Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[edthecynic]

Gee, no surprise CON$ are ass backwards!

As an increase in carbon dioxide decreases evaporative cooling by plants, global warming increases.

Wow, you are a whackjob aren't you!

Wow. He's kinda weak when it comes to science.

Life in the Greenhouse: Losing Our Cool : Discovery News
The complicated give-and-take between our changing climate and the plant life of the planet is taking on a new look. Just when we need it most, it appears, rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are likely to raise temperatures even further by dialing down the natural air conditioning effects of trees and other vegetation.
Researchers at Carnegie Institution for Science have completed modeling simulations showing that at heightened levels of CO2 -- twice the pre-industrial levels -- this reduced-cooling effect on vegetation will account for 16 percent of the warming around the globe, and in some places -- North America and Asia -- it will represent 25 percent of the warming.
The map, courtesy of the Carnegie Institution, shows the percentage of predicted warming due to the direct effect of carbon dioxide on plants.
Scientists have known for some time that growing plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and that they expel water vapor through pores in their leaves, a process known as evapotranspiration that cools the plant and surrounding air. Earlier work by Carnegie researchers described how heightened levels of carbon dioxide cause these pores to shrink, causing less water to be released, reducing the cooling.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow, you are a whackjob aren't you!

Wow. He's kinda weak when it comes to science.

Life in the Greenhouse: Losing Our Cool : Discovery News
The complicated give-and-take between our changing climate and the plant life of the planet is taking on a new look. Just when we need it most, it appears, rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are likely to raise temperatures even further by dialing down the natural air conditioning effects of trees and other vegetation.
Researchers at Carnegie Institution for Science have completed modeling simulations showing that at heightened levels of CO2 -- twice the pre-industrial levels -- this reduced-cooling effect on vegetation will account for 16 percent of the warming around the globe, and in some places -- North America and Asia -- it will represent 25 percent of the warming.
The map, courtesy of the Carnegie Institution, shows the percentage of predicted warming due to the direct effect of carbon dioxide on plants.
Scientists have known for some time that growing plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and that they expel water vapor through pores in their leaves, a process known as evapotranspiration that cools the plant and surrounding air. Earlier work by Carnegie researchers described how heightened levels of carbon dioxide cause these pores to shrink, causing less water to be released, reducing the cooling.

We can solve global warming by evaporating more water?

 

[edthecynic]

Wow. He's kinda weak when it comes to science.

Life in the Greenhouse: Losing Our Cool : Discovery News
The complicated give-and-take between our changing climate and the plant life of the planet is taking on a new look. Just when we need it most, it appears, rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are likely to raise temperatures even further by dialing down the natural air conditioning effects of trees and other vegetation.
Researchers at Carnegie Institution for Science have completed modeling simulations showing that at heightened levels of CO2 -- twice the pre-industrial levels -- this reduced-cooling effect on vegetation will account for 16 percent of the warming around the globe, and in some places -- North America and Asia -- it will represent 25 percent of the warming.
The map, courtesy of the Carnegie Institution, shows the percentage of predicted warming due to the direct effect of carbon dioxide on plants.
Scientists have known for some time that growing plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and that they expel water vapor through pores in their leaves, a process known as evapotranspiration that cools the plant and surrounding air. Earlier work by Carnegie researchers described how heightened levels of carbon dioxide cause these pores to shrink, causing less water to be released, reducing the cooling.

We can solve global warming by evaporating more water?

The patented CON$ervative dumb act when caught with their foot in their mouth!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Life in the Greenhouse: Losing Our Cool : Discovery News
The complicated give-and-take between our changing climate and the plant life of the planet is taking on a new look. Just when we need it most, it appears, rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are likely to raise temperatures even further by dialing down the natural air conditioning effects of trees and other vegetation.
Researchers at Carnegie Institution for Science have completed modeling simulations showing that at heightened levels of CO2 -- twice the pre-industrial levels -- this reduced-cooling effect on vegetation will account for 16 percent of the warming around the globe, and in some places -- North America and Asia -- it will represent 25 percent of the warming.
The map, courtesy of the Carnegie Institution, shows the percentage of predicted warming due to the direct effect of carbon dioxide on plants.
Scientists have known for some time that growing plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and that they expel water vapor through pores in their leaves, a process known as evapotranspiration that cools the plant and surrounding air. Earlier work by Carnegie researchers described how heightened levels of carbon dioxide cause these pores to shrink, causing less water to be released, reducing the cooling.

We can solve global warming by evaporating more water?

The patented CON$ervative dumb act when caught with their foot in their mouth!

Your claim, not mine.
And I'd always heard that water vapor was a GHG.

 

[Cuyo]

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming. They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.

No amount of proof will be sufficient.

Hell, the summary of the article is that they set out to prove it false, but once again proved it true.

As before, there's nothing to stop you from saying "Nuh-uh."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming. They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.

No amount of proof will be sufficient.

Hell, the summary of the article is that they set out to prove it false, but once again proved it true.

As before, there's nothing to stop you from saying "Nuh-uh."

Hell, the summary of the article is that they set out to prove it false

I read the article. Where did it say that?

