plant fertilisation (aka CO2 as plant food). They then sought to verify that model against observations. During the observed period (from the summary)
"Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilisation effect is now a significant land surface process"
They found that this effect was most pronounced in warm, arid areas (dessert margins for example) with an 11% improvement in "greening". I've no doubt Karen posted it here as he views this in isolation as being a positive consequence of increased CO2 in the atmosphere and I tend to agree. You lot will obviously disgree as all change is by definition bad (you're loonies).
If increased CO2 was "de greening" dessert margins, you'd all be hiding under the stairs, so relax, no panic required.
As a side note, the authors all seem to be Australian or have an Australian affiliation and at least part of the work was a study of CO2 effects in the "Outback".
Goosey, the point is that Karen has no comprehension of the things she posts, but you knew that already.
Assuming without question the benefit of having, say, Innamincka undergo something in the way of a botanical boom, and, utilising your patented technique of expressing no skepticism whatsoever over the result of any single paper whose conclusions you feel you can bend to advantage - whereas thousands of papers saying much the same thing is a travesty of science, apparently, and calls forth the most passionate of principled denunciations - please enlighten as as to: one, how eternal this situation may or may not be; two, how geographically confined; three, how we can know with confidence that the associated ongoing rise in temperatures - and perhaps declines in rainfall - cannot overwhelm any benefit, and; three, since I assume, opportunistic mealy-mouthed hand-wringing notwithstanding, you don't give a shit about the welfare of the Eyrean Grass-wren, whether the negative implications of temperature rise for humanity as a whole may be safely assumed to have been completely overwhelmed by it?
Hey Bill, I relayed the findings of a paper. It doesn't mention the "Eyrean Grass-wren" and to say I don't give a "shit" about them is just you trying to a push a "nature haters" label which couldn't be further from the truth (No barrier to you in the past I know, as far from the truth as possible is very much your comfort zone).
"whereas thousands of papers saying much the same thing is a travesty of science, apparently, and calls forth the most passionate of principled denunciations"
Much the same thing as what? and where is the travesty of science? I know that word will forever be associated with K Trenberths work, but what has that got to do with this?
It occurs to me you may have taken a leaf out of the wow play book (winning an argument by posting something stupid/nonsense) if so, well done, a valiant attempt. If you want to make a case for concluding from the paper that we're all doomed, please feel free.
;)
Much the same thing as what? and where is the travesty of science? I know that word will forever be associated with K Trenberths work, but what has that got to do with this?
A perfect example of why most people regard deniers as scum.
This vile little meme emerged when criminal deniers stole some private emails and other deniers then deliberately misrepresented what Trenberth actually meant in order to blacken the reputation of climate science in general.
The deniers of the world chorused the lie until it became a "fake fact" in the denialosphere.
Now you have taken the process of dishonesty a step further by stating that Trenberth's own work is a travesty.
But how could you possibly make that judgement? You are an ignoramus. You couldn't understand Trenberth's work if you tried - and you haven't.
Yet you think it's acceptable for you to behave as you just have. Well here's the news, fuckwit - it isn't. You haven't got the chops to talk like this and you never will, so cease your contemptible, dishonest yapping.
Like it or not, the association with the word will always be there, Travesty Trenberth has sort of ring to it. But it still does not explain why reference to his "travesty" has anything to with the paper at hand. As far as I am I aware, Trenberth's work does not deal with the benefits of CO2 fertilisation of plants (aka CO2 as plant food), the subject of the paper in this case, which leaves us with the wow play book explanation; attempt to win arguments, or at least confuse the reader, by posting nonsense.
As for this stupid denier meme that CO2 fertilisation somehow makes AGW a non-problem, let's put the gun to its head.
Who cares if vegetative cover in marginal, arid zones has increased? What difference does it make to agricultural productivity, heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, flooding, ocean pH and sea level rise?
Things that will matter to agricultural productivity are drought and flooding and summer temperatures exceeding the tolerance of the crop. CO2 fertilisation isn't going to make much difference to dead crops.
There might be a brief period - and we may be seeing it now - when there's some CO2-enhanced increase in marginal vegetation, but globally and on the centennial scale (which is the one on which climate change effects will play out), CO2 fertilisation is a distraction.
Like it or not, the association with the word will always be there
Because of lying scum. Was I unclear on this point?
attempt to win arguments, or at least confuse the reader, by posting nonsense.
You introduced the defamatory lies about Trenberth, not me. I was just pointing out that deniers are for the most part lying scum. Was I unclear on this point too?
What Lie? (setting aside your emtions for the moment) You do this a lot BBD, just because someone points out something you don't like, you call them liars. How very grown up. Facts are Facts BBD, if you have a case to make, make it. But please stop whimpering or someone may tell your mum.
;)
Also, the only person who's mentioned a denier "meme" is you! The paper reports an increase in CO2 fertilization of plants (aka CO2 as plant food) in warm, arid areas and that is all we are discussing! Your extended, it can't be true, it must be a lie, maybe I can think of a way it might be bad rant, is just denial! I thought you CAGW lot we're all in favour of the "Peer reviewed litlerature", if it's printed, it must be true!
The "dishonest" and "stupid" arguments aren't going to work here BBD. Man up!
Yes, if someone references a paper you don't like you call them scum and it was you who introduced the "denier meme", nobody else. We know all that and again that is not an argument! More dribbling than argument.
No, GSW, I called your smearing of Trenberth a lie. I also stated that the notion that CO2 fertilisation somehow makes AGW a non-problem is a stupid denier meme - or if you prefer, a lie.
You have to show that I "didn't like" the Donohue study or that I questioned its findings in any way. If you cannot do so, you will have been shown to be employing a dishonest argument based on misrepresenting what I have said.
Griselda, you are a walking ragbag of denier memes, one following the other as in your latest which even your Viscunt Monckey dropped years ago.
That you prefer to ignore professionals such as Jeff and Bernard who have previously explained why it's a simplistic meme is your problem alone.
In addition to which you have a history, which is how it's known that you're scum.
Ok, Ok, Ok. Can we just establish, that you are happy with the Donohue study, CO2 fertilization of plants in warm, arid areas (aka CO2 as plant food) and that there are no parts of their study that you believe to be a lie, dishonest or that having reached the conclusions they did, that they are not scum or pushing a denier meme?
You have to show that I “didn’t like” the Donohue study or that I questioned its findings in any way. If you cannot do so, you will have been shown to be employing a dishonest argument based on misrepresenting what I have said.
That's why I'm asking you BBD, rather than try and prove you don't, I'm asking you to confirm that you do. The simplest, most direct method. is usually the best. Or is this some great secret you are keeping and we have to guess the answer? (Which to be honest would fairly odd behaviour on your part)
;)
No, what you are trying to do is avoid the horrible mess you have got yourself into - see # 21 and # 24.
I'm not qualified to have an opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the Donohue study. What I said about the stupid denier meme that CO2 fertilisation somehow making AGW a non-problem was clear enough. But I am happy to repeat it:
Who cares if vegetative cover in marginal, arid zones has increased? What difference does it make to agricultural productivity, heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, flooding, ocean pH and sea level rise?
Things that will matter to agricultural productivity are drought and flooding and summer temperatures exceeding the tolerance of the crop. CO2 fertilisation isn’t going to make much difference to dead crops.
There might be a brief period – and we may be seeing it now – when there’s some CO2-enhanced increase in marginal vegetation, but globally and on the centennial scale (which is the one on which climate change effects will play out), CO2 fertilisation is a distraction.
"I’m not qualified to have an opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the Donohue study."
Finally, an admission you're quite happy mouthing off on things you know nothing about. Hence all the ill informed "you're a liar" reposts. We got there in the end, not sure you were really worth the effort though. Anyway, same old, same old.
;)
Whether Donohue is right or wrong is irrelevant to the wrongness of the stupid denier meme that CO2 fertilisation somehow making AGW a non-problem. See # 29.
Either you are another victim of poor reading comprehension or you are engaging in further dishonest argument (see your responses to # 11 onwards).
Personally I think the Donahue study's quite intriguing, not least because it describes an effect in an area I really do care about. Having access only to the abstract I couldn't learn how they'd allowed for, say, the decade long drought at the start of the 21st Century - which literally devastated some areas - or the subsequent la Ninas.
But what does it all mean, in the bigger picture? BBD and I have both raised the obvious points. According to the abstract they've focused on 'arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth' but they've 'remove[d] the effect of variations in rainfall'. Liebig's Law of the Minimum, and all that...
Oh, and I threw in 'travesty' as an idiot trap. It worked.
Note that Karen is not part of this discussion? To be part of a discussion you have to have some basic awareness of the points at issue. Karen only knows when to press Ctrl+V.
The paper looked at increased severity of drought onset events, variability in precipitation and disturbance (clearing) events and were unable to show that these factors affected the observed increase in green foliage cover. They emphasised the fact that this change is not applicable to other environments where temperature, nutrients and light are limiting factors to plant production.
