Breitbart/Delingpole: 400 science papers just DEBUNKED global warming. Potholer54 takes a closer look.

Science and Technology
21
Just another example of someone publicizing denier trash. Why not just keep posting the valid science and let the liars do their own work? Unless you're working with them...
Doug, doug, doug you are such a disappointment, so little imagination. But guess some like keeping it within the rut, makes decisions so much easier. P.S. Doug been working on any interesting projects lately?
Confronting Science Contrarians.blogspot This is a learning project dedicated to dissecting, examining, and confronting the deception dependent Republican assault on climate science and rational constructive debate. ~ I’m no scholar nor journalist so it’s rough around the edges. What I am is a life-long passionate student of our planet Earth in all her marvelous aspects, along with the humans she created and the evolving society Earth enabled and nurtured. ~ I invite, nay, I challenge, honest debate and discussion. https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com
;-P
22

As from my experience, being a climatologist or an environmentalist (the scientific specialization) required a lot of different studies, including biology and botanics, but that can be true only for university i attended to.
The article about Earth getting greener is new for me, and not aware of Googlestudy. (Edit: Actually it was yet again about plants on land, not about study dedicated to amount of microalgae in phytoplankton).

23
oh please
Really Mike and Offler? You don't think someone has considered the very questions you are asking? You're just going to throw them out there like you asking them shows you've thought of something that no one else has?
Being told we were looking at an ice-free world with whole countries under water, these items seemed quite trivial at the time. Yea, I would say it’s about time to bring up these types of items for discussion now that predictions haven’t happened as told and new predictions don’t seem to have solid dates.
But you are yet again lying MikeYohe! The predictions made within the scientific community are coming true with frightening degree of accuracy although much faster than most scientists expected.
Nice dance and song. Again, all talk and no numbers. Give me facts. What is your game here? When the scientists make these predictions. You don’t say they are not true. You seem to agree with them. After time the predictions don’t come true. Then you trash your scientists. Seems to be a democratic method in political as well as science today.
Dear onlooker please note that MikeYohe draws no distinction between serious scientific predictions by experts, and media pundits and politically/financially motivated dilettantes. He is a joker that says a lot but then produces nothing of substance to support his wild, profoundly disconnected from reality claims.
What are these predictions? You backed Al Gore, a political politician and his predictions, not me.
Hell, he loves to believe Mike Mann is a fraud without the slightest substantive evidence to back it up with.
Hey, I not the one in court for science fraud. Mann is.
He says CO2 scientists is still tentative because he ignore all information offered.
No, you and doughboy explained to me how CO2 works. The heat did not do what you said. Then you explained that the heat was going into the ocean. Let us know when the heat decides to come out. So far, all weather events you think are caused by Climate Change. That is not true, but that is what you are selling.
etc., etc.,
24
Scientists have beaten down the best climate denial argument Posted on 18 December 2017 by dana1981 https://skepticalscience.com/scientists-beaten-down-best-denial-argument.html Climate deniers have come up with a lot of arguments about why we shouldn’t worry about global warming – about 200 of them] – but most are quite poor, contradictory], and easily debunked by consulting the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The cleverest climate contrarians settle on the least implausible argument – that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS – how much a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase Earth’s surface temperature) is low, meaning that the planet will warm relatively slowly in response to human carbon pollution. But they have to explain how that can be the case, because there are a lot of factors that amplify global warming. For example, a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, which is itself a greenhouse gas, adding further warming. Warming also melts ice, leaving Earth’s surface less reflective, absorbing more sunlight. There are a number of these amplifying ‘feedbacks,’ but few that would act to significantly slow global warming. Clouds are one possible exception, ...
Before you start cheering, read the rest of the story. :smirk:
25
I actually studied geology for 2 years, while I planned to specialize on paleontology. However due some events in family i decided to abandon the study. https://phys.org/news/2013-03-algae-capture-co2.html Anyway, you are seriously asking a source for my claim that microalgae, which are part of phytoplankton living in the oceans are capturing CO2? Every green plant does that.
I would have thought someone who studied paleontology would have at least understood to some degree that micoalgae needs more than just CO2 in order to grow and reproduce. I'll answer your question for you, but I'm very surprised you didn't know this. Microalgae also requires other minerals such as iron in order to reproduce - hard to come by in vast quantities in the middle of the ocean. Thus that is why the increase in CO2 has not lead to a rise in the levels of sea algae. Greater minds than both of us have been aware of the problem for a while, and have attempted to fertilize the oceans in order to increase the amount of algae and thus increase the levels of CO2 sequestration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization But, I suspect if you were really interested in the truth of the matter, you could have found this out quite quickly for yourself.
26

