Good News Sucks for Climate Cultists

[Saint Guinefort]

What's really hilarious is how the radical Leftist, Greentard front ignores any other anthropogenic cause(s) in favor of CO2 because it fits the rest of their agenda of political and economic totalitarianism over nations.

For example, known to cause 10 to 20% of warming and easy to fix...

How Airplane Contrails Are Helping Make the Planet Warmer
https://e360.yale.edu/assets/site/_...utterstock_1362975188_plane-contrails_web.jpg

Do airplane contrails add to climate change? Yes, and the problem is about to get worse.
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...mate-change-yes-problem-about-get-ncna1034521

Climate Effects of Contrails Confirmed
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-effects-of-contra/

New maps show airplane contrails over the U.S. dropped steeply in 2020
The computer-vision technique behind these maps could help avoid contrail production, reducing aviation’s climate impact.
https://news.mit.edu/2022/airplane-contrails-map-0307

CLOUDS CAUSED BY AIRCRAFT EXHAUST MAY WARM THE U.S. CLIMATE
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/2004/04-140.html

The science says contrails are a serious problem for atmospheric warming, yet the Greentards are saying nothing about it.

Actually no one is ignoring other forcings apart from CO2. If you read the IPCC itself you will see that they EXPLICITLY discuss other human forcings.

The issue is that CO2 and other greenhouse gases like CH4 are far more IMPACTFUL.

This illustration is from the IPCC AR4 which shows that, indeed, CO2 is NOT the only thing considered. (They even have contrails in there!)

 

[Taichiliberal]

For the climate change deniers:

Anyone older than 45 should remember when a sunset appeared YELLOW in the sky....NOT ORANGE.

Anyone over 21 or 30 should remember what the phrase "acid rain" meant and how it was addressed.

Anyone who lives on Long Island, NY and remembers the St. Helen's volcanic eruption in Washington state will remember the fine black ash that "rained" for a few hours DAYS after the eruption.

Anyone who pays attention to more than one news source will remember all the reports of rising cases of asthma among children living in cities and/or factories with "smoke stacks".

Anyone who pays attention would remember the recent reports of who dramatically the air quality improved in major cities when traffic was greatly reduced due to the Covid 19 crisis.

These are just entrees into how mankind affects the air you breath....that's part of the eco-system, part of the climate.

Carry on.

 

[Celticguy]

It's unbelievable that anybody could be led to believe that an increased growth of trees somewhere offsets the carnage of thunderous extended deluges, mud slides, floods, massive hurricanes, etc., etc.somewhere else.
Bad news REALLY sux for Deniers.

which reminds me, when they studied frequency and force of natural weather events there has been no increase.

Plants eat CO2. More CO2 = happier plants

 

[Bigdog]

So FACTS don't register in that deficient MAGA mind of yours because they're 4 years old?

In those experiments artificially doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels increased trees’ productivity by around 23 percent, according to Norby, who was involved in the trials. For one of the experiments, however, that effect significantly diminished over time due to a nitrogen limitation.

Thanks for confirming what I said about fertilizers.

We all know more CO2 increases plant growth. In fact, the world has become 14% greener since whitey started screaming about CO2. And you white libs hate that truth.

"The amount of benefit a crop receives depends on its type. Wheat, barley and rice for example benefit more from higher carbon dioxide concentrations than corn."

Furthermore, as I already said, the studies are NOT providing the details. They speak in generalities to hide their ignorance and they admit they don't know why or how much less "protein, zinc, and iron" there is.

It is obvious that CO2 will increase growth rates, yet they denied the plants and trees additional fertilizer in order to negatively skew the results.

Try posting some real science, NOT this fudge factor BS.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Actually no one is ignoring other forcings apart from CO2. If you read the IPCC itself you will see that they EXPLICITLY discuss other human forcings.

The issue is that CO2 and other greenhouse gases like CH4 are far more IMPACTFUL.

This illustration is from the IPCC AR4 which shows that, indeed, CO2 is NOT the only thing considered. (They even have contrails in there!)

This is the wrong way to fix a problem. If you can fix contrails easily and quickly at little or no cost-- Rerouting flights around areas and altitudes causing them--then that should be tackled immediately. You don't start with the hardest things to fix first. I also suspect that their proportions are wrong.

 

[Bigdog]

So NOW you deny GLOBAL WARMING?

The Little Ice Age ENDED, dipshit. Do you know what that means???

 

[moon]

which reminds me, when they studied frequency and force of natural weather events there has been no increase.

Which study was that and when was it dated ? The frequency and severity of extreme events are, of course, ongoing. You can add Rolling Fork to your ...er....'study '

 

[Saint Guinefort]

This is the wrong way to fix a problem. If you can fix contrails easily and quickly at little or no cost-- Rerouting flights around areas and altitudes causing them--then that should be tackled immediately. You don't start with the hardest things to fix first. I also suspect that their proportions are wrong.

Look at the graph again. The impact from contrails is nearly zero. Fixing that is essentially meaningless.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Look at the graph again. The impact from contrails is nearly zero. Fixing that is essentially meaningless.

I did look at the graph. Got a source other than the IPCC who has proven unreliable for decades now? Why should anyone believe the Chicken Little's on the IPCC. They've been wrong and hysteric so much they have no credibility.

 

[moon]

Look at the graph again. The impact from contrails is nearly zero. Fixing that is essentially meaningless.