Look in the mirror, GSW. Your qualifications are a real laugh - yet you somehow think you have ' knowledge' in various scientific fields. Your slavish worshipping of Jonas tells pretty well everyone here all about the extent of your 'expertise'.
This issue of the Donohue et al study is interesting in the manner in which ignorant fools such as KarenMackSunspot and GSW think that they understand what it means, and what it implies for the future.
From the paper's conclusion:
The results reported here for warm, arid regions do not simply translate to other environments where alternative resource limitations (e.g., light, nutrients, temperature) might dominate, although the underlying theory remains valid (Eqs. 1–3). The remaining challenges are to develop a more general understanding of how the increase in Ca is shared between Al and El in environments that are not warm and arid, and to develop capacity to quantify the multiple potential flow-on effects of fertilisation in these environments, such as wide-spread changes in surface albedo, an increase in fire fuel loads for a given P, as well as possible reductions in stream flows due to enhanced rooting systems [Buitenwerf et al., 2012].
The authors leave out many other pertinent flow-on effects such as altered nutritional value of plant matter, differential responses of C3 and C4 plants, the issue of weed and pest response to increased atmospheric CO2, and the simple fact that increasing atmospheric CO2 also warms the planet, and alters its climate - other factors that have a profound effect on how plants grow and how animals live.
There's no surprise in the Donohue et al paper - they are simply confirming very basic photosynthetic biochemistry. In their responses to Donohue et al KarenMackSunspot and GSW are just little two-year-old boys who have discovered that if they play with their penises they can produce erections - they have no idea of the actual implications of what they have stumbled upon.
What is interesting is that Donohue et al simply confirms the veracity of another part of the wide body of science that has long been used warn of the effects of human carbon emission on the planet. It does not alter the warning about climate disruption and the profound effects that this will have on the function of ecosystems around the world.
Yes, another part of the whole scientific opus that is telling humanity that it's fucking up the planet has been confirmed. That KarenMackSunspot and GSW don't grok this simply demonstrates how foolish they are.
And on that subject I find it laughable that in response to BBD saying:
I’m not qualified to have an opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the Donohue study.
GSW has the temerity to respond with:
Finally, an admission you’re quite happy mouthing off on things you know nothing about.
That's the epitome of irony, GSW. BBD is correct in his assessment of Donohue et al, and you are waaay off the mark. And I am qualified to have an opinion on this subject, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Bill.
If you can set up a disposable email address I'll forward to you a copy of the paper. They briefly mention other caveats that have interesting implications should they pan out, and which may cloud the seeming 'benefit' of increased photosynthesis in response to excess CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.
Why do you want the paper re interpreted for you in Karen’s words?
Because as Wow and bill pointed out, it's highlighting Karen's modus operandi of cutting and pasting claims "based" on evidence she doesn't even understand - evidence which frequently doesn't support the claims, and which she shows no sign of being willing or able to assess for support.
You lot will obviously disgree as all change is by definition bad (you’re loonies).
That is an eminently stupid or mendacious belief on your part, even by your standards.
Your subsequent extended misinterpretation of other people and denial of their characterisation of what you yourself wrote merely reiterate the standards I refer to as your baseline.
Bernard - thanks! And thanks for the offer; I'm actually more than happy with your summary.
Goosey, SpamKan et al, you are never going to find a paper with anything like any of the following titles in a reputable - that is, an actual scientific - journal, beyond the fringe publications that were specifically set up in order to chum for morons.
Plant Food! It turns out CO2 Fertilization effect is both Global and Universally Benign.
Wrong for a Century and a Half! CO2 not a Greenhouse Gas after all.
The Ice Age is Coming! New Glacial to begin next Wednesday...
Comrade Carbon: Covert Comintern Central Committee acknowledges Greenhouse plot to Smash Capitalism.
Why waste your lives pretending that anything similar is being published? It's literally pathetic. It never turns out that your infantile self-serving 'interpretation' - well, someone else's you've regurgitated - is accurate.
By way of explanation of the excerpt I posted at #39, some definitions:
C(subscript)a = atmospheric CO2 concentrations (dang and blast NG for their not functionality with the sub tag...)
P = precipitation
A(subscript)l = assimilation rate per unit of leaf area
E(subscript)l = transpiration rate per unit of leaf area
Equation 1 defines water use efficiency of photosynthesis as W(subscript)p = A(subscript)l/E(subscript)l (and alternatively in other units not germane to this post)
Equation 2 defines relative effect of a change in C(subscript)a on W(subscript)p as dW(subscript)p/W(subscript)p = dA(subscript)l/A - dE(subscript)l/E(subscript)l (and alternatively in other units not germane to this post)
Equation 3 presents an alternative expression of equation 2 in further units not germane to this post.
For those curious about the full conclusion:
The increase in water use efficiency of photosynthesis with rising C(subscript)a has long been anticipated to lead to increased foliage cover in warm, arid environments [Berry and Roderick, 2002; Bond and Midgley, 2000; Farquhar, 1997; Higgins and Scheiter, 2012] and both satellite and ground observations from the world’s rangelands reveal widespread changes towards more densely vegetated and woodier landscapes [Buitenwerf et al., 2012; Donohue et al., 2009; Knapp and Soule, 1996; Morgan et al., 2007; Scholes and Archer, 1997].
Our results suggest that C(subscript)a has played an important role in this greening trend, and that, where water is the dominant limit to growth, cover has increased in direct proportion to the CO2-driven rise in W(subscript)p. This CO2 fertilisation cover effect warrants consideration as an important land surface process.
The results reported here for warm, arid regions do not simply translate to other environments where alternative resource limitations (e.g., light, nutrients, temperature) might dominate, although the underlying theory remains valid (Eqs. 1–3). The remaining challenges are to develop a more general understanding of how the increase in C(subscript)a is shared between A(subscript)l and E(subscript)l in environments that are not warm and arid, and to develop capacity to quantify the multiple potential flow-on effects of fertilisation in these environments, such as wide-spread changes in surface albedo, an increase in fire fuel loads for a given P, as well as possible reductions in stream flows due to enhanced rooting systems [Buitenwerf et al., 2012].
Overall, our results confirm that that the direct biochemical impact of the rapid increase in C(subscript)a over the last 30 years on terrestrial vegetation is an influential and observable land surface process.
[Emboldened emphases mine]
I can predict the response that will come from the numpties, but such a response will only serve to illustrate the subjective, anthropocentric valuation of one ecosystem over another...
Oh, and the fact that water is the limiting factor in this study is itself a curious thing. What the vegetation is doing is to close its stomata slightly in response to the extra CO2. This increases the efficiency of water-use and results in a significant proportion of the increased photosynthesis. Sprengel's law of the minimum is actually bitch-slapping KarenMackSunspot and GSW full in their faces, because the vegetation is effectively saying "thanks very much, but we won't take all that extra CO2, we will instead take the opportunity it provides to close the windows a bit and save on water whilst using pretty much our standard CO2 turnover". It seems that someone forgot to tell plants that they're supposed to be struggling under a deficit of CO2...
The ramping up of plant growth only in direct response to increased CO2 requires all other plant growth factors to be present above minimum. And even in that apparently wonderful world - when it might actually be achieved outside of an industrial glasshouse - growth enhanced in this manner isn't necessarily 'good'... but that point has been made many times before.
A corollary to my last paragraph in my post immediately above is that if atmospheric CO2 was held at pre-Indusrial Revolution levels and precipitation was increased in these warm arid regions, a similar increase in photosynthesis/foliation would result.
This is an eminently testable notion. Now, I wonder if this has in fact already been investigated...
If only there was a way to replace the leaking gasket that results in the continuous dribble of Stupid that persists no matter how much the spigot is closed...
Or to put it another way, in your case, sunshine, CV could only mean 'Cerebral Vacuum'.
I'd like to add to what I said above in response to GSWs latest vacuous musings....
"Yet, no matter how many times this simple fact is repeated, you come back trying to give the impression that proper climate science is only done by a tiny minority of qualified scientists... AND A SMALL ARMY OF BRAINLESS IDIOTS WHO EITHER WRITE OR COMMENT IN BLOGS ON THE INTERNET"...
These idiots have no formal scientific qualifications in climate or environmental science yet by sticking their finger to the wind they think they become instant experts in complex fields. Moreover, they don't hesitate to tell everyone who will listen how much more they know then the scientists who are trained in these fields.
On Deltoid we have Karen, Jonas, GSW, Betula et al. who fall into this category. Olly is a member of their adulation club. But as I said in my last post, these clowns continually give the impression that they occupy the scientific high ground, and on the basis of what? Reading piffle on WUWT, Climate Depot, Bishops Hill of Climate Audit?