 

[Cuyo]

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming. They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.

No amount of proof will be sufficient.

Hell, the summary of the article is that they set out to prove it false, but once again proved it true.

As before, there's nothing to stop you from saying "Nuh-uh."

Hell, the summary of the article is that they set out to prove it false

I read the article. Where did it say that?

(edit) First two sentences.

 

[edthecynic]

We can solve global warming by evaporating more water?

The patented CON$ervative dumb act when caught with their foot in their mouth!

Your claim, not mine.
And I'd always heard that water vapor was a GHG.

Again a typical CON$ervative half-truth!
It all depends where in the atmosphere the water vapor is for it to behave as a GHG, as you, a scientific know-it-all, well know.

Beware of the half-truth. You may have gotten hold of the wrong half.
- Seymour Essrog

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No amount of proof will be sufficient.

Hell, the summary of the article is that they set out to prove it false, but once again proved it true.

As before, there's nothing to stop you from saying "Nuh-uh."

Hell, the summary of the article is that they set out to prove it false

I read the article. Where did it say that?

(edit) First two sentences.

Set out to prove what false?
Here are the first two sentences.

Global warming skeptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the skeptics paid for a new study to find the real truth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The patented CON$ervative dumb act when caught with their foot in their mouth!

Your claim, not mine.
And I'd always heard that water vapor was a GHG.

Again a typical CON$ervative half-truth!
It all depends where in the atmosphere the water vapor is for it to behave as a GHG, as you, a scientific know-it-all, well know.

Beware of the half-truth. You may have gotten hold of the wrong half.
- Seymour Essrog

Water vapor near the ground, from plants, isn't a greenhouse gas?
Is that your claim?

 

[code1211]

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming. They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.

No amount of proof will be sufficient.Hell, the summary of the article is that they set out to prove it false, but once again proved it true.

As before, there's nothing to stop you from saying "Nuh-uh."

Since no amount has yet been produced and that amount has proven insufficient, I must point out that you are wrong.

 

[Cuyo]

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming. They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.

No amount of proof will be sufficient.Hell, the summary of the article is that they set out to prove it false, but once again proved it true.

As before, there's nothing to stop you from saying "Nuh-uh."

Since no amount has yet been produced and that amount has proven insufficient, I must point out that you are wrong.

Climatologists disagree with you.

But what the hell do they know?

Your continued "Nuh-uh" is far more compelling.

 

[Si modo]

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming. They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.

No amount of proof will be sufficient.

Hell, the summary of the article is that they set out to prove it false, but once again proved it true.

As before, there's nothing to stop you from saying "Nuh-uh."

Apparently, you have no comprehension of my post.

As I said, good for him for apparently verifying this data. When his work is peer-reviewed, I will drop the 'apparently'.

Regardless, it is obvious that someone who just said, "It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome" is not saying 'Nuh-uh' that there is no warming since 1800 and has no intention of ever saying 'Nuh-uh' there is no warming since 1800, unless the results are presented differently in his up-coming peer-reviewed publication.

And, the fact of the matter is that I have never said there WAS no warming. I have suspected there was, but suspicions hold no water in making a scientific conclusion. And, when data has a high probability of being tainted, the fact that Muller did this work to verify it, apparently, is a good thing for science.

However, saying there is warming is one thing, saying what is the causation of that warming is another. The latter is cause for much skepticism among scientists; correlation is not adequate support of causation.

And, *sigh*, for those who tend toward strawmen, that is not in any way a statement claiming that there is no 'greenhouse' effect.

And, for those familiar with the logic of scientific discovery, NOTHING is ever proved in science, theories are only supported or falsified.

 

[percysunshine]

Enrons books were peer reviewed. It turned out that they were paying money to the peers.

Bankrupted an entire accounting firm.

 

[Si modo]

Enrons books were peer reviewed. It turned out that they were paying money to the peers.

Bankrupted an entire accounting firm.

It would take me being transported to some bizarre parallel universe to believe that accountants have the same standard of peer-review as the scientific community or even come close to having similar philosophies as scientists in practicing their profession.

I mean no offense in that comment, just that the two professions operate very differently. 'Different' assigns no value judgment.

 

[Cuyo]

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming. They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.

No amount of proof will be sufficient.

Hell, the summary of the article is that they set out to prove it false, but once again proved it true.

As before, there's nothing to stop you from saying "Nuh-uh."

Apparently, you have no comprehension of my post.

As I said, good for him for apparently verifying this data. When his work is peer-reviewed, I will drop the 'apparently'.

Regardless, it is obvious that someone who just said, "It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome" is not saying 'Nuh-uh' that there is no warming since 1800 and has no intention of ever saying 'Nuh-uh' there is no warming since 1800.

And, the fact of the matter is that I have never said there WAS no warming. I have suspected there was, but suspicions hold no water in making a scientific conclusion. And, when data has a high probability of being tainted, the fact that Muller did this work to verify it, apparently, is a good thing for science.

However, saying there is warming is one thing, saying what is the causation of that warming is another. The latter is cause for much skepticism among scientists; correlation is not adequate support of causation.