And the beat goes on September 10, 2020

27
The question i kept asking climatologists is why is that biosphere is no longer capable of absorbing those increased amounts of CO2?
The answer to that question is simple. The biosphere IS still absorbing CO2. But nature is a balancing act. You can't walk up to 2 kids playing on a teeter totter, throw a third kid on one end and expect the system to keep working the way it was before. Likewise you cannot add a massive new source of CO2 among many, many other pollutants and expect the Earth to pick up the pace and clean it up faster. It's a closed system (more or less). Everything moves at a given rate. Change something in this ecosystem and the Earth doesn't magically fix it with no consequences.

If I remember right the biggest remover of CO2 from the air is rain. Now that we have too much CO2 in the air, what is happening? As the Earth warms, water, which has been sequestered at the poles in the form of ice, is being released, adding more water to the system. Higher temperatures also drive bigger storms which hit more often. Thus, it rains more. So climate change is HOW the Earth picks up the pace to remove extra CO2 from the air. It’s a great way for the planet to survive, but the fleas on her back (that’s all life on the planet) may not be well adapted to it.

28

fyi https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/keeling_curve

 

Think about it from a deep time perspective. a few hundred thousand years ago there were periods of a tropical global climate and high atmospheric O2 levels and very high CO2 levels. Life thrived, in the seas and on the land and the huge percentage of their bodies contained lots of Carbon. The second most common element after oxygen’s 65%, then comes carbon at 18.5. Many primitive creature had much higher percentages, plants contain even more carbon. Planets pull the carbon out of the air, when those plants and animals get buried and piled up the way they were for millions and million and millions of years, that carbon was being sequestered into rocks within Earth.

We are releasing millions of years worth of sequestered sunshine into the atmosphere.

Atmospheric CO2 is an insulating agent. We are increasing our planet’s insulation radically much, in radically short span of time, there will be consequences.

A brief history of the Earth's CO2 By Prof Joanna HaighCo-Director, Grantham Institute 19 October 2017

https: //www _ bbc _ com/news/science-environment-41671770

Climate change has been described as one of the biggest problems faced by humankind. Carbon dioxide is is the primary driver of global warming. Prof Joanna Haigh from Imperial College London explains why this gas has played a crucial role in shaping the Earth’s climate.


 

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist

By Andrew Freedman

May 3rd, 2013

https: //www _ climatecentral _ org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

 

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere, modern humans didn’t exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world’s seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.

As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history — 400 parts per million — climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we’re rapidly headed now.

According to data gathered at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the 400 ppm mark may briefly be exceeded this month, when CO2 typically hits a seasonal peak in the Northern Hemisphere, although it is more likely to take a couple more years until it stays above that threshold, according to Ralph Keeling, a researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.


 

That was 2013 today we are at 412ppm

https: //www _ co2 _ earth


 

For the long version https: //www _ youtube _ com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g

29

I figure that California has lost about 9% of its forest area, already this fire season.

Oregon is getting in on the climate change inferno debacles also.

Who knew that climate change deniers could be so wrong for so long? Who? Anybody who could think straight.

30
Anybody who could think straight.
Watch The 1958 Frank Capra Film That Warns Of Global Warming JOE ROMM FEB 12, 2016
31

The question is, how could so many who knew the f better - ignore it so well?

32

Pardon my thinking for a moment in a Freudian vein. But perhaps we humans have a death instinct, aka “Thanatos”. Obviously we have “Eros” a drive toward sexuality. A pro-reproduction drive clearly is something likely to be passed on in our DNA.

But how would a death instinct be passed on by the process of evolution, in the case of our DNA or our culture either one? One would think it would not, unless it could somehow make at least some of the people who have it (as a strong characteristic) better able to survive to reproduction.

Does that happen? Idk.

But, also, what about the death instinct surviving as a stealth characteristic?

Anyway, assuming for a moment that we humans have a death instinct, we could hypothesize that this instinct is more activated in those who seem intent on denying that we are responsible for the the death and suffering of multitudes of people in our present and especially in our future.

Just a thought.