I repeatedly refer back to the overwhelming agreement amongst scientists on the causes and potential consequences of AGW, and these people repeatedly ignore it. They try and give the impression that my views as a scientist are outside the mainstream, as if somehow my arguments are controversial.
They've been doing this for years. Its important that they downplay the fact that an overwhelming majority of scientists are in agreement over AGW and the consequences of doing nothing about it. In the last 14 years of my career as a senior researchers I can count on one hand the number of peers I have met at universities, research institutes and conferences who are AGW deniers. What the Olly's and GSW's try and do is, because I am one of few scientists who write into Deltoid who is not anonymous, imply that my views lie well outside the mainstream. That is pure and utter b*, but it's all the have.
It's as if Griselda thinks nobody else is aware of the 'if you can't attack the science, attack the scientists' and such transparent tactics of his troll collective.
And now for something completely different.
Do you like drinks with fiz and a bang .
Another from the news roundup of the day.
Elizabeth Kolbert sure hit a nail on the head finishing up her 'Field Notes from a Ctastrophe':
Doing in many more ways than one. When will the troll collective wake up and smell the non-coffee because the crops have failed?
Jeff, with respect, they couldn't make it about you if you didn't let them.
Anyway, this is GSW your lathering about. Remember him? Author of the most boneheaded collection of posts on a single Deltoid thread ever. Took over 50 posts for him to get the joke, and had to be told that the joke was him. For the collective amusement, I tender: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/17/more-on-the-threats-on-and-a…
The fun begins with John at #39. If it was a chess game, John's posts would all be !! and GSW's would be ??. Classic blog comedy. (you have to mentally filter out Frank-swifthack's hammering of a seperate point).
Betula
You didn't answer the question. Why does a know-nothing like you spend so much time attacking the scientific consensus on AGW?
You aren't remotely qualified to do this, so it is profoundly illogical. What interests me is your motive. Why do you engage in absurd posturing of this type?
Please answer the question.
BBD...
I guess you didn't read the part where I stated you need to rephrase it to make it more accurate. C'mon man, the words were right in front of you!
You need to learn to live with the fact that what you believe the future holds is a probability based on many unknowns. It is your problem that you can't accept this as fact. It is your problem that the worst case scenarios are speculative, and not fact. Your problem that you can't admit this.. Your problem that every paper by every expert states this, yet you can't see it.. Your problem that you get annoyed when I point it out. It's actually humorous, that you believe someone has to be qualified to know that a probability of only negatives, based on many uncertainties and unknowns, is just that, a skewed probability.... not a fact. You are either educated beyond your intelligence or blinded by ideology or have a hidden phobia, or I don't know what. Regardless, I'm done with your Napoleon type complex. What gives you the qualifications to predict the future of all things on Earth and question those who state you just made a prediction? A prediction of the future of all things on Earth!
I'm beginning to think you love yourself more than Harvey...there's a very good possibility, which of course, if I were you loving myself, would mean it's a fact...
Save the world, keep holding your breath.
@All
Don't know if this has been covered already, but Myles Allen's had something of an epiphany in this weeks Sunday Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331057/Why-I-think-wasting-bil…
"that 90 per cent of the measures adopted in Britain and elsewhere since the 1997 Kyoto agreement to cut global emissions are a waste of time and money – including windfarms in Scotland, carbon taxes and Byzantine carbon trading systems."
I suppose he's better late than never, but that's little consolation to the rest of us stuck with paying for it all.
Funny bunch climate scientists, I think the B Ark's calling for them.
;)
Different.
We know you didn't answer it. And pointing out that you didn't answer it isn't explaining why you didn't answer it, betty.
Truly the stupid hammer hit you hard when you were a nipper.
Betula
No rephrasing is required. This is an evasion. The question is perfectly clear: given that you lack the expertise to challenge the scientific consensus, why do you persist in doing so?
* * *
You misrepresent the nature of the consensus and the uncertainty included within it entirely. *I* am not making "a prediction of the future of all things on Earth!" and the scientific consensus on AGW isn't either. The standard scientific position is that increasing CO2 emissions will warm the climate system. Even if ECS/2xCO2 is as low as ~2C, entirely plausible emissions scenarios would see *average* temperatures rising by more than 2C by the end of the century. Average land surface temperatures will excede the global average of ~2C, particularly in the NH. Even if ECS is ~2C, average NH land surface temperature will rise by ~3C.
There is near unanimity within Earth system science that this will be potentially dangerous, with negative impacts on agriculture, fresh water availability etc. This is to say nothing of ocean acidification and eventually, sea level rise.
You cannot counter the scientific consensus with feigned agnosia. It is a mask for denial. You need a sound scientific counter-argument. And there isn't one.
I repeat, it is illogical to reject the scientific consensus when you do not have the wherewithal to do so, either in terms of professional expertise or a robust scientific counter-argument.
So why do it? What is your motivation?
Frank,
I get your point and you are correct. Thanks.
From Betula: "I’m beginning to think you love yourself more than Harvey".
What a hoot. Betula's posts reveal that he thinks he actually knows a lot about environmental science. Factoid: he doesn't.
Frank D @ #5
Thanks for that! I still have to wipe away a tear recalling -
Priceless stuff. I don't think old Goosey has ever figured out what the joke was...
I'm sure we've all noticed that all the idiots have simultaneously hit on the notion that they can identify a 'Napolean complex'. This belief is certainly as well-founded as all their others...
#8, I notice that Myles Allen's 'epiphany' is sandwiched between the sub-editors dumbly provocative intro and a mind-numbingly stupid 'quiz' which straight out invents a position from the IPCC 1990 FAR. Sunday Fail nevers fails to fail.
Allen's comments are unsurprising, but the bogans of course will attack scientists for the failure of political and economic leadership.
This, coming from someone who has posted the creepiest sexually deviant comments on this site, is absolutely precious.
IT'S ALL PROJECTION. (Thank you sadlyno)
"Litterature"? That's the funniest Freudian typo I've seen in ages.
Welcome back Stu.
Thank you rh!
I was working in the garden yesterday and the world just seemed pervaded by something that felt comforting, reassuring even. I had just had a nice conversation with my wife, our bulls came when asked, our dogs listened when scolded about chewing up random objects... I just felt the presence of, I don't know... "Intelligence".
So yes, I am a masochist and decided to check up on the Jonas thread. Not too much going on there, other than the poor insensate jackwagon STILL going on about the hand-box thing. No biggie, Just a quick cut-and-paste to make sure that any innocent passerby doesn't mistake our resident vegetative parrot for anything sentient. Then I wander in here and see that the not-yet-banned coterie of hangers-on is still at it...
Wow. Just wow.
By the way, I am still giggling over "litterature". It's just so perfect.
Now back to watching "The Billionaire's Tea Party" on NetFlix. Holy crap. I urge you all to watch it, but bring PLENTY of perspective and soda. The stupid, it burns.
Here is a good article about the NBN:
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/05/29/fairfax-columnist-prints-blatant-nbn…
This excellent article warrants wide dissemination.
Friends, could this be good news?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/28/obama-was-rightthe-rise-of-the-oc…
;-)
Nick, that article by Myles Allen is already cherry-picked for choice quotes supposedly meaning something it doesn't say (as in: climate policy is wasteful, no need to do anything).
Olaus Petri: no; ask yourself why serial distorter Pat Michaels stops his data in 2011. Here's the answer:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Marco dear, read the comments in the thread and you will see that you are wasting your energy. ;-)
Olly, ever hear of something called the 'primary literature'... or are those words over your simple little right wing head?
You forgot 'pointy'.
Olly writes, "Marco dear, read the comments in the thread and you will see that you are wasting your energy"
He forgot to add several important words (added in CAPS):
"Marco dear, read the comments in the thread 'BY SEVERAL ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE DENYING LAYMEN WITH NO FORMAL QUALIFICATIONS IN ANY FIELD OF SCIENCE and you will see that you are wasting your energy.
You see, Olly does not read the primary literaure. His entire worldview is based on WUWT and a fewe other counter-science denier weblogs. Their job is in turn to distort and mangle the empirical literature to bolster a pre-determined worldview.
Marco #21 - another great example of the level of, *cough*, 'skepticism' at WUWT.
And among the trolls here.
Did you notice that after someone finally - comment 32 - points out this is blatant cherry-picking we see this from Michaels himself? -
So, well aware of what he was doing, then. I mean, Pat, it would have been another Hockey Stick if you hadn't been 'having funsies', wouldn't it?
Reading the comments on WUWT is always a waste of energy.
Admit it Petri, you took that WUWT post seriously up until Michaels was caught and claimed it was a 'funsie'.
Check out the latest cover of Australasian Science!
Shall we have a sweep on the threatened law suit?
Olaus, Michaels is a paid shill and you are a credulous buffoon:
Like all fake sceptic fake experts, Michaels has zero credibility and a long, dishonourable history of public misrepresentations of climate science behind him.