And, *sigh*, for those who tend toward strawmen, that is not in any way a statement claiming that there is no 'greenhouse' effect.

And, for those familiar with the logic of scientific discovery, NOTHING is ever proved in science, theories are only supported or falsified.

No, I understood your post completely; Perhaps you misunderstood mine.

I wasn't claiming you say "Nuh-uh" to the preponderance of warming; I was claiming you simply say "Nuh-uh" to the apparent cause of the warming. I see it here all the time; "They haven't proved nuthin, huh-huh." Well, I'm not a scientist, but scientists seem pretty damn sure that man's activities are playing a role in what we're seeing, and most of their predictions are coming true.

For some reason you cast aside the *overwhelming* preponderance of the professionals and seek out the go-ahead from the few detractors that support your POV.

When you seek out sources that will tell you what you want to hear, you will always find them. Hell, you can find people 100% sure that the holocaust was fabricated and the moon landing was a hoax- So you're never going to convince every person of anything.

But there's not much money in moon landing hoaxing or holocaust denial, so those fringers are not brought into the conversation every time space travel or WWII are discussed.

One has to ask then, why we do give equal weight to the fringers in the climate "Debate?"

 

[percysunshine]

Enrons books were peer reviewed. It turned out that they were paying money to the peers.

Bankrupted an entire accounting firm.

It would take me being transported to some bizarre parallel universe to believe that accountants have the same standard of peer-review as the scientific community or even come close to having similar philosophies as scientists in practicing their profession.

I mean no offense in that comment, just that the two professions operate very differently. 'Different' assigns no value judgment.

The scientific community has a less rigid standard of peer review. I know. I am a Geophysicist, and my wife is an Accountant.

 

[Si modo]

No amount of proof will be sufficient.

Hell, the summary of the article is that they set out to prove it false, but once again proved it true.

As before, there's nothing to stop you from saying "Nuh-uh."

Apparently, you have no comprehension of my post.

As I said, good for him for apparently verifying this data. When his work is peer-reviewed, I will drop the 'apparently'.

Regardless, it is obvious that someone who just said, "It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome" is not saying 'Nuh-uh' that there is no warming since 1800 and has no intention of ever saying 'Nuh-uh' there is no warming since 1800.

And, the fact of the matter is that I have never said there WAS no warming. I have suspected there was, but suspicions hold no water in making a scientific conclusion. And, when data has a high probability of being tainted, the fact that Muller did this work to verify it, apparently, is a good thing for science.

However, saying there is warming is one thing, saying what is the causation of that warming is another. The latter is cause for much skepticism among scientists; correlation is not adequate support of causation.

And, *sigh*, for those who tend toward strawmen, that is not in any way a statement claiming that there is no 'greenhouse' effect.

And, for those familiar with the logic of scientific discovery, NOTHING is ever proved in science, theories are only supported or falsified.

No, I understood your post completely; Perhaps you misunderstood mine.

I wasn't claiming you say "Nuh-uh" to the preponderance of warming; I was claiming you simply say "Nuh-uh" to the apparent cause of the warming. I see it here all the time; "They haven't proved nuthin, huh-huh." Well, I'm not a scientist, but scientists seem pretty damn sure that man's activities are playing a role in what we're seeing, and most of their predictions are coming true.

For some reason you cast aside the *overwhelming* preponderance of the professionals and seek out the go-ahead from the few detractors that support your POV.

When you seek out sources that will tell you what you want to hear, you will always find them. Hell, you can find people 100% sure that the holocaust was fabricated and the moon landing was a hoax- So you're never going to convince every person of anything.

But there's not much money in moon landing hoaxing or holocaust denial, so those fringers are not brought into the conversation every time space travel or WWII are discussed.

One has to ask then, why we do give equal weight to the fringers in the climate "Debate?"

You are absolutely correct; I do reject the bandwagon argument as it is a logical fallacy.

There is no science (and I mean peer-reviewed scientific work) that would ever attempt to use a bandwagon argument to support their science.

Plenty others would, but there are plenty of dilettantes who are interested in this topic, yet could not care less about soiling science and the integrity of the logic of scientific discovery (the principles of which have advanced the knowledge of science for 80 years).

 

[Si modo]

Enrons books were peer reviewed. It turned out that they were paying money to the peers.

Bankrupted an entire accounting firm.

It would take me being transported to some bizarre parallel universe to believe that accountants have the same standard of peer-review as the scientific community or even come close to having similar philosophies as scientists in practicing their profession.

I mean no offense in that comment, just that the two professions operate very differently. 'Different' assigns no value judgment.

The scientific community has a less rigid standard of peer review. I know. I am a Geophysicist, and my wife is an Accountant.

As I said, 'different' assigns no value judgment.

 

[percysunshine]

It would take me being transported to some bizarre parallel universe to believe that accountants have the same standard of peer-review as the scientific community or even come close to having similar philosophies as scientists in practicing their profession.

I mean no offense in that comment, just that the two professions operate very differently. 'Different' assigns no value judgment.

The scientific community has a less rigid standard of peer review. I know. I am a Geophysicist, and my wife is an Accountant.

As I said, 'different' assigns no value judgment.

When was your last science peer review?