It’s Official: This Was America’s Warmest Winter on Record In news that will surprise exactly

[Crick]

AGW is based on science, not on politics. Scientists from all over the world, living under all manner of governments, all agree that the Earth is warming that our activities are the dominant cause.

Well... NO... they don't. Sorry.

Well... YES... they do. Sorry.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The latest scientific data suggests we aren't warming anymore. We're actually entering a cooling phase.

What data would that be? And let me translate: that means post a link to a reputable source that supports what you're saying or withdraw your claim.

From my perspective, here is the latest data:

From Karl et al 2015 (Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus | Science)

and

From Marcotte et al 2013 and HadCRU. And mind you that this graphic only goes to 2000. Karl shows another 0.2C since then

And NO... science has never proven that human activity contributes significantly to the natural rise and fall of carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere. They have CLAIMED it... they haven't PROVED it!

Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems | Science

Osmium isotope evidence for the regulation of atmospheric CO2 by continental weathering

Fractionation of carbon isotopes by phytoplankton and estimates of ancient CO2 levels - Freeman - 1992 - Global Biogeochemical Cycles - Wiley Online Library

Paleobotanical Evidence for Near Present-Day Levels of Atmospheric CO2 During Part of the Tertiary | Science

A Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth | Science

Isotopic Investigation of Contemporary and Historic Changes in Penguin Trophic Niches and Carrying Capacity of the Southern Indian Ocean

Rapid Environmental Change over the Past Decade Revealed by Isotopic Analysis of the California Mussel in the Northeast Pacific

CARBON ISOTOPE RATIOS IN BELOWGROUND CARBON CYCLE PROCESSES - Ehleringer - 2000 - Ecological Applications - Wiley Online Library

Your comment about having "proved" something, tells us that like many of your denier brethren, you are unfamiliar or do not understand the very basics of natural science. Has Einstein's relativity been proven? No. Does anyone doubt its descriptive powers? No.

 

[Boss]

Plants process CO2 into oxygen. Go to just about any commercial greenhouse in this country and you will find they pump CO2 in to help the plants grow.... that is, if the EPA Gestapo hasn't stopped them from doing that.

Increases in CO2 causes decreases in whole plant water use of 5–20% under elevated CO2. This in turn can have consequences for the hydrological cycle of entire ecosystems, with soil moisture levels and runoff both increasing under elevated CO2.
Increases in CO2 also causes changes in the chemical composition of plant tissues including a decrease in nitrogen. Protein concentrations in plant tissues are closely tied to plant nitrogen status and thus protein concentrations in grains of wheat, rice and barley, and in potato tubers, are decreased by 5–14% under elevated CO2, so any increased yield is offset by the need to consume more to get the same nutritional value. Crop concentrations of nutritionally important minerals including calcium, magnesium and phosphorus may also be decreased under elevated CO2.

So in reality increases of CO2 have BOTH positive AND negative effects on plant growth and thus the food supply.

But we've just seen the ice core data for the past 400k years and CO2 constantly rises and falls to extremes but the planet's ecosystem adjusts and compensates. It doesn't matter what happens when it rises or what happens when it falls... those are called the consequences of nature and there isn't much we can do about that. Believe me... Mother Nature was handling this sort of thing long before you were trying to micromanage it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And let's check out how CO2 is making the trees grow better.

Risk level rises for North American forests - Climate News Network
---
Other research has already delivered ominous predictions for the forests of the US southwest, but the scientists warn that other, normally leafier parts of the continent face increasing stress. Dieback, bark beetle infestation and wildfire risk may no longer be confined to the western uplands.
---

Oh look, another thing Boss got totally wrong.

Well... no... you're running off the course to wave another shiny pom-pom to distract from the ass owning I am doing in this argument. I merely pointed out something you should have learned in the 5-7th grade. Plants process CO2 into oxygen. Go to just about any commercial greenhouse in this country and you will find they pump CO2 in to help the plants grow.... that is, if the EPA Gestapo hasn't stopped them from doing that.

Common Core preaches AGW without any facts to back it up.. So in a word. .YES, they have! Just like their math and other bull shit propaganda..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Again... 400k years ago, we didn't have high-tech instruments in Antarctica measuring precisely how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere every second of every day. We have to rely on ice core samples which give us a general idea of about how much there was at a given point in time and this doesn't account for any extreme spikes that may have occurred. With the advent of modern technology, we can get a much more detailed picture but that doesn't mean the picture didn't have detail before

Given that we measure CO2 now and know, with 100% certainty, that humans are causing the CO2 increase, what's the point of invoking the possibility of past miraculous unexplained short-term CO2 spikes?