Not to mention being a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry.
It looks like Canada has been getting pointers from the US
http://www.straight.com/news/385761/canadian-war-science-long-unexagger…
BBD @10
"There is near unanimity within Earth system science that this will be potentially dangerous, with negative impacts on agriculture, fresh water availability etc."
"Unanimity" that "potentially".... possible, but not actual.
"with Negative impacts"....and no mention of any "potentially" positive impacts.
Are there any "potentially" positive impacts somewhere on earth "if" "average" temperatures rise 2C?. Where will the positive impacts occur and what will the "average" temperature be at those particular locations? Can any "possible" positive impacts "potentially" negate some of the only negative impacts? What "average" weight do you give the positives vs. the negatives? Can some "potential" negatives "potentially" create positives for some species?
"If" C02 doubles and "if" climate sensitivity "averages" 2C and "if" this occurs over the time frame you believe and "if" there is the "potential" for only negative impacts and "if" those "potential" impacts disproportionately affect the poor nations and "if" there's no time to adjust or adapt or migrate and "if" the wealthy nations don't pay what they are morally obligated to pay and "if" the U.N. doesn't reach their Millennium Development Goals.....might Al Gore and other wealthy liberal elites finally give up their wealthy C02 emitting "potentially" earth destroying lifestyles?
Consensus?
Betula
I asked you a fucking question. Have the good grace to answer it please.
It is illogical to reject the scientific consensus when you do not have the wherewithal to do so, either in terms of professional expertise or a robust scientific counter-argument.
So why do it? What is your motivation?
We might have done this already, but I'm pretty pissed about the misrepresentations about the Bodman/Rayner/Karoly paper, even in sensible literature. Unfortunately, it stems from indifferent wording in the abstract of the paper itself.
Its being routinely reported in all corners of the interwebs as increasing confidence in 2100 temperatures being in the +2 to +6 degree range, but (even though that is what a too-casual reading of the abstract implies) that does not seem to be the case. The chart they posted on the Conversation shows above+2 (2.3, actually) at 95% confidence, but staying below 6 degrees is only at 67% confidence.
If you want to compare similar round fruit, the range is not 2 to 6, as one might assume from misinterpreting the abstract, but 3.5 to 6 (67% confidence) or 2 to 9 degrees (95% confidence).
"Have the good grace to answer it please."
She'd need to borrow it from someone. Unfortunately, Betty doesn't know anyone with some to spare.
Having trouble connecting to Skeptical Science - DoS attack?
BBD @ 33
"It is illogical to reject the scientific consensus"
The consensus is that there is the "potential" for catastrophic future scenarios, based on many other potentials. How can someone reject a consensus about a potential on top of a potential on top of a potential? I don't reject multiple potentials that all rely on each other to potentially happen....I reject that the only available potentials are potentially negative.
Exhale BBD....easy, easy....now, inhale and hold.
The consensus is based on solid radiative physics which means that increasing the atmospheric fraction of CO2 will increase GAT. Your attempt to portray this as uncertain is misrepresentation, plain and simple.
What I want to know - and what you are desperately trying to avoid telling me - is WHY you are rejecting the scientific consensus.
You don't have the expert knowledge to do this. You don't have someone else's robust scientific counter-argument because there isn't one.
In short, you have nothing.
So, WHY are you investing so much time and energy in rejecting the scientific consensus?
No further twisting, altering evasions. Just answer the fucking question.
Here is an analogy for Betula's latest vacuous views. Humans have cut down about 50% of the world's tropical forests since the industrial revolution, with most of that occurring since the 1960s. The effects of this loss on biodiversity and clear and unambiguous, but how this in turn will affect evapotranspiration cycles, nutrient cycling and other vital ecosystem level processes is unclear. Shukla and colleagues argued that the loss of tropical forests in the Amazon Basin would eventually impact the Mata Atlantica forests through effects on rainfall regimes. In effect, precipitation is recycled perhaps several times across the continent after falling on the east side of the Andes, with primary forest playing a critical role in this process. The continued destruction of tropical forests may eventually exceed some threshold that has continent-wide effects on seasonal rainfall regimes. The loss of biodiversity will also probably have profound effects on a range of ecosystem services, and ultimately on primary production via a series of feedback loops
But much of this is uncertain. Betula probably thinks therefore that its perfectly OK to continue slashing and burning, or logging the primary forests of South America (and in other tropical wet forests of the world) until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the loss of these forests will have serious or even catastrophic consequences for nature and humanity.
Essentially, Betula is as predictable as day and night. Like other people who broadly fall under the banner of being 'anti-environemntalists' he demands 100% unequivocal proof that some human activity will have dire consequences down the road. I have encountered a lot of like-minded people over the years, especially after co-reviewing Bjorn Lomborg's screed for Nature back in 2001. The topics vary (acid rain, ozone depletion, extinction rates, over-harvesting etc.) but the strategy never does.
Totally and utterly predictable.
No Jeff, you have to prove to Betula that there isn't something or someone, somewhere who could possibly benefit from destroying that forest. You know, like hogs or locusts.
Hardley...
"Betula probably thinks therefore that its perfectly OK to continue slashing and burning"
And here comes Hardley bringing up a topic that has nothing to do with anything I've stated.... and there's that word "probably" again. Everything is "probably" with you Hardley, is nothing in your world an actual fact?.
"So, WHY are you investing so much time and energy in rejecting the scientific consensus?"
"I don’t reject multiple potentials that all rely on each other to potentially happen….I reject that the only available potentials are potentially negative".
In other words, 'I don't know what I am talking about but I am going to talk anyway.'
Tell us please what have you learned about the interdependence of species whilst engaged on your day job?
Obvious and stupid lie. It's called an analogy, you molasses-filled-sack-of-hammers-for-brains. If you were to apply your logic, you would wholly support deforestation unless it could be conclusively proven to you that nobody and nothing anywhere would benefit.
Betula, did you argue against banning CFCs? Lead paint? Restrictions on smoking?
Shorter Betty: "Duh - whatever".
Olaus Petri (and others):
To see the lies of Pat Michaels exposed even more, that graph on WUWT came from here:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/09/10/sea-level-accele…
"just for funsies", eh?
Betula, face it man, you are a joke. I brought up an example that, on a scientific basis, is analogous to AGW. You harp on at BBD about the lack of absolute proof that climate change will have serious repercussions on humanity. Forget that fact that every Academy of Science in every nation on Earth has affirmed the seriousness of AGW and have argued that we should take immediate measures to deal with it - the example I gave with respect to rainforest loss falls exactly into your "wait until all the data are in".
Yo are a complete and utter clown, Betula. You also wrote a lengthy post a week or so ago in which you gave three "examples" in which you posit that nature is doing well in the eastern US. I was somewhat more diplomatic then, but if truth be told your three examples stink. The status of white-tailed deer and coyote range and populations and the re-intriduction of the wild turkey are piss-poor examples of the state of the environment over there. I countered those with much, much better examples culled straight from the empirical literature and what is your response? To move on to attack BBDs quite outstanding arguments.
I repeat what i said earlier: your tactic on Deltoid is to hit-and-run in the hope that readers swallow your crapola whole before you move onto another topic in which you don't know very much. When your arguments are easily rebuffed, you either ignore them completely or make some snide remarks. Bait and switch, bait and switch.
"Betula, did you argue against banning CFCs? Lead paint? Restrictions on smoking?"
Of course Betty did, she's a fuckwit.
Stu, I suspect you'd already answered your own question.
Here is another one who does not understand the importance of species, one Kristjan Loftsson (google on his name for best overview) an Icelandic whale pirate who is doing his best to make Fin Whales extinct. Will he slaughter a load more this year and ship the carcasses via the Netherlands, Germany and Finland having outlawed such shipments, to Japan for dog food or can he be stopped by embarrassing the Dutch government?
See here for a way to assist a ban by the Dutch: Days to stop the whale massacre.
And another thing.
I would have posted this yesterday but the link to SkS failed.
Has our 'friend' Keyes a twin or has he adopted another handle here as Brandon Shollenberger, but then it could be another from a similar walk of life like Law.
Taking up on Shollenberger this provides useful background .
Great interview in which James Hansen puts BBC interviewer in her place with respect to rates of climate change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=geS6mtY0XsQ
Of course Jonas, Karen and other deniers without any formal training in any scientific field think that they know more than Hansen and that they are themselves the real 'experts'...
Dunning-Krugerites oner and all....
Lionel A
The aptly initialled BS does like to play irritating, tricksy little games rather like BK, but Shollenberger isn't Keyes. I've read enough by both of them to be quite sure about this.
Hardley...@54
"Great interview in which James Hansen puts BBC interviewer in her place with respect to rates of climate change"
Did you watch the interview with earmuffs on?