Sure. Aircraft engine shit wrapped in ice. Pretty ain't it.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I did look at the graph. Got a source other than the IPCC who has proven unreliable for decades now? Why should anyone believe the Chicken Little's on the IPCC. They've been wrong and hysteric so much they have no credibility.

The point being that you were lied to when you were told that these things weren't being considered. They are. And we know how effective dealing with the nearly negligible things would do.

Also: the IPCC doesn't do any science themselves. They aggregate science from all over the world. If you distrust the entire world's climate scientists then you have a bigger issue to deal with.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Also: the IPCC doesn't do any science themselves. They aggregate science from all over the world. If you distrust the entire world's climate scientists then you have a bigger issue to deal with.

And, clearly they do a really shitty job of it.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Sure. Aircraft engine shit wrapped in ice. Pretty ain't it.

Who you going to believe? The IPCC or your lyin' eyes?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

And, clearly they do a really shitty job of it.

May I ask why you think you are more well informed than the earth's climate scientists, earth and oceanographic scientists?

 

[signalmankenneth]

Climate alarmists bury good news and exaggerate bad news.

For example, over the past 30 years there has been a 14% increase in the Earth's green vegetation. Deserts are getting smaller and forests are getting lusher. Seventy percent of this "Earth Greening" stems from the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This increased vegetation means more food for insects and deer, for elephants and mice, for fish and whales. It means higher yields for farmers.

The connection between increased carbon dioxide and increased plant growth is a perfect example of "negative feedback" in that added vegetation from Earth Greening takes CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Snow cover in the northern hemisphere is now at a 56-year high (for this time of year). The population of polar bears is increasing and is currently estimated to be over 30,000. You won't learn that from Al Gore.

Unlike the earth's climate, Earth Greening was an easily predictable outcome of the CO2 increase. Life itself is carbon based. Commercial Greenhouses pump in additional CO2 to stimulate plant growth.

The alarmists' hysterical hostility toward carbon dioxide shows their ignorance and tunnel vision. They are willfully blind to anything beneficial deriving from CO2, a compound essential to life itself. When someone doesn't tell the whole truth, he's lying.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/03/good_news_sucks_for_climate_cultists.html

 

[T. A. Gardner]

May I ask why you think you are more well informed than the earth's climate scientists, earth and oceanographic scientists?

I don't. Rather, I think that the so-called "climate scientists" and the CO2 / anthropogenic climate change champions have proven over decades to be wrong, alarmists, and have a very strong radical Leftist political agenda. "Informed" has nothing to do with it. Instead, results as observed has everything to do with it.

What you are making above is in part an appeal to authority.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I don't. Rather, I think that the so-called "climate scientists" and the CO2 / anthropogenic climate change champions have proven over decades to be wrong, alarmists, and have a very strong radical Leftist political agenda. "Informed" has nothing to do with it. Instead, results as observed has everything to do with it.

You have no reason to think they are wrong. None.

What you are making above is in part an appeal to authority.

Of course it's an appeal to authority. Neither you nor I have the requisite skill or ability.

It's like you and I sitting and talking about how badly wrong all the earth's particle physicists are about the Standard Model.

The only difference is that I am appealing to the majority of authorities while you are appealing to a tiny minority of them.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You have no reason to think they are wrong. None.



Of course it's an appeal to authority. Neither you nor I have the requisite skill or ability.

It's like you and I sitting and talking about how badly wrong all the earth's particle physicists are about the Standard Model.

The only difference is that I am appealing to the majority of authorities while you are appealing to a tiny minority of them.

I have EVERY reason to think they're wrong. They've been wrong on predictions. They've lost virtually every case they've taken to trial against those that say they're wrong. At this point, they have no reason to be believed. In most other sciences, they'd have been run out of academia and discredited for all time. Yet, they persist because they are protected by powerful political forces and politicians on the radical Left.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I have EVERY reason to think they're wrong. They've been wrong on predictions

Let me correct that: overall their predictions in the gross sense have NOT been wrong. They've actually been quite correct. What is usually wrong are the pop-science, over-the-top predictions of imminent disaster. Those things will come, just not at the speed of getting viewers for your news program.

The scientists have been more measured. And their predictions are coming true with astounding accuracy. Again and again.

. They've lost virtually every case they've taken to trial against those that say they're wrong. At this point, they have no reason to be believed. In most other sciences, they'd have been run out of academia and discredited for all time. Yet, they persist because they are protected by powerful political forces and politicians on the radical Left.

The actual science is very troubling. NOT because it reads like a Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson action epic disaster flick, but because they foretell a much more harrowing future that is still a bit distant.

Don't expect to get the subtle story from news organizations on either side. Just read the science. It's troubling enough.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Let me correct that: overall their predictions in the gross sense have NOT been wrong. They've actually been quite correct. What is usually wrong are the pop-science, over-the-top predictions of imminent disaster. Those things will come, just not at the speed of getting viewers for your news program.

The scientists have been more measured. And their predictions are coming true with astounding accuracy. Again and again.



The actual science is very troubling. NOT because it reads like a Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson action epic disaster flick, but because they foretell a much more harrowing future that is still a bit distant.

Don't expect to get the subtle story from news organizations on either side. Just read the science. It's troubling enough.

Their overall predictions are wrong. Their modeling is wrong, their causes are wrong. They have been doing crap science for decades and building on it. Their call that the end of the world is coming--repeatedly-- is the most egregious case of their pandering bullshit. I could go to a run of the mill psychic and get better predictions.