Even if it wasn't handwaving woo, it would have no bearing on the present situation.

I just posted a graph that shows us 400k years of CO2 levels rising and falling dramatically in cycles but you're stuck on stupid claiming that humans are causing the increase. The planet also warms and cools in cycles and it has nothing to do with man.

The present situation is, charlatans see an opportunity to use modern media to spread socialist propaganda to the gullible and further their cockamamie agenda of trying to bilk capitalists with their fairy tale.

I have argued this point many times. Crick however, fails to understand simple spatial resolution and the problems with being able to see temperature spikes and CO2 spikes similar to today, in the record.

They just cant grasp the concept, that an averaged block of 500 or 1000 years will lay that type of data waste. WE could very well have seen CO2 spikes and temperature spikes very similar to today's throught history.

SO trying to show them that this is happening and that today's happenings are normal and natural is lost on them. They have to much invested in their cult worship to even think it is possible.

 

[mamooth]

Crick, in great detail, just ripped that stupid argument to pieces.

Being gutless and dishonest, you refused to address Crick, and are instead sucking up to Boss.

You're running Billy, like you always run. It's really what defines you, the way you're always the ultimate chickenshit.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Crick, in great detail, just ripped that stupid argument to pieces.

Being gutless and dishonest, you refused to address Crick, and are instead sucking up to Boss.

You're running Billy, like you always run. It's really what defines you, the way you're always the ultimate chickenshit.

You and crick post the same bogus crap over and over again. IF were talking chickenshit you two take the prize.

 

[Old Rocks]

But now we have high tech instruments and advanced techniques we can apply to those cores and have an excellent understanding as to what information we can get from ice cores and what effects, time and diffusion have had. And why would I need measurements every second? We'd be looking for an event that lasted at least 300 years.

Sorry but we cannot look at an ice core sample and determine that on a certain day of a certain year, the CO2 ppm was over 400.... it's not possible to attain that level of detail. We can read generally what the levels were... an approximation. Today, we can see the spikes as they happen in real time. Those aren't recorded in the ice core because they don't last long enough.

Have you no ability to read with comprehension? Crick covered that very well in his post. There is no claim of having that kind of resolution. But we do have resolution in terms of decades and centuries. And, had the CO2 level in the last 800,000 years approached what it is today, there would be a thousand year record of the decline of that level, at least.

Obviously you have never had any kind of scientific education past the 8th grade. And remain willfully ignorant. Because the instrument you are using to post nonsense can link you to nearly the whole of our present knowledge. That you continue to post nonsense is an indication that you purposely avoid knowledge.

 

[Old Rocks]

Plants process CO2 into oxygen. Go to just about any commercial greenhouse in this country and you will find they pump CO2 in to help the plants grow.... that is, if the EPA Gestapo hasn't stopped them from doing that.

Increases in CO2 causes decreases in whole plant water use of 5–20% under elevated CO2. This in turn can have consequences for the hydrological cycle of entire ecosystems, with soil moisture levels and runoff both increasing under elevated CO2.
Increases in CO2 also causes changes in the chemical composition of plant tissues including a decrease in nitrogen. Protein concentrations in plant tissues are closely tied to plant nitrogen status and thus protein concentrations in grains of wheat, rice and barley, and in potato tubers, are decreased by 5–14% under elevated CO2, so any increased yield is offset by the need to consume more to get the same nutritional value. Crop concentrations of nutritionally important minerals including calcium, magnesium and phosphorus may also be decreased under elevated CO2.

So in reality increases of CO2 have BOTH positive AND negative effects on plant growth and thus the food supply.

But we've just seen the ice core data for the past 400k years and CO2 constantly rises and falls to extremes but the planet's ecosystem adjusts and compensates. It doesn't matter what happens when it rises or what happens when it falls... those are called the consequences of nature and there isn't much we can do about that. Believe me... Mother Nature was handling this sort of thing long before you were trying to micromanage it.

What a damned silly ass you are, Boss. We have 7+ billion humans that depend on stable agriculture that depends on a stable climate. Destabilize that climate, and our agriculture is going to have problems supplying the needs of that number of people. And we are already seeing signs of the destabilizing taking place.