The interviewer states a fact....that the GAT has not gone up over the last decade as predicted, and he "corrects" her that it has gone up a tenth of a degree which is "just natural variability and no reason to be surprised"
How is that a correction? Apparently, it's not even a surprise!If 10 years ago someone said the temperature would only go up a tenth of a degree over the next decade, they would be labeled a denier. Surprise!
Let's continue...
Hansen goes on to talk about how temperature will average 2 tenths of a degree over 30-40 years, but not necessarily over each decade due to too much natural variability and other forcing factors ie, Sun Brightness etc...and says "we understand what the eventual response will be".....assuming too much of that natural variability and other factors too hard to predict don't get in the way.
He continues....." how it tracks over a period of time, a decade or a few decades, does depend upon on how fast the ocean is taking it up heat for example. But these are really details, and this is a diversionary tactic."
That's right....being put in a spot to explain "details" is now a "diversionary tactic"....
He then goes on to state..." I didn't come to Europe to talk about details, which are very technical details".
Of course not, do you blame him?
He then proceeds to use his own "diversionary tactic" to changes the subject and talk about Canada and how they are trying to get Europe to agree that tar sands are no different then conventional oil "
Yes, that's right, let's not talk about "details", like why the temperature didn't go up as expected, let's use our own "diversionary tactic" by saying it's actually a "diversionary" tactic to discuss details, and then change the subject. Then, when his diversion tactic doesn't work and the interviewer brings up the subject again, Hansen goes into his classic name calling "deniers want the public to be confused" mode...
But these points I bring up are just details, let's talk about something else....Jeff, tell me a little about yourself.
BBD, I agree, I was indicating more 'birds of a feather'.
Jeff on the BBC and Hansen clip did you catch this comment below from a handle 1000frolly using a picture of his Laudship (Monckton) as an avatar,
. The language used is consistent but that doesn't mean much.
However if it can be shown that 1000frolly is Monckton then I figure he will have a case to answer.
Betula pharted, must be all that wood-chewing:
No it was the BBC interlocutor that was going off piste still trying to claim warming had stopped after already being corrected on that. This gave Hansen a legitimate hook to correct her and explain one of the big issues that will lock in huge warming trends if expanded as the Harper government dictatorship intend. Any tar sands pipeline should be directed up Harper's 'seventh rock from the sun with Chaldean town dropped' for he needs his brain flushed.
"Did you watch the interview with earmuffs on?"
Did you, betty?
Betula would make a good CEO of a fossil fuel given this brain dead comment from one such:
Rex Tillerson 2013
see here :Exxon CEO: ‘What Good Is It To Save The Planet If Humanity Suffers?’.
Un ******* believable!
# 56
Big increase in 0 - 2000m OHC for JFM 2013. Really big.
Big increase in OHC since ~ 1970. There's an absolutely massive amount of energy accumulating in the climate system because of the radiative imbalance caused by the increasing fraction of atmospheric CO2.
A very slight increase in the rate at which energy mixes down through the upper ocean layer is enough to slow the rate of surface warming for a decade or two.
Only fuckwit deniers keep on and on about the diversionary slowdown in the rate of surface warming. People who understand the science - like Hansen - know that it's just a diversion.
So once again, you out yourself as a fuckwit denier.
Now look, we know you know nothing. That is no secret here. The mystery is why a know-nothing keeps denying the strong scientific consensus on AGW. That's a really fuckwitted thing to do.
So why do you keep on doing it? What is your motivation to come out in public and make a fuckwit out of yourself again and again and again?
@Betula
Nice post at #56, indeed. Hansen "out in the wild" trying to make current climate science sound as clueless and unconvincing as possible, he did a good job if that was his intention. Let's hope he has the opportunity to do more of these in the years to come. Often thought Gore and Hansen were the best allies the "deniers" ;) had.
Seems to be working too!
;)
Betula: "Yes, that’s right, let’s not talk about “details”, like why the temperature didn’t go up as expected"
Seems like you had the earmuffs on, but that's hardly a surprise for you. Hansen explained three things: a minor decrease in solar activity, natural variability and the fact that China and India have been burning huge amounts of coal that put aerosols into the atmosphere which as we well know by now depress the effects of C02. Seems like he explained it pretty well.
Then GSW: "Nice post at #56, indeed".
Yup, this puddle-deep comment comes from gormless as expected. Its amazing how Betula and GSW - both of whom have about as much scientific 'expertise' as a plank - puff up their own egos by bitterly denouncing a senior researcher who has spent years in the field of climate science. And these two guys accuse me of being arrogant and of having a superiority complex....
Talk about the blind leading the blind...
Lionel,
Yes that comment by the Exxon CEO is hilarious indeed - an oxymoron if there ever was one. These people might as well be living on Mars. They think that human welfare and that of the natural world are mutually exclusive. But then again, they have an army of equally vacuous-minded followers.
Putting it another way, he could have said, "Save humanity! Destroy nature!".
"like why the temperature didn’t go up as expected”
Uh, have you LOOKED at the temperature graph for the past 150 years? There are lots of ups and downs on that track, Betty, yet the overall trend has been increasing at an increasing rate.
Despite the past 30 years of you AGW alarmists predicting the end of warming "any day now", it still goes up.
Like your lunatic brethren "The End Of The World Is Nigh" prophets, you just pretend that you meant NEXT year.
@Jeff
Nobody has accused you of having a superiority complex, chip on your shoulder yes, scientific accumen you rate about ~0 (whether you agree with it or not). This is all in your dreamy world, you, the poor victim. Among the many criticisms levelled at you, is that you don't even seem to know anything about your own field (you're a Zoologist right?), I think they've dropped the soothsaying module at Liverpool since you attended, they're more "Save the Squirrel" oriented these days I believe.
Anyhow, I'm sure your more of an embarrassment to them than they of you.
Regards to Ney when you see him!
;)
BBD @61....
"The mystery is why a know-nothing keeps denying the strong scientific consensus on AGW"
I don’t reject multiple potentials that all rely on each other to potentially happen….I reject that the only available potentials are potentially negative
# 67
Thus rejecting the scientific consensus on the basis of zero expertise and no supporting scientific case.
As I keep pointing out, but you are apparently too thick to recognise.
And I still want to know *why* you are doing this and you still haven't told me.
Betula
Wow was right to nail you for this. You are doing much more than simply denying the scientific consensus that rapid warming will be disruptive and eventually dangerous. You are rejecting *everything*. The it's-not-warming-meme as you tout it is essentially a claim that the fundamental science is wrong.
Full-spectrum denial of the scientific consensus.
When you look at the data it is very obvious what is happening. You can see that GHG forcing is the major component of the increase in total net forcing. You can see the response in OHC increase and in GAT.
Click and look:
GAT 10yr mean (purples); 0 - 700m OHC 5yr mean (red); GHG forcing (green); total net forcing (yellow).
Why are you attempting to deny the undeniable?
@BBD
I think Betula has explained his position perfectly adequately. The whole basis for CAGW is that it relies on an endless series of "Ifs","coulds" and "mights". And, certainly at the moment, those "ifs", "coulds" and mights look a little out of field.
CS is looking at the low end (if not lower) than the forecasts, sea level rise, similarly, is looking not that much of a problem. Increases in Extreme weather events, at least according to the empirical evidence (forget the loons here), aren't an issue. So what's there to be alarmed about?
Betula is very unalarmed, why should he be? He's not Jeff. The most alarming thing here is that Jeff thinks he is a Scientist.
;)
I'll let you in on a secret, GSW: when I want to know the implications arising from the increased temperatures that are now occurring, I will be listening to what scientists like Jeff have to say, and I will be ignoring anything from non-experts with a background in publishing misinformation, such as the Heartland Institute and anybody who takes money from it, or journalists working for The Australian.
Your, opposite, approach is evidently a flawed one.
@craig
Ah,
" I will be listening to what scientists like Jeff have to say"
No chance you'll put any effort into understanding it yourself then. Makes sense, your bizarre outlook is based on what Jeff says. Each to their own I suppose, great advocate of education and rational thought myself, but you stick with Jeff as an alternative, you're comfortable with that it would seem.
;)
That's your conceit. But the reality is a vapid, self-imposed ignorance entirely subject to your comfort zone, as evidenced by your desperate clutching at every bone-headed denier meme that passes by.
Not only is this semi-literate, and scientifically illiterate, as has been repeatedly pointed out your argument is absurd, and could be used to deny the negative implications of any hypothetical future event; flood, bushfire, earthquake.
But you've stalled - you've reached the point where the ridiculousness of your position is apparent even to you, which means all you can do is set your stubborn - reactionary - little head and double down on The Stupid.
So much so that you've won the admiration of Goosey! Well-done; you've reached rock bottom...
GSW
I don't, and I asked the question.
* * *
This is pretty clear:
GAT 10yr mean (purples); 0 - 700m OHC 5yr mean (red); GHG forcing (green); total net forcing (yellow).
Clear and undeniable, one would think.
Sensitivity estimate from the instrumental record are problematic. They are very sensitive to decadal OHC variability which is further complicated by uncertainty in OHC reconstructions and natural variability. Then there's uncertainty over negative aerosol forcing. As Hansen points out in a footnote:
MSL is trending up, strongly. And nobody ever said SLR would be a problem NOW.
GSW, I don't have the time to spend several decades at university gaining multiple PhDs in physics, chemistry, biology, geology, or ecology in order to "understand it myself".
That's why we have specialists.
I defer to their learning.
You, on the other hand, reject what the relevant, educated experts have to say, and use instead uneducated opinions that reflect your complete lack of understanding of all these areas.
The low end of CS (2C) is still the same as it's been for a fair number of years. The high end may have come down from 4.5C to 4C.
Hardly cause for complacency but then that's what denial is all about.
GSW opines, "you don’t even seem to know anything about your own field (you’re a Zoologist right?)"
According to who? You?!?! A third rate chemistry dropout? What the hell do you know about the field?
You're a real hoot, GSW. Full of yourself. Never got over my demolition of your fatuous comments re: global amphibian declines and polar bear demographics. Note also how Betula quietly let his comments about the state of nature in NA drop. Hardly surprising, since his examples were appalling. Next he'll be saying that brown rat populations are booming, or that cattle never had it so good in former tall grass prairie habitats, as proof that nature is doing well.
You are a waste of space. Sadly, you can't stay away from Deltoid. But go ahead - keep on making an idiot of yourself. There's also some enjoyment in seeing your arguments shot down one after the other.
"According to who? You?!?! A third rate chemistry dropout?"
Isn't gitter the bush mangler? Or is that one of the other interchangeable idiots?
"I think Betula has explained his position perfectly adequately."
No, gitter, the point is you DON'T think. Can't think, won't think. Refuses to try.
Just flap that knee about like a maniac.
"The it’s-not-warming-meme as you tout it is essentially a claim that the fundamental science is wrong."
Actually, it's a non-statement, BBD.
"It's not been warming for the last X years" is not a refutation of the IPCC report when claimed at this time, because the IPCC report isn't refuted by the temperature trend of the last X years for any value of X the idiots come up with.
It's no refutation therefore there's nothing to see. A completely pointless point, which is all the idiots have nowadays.
OK, so you will accept potentials that all rely on each other to potentially happen.
WE KNOW.
That's what ALL deniers do.
"Potentially, clouds could cause a cooling as water vapour goes up"
"Potentially, the GCRs could cause more clouds"
"Potentially, the plants will grow massively reducing CO2"
"Potentially, this is just a cycle and has nothing to do with CO2"
Potentially.
Then presume they are all right.
Jeff.
You make be interested to know that Shub is up to his old tricks...
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/tol-erasion.html
Is that Shub Niggurath? The associated website was a real den of charmers...
I noticed he hasn't tried to substantiate his risible claim about 'ecologists'. What a ridiculous fellow!
Shub doesn't deal in data - he just dogwhistles to his fellow know-nothings for whom assertion is fact.
And the Lovecraft thing? Like, woo... scary.
Wow @ 82...
"That’s what ALL deniers do"
"Potentially,"
“Potentially,"
“Potentially,"
“Potentially,"
"Potentially."
BBD @ 10....
"that this will be potentially dangerous, with negative impacts on agriculture, fresh water availability etc."
Betty ,surely even you can't be as dumb as you're playing at being.
Let's try a simple substitution test.
'Driving your car into a brick wall at 70 mph with no seat belt or airbag will be potentially dangerous, with negative impacts on bones, flesh, organs etc.”
It's not 'guaranteed dangerous' in science speak, only 'potentially dangerous' because it's a prediction that hasn't yet occurred. And who knows - the laws of physics might magically change, or a passing unicorn will intervene.
The chances that such likelihoods may happen are incalculably small, but aren't completely discounted, hence 'potentially'.
Why you choose to be so moronic about it based on nothing except your own poor comprehension is a mystery. But one I'm not particularly interested in solving.
'Potentially' is actually the language of responsibility, dingbat. The opposite of alarmism.
You just don't get it, at all, and yet still you wade in.
“That’s what ALL deniers do”
Yup. Like I said:
“Potentially, clouds could cause a cooling as water vapour goes up”
“Potentially, the GCRs could cause more clouds”
“Potentially, the plants will grow massively reducing CO2″
“Potentially, this is just a cycle and has nothing to do with CO2″
Then presume they are all right.
What you're trying and failing miserably to do is equate "There's a possibility of something going wrong, so lets head that off" and "there's a possibility that it won't go wrong, so lets do nothing".
What ISN'T potentially is AGW will have "negative impacts on agriculture, fresh water availability etc.” which are POTENTIALLY dangerous.
It MAY not be dangerous, but it will happen.
Silly old betty.
Betty, so you're complaining that everyone does what you think is acceptable for you to do.
Is that it?
Is THAT your "argument"?
"I'm allowed, you're not"???
Wow...
"What you’re trying and failing miserably to do is equate “There’s a possibility of something going wrong, so lets head that off” and “there’s a possibility that it won’t go wrong, so lets do nothing”.
Wrong.
There's the potential for negative reactions if a myriad of complex environmental systems all react in a predicted way, even though the way many of those complex systems will react is not fully understood....it's too complex.
Of course, there's the potential for positive reactions as well, if a myriad of complex environmental systems react a certain way.
Some of the negatives may outweigh the positives in some locations and some of the positives may outweigh the negatives, depending on a myriad of potential reactions in a myriad of locations....all too complex to be able to predict accurately.
The problem here is that all possible positive reactions are taken out of the prediction equation....they carry no weight in the projection of predictions that potentially may happen to a system that is too complex to possibly know how all the interactions will react. Why is that?
In addition, we have to assume that all the people making the predictions are even keeled and don't allow personal motivations, ideologies, feelings, outside pressures, politics, deadlines, goals, conceit, representative governments, the need for funding, complexes and pride etc. to get in the way of the prediction decision making process.....particularly if they are from poor developing nations that just happen to be looking for a piece of pie....
Let's ask our friend Saleemul Huq, who states things like this...(2009):
"rich countries seem to want to run as fast as possible from their legal and moral obligations. But their premature call to kill the Kyoto Protocol has been fiercely resisted by poor countries. Can rich countries put deep cuts and adequate financing and technology on the table in time to save the deal and prevent globally catastrophic climate change?"
http://www.theecologist.org/tv_and_radio/radio/342208/the_300350_show_t…
Is there the "potential" that the prediction decision making process could "possibly" be influenced by the need for money?
Oh, I don't know....
"a little-noticed paragraph in the agreement that came out of the Cancún, Mexico, talks in 2010, the need "to reduce loss and damage associated with climate change" was recognised by all countries. In legal terms, that potentially opens the door to compensation – or, as the negotiators in Doha say, "rehabilitation" "
"as ministers from 194 countries fly in to take over the political negotiations, "loss and damage" has become a "red line" for more than 100 developing countries, led by the Alliance of Small Island States, the Least Developed Countries block and the African Group of Nations"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/dec/03/climate-change…
"Developing countries are saying it needs a new [negotiating] track, which means action, not just further discussions. But the developed countries do not want to open that door," said Saleemul Huq"
But what does this have to do with the prediction decision making process?
"Saleemul Huq is Senior Fellow in Climate Change at the International Institute for Environment & Development – who has also been a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s last two assessment reports."
And no Hardly, the "conceit" part was not meant for you...why, did you think it was?
# 87
The potential for danger is determined by the amount of CO2 we allow ourselves to emit over the next few decades. It's potentially dangerous NOW. It will be actually dangerous if we get up to >600ppmv.
It's hard to believe you are this stupid, so stop fucking me about with the wind-ups.
Listen, you idiot, the entire multi-disciplinary complex of Earth System science is against you. There is a strong consensus on the cause of warming, and strong consensus that abrupt warming will be net negative in consequence for the majority of the marine and terrestrial ecosystem. Also that it will be net negative for our interactions with the ecosystem, otherwise known as agriculture and fisheries.
You are a fucking know-nothing denier without a shred of evidence to support your subliterate blatherings, hence the mockery.
Ignorant, wrong, ridiculous and intellectually arrogant.
Fuck off and do some reading.
This is a fucking flat-out lie:
Why are deniers so fucking dishonest?
Why is that?
Well we know, don't we? It's because they are arguing against a robust scientific consensus without benefit of a scientific counter-argument.
So they need to tell lies all the time.
I dealt with your last tranche of dishonest rubbish at # 75. I notice that you have nothing to say in response to that comment.
Evasion is an aspect of intellectual dishonesty, just like telling lies.
Meanwhile for those (Duff, Rednose, et. al) who have not yet grasped that already happening warming is having a decided impact on disturbing weather patterns, and climate, into the foreseeable future. A disruption that will continue to promote extremes in strength, duration and out of season of adverse events need to study this:
A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming.
You will also get a clue of how complex Earth's systems are and here we are only involving the physical effects.
Here is a handy Jetstream Forecaster for the North Atlantic.
What you persistently fail to grasp Betula is that there are not going to be many positive 'reactions' (not the best choice of words BTW but that is your terminology which misses the mark as ever) as you try imply here,
.
Your thinking is fuzzy as is clear from your choice of words.
Remind us again what your day job involves?
Betty may well be an expectant responder to those schemes advertised with the 'potential' to earn a million dollars a day from your home computer.
Neither does it appear within the Confidence or Likelihood terminology scales used by the IPCC, making it so flexible as to be a useful word for deniers or others not in possession of good faith..
What decision making process? As to whether AGW is real?
Absolutely nothing.
Because, little man, Huq is -
He takes the science and looks at its projected impact in the Third World.
Of course, to mean-spirited shits and forelock-tuggers the world over, this just means he's after their money, or the hoards of the rich mean-spirited shits they idolise.
And, because their own relationship to truth is entirely predicated upon what's convenient for them, they automatically assume all information is manipulated to serve the same ends.
Rest assured, Batty, we only kick you for the benefit of onlookers - you're a lost cause, a small component of the ossified venality that will eventually collapse the US empire.
"Rest assured, Batty, we only kick you for the benefit of onlookers – you’re a lost cause, a small component of the ossified venality that will eventually collapse the US empire"
Well put, Bill. More colloquially, he is as thick as two planks. I realized that when he (1) argued that C02 was a nutrient that would increase primary production and thus benefit natural systems, and (2) more recently claimed that environmental quality in the U.S. was improving on the basis of three piss-poor examples. In both cases when challenged and counter arguments were made, what did old Batty do? Ignore them and shift the goalposts again. And once again, as BBD, you and others have demolished those arguments, expect him to go onto something else.
Like Karen, Duff, GSW et al., Batty is a lost cause. Thinks he knows a lot more than he does. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, because in pure Dunning-Kruger fashion, it gives the deniers bloated egos and inflated images of what they think they know.
CO2 fertilisation has increased maximum foliage cover across the globe's warm, arid environments
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract
†
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1002/grl.50563
So, Karen, please tell us, in your own words, what you think the paper says.
Every time that question is posed my anticipation rises - perhaps this time will be the first time that Karen will demonstrate some understanding of the references she provides ;-)
Spots doesn't do that, he has no knowledge of what words mean. Only a job that tells him what script to write.
Rather like those call centers, reading from a list.
Betty, #93, lots of words, all bullshit.
The "potential" but was the "potentially a disaster", not their result.
But your script doesn't extend to knowledge of the facts, does it.
100% content-free words.
As usual, from betty.
@Bill, Loth
Why do you want the paper re interpreted for you in Karen's words? that's an odd thing to ask, the prospect of having to dumb it down to such an extent that you would understand it is unappealing in itself.
The authors have produced a model to predict the effects of increasing C02 levels on plant fertilisation (aka CO2 as plant food). They then sought to verify that model against observations. During the observed period (from the summary)
"Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilisation effect is now a significant land surface process"
They found that this effect was most pronounced in warm, arid areas (dessert margins for example) with an 11% improvement in "greening". I've no doubt Karen posted it here as he views this in isolation as being a positive consequence of increased CO2 in the atmosphere and I tend to agree. You lot will obviously disgree as all change is by definition bad (you're loonies).
If increased CO2 was "de greening" dessert margins, you'd all be hiding under the stairs, so relax, no panic required.
As a side note, the authors all seem to be Australian or have an Australian affiliation and at least part of the work was a study of CO2 effects in the "Outback".
Apologies All,
It should of course be "desert" not "dessert". As far as I can tell, the authors chose not to investigate the effects of increased CO2 on puddings.
;)
Goosey, the point is that Karen has no comprehension of the things she posts, but you knew that already.
Assuming without question the benefit of having, say, Innamincka undergo something in the way of a botanical boom, and, utilising your patented technique of expressing no skepticism whatsoever over the result of any single paper whose conclusions you feel you can bend to advantage - whereas thousands of papers saying much the same thing is a travesty of science, apparently, and calls forth the most passionate of principled denunciations - please enlighten as as to: one, how eternal this situation may or may not be; two, how geographically confined; three, how we can know with confidence that the associated ongoing rise in temperatures - and perhaps declines in rainfall - cannot overwhelm any benefit, and; three, since I assume, opportunistic mealy-mouthed hand-wringing notwithstanding, you don't give a shit about the welfare of the Eyrean Grass-wren, whether the negative implications of temperature rise for humanity as a whole may be safely assumed to have been completely overwhelmed by it?
Last 'three' should be 'four' - always re-draft with care, kids!...
@bill,
Hey Bill, I relayed the findings of a paper. It doesn't mention the "Eyrean Grass-wren" and to say I don't give a "shit" about them is just you trying to a push a "nature haters" label which couldn't be further from the truth (No barrier to you in the past I know, as far from the truth as possible is very much your comfort zone).
"whereas thousands of papers saying much the same thing is a travesty of science, apparently, and calls forth the most passionate of principled denunciations"
Much the same thing as what? and where is the travesty of science? I know that word will forever be associated with K Trenberths work, but what has that got to do with this?
It occurs to me you may have taken a leaf out of the wow play book (winning an argument by posting something stupid/nonsense) if so, well done, a valiant attempt. If you want to make a case for concluding from the paper that we're all doomed, please feel free.
;)
A perfect example of why most people regard deniers as scum.
This vile little meme emerged when criminal deniers stole some private emails and other deniers then deliberately misrepresented what Trenberth actually meant in order to blacken the reputation of climate science in general.
The deniers of the world chorused the lie until it became a "fake fact" in the denialosphere.
Now you have taken the process of dishonesty a step further by stating that Trenberth's own work is a travesty.
But how could you possibly make that judgement? You are an ignoramus. You couldn't understand Trenberth's work if you tried - and you haven't.
Yet you think it's acceptable for you to behave as you just have. Well here's the news, fuckwit - it isn't. You haven't got the chops to talk like this and you never will, so cease your contemptible, dishonest yapping.
@BBD
Thanks for the confirmation BBD and the SKS link
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Understanding-Trenberths-travesty.html
Like it or not, the association with the word will always be there, Travesty Trenberth has sort of ring to it. But it still does not explain why reference to his "travesty" has anything to with the paper at hand. As far as I am I aware, Trenberth's work does not deal with the benefits of CO2 fertilisation of plants (aka CO2 as plant food), the subject of the paper in this case, which leaves us with the wow play book explanation; attempt to win arguments, or at least confuse the reader, by posting nonsense.
As for this stupid denier meme that CO2 fertilisation somehow makes AGW a non-problem, let's put the gun to its head.
Who cares if vegetative cover in marginal, arid zones has increased? What difference does it make to agricultural productivity, heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, flooding, ocean pH and sea level rise?
Things that will matter to agricultural productivity are drought and flooding and summer temperatures exceeding the tolerance of the crop. CO2 fertilisation isn't going to make much difference to dead crops.
There might be a brief period - and we may be seeing it now - when there's some CO2-enhanced increase in marginal vegetation, but globally and on the centennial scale (which is the one on which climate change effects will play out), CO2 fertilisation is a distraction.
Bang. Stupid denier meme dead. Fetch shovel.
Because of lying scum. Was I unclear on this point?
You introduced the defamatory lies about Trenberth, not me. I was just pointing out that deniers are for the most part lying scum. Was I unclear on this point too?
@BBD
What Lie? (setting aside your emtions for the moment) You do this a lot BBD, just because someone points out something you don't like, you call them liars. How very grown up. Facts are Facts BBD, if you have a case to make, make it. But please stop whimpering or someone may tell your mum.
;)
This lie, fuckwit. Are you blind as well as dishonest and stupid?
Why you are talking about facts is an utter mystery.
By the way, your meme is dead.
What never ceases to amaze me is the way lying denier scum lie and deny and behave like scum yet are - apparently - oblivious to what they are doing.
It is quite literally astonishing. See GSW, above.
@BBD
Also, the only person who's mentioned a denier "meme" is you! The paper reports an increase in CO2 fertilization of plants (aka CO2 as plant food) in warm, arid areas and that is all we are discussing! Your extended, it can't be true, it must be a lie, maybe I can think of a way it might be bad rant, is just denial! I thought you CAGW lot we're all in favour of the "Peer reviewed litlerature", if it's printed, it must be true!
The "dishonest" and "stupid" arguments aren't going to work here BBD. Man up!
See # 11 and # 13. Just read the words.
@BBD
Yes, if someone references a paper you don't like you call them scum and it was you who introduced the "denier meme", nobody else. We know all that and again that is not an argument! More dribbling than argument.
I point out when people are lying. You are going to have to demonstrate this claim - which I reject as dishonest - with relevant quotation.
@BBD
I just mentioned you do it a lot BBD. It's your pat response. it's up to you to justify, which you never do.
;)
No, GSW, I called your smearing of Trenberth a lie. I also stated that the notion that CO2 fertilisation somehow makes AGW a non-problem is a stupid denier meme - or if you prefer, a lie.
You have to show that I "didn't like" the Donohue study or that I questioned its findings in any way. If you cannot do so, you will have been shown to be employing a dishonest argument based on misrepresenting what I have said.
# 22
I am calling you out over your lie:
You immediately refuse to provide evidence by quotation. I say you are a liar.
Griselda, you are a walking ragbag of denier memes, one following the other as in your latest which even your Viscunt Monckey dropped years ago.
That you prefer to ignore professionals such as Jeff and Bernard who have previously explained why it's a simplistic meme is your problem alone.
In addition to which you have a history, which is how it's known that you're scum.
@BBD
Ok, Ok, Ok. Can we just establish, that you are happy with the Donohue study, CO2 fertilization of plants in warm, arid areas (aka CO2 as plant food) and that there are no parts of their study that you believe to be a lie, dishonest or that having reached the conclusions they did, that they are not scum or pushing a denier meme?
Read the words.
@BBD
That's why I'm asking you BBD, rather than try and prove you don't, I'm asking you to confirm that you do. The simplest, most direct method. is usually the best. Or is this some great secret you are keeping and we have to guess the answer? (Which to be honest would fairly odd behaviour on your part)
;)
@chek
"professionals such as Jeff and Bernard"
Ever the comedian chek.
;)
No, what you are trying to do is avoid the horrible mess you have got yourself into - see # 21 and # 24.
I'm not qualified to have an opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the Donohue study. What I said about the stupid denier meme that CO2 fertilisation somehow making AGW a non-problem was clear enough. But I am happy to repeat it:
@BBD
"I’m not qualified to have an opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the Donohue study."
Finally, an admission you're quite happy mouthing off on things you know nothing about. Hence all the ill informed "you're a liar" reposts. We got there in the end, not sure you were really worth the effort though. Anyway, same old, same old.
;)
Eh but you are stupid, GSW.
Whether Donohue is right or wrong is irrelevant to the wrongness of the stupid denier meme that CO2 fertilisation somehow making AGW a non-problem. See # 29.
Either you are another victim of poor reading comprehension or you are engaging in further dishonest argument (see your responses to # 11 onwards).
Stupid or liar? Can you clear this up?
#30 And you, ever the willing ignoramus dupe, Griselda.
GSW must have some kind of brain injury,really. How else to explain that extraordinary train of nonsense?
Personally I think the Donahue study's quite intriguing, not least because it describes an effect in an area I really do care about. Having access only to the abstract I couldn't learn how they'd allowed for, say, the decade long drought at the start of the 21st Century - which literally devastated some areas - or the subsequent la Ninas.
But what does it all mean, in the bigger picture? BBD and I have both raised the obvious points. According to the abstract they've focused on 'arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth' but they've 'remove[d] the effect of variations in rainfall'. Liebig's Law of the Minimum, and all that...
Oh, and I threw in 'travesty' as an idiot trap. It worked.
Note that Karen is not part of this discussion? To be part of a discussion you have to have some basic awareness of the points at issue. Karen only knows when to press Ctrl+V.
The paper looked at increased severity of drought onset events, variability in precipitation and disturbance (clearing) events and were unable to show that these factors affected the observed increase in green foliage cover. They emphasised the fact that this change is not applicable to other environments where temperature, nutrients and light are limiting factors to plant production.
Thanks Anthony!
GSW: Ever the comedian chek.
Look in the mirror, GSW. Your qualifications are a real laugh - yet you somehow think you have ' knowledge' in various scientific fields. Your slavish worshipping of Jonas tells pretty well everyone here all about the extent of your 'expertise'.
This issue of the Donohue et al study is interesting in the manner in which ignorant fools such as KarenMackSunspot and GSW think that they understand what it means, and what it implies for the future.
From the paper's conclusion:
The authors leave out many other pertinent flow-on effects such as altered nutritional value of plant matter, differential responses of C3 and C4 plants, the issue of weed and pest response to increased atmospheric CO2, and the simple fact that increasing atmospheric CO2 also warms the planet, and alters its climate - other factors that have a profound effect on how plants grow and how animals live.
There's no surprise in the Donohue et al paper - they are simply confirming very basic photosynthetic biochemistry. In their responses to Donohue et al KarenMackSunspot and GSW are just little two-year-old boys who have discovered that if they play with their penises they can produce erections - they have no idea of the actual implications of what they have stumbled upon.
What is interesting is that Donohue et al simply confirms the veracity of another part of the wide body of science that has long been used warn of the effects of human carbon emission on the planet. It does not alter the warning about climate disruption and the profound effects that this will have on the function of ecosystems around the world.
Yes, another part of the whole scientific opus that is telling humanity that it's fucking up the planet has been confirmed. That KarenMackSunspot and GSW don't grok this simply demonstrates how foolish they are.
And on that subject I find it laughable that in response to BBD saying:
GSW has the temerity to respond with:
That's the epitome of irony, GSW. BBD is correct in his assessment of Donohue et al, and you are waaay off the mark. And I am qualified to have an opinion on this subject, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Bill.
If you can set up a disposable email address I'll forward to you a copy of the paper. They briefly mention other caveats that have interesting implications should they pan out, and which may cloud the seeming 'benefit' of increased photosynthesis in response to excess CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.
Because as Wow and bill pointed out, it's highlighting Karen's modus operandi of cutting and pasting claims "based" on evidence she doesn't even understand - evidence which frequently doesn't support the claims, and which she shows no sign of being willing or able to assess for support.
That is an eminently stupid or mendacious belief on your part, even by your standards.
Your subsequent extended misinterpretation of other people and denial of their characterisation of what you yourself wrote merely reiterate the standards I refer to as your baseline.
Thanks Anthony David and Bernard J. for providing some insight into Donohue et al.
And helping to turn the stupid spigot off.
;-)
Bernard - thanks! And thanks for the offer; I'm actually more than happy with your summary.
Goosey, SpamKan et al, you are never going to find a paper with anything like any of the following titles in a reputable - that is, an actual scientific - journal, beyond the fringe publications that were specifically set up in order to chum for morons.
Why waste your lives pretending that anything similar is being published? It's literally pathetic. It never turns out that your infantile self-serving 'interpretation' - well, someone else's you've regurgitated - is accurate.
By way of explanation of the excerpt I posted at #39, some definitions:
C(subscript)a = atmospheric CO2 concentrations (dang and blast NG for their not functionality with the sub tag...)
P = precipitation
A(subscript)l = assimilation rate per unit of leaf area
E(subscript)l = transpiration rate per unit of leaf area
Equation 1 defines water use efficiency of photosynthesis as W(subscript)p = A(subscript)l/E(subscript)l (and alternatively in other units not germane to this post)
Equation 2 defines relative effect of a change in C(subscript)a on W(subscript)p as dW(subscript)p/W(subscript)p = dA(subscript)l/A - dE(subscript)l/E(subscript)l (and alternatively in other units not germane to this post)
Equation 3 presents an alternative expression of equation 2 in further units not germane to this post.
For those curious about the full conclusion:
I can predict the response that will come from the numpties, but such a response will only serve to illustrate the subjective, anthropocentric valuation of one ecosystem over another...
Oh, and the fact that water is the limiting factor in this study is itself a curious thing. What the vegetation is doing is to close its stomata slightly in response to the extra CO2. This increases the efficiency of water-use and results in a significant proportion of the increased photosynthesis. Sprengel's law of the minimum is actually bitch-slapping KarenMackSunspot and GSW full in their faces, because the vegetation is effectively saying "thanks very much, but we won't take all that extra CO2, we will instead take the opportunity it provides to close the windows a bit and save on water whilst using pretty much our standard CO2 turnover". It seems that someone forgot to tell plants that they're supposed to be struggling under a deficit of CO2...
The ramping up of plant growth only in direct response to increased CO2 requires all other plant growth factors to be present above minimum. And even in that apparently wonderful world - when it might actually be achieved outside of an industrial glasshouse - growth enhanced in this manner isn't necessarily 'good'... but that point has been made many times before.
A corollary to my last paragraph in my post immediately above is that if atmospheric CO2 was held at pre-Indusrial Revolution levels and precipitation was increased in these warm arid regions, a similar increase in photosynthesis/foliation would result.
This is an eminently testable notion. Now, I wonder if this has in fact already been investigated...
BBD:
If only there was a way to replace the leaking gasket that results in the continuous dribble of Stupid that persists no matter how much the spigot is